KARNATAKA VETERINARY ASSOCIATION vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF JUNE, 2026
®
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT PETITION NO. 6908 OF 2026 (GM-RES-PIL)
BETWEEN:
1. KARNATAKA VETERINARY ASSOCIATION
(A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE
SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960)
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.140
GOLDEN JUBILEE BUILDING
TH
8 CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BENGALURU-560003
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
DR. V GIRISH KUMAR
2. BANGALORE VETERINARY COLLEGE
ALUMNI ASSOCIATION
(A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE
SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960)
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
VETERINARY COLLEGE, HEBBAL
BENGALURU-560024
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
DR. VASANTH M S
3. SENIOR VETERINARIANS' ASSOCIATION
(AN UNREGISTERED ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS)
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.140
GOLDEN JUBILEE BUILDING
TH
8 CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BENGALURU-560003
Digitally
signed by
VASANTHA
KUMARY B K
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
DR. V RAGHURAME GOWDA
4. DAIRY SCIENCE COLLEGE
ALUMNI ASSOCIATION
(A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE
SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960)
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
DAIRY SCIENCE COLLEGE
HEBBAL
BENGALURU-560024
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
DR. RAMACHANDRA
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI VIKRAM H. BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560001
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY
AND VETERINARY SERVICES
VIKASA SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560001
3. KARNATAKA VETERINARY ANIMAL
AND FISHERIES SCIENCE UNIVERSITY
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR
NANDINAGAR, BIDAR-585401
- 3 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
4. VETERINARY COLLEGE
REPRESENTED BY THE DEAN
HEBBAL, BANGALORE-560024
5. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
REGISTRAR GENERAL
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R-1 AND R-2;
SRI J. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 AND R-4;
SRI PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI B.V. VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER
OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED
08.01.2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.2 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 15.04.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
D K SINGH PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
- 4 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
I PREFACE:
1. The present writ petition (PIL) has been filed by the
Karnataka Veterinary Association and others impugning the
Government Order dated 08.01.2026 bearing No.Pa.Sam.Mi
375 Pa.A.Se 2025 directing transfer of 4 acres of land
belonging to the respondent No.3-Karnataka Veterinary Animal
and Fisheries Science University (KVAFSU) situated at the
Veterinary College Campus at Hebbal, Bengaluru, for the
purpose of constructing residential quarters for the Hon'ble
Judges of this Court and directing transfer of another 3 acres of
land for the purpose of constructing a Super-Speciality Hospital
for general public. The petitioners have also sought for a
mandamus directing the respondents to consider the
representations submitted by them requesting withdrawal of
the Government Order dated 08.01.2026 approving the
allocation of 7 acres of land belonging to the KVAFSU.
- 5 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
II CASE OF THE PETITIONERS:
2. According to the petitioners, the reduction of the lands of
the Veterinary College would impair Undergraduate and
Postgraduate programmes and the introduction of residential
and human healthcare facilities would pose bio-security and
public health risks. It is stated by the petitioners that the lands
of the Veterinary College serve as a lung space for Bengaluru
city, the Veterinary College barely fulfils the norms prescribed
by the Veterinary Council of India, various research and
teaching activities are being undertaken there and the diversion
of lands will impair future expansion of the Veterinary College.
It is further stated that the Dairy Science College requires lands
for facilities such as incubation centre, specialized milk plant,
hostels, demonstration plants etc.
3. According to the petitioners, the petitioner No.1-
Karnataka Veterinary Association, the petitioner No.2-
Bangalore Veterinary College Alumni Association and the
Petitioner No.4-Dairy Science College Alumni Association are
Societies registered under the provisions of the Karnataka
Societies Registration Act, 1960 whereas, the petitioner No.3
viz., Senior Veterinarians' Association is an unregistered
- 6 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
Society. It is stated that the objectives of the petitioners are to
engage in and promote professional knowledge relating to
veterinary sciences, animal husbandry and to promote the
rights and interests of the veterinarians. It is also stated that
that the petitioners have also engaged in various academic and
social activities to promote the cause of veterinary sciences and
create awareness among the members of the public regarding
the same.
4. It is further stated in the writ petition that the respondent
No.4-Veterinary College, Bengaluru was established in the year
1958. Initially, it was under the control of the Mysore
University. The lands where the Veterinary College campus is
situated were donated by the Maharaja of the erstwhile Mysore
State for the specific purpose of setting up a Veterinary College
for the benefit of the agrarian section of the society. In the
year 1964, the Agriculture College at Hebbal and Dharwad and
the Veterinary College at Hebbal, Bengaluru, were established
along with other research institutions of Karnataka State and
this led to the establishment of the University of Agricultural
Sciences, Hebbal, Bengaluru.
