In a landmark judgment on April 12, 2012, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the provision in the Right to Education Act, 2009 that makes it mandatory for all schools (government and private) except private, unaided minority schools to reserve 25% of their seats for children belonging to “weaker section and disadvantaged group”.  The verdict was given by a three-judge bench namely Justice S.H. Kapadia (CJI), Justice Swatanter Kumar and Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan.  However, the judgment was not unanimous.  Justice Radhakrishnan gave a dissenting view to the majority judgment. According to news reports (here and here), some school associations are planning to file review petitions against the Supreme Court order (under Article 137 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court may review any judgment or order made by it.  A review petition may be filed if there is (a) discovery of new evidence, (b) an error apparent on the face of the record, or (c) any other sufficient reason). In this post, we summarise the views of the judges. Background of the petition The 86th (Constitutional Amendment) Act, 2002 added Article 21A to the Constitution which makes it mandatory for the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children from the age of six to 14 years (fundamental right).  The Parliament enacted the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 to give effect to this amendment. The Act provides that children between the ages of six and 14 years have the right to free and compulsory education in a neighbourhood school.  It also lays down the minimum norms that each school has to follow in order to get legal recognition.  The Act required government schools to provide free and compulsory education to all admitted children. Similarly, aided schools have to provide free and compulsory education proportionate to the funding received, subject to a minimum of 25%. However, controversy erupted over Section 12(1)(c) and (2) of the Act, which required private, unaided schools to admit at least 25% of students from SCs, STs, low-income and other disadvantaged or weaker groups.  The Act stated that these schools shall be reimbursed for either their tuition charge or the per-student expenditure in government schools, whichever is lower.  After the Act was notified on April 1, 2010, the Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of this provision on the ground that it impinged on their right to run educational institutions without government interference. Summary of the judgment Majority The Act is constitutionally valid and shall apply to (a) government controlled schools, (b) aided schools (including minority administered schools), and (c) unaided, non-minority schools.  The reasons are given below: First, Article 21A makes it obligatory on the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children between 6 and 14 years of age.  However, the manner in which the obligation shall be discharged is left to the State to determine by law.  Therefore, the State has the freedom to decide whether it shall fulfill its obligation through its own schools, aided schools or unaided schools.  The 2009 Act is “child centric” and not “institution centric”.  The main question was whether the Act violates Article 19(1)(g) which gives every citizen the right to practice a profession or carry out any occupation, trade or business.  However, the Constitution provides that Article 19(1)(g) may be circumscribed by Article 19(6), which allow reasonable restriction over this right in the interest of the general public.  The Court stated that since “education” is recognized as a charitable activity [see TMA Pai Foundation vs State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481] reasonable restriction may apply. Second, the Act places a burden on the State as well as parents/guardians to ensure that every child has the right to education.  Thus, the right to education “envisages a reciprocal agreement between the State and the parents and it places an affirmative burden on all stakeholders in our civil society.”  The private, unaided schools supplement the primary obligation of the State to provide for free and compulsory education to the specified category of students. Third, TMA Pai and P.A. Inamdar judgments hold that the right to establish and administer educational institutions fall within Article 19(1)(g).  It includes right to admit students and set up reasonable fee structure.  However, these principles were applied in the context of professional/higher education where merit and excellence have to be given due weightage.  This does not apply to a child seeking admission in Class I.  Also, Section 12(1)(c) of the Act seeks to remove financial obstacle.  Therefore, the 2009 Act should be read with Article 19(6) which provides for reasonable restriction on Article 19(1)(g).  However, the government should clarify the position with regard to boarding schools and orphanages. The Court also ruled that the 2009 Act shall not apply to unaided, minority schools since they are protected by Article 30(1) (all minorities have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice).  This right of the minorities is not circumscribed by reasonable restriction as is the case under Article 19(1)(g). Dissenting judgment Article 21A casts an obligation on the State to provide free and compulsory education to children of the age of 6 to 14 years.  The obligation is not on unaided non-minority and minority educational institutions.  Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act can be operationalised only on the principles of voluntariness, autonomy and consensus for unaided schools and not on compulsion or threat of non-recognition.  The reasons for such a judgment are given below: First, Article 21A says that the “State shall provide” not “provide for”.  Therefore, the constitutional obligation is on the State and not on non-state actors to provide free and compulsory education to a specified category of children.  Also, under Article 51A(k) of the Constitution, parents or guardians have a duty to provide opportunities for education to their children but not a constitutional obligation. Second, each citizen has the fundamental right to establish and run an educational institution “investing his own capital” under Article 19(1)(g).  This right can be curtailed in the interest of the general public by imposing reasonable restrictions.  Citizens do not have any constitutional obligation to start an educational institution.  Therefore, according to judgments of TMA Pai and PA Inamdar, they do not have any constitutional obligation to share seats with the State or adhere to a fee structure determined by the State.  Compelling them to do so would amount to nationalization of seats and would constitute serious infringement on the autonomy of the institutions. Rights guaranteed to the unaided non-minority and minority educational institutions under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 30(1) can only be curtailed through a constitutional amendment (for example, insertion of Article 15(5) that allows reservation of seats in private educational institutions). Third, no distinction can be drawn between unaided minority and non-minority schools with regard to appropriation of quota by the State. Other issues related to the 2009 Act Apart from the issue of reservation, the RTE Act raises other issues such as lack of accountability of government schools and lack of focus on learning outcomes even though a number of studies have pointed to low levels of learning among school children.  (For a detailed analysis, please see PRS Brief on the Bill).

On October 18, it was reportein the news that the central government has been given more time for framing rules under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.  The President had given assent to this Act in December 2019 and the Act came into force in January 2020.   Similarly, about two years have passed since the new labour codes were passed by Parliament, and the final Rules are yet to be published.  This raises the question how long the government can take to frame Rules and what is the procedure guiding this.  In this blog, we discuss the same.

