Judicial Review of Academic Decisions

This thesis entitled “Judicial review of academic decisions.Education in India is being increasingly controlled and guided by the courts.This study makes an attempt to assess the involvement of the court in regulating education and its role or interference in the conventional concepts of ‘academic freedom’ and ‘university autonomy.The study mostly concentrates on the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and its invocation in academic matters with particular reference to the decisions of the Kerala High Court.The concept of judicial review in the Constituent Assembly, initial approach of the Supreme Court of India towards the doctrine, gradual empowerment of Indian judiciary in this area and the resultant judicial activism.The study proceeds through the analysis of ‘academic freedom’ and ‘university autonomy’ in the 4"‘ chapter. This chapter attempts to probe academic freedom and university autonomy in India,England and United States and autonomy of Indian universities before and after independence.Basic principles and the jurisdictional parameters of judicial review in the area of academic decisions, as pronounced by the Apex Court, can be convincingly and consistently followed by the High Courts, which is possible only if special Academic Benches are constituted.

Judicial Creativity in Constitutional Interpretation

The focus of study in this thesis is on the necessity and extent of judicial creativity in interpreting provisions in certain crucial areas in the Constitution of India. Judicial innovation was essential to adapt the constitutional provisions to modern changed context. Creativity of the Court has been mainly in the creation and introduction of certain new concepts not found in any specific provision of the Constitution which, but were essential for its meaningful interpretation.Independence of the judiciary, basic structure and certain elements of social justice cherished as ideal by the makers of the Constitution are some such concepts infused into the Constitution by the judiciary. The second aspect of creativity lies in the attempt of the Court to construe provisions in the Constitution with a view to upholding and maintaining the concepts so infused into the Constitution. Introduction of those concepts into the Constitution was necessary and is justified. all important features of the Constitution like democratic form of government, federal structure, judicial review, independence of judiciary and rule of law were thus included in the doctrine to prevent their alteration by amendments.As a result of such a construction, the nature of those directive principles itself has changed. They ceased to be mere directives for state action but became mandate for it. If left to legislative or executive will for their implementation, the directives would have remained enforceable as ordinary right.To conclude, notwithstanding the errors committed by the Supreme Court in construing the provisions in the above areas, they stand testimony to its creative and innovative response in interpreting the Constitution. If this trend is continued, it will be possible to achieve through the judicial process, maintenance of independence of the judiciary, avoidance of destruction of the Constitution through the process of amendment and realisation of social justice envisaged in the directive principles. It can be hoped that the Court would maintain its energetic and vibrant mind and rise up to the occasions and extend the same to other areas in future.

Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment : Judicial Perspectives on Backwardness

This thesis is a study of -Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment : Judicial Perspectives on Backwardness. This study is an attempt to evaluate the concept of backwardness and equality of opportunity in employment and to assess the judicial perspectives in relation to them. The study reveals that the recent review petition of the Constitution Bench did not assess the decision of Chakradhar and its import. The study reveals that the Indian judiciary could successfully locate and apply the above principles. It was-Justice Subba Rao's nascent attempt in Devadasan which marked the starting point of such a jurisprudential enquiry. Later Thomas developed the thoughts by a reading new meaning and content to equality provisions of the Constitution which included the elimination of inequalities as the positive content of Articles 14 and 16(1) and elevated reservation provision to the same status of equality principles under the Constitution. Soshit, Vasanth Kumar and Mandal supplemented further to the jurisprudential contents. In this process, the courts were guided by the theories of John Rawls, David Miller, Ronald Dworkin, Max Weber and Roscoe Pound. Thus there was a slow and steady process of transformation of the reservation provision. From an anti-meritarian, unenforceable and enabling provision, it reached a stage of equally relevant and explanatory part of fundamental right to equality. Mandal viewed it as a part of sharing of State power. Though this can be seen by rereading and re-joining thoughts of judges in this regard, the judicial approach lacks coherence and concerted efforts in evolving a jurisprudential basis for protective discrimination. The deliberations of the framers of the Constitution reveals that there was much confusion and indeterminacy with regard to the concept of Backwardness. The study shows that the judiciary has been keeping intact the framers’ expectation of having a reasonable quantum of reservation, preventing the undeserved sections from enjoying the benefit, avoiding its abuse and evolving a new criteria and rejecting the old ones.

"Right to Personal Liberty Under the Indian Constitution - With Special Reference to Judicial Process"

The nature and extent of protection secured to personal liberty has been a subject matter of great controversy and debate. The expression "procedure established by law" as a standard of protection for personal liberty has been looked upon as highly unsatisfactory and inadequate. For, unlike the specific attributes of liberty that are separately guaranteed under Art.19, ‘personal liberty‘ as guaranteed by Art.21 does not obligate the .Legislature to comply with the requirements of justice and reasonableness as and when it enchroaches upon that right. Though the concept of ‘personal liberty‘ has received an evolutive and expansive meaning through judicial process, the standard of protection which the judicial process could secure to personal liberty through the interpretation of Art.21 has been far from satisfactory Even after four decades of judicial process in the interpretation of Art.21 the problem of evolving a just and adequate standard of protection for personal liberty in that Article continues to be 21 crucial constitutional issue, craving for a. satisfactory solution. And the present study is a humble attempt to unravel this problem and to Search for a reasonable solution.