- 7 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
5. In the year 2004, the University of Agriculture and
Veterinary Science was bifurcated and a separate University
was established for Veterinary Sciences known as "Karnataka
Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries Science University" with its
headquarters at Bidar for the purpose of development,
advancement of learning and for research in the field of
Veterinary, Fisheries, Poultry, Animal Sciences and allied
subjects in the State of Karnataka. A separate Act was passed
in the State Legislature pertaining to the above said University
viz., the Karnataka Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries Science
University Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KVAFSU
Act').
6. The Dairy Science College and Fisheries Research and
Information Centre are situated in the same campus. The
Institute of Animal Health and Veterinary Biologicals that
manufactures disease control vaccines for prophylactic and post
inspective measures is also located in the same campus. In the
above said campus, there is also a Primary School, High School
and PU College for the employees' children and now other local
students are also studying there. Apart from that, land for
Fodder Production and Grassland Management experiment are
in existence to meet the daily requirement of livestock and
- 8 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
poultry in the campus. Initially, a single institution was
established in the year 1958, but now 5 institutions have come
up in one campus of the Veterinary College. The College is yet
to have an experimental equine (horse) farm and buffalo farm
and the College is yet to establish a modern experimental
abattoir for meat inspection, which is also a part of curriculum
in the veterinary training.
7. At present, the Veterinary College has 317.73 acres of
land and the same is used for various purposes. The 19
departments of the Veterinary College offer Undergraduate,
Postgraduate and Doctoral programmes. The said departments
are also involved in research programmes and have contributed
to the agrarian progress in the State of Karnataka. Within the
Veterinary College campus, the Institute of Animal Health and
Veterinary Biological Institute is situated and, it is engaged in
manufacturing a variety of vaccines that cater to the needs of
the State Veterinary Hospitals, Dispensaries, Veterinary Health
Centres and other livestock farms in the State of Karnataka. It
is further stated that the said Institute manufactures vaccines
not only for veterinary professions, but also for medical
professions such as Anti-Rabies Vaccine, Kyasanur Forest
Disease Vaccine etc., which are supplied to the Government
- 9 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
Hospitals in the State of Karnataka. It also has a Bio-Security
Laboratory installed by the Government of India with assistance
from the United Nations to handle and control certain
communicable viral diseases. The same was installed at a cost
of over Rs.3 crores in the year 2015.
8. The respondent No.4 has been funded by the Department
of Biotechnology, Government of India, to carry out research
on ' Post-antibiotic lytic immune response monitoring using
recombinant protein in dogs-Phase II development and external
validation '. It has also been funded by the Indian Small
Industries Development Bank of India to carry out ' Program to
strengthen inter-country network for rabies control and
prevention '. The project is underway and will serve as a
solution to the existing stray dog issue faced in India. Besides,
the respondent No.4 is funded by the Vision Group on Science
and Technology, Government of Karnataka, to carry out
research and development on 'Use of flash-based technology in
anatomy teaching '. It is also stated that funds are also given
by some private institutes to carry out research.
9. Under Section 8(1) of the KVAFSU Act, 2004, the
colleges, research stations, veterinary hospitals and other
- 10 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
institutions specified in Schedule-1, which are being owned and
managed by the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad
and the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bengaluru prior to
the specified date, were to be transferred along with all assets,
liabilities and obligations to the respondent No.3-KVAFSU.
10. On 03.12.2010, the State Government issued a Circular
to identify 30 acres of land belonging to the Veterinary College,
Hebbal and Mysore Lamps, Bengaluru for construction of
residential houses for the Hon'ble Judges of this Court. The
petitioner No.1 had challenged the said circular dated
03.12.2010 by filing W.P.No.41784/2010 (PIL). Subsequently,
the State Government, vide Circular dated 05.01.2011, had
directed that 21 acres 6 guntas of land belonging to the
respondent No.3-KVAFSU situated at the Veterinary College
campus at Hebbal be transferred to the Public Works
Department for construction of residential houses for the
Hon'ble Judges of this Court.
11. During the pendency of the aforesaid
W.P.No.41784/2010, the State Government dropped the
proposal to acquire the lands of the Veterinary College, Hebbal.
Instead, the adjacent lands belonging to the Karnataka Agro
- 11 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
Industries Corporation was used for construction of fifteen (15)
residences for the Hon'ble Judges besides a High Court Guest
House. In the light of the aforesaid, W.P.No.41784/2010 was
withdrawn by the petitioner No.1.
12. It is further stated by the petitioners that the Veterinary
Council of India prescribes minimum requirements in respect of
land and infrastructure only for undergraduate teaching
purposes and does not cover within its ambit, the research and
extension activities, postgraduate and doctoral programmes of
the Veterinary College. However, research and extension are
also essential activities to be undertaken by a Veterinary
College and its research and extension contributions are
assessed for ranking and grading by the National Agricultural
Education Accreditation Board. The Indian Council for
Agricultural Research, Veterinary Council of India etc., provide
research grants to universities and veterinary colleges based on
the ranking secured by them during assessment by the National
Agricultural Education Accreditation Board (NAEAB). At present,
the respondent No.3 has been given 'A' grade by the NAEAB
and it is striving to secure 'A++' grade during the next
assessment. It is further stated that granting permission for
transfer of 4 acres and 3 acres, total 7 acres of land belonging
- 12 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
to the respondent No.3 situated at Veterinary College, Hebbal,
for the purpose of constructing houses for the Hon'ble Judges
of this Court (4 acres) and for the construction of a Super-
Speciality Hospital (3 acres) would be highly prejudicial to the
interest of the Veterinary College.
13. It is stated that 'Minimum Standards of Veterinary
Education' prescribed by the Veterinary Council of India
stipulates the minimum extent of lands required for Veterinary
Colleges across the Country which offer undergraduate
programmes. It is further stated that the lands presently
available at the Veterinary College campus at Hebbal barely
fulfill these mandatory land requirements. Any reduction in the
lands available with the Veterinary College would impair
compliance with the regulations and norms prescribed by the
Veterinary Council of India. At present, almost 100 acres of
land have been used for research activities alone. The
Veterinary College, Hebbal, receives grants from the Indian
Council for Agricultural Research for various research projects
and for these research projects, various extent of vacant lands
are required depending on the type and scope of the research.
- 13 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
14. In sum and substance, the submission of the petitioners
is that the Veterinary College does not have excess land for
giving to the Government for constructing residences for the
Hon'ble Judges of this Court and for setting up of Super-
Speciality Hospital.
III SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
15. Sri K.N. Phanindra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioners would submit that while issuing the impugned
Government Order dated 08.01.2026, the Government has not
considered the aforesaid aspects and therefore, the impugned
Government Order is against the interest of the Veterinary
College inasmuch as reduction of land would result in shortfall
of the land of minimum standards prescribed by the Veterinary
Council of India.
16. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that
establishment of Human Super Specialty hospital in the campus
of the respondent No.4-Veterinary College and the construction
works would seriously affect the interests of the college, and its
teaching, research and extension activities. Any diversion of
land for non-veterinary purposes would adversely affect the
- 14 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
educational and allied activities of the respondent No.4-
Veterinary College. A minimum of 200 acres of land is required
for the teaching activities of the respondent No.4-Veterinary
College, and any shortcoming would risk de-recognition of the
respondent No.4 by the Veterinary Council of India. It is further
submitted that 100 acres of land in the campus of the
respondent No.4 is used for research activities alone and any
decline in the research quality and output due to shortage of
land constraints would reduce the ranking of the respondent
No.4-Veterinary College and will consequently lead to decline in
funding by the Veterinary Council of India, Indian Council for
Agricultural Research, the Central Government and the State
Government. It is, therefore, submitted that the diversion of 7
acres of land of the University is against larger public interest.
IV SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
17. On the other hand, Sri Prabhuling K. Navadgi, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Smt. B.V. Vidyulatha, learned
counsel for the respondent No.5-High Court of Karnataka, Sri
M.N.Sudev Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2-State and Sri J.
Prashanth, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 viz.,
- 15 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
KVAFSU and Veterinary College respectively, have submitted
that the petitioners are guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio
falsi and they have deliberately suppressed the material facts
before this Court. It is submitted that the petitioners lack lous
standi to challenge the Government Order dated 08.01.2026
and they have also failed to demonstrate any legal right, much
less an enforceable right.
18. It is submitted that the schedule land is situated at
Yelahanka Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk and it
presently stands vested with the Department of Agriculture and
is in occupation and possession of the KVAFSU, Hebbal.
Pursuant to the resolution of the meeting held on 04.09.2025
between the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court of
Karnataka and the Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State, the
impugned Government Order has been issued in furtherance of
the Cabinet Decision No.C-919/2025 dated 06.11.2025.
19. It is submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru
Urban District, has identified an extent of 4 acres of land for
construction of additional residential quarters for the Hon'ble
Judges of this Court, in close proximity to the existing
residential quarters at Nyayagrama, Hebbal, Bengaluru, as
- 16 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
there is no other land available in the vicinity of the existing
residential quarters. It is further submitted that an extent of 3
acres of land has also been earmarked for establishment of a
Public Super-Speciality Hospital. In terms of the conditions
stipulated in the Government Order, the said lands shall be
strictly utilized only for the purposes for which they have been
transferred.
20. It is further submitted that as per Part VI-Minimum
Standards of Veterinary Education under the Notification dated
08.07.2016, the minimum land and infrastructure requirements
prescribed for veterinary institutions are duly specified. The
extent of land presently allocated to and in possession of the
concerned institution is far in excess of the minimum
requirement prescribed under the said Regulations. As per
Clause 22(2) of the said Regulations, every Veterinary College
is required to have its own building and a minimum of 30 acres
of land for running various departments including farm and
fodder production areas. Clause 22(2) is extracted hereunder:-
"Every Veterinary College shall
have its own building and
minimum 30 acres of land for
running various departments
- 17 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
and Farm and fodder production
area, however, for hilly terrain
a minimum of 25 acres of land
is required."
21. It is further submitted that as per the Veterinary Council
of India-Minimum Standards of Veterinary Education (Bachelor
of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry-Degree Course)
Regulations, 2016 issued vide Notification dated 08.07.2016 by
the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare (Department of
Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries), Government of
India, the department-wise minimum built-up area requirement
for infrastructure generally ranges between 600 sq.ft and 1200
sq.ft. In respect of fodder production, a minimum extent of 15
acres of land is prescribed.
22. It is further submitted that the respondent No.4 is in
possession of a total extent of approximately 317.73 acres of
land. The extent of land presently utilized for the ongoing
projects is only about 39.50 acres. As per the minimum
requirements, a Veterinary College is required to have
approximately 150 acres of land which is significantly lower
than the extent presently available. The transfer of an extent of
7 acres out of the total extent of approximately 278 acres
- 18 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
presently available with the institution would not, in any
manner, affect the minimum land requirements prescribed
under the applicable Regulations. The said land originally
pertained to the concerned department and has now been
transferred for a specific public purpose.
23. It is further submitted that the residential quarters for the
Hon'ble Judges of this Court are required to be situated in close
proximity to the existing quarters at Nyayagrama, Bengaluru
and there is a paucity of suitable land available in the said
vicinity. It is the bounden obligation of the State to provide
appropriate residential accommodation for the Hon'ble Judges
as specifically provided under Rule 2A-Residence of Judges-
High Court Judges Rules of 1956. Out of the total extent of
land identified i.e., 7 acres, only 4 acres are proposed to be
utilized for construction of residential quarters for the Hon'ble
Judges of this Court, while the remaining 3 acres is earmarked
for establishment of a Super-Speciality Hospital for public
purpose.
24. Sri Prabhuling K. Navadgi, learned Senior Counsel has
asserted that under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies
Registration Act particularly, Section 3 of the Act, a society
- 19 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
cannot file and prosecute a public interest litigation and
therefore, the petitioners would have no locus to maintain this
writ petition. It is further submitted that there is no assertion
in the writ petition regarding extraneous consideration,
favoritism or abuse of power. In the absence of specific
pleadings and cogent material demonstrating the above, the
challenge to a policy decision cannot be sustained. There is no
public interest involved to maintain the writ petition in the garb
of public interest litigation. The impugned decision pertains to
allotment of land for construction of residential accommodation
for the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Karnataka, which is
intrinsically connected with the administration of justice and
constitutes an undisputed public purpose.
25. The sanctioned strength of the Judges of the High Court
of Karnataka is 62 and the working strength as on 27.03.2026
was 48. The Government accommodation available at present
including the residence of the Chief Justice is 19. 11 Judges
are residing in their own houses, 12 Judges are residing in
rented houses, 1 Judge is residing in Guest House, two Judges
are stationed at Dharwad and one Judge is stationed at
Kalaburagi. He further submitted that two Government
Quarters available for the residence of the High Court Judges at
- 20 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
Sankey Road, Bengaluru, are unoccupied as the
alteration/repair work is under progress. Even as per the
sanctioned strength, at least 25 to 30 more residences are
required for the High Court Judges. The decision to allot 4 acres
of land for construction of residences for the High Court Judges
has been taken after due consideration of relevant factors and
in larger public interest and there is nothing to suggest that the
said decision is arbitrary or suffers from non-application of
mind.
26. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that the
writ petition is based on a speculative and generalized
grievance without establishing how the alleged change in land
use would cause any legal prejudice. The absence of
demonstrable public injury renders the present writ petition as
not maintainable, and it is only a misplaced challenge to a
legitimate administrative decision of the Government.
27. It is further submitted by him that the petitioners'
attempt to assail the impugned decision on the grounds viz.,
(a) alleged non-consultation with students and faculty
members; (b) a minimum extent of 200 acres is required for
running a University and diversion of 4 acres would lead to
- 21 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
de-recognition; and (c) a proposed tunnel road beneath the
University would affect the structural integrity, would neither
confer any locus nor furnish a valid cause of action for the
petitioners to maintain a public interest litigation. The allotment
of land by the State Government is not in favour of any
individual, but is for the benefit of the Judiciary. The provision
of adequate residential infrastructure to constitutional
functionaries is integral for ensuring the independence of
judiciary, institutional efficiency and effective discharge of the
constitutional duties. Such measures cannot be trivialized or
subjected to judicial review merely on the basis of a
comparative preference for another public purpose. Adequate
residential accommodation ensures security, accessibility and
functional efficiency of the High Court Judges and forms an
essential component of the justice delivery system. The
provision to provide official residential quarters by the State
Government in discharge of its constitutional obligations
cannot, by any stretch, be construed as being adverse to the
public interest.
28. So far as the ground relating to consultation with
students and faculty members, it is submitted by the learned
Senior Counsel that there is no law which requires that all
- 22 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
stakeholders should be heard/consulted before a decision is
taken. In support of this submission, he has relied on a decision
of the Supreme Court in the case of RAJEEV SURI vs DELHI
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS ([2022] 11
SCC 1) .
29. It is further submitted that 4 acres of land has been
mutated in the name of the Registrar General of the High Court
of Karnataka. The Veterinary College is in possession of 317.73
acres and substantial vacant land continues to be available in
the vicinity. There is no violation of any statutory provisions,
infringement of any enforceable legal right or existence of mala
fides in the decision-making process. It is a policy decision
taken in public interest to provide residential infrastructure to
the members of higher judiciary, which is an essential facet of
ensuring the effective functioning and independence of the
judicial system. It is, therefore, submitted that the writ petition
is without any merit and liable to be dismissed.
30. Sri J. Prashanth, learned counsel for the respondent
Nos.3 and 4 has submitted that the perusal of the proceedings
th
of the 108 Meeting of the Board of Management of KVAFSU
held on 01.07.2023 would reveal that the Board of
- 23 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
Management had considered the proposal regarding
establishment of Super-Speciality Hospital at the college land
and approved it. He has supported the stand of the State.
31. We have considered the submissions.
V ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:
32. The independence of the Judiciary (including the power of
judicial review) is a core component of the Constitution's basic
structure. In the case of HIS HOLINESS KESAVANANDA
BHARATI SRIPADAGALVARU vs STATE OF KERALA AND
ANOTHER ([1973] 4 SCC 225) , it has been held that the
independence of the Judiciary cannot be abrogated by an
ordinary amendment to the Constitution. Judicial independence
is a structural necessity as has been held in the case of THE
SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD ASSOCIATION
AND ANOTHER vs UNION OF INDIA ([2016] 5 SCC 1) .