Under the Constitution, the Legislature has the power to make laws and the Executive is responsible for implementing them.  Often, the Legislature enacts a law covering the general principles and policies, and delegates the power to the Executive for specifying certain details for the implementation of a law.  For example, the Citizenship Amendment Act provides who will be eligible for citizenship.  The certificate of registration or naturalization to a person will be issued, subject to conditions, restrictions, and manner as may be prescribed by the central government through Rules.  Delay in framing Rules results in delay in implementing the law, since the necessary details are not available.  For example, new labour codes provide a social security scheme for gig economy workers such as Swiggy and Zomato delivery persons and Uber and Ola drivers.  These benefits as per these Codes are yet to be rolled out as the Rules are yet to be notified.

Timelines and checks and balances for adherence

Each House of Parliament has a Committee of Members to examine Rules, Regulations, and government orders in detail called the Committee on Subordinate Legislation.  Over the years, the recommendations of these Committees have shaped the evolution of the procedure and timelines for framing subordinate legislation.  These are reflected in the Manual of Parliamentary Procedures issued by the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, which provides detailed guidelines.

Ordinarily, Rules, Regulations, and bye-laws are to be framed within six months from the date on which the concerned Act came into force.   Post that, the concerned Ministry is required to seek an extension from the Parliamentary Committees on Subordinate Legislation.  The reason for the extension needs to be stated.   Such extensions may be granted for a maximum period of three months at a time.  For example, in case of Rules under the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, at an earlier instance, an extension was granted on account of the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Activity

Timeline

  • Publication of Rules, Regulations, and Bye-Laws, where public consultation is required under the Act
  • A minimum of 30 days for public feedback
  • Consequently, for publication,
  • Three months, if the number of suggestions is small
  • Six months, if the number of suggestions is large
  • Publication of Rules, Regulations, and Bye-Laws, not requiring public consultation
  • Six months from the date on which the concerned Act came into force
  • Any extension for publication
  • A maximum of three months at a time

To ensure monitoring, every Ministry is required to prepare a quarterly report on the status of subordinate legislation not framed and share it with the Ministry of Law and Justice.  These reports are not available in the public domain.

Recommendations to address delays

Over the years, the Subordinate Legislation Committees in both Houses have observed multiple instances of non-adherence to the above timelines by various Ministries.  To address this, they have made the following key recommendations:

  • Statement on reasons for the delay: In 2011, Rajya Sabha Committee recommended that while laying Rules/Regulations before Parliament, the Ministry should also lay a statement explaining the reasons for the delay, if any.
  • Scrutiny of delays by the Cabinet Secretary:  In 2016, the Rajya Sabha Committee recommended that the Cabinet Secretary should continue the practice of calling the Secretaries of concerned Ministries/Departments, to explain the reasons for the delay in framing the subordinate legislation.  Each Ministry should send a quarterly status report to the Cabinet Secretariat.
  • Revisiting guidelines: In 2011, Lok Sabha Committee recommended that the 1986 guidelines should be revisited and all major recommendations of the Committee should be incorporated.  However, as per the Action Taken Report, the government observed that the ministries consider the extant guidelines adequate and these guidelines were re-iterated in 2012.

Are all Rules under an Act required to be framed?

Usually, the expressions used in an Act are “The Central Government may, by notification, make rules for carrying out the provisions of this Act.”, or “as may be prescribed”.  Hence, it may appear that the laws aim to enable rule-making instead of mandate rule-making.  However, certain provisions of an Act cannot be brought into force if the required details have not been prescribed under the Rules.  This makes the implementation of the Act consequent to the publication of respective Rules.  For example, the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 enables the police and certain other persons to collect identity-related information about certain persons.  It provides that the manner of collection of such information may be specified by the central government.  Unless the manner is prescribed, such collection cannot take place.

That said, some other rule-making powers may be enabling in nature and subject to discretion by the concerned Ministry.  In 2016, Rajya Sabha Committee on Subordinate Legislation examined the status of Rules and Regulations to be framed under the Energy Conservation Act, 2001.  It observed that the Ministry of Power had held that two Rules and three Regulations under this Act were not necessary.   The Ministry of Law and Justice had opined that those deemed not necessary were enabling provisions meant for unforeseen circumstances.  The Rajya Sabha Committee (2016) had recommended that where the Ministry does not feel the need for framing subordinate legislation, the Minister should table a statement in Parliament, stating reasons for such a conclusion.

Some key issues related to subordinate legislation

The Legislature delegates the power to specify details for the implementation of a law to the Executive through powers for framing subordinate legislation.  Hence, it is important to ensure these are well-scrutinised so that they are within the limits envisaged in the law.

  • Capacity of Committees on Subordinate Legislation:  Parliamentary Committees on Subordinate Legislation have the responsibility to examine Rules in detail.  In past, they have examined some key rules, regulations, and notifications regarding e-commerceliability of internet-based services, and demonetisation.  However, usually, they are able to examine only a fraction of subordinate legislation in detail.  For more details, please see the PRS discussion paper here.
  • Uniformity of standards:  Countries such as UKUSAAustralia, and Canada have overarching legislation for regulating the framing of subordinate legislation.  These laws provide for the manner of public consultation, timelines, drafting standards, and a common register.  India does not have any similar law.  In India, the detail whether public consultation for subordinate legislation is required or not, is specified in respective Acts.  The General Clauses Act, 1897 also governs certain aspects of the framing of subordinate legislation.  In addition, the Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy, 2014 guides the pre-legislative consultation on subordinate legislation.

See here for our recently published analysis of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Rules, 2022, notified in September 2022.  Also, check out PRS analysis of: