The Meghalaya High Court has dismissed an “extraordinary” writ petition as frivolous citing absolute abuse of the process of the court.
The petition by Rajitlal Institute of Technology and Health Sciences (RITHS) Trust and Chairman Dr. P. L. Rajitlal had challenged the State of Meghalaya against an ordinance passed in 2023 to repeal the Rajitlal University Act, 2011 stating it is ultra vires to the Constitution.
A division bench of Chief Justice Indra Prasanna Mukerji and Justice Wanlura Diengdoh in a judgement passed today said three years have elapsed since the Act was enacted and the petitioners have not provided any fund in terms of the endowment fund as contemplated under the Act.
“We cannot rule that the repealing Act is a fraud on the legislative power of the Meghalaya Assembly,” the court said.
The Rajitlal University Act was passed by the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly in the year 2011and received the Governor’s assent on 31 January, 2020. The government decided to repeal the Act since there was no visible move by the university to start its operation in the State.
The government felt that if the Act is allowed to remain in existence, there is every possibility that fraudsters may use the Act to lure innocent students to sale fake degrees to them which may bring bad name to the State of Meghalaya.
The High Court said that the power to enact and to repeal is the sole prerogative of the legislature. “We are not aware of any power residing in the Court to compel the legislature to enact a law or to stay or set aside the repeal thereof,” it said.
Stating that the only power that the Court has is to determine whether the enactment is a fraud on the Constitution or legislative power or ultra vires the Constitution or violative of any provision, the court said, “We cannot rule that the repealing Act is a fraud on the legislative power of the Meghalaya Assembly.”
The court further pointed out that the petitioners have no right to question the legislature on what legislation it shall enact or shall not make or whether it would repeal a particular Act.
“Under the doctrine of separation of powers provided in our Constitution, Parliament and State Legislatures are the sole judge of what law they are to make. Neither can the petitioners question the truth of the assertion made in the object and reasons in support of the repealing Act,” the court ruled.