Legislature, Executive and Judiciary, though form the different
pillars of the State, in essence, are created to sustain the will of
the people. One of the aspects of the democracy is the creation
of an independent Judiciary as held in the case of S.P. GUPTA
vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER (1981 SUPP SCC 87)
(First Judge's case) . The concept of independence of the
Judiciary is a noble concept, which inspires the constitutional
- 24 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
scheme and constitutes the foundation on which rests the
edifice of our democratic policy. If there is one principle which
runs through the entire fabric of the Constitution, it is the
principle of the rule of law and under the Constitution, it is the
Judiciary which is entrusted with the task of keeping every
organ of the State within the limits of the law exercising the
power of judicial review and thereby making the rule of law
meaningful and effective. It is to aid the Judiciary in this task
that the power of judicial review has been conferred upon the
Judiciary, and it is by exercising this power, which constitutes
one of the most potent weapons in the armoury of the law, that
the Judiciary seeks to protect the citizen against violation of
constitutional or legal rights or misuse or abuse of power by the
State or its officials. The Judiciary stands between the citizen
and the State as a bulwark against the executive excesses and
misuse or abuse of power by the Executive.
33. In the case of KARTAR SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB
([1994] 3 SCC 569) , it has been held that an independent
Judiciary is the most essential attribute of the rule of law and is
indispensable to sustain the democracy. The integrity of the
Judiciary in a democratic system of Government is of the
highest importance and necessity not only to the Judges, but to
- 25 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
the people at large who seek judicial redress against perceived
legal injury or executive excesses. The rule of law is the basic
feature of the Constitution and an independent Judiciary is an
essential attribute thereof.
34. In interpreting the constitutional provisions, however, the
Court should adopt a construction which strengthens the
foundational features and the basic structure of the
Constitution. The rule of law, which is a basic feature of the
Constitution, permeates the whole of the constitutional fabric
and is an integral part of the Constitutional structure.
35. In the case of MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION vs UNION
OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ([2014] 10 SCC 1) , it has been
held that the independence of Judiciary is one of the
foundational pillars of every democracy governed by the rule of
law. It is the basis of rights and freedom of the people. An
independent and efficient judicial system has also been
recognized as a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Impartiality, independence, fairness and reasonableness in
decision-making are the hallmarks of the Judiciary. If
impartiality is considered to be the soul of the Judiciary,
independence is the life and blood of the Judiciary.
- 26 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
Independence of the Courts from Executive and Legislature is
fundamental to the rule of law and one of the basic tenets of
the Indian Constitution. The separation of powers between the
three organs of the State i.e., Legislative, Executive and
Judiciary is a consequence of the principles of equality as
enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. We need to
maintain the independence of the Judiciary to protect and
promote the democracy and the rule of law. If the rule of law is
the basic feature of our Constitution, so must be the
independence of the Judiciary since the enforcement of the rule
of law requires an independent Judiciary. The independence of
Judiciary and the rule of law are intertwined and inseparable
and part of the basic structure of our Constitution. In a
democracy governed by the rule of law under a written
constitution, Judiciary is a centria qui vive to protect the rights
and freedom of the citizens.
36. While the administration of justice draws its legal sanction
from the Constitution, its credibility rests in the faith of the
people. Indispensable to that faith is the independence of the
Judiciary. An independent and impartial Judiciary supplies the
reason for the judicial institution; it also gives character and
content to the constitutional milieu.
- 27 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
37. An independent and non-political Judiciary is crucial to
the sustenance of our existing political system. The vitality of
the independence of Judiciary would ensure the constitutional
values and the rule of law. Therefore, it is the Judiciary which is
entrusted with the task of keeping every organ of the State
within the limits of the law and thereby making the rule of law
in the constitutional scheme and constitute the foundation on
which rests the edifice of our democratic policy.
38. The power of the higher Courts to review the legislation
(under Articles 32, 226 and 227) and the institutional
protections supporting that function is an integral part to the
basic structure.
39. To ensure the independence of the Judiciary, the
institutional safeguards are provided under the Constitution for
appointment, transfer and removal of the Judges. The
President/Governor functions within the Cabinet System. The
Executive action affecting the judicial appointment/removal is
performed on ministerial advice so that the personal discretion
of the constitutional heads is constrained and executive
accountability is visible. This prevents arbitrary individual
executive action against the Judges as held in the case of
- 28 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
SHAMSHER SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB ([1974] 2 SCC
831) .
40. The Constitution provides for security of tenure and
stringent removal process of Judges. The Judges of the higher
Courts have fixed tenure and can be removed only after the
prescribed impeachment-like procedure. This is to prevent
arbitrary removal and protects individual decisional
independence as held in the case of THE SUPREME COURT
ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD ASSOCIATION ( supra ).
41. The Judges of the higher Courts enjoy immunity from
executive or parliamentary discussion of judicial conduct. The
Constitution limits debate on the conduct of the sitting higher-
court Judges.
42. Even to ensure the independence of the District Judiciary,
the Supreme Court has recognized that adequate pay, facilities,
housing, transportation and training are essential to
institutional independence of the Judiciary. The Supreme Court
has issued binding directions where the executive branches of
the State have failed to perform these obligations. The salaries
and certain allowances of the Judges are constitutionally
protected and charged on the consolidated funds.
- 29 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
43. So far as the appointment and selection process of the
Judges is concerned, in order to save it from political and
executive influence, the Supreme Court has developed the
Collegium concept to secure judicial primacy in selection so that
appointments are insulated from short-term political pressures.
The Collegium system has been evolved to limit the executive
interference.
44. The core elements to ensure independence of the Judges
in India as reflected in the constitution framework are
summarized hereunder:-
(i) Salaries, allowances and pensions are constitutionally
protected and determined by the statute, not at the whim of
the executive. The Parliament can determine the allowances
and rights in respect of leave and pension, and the salaries/
allowances and pensions of sitting and retiring Judges are
funded from the Consolidated Funds. This protection forms part
of the basic framework for judicial independence as held in the
case of UNION OF INDIA V. SANKALCHAND HIMATLAL
SHETH AND ANOTHER ([1977] 4 SCC 193) . These aspects
are governed under a parliamentary statute, i.e, t he High Court
Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 and the
- 30 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
rules made thereunder i.e., the High Court Judges (Service of
Condition) Rules, 1956 as well as the High Court Judges
Travelling Allowance Rules, 1956.
(ii) The retirement age of the High Court Judges is fixed
presently at 62 years. The fixed tenure of the High Court
Judges is a guarantee of independence.
(iii) Official housing, transport, libraries and related allowances
are essential to independence and efficacy of the Courts.
(iv) The pay-and-allowances framework for Judges emphasizes
independence from executive parity.
45. Thus, a High Court Judge's entitlements are anchored in
constitutional protections and statutory provisions. The salaries
and allowances are determined by the Parliament. The
independence of Judiciary is a fundamental, basic-structure
feature of the Constitution, and the conditions of service of
High Court and Supreme Court Judges (including salary,
pension, housing, libraries, training, transport and retirement
age) are part of the framework that sustains judicial
independence. The Judges of the High Court and Supreme
Court are entitled for fully furnished official accommodations,
- 31 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
which is embedded in the Judge's service conditions and
essential facilities necessary to secure judicial independence. It
is the duty of the State to provide suitable fully furnished
accommodation. The High Court and Supreme Court Judges are
constitutional appointees and are not appointed in service.
They hold the constitutional post and therefore, it is the duty of
the State to provide fully furnished official accommodation,
befitting the stature of the constitutional authority of Judges of
the High Court.
46. We have taken note of the fact that only 19 official
residences are available to the High Court judges against the
strength of 62 Judges, several Judges are living in rented
accommodation not befitting the stature of a constitutional
authority like High Court Judge.
47. The KVAFSU Act, under which the University for Animal
and Fisheries Sciences came to be established, inter alia
provides for the powers and functions of the functionaries of
the University. Section 10 provides for 'Officers of the
University' inter alia , the Chancellor, Pro-Chancellor, Vice-
Chancellor, Deans, Comptroller, Registrar, Librarian, Director of
Instruction (post graduate studies), Director of Research,
- 32 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
Director of Extension, Heads of Divisions and such other
officers in the service of the University as may be declared by
the Statutes to be the officers of the University. Section 26
provides for 'Authorities of the University' such as, Board of
Management, Academic Council, Research Council, Extension
Education Council, Finance Committee, Board of Studies and
such other bodies of the University as may be declared by the
Statutes to be the authorities of the University.
48. The powers and duties of the Board are provided under
Section 28 of the KVAFSU Act. It is the Board which has the
power to hold and control the property and funds of the
University, to accept the transfer and to dispose of any
movable or immovable property on behalf of the University.
Thus, the Constitution of the Board would disclose that except
for Vice-Chancellor, Director of Animal Husbandry, Director of
Fisheries and Registrar, all other members are the Government
Secretaries of different departments. The Board is
predominantly consisting of the Government Secretaries.
49. The Board has approved the transfer of the land.
Admittedly, the respondent No.4-College is in excess of huge
extent of land to meet its requirements. The decision taken by
- 33 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
the Government to transfer 4 acres of land for construction of
official residences for the serving Judges of the High Court in
the vicinity of the existing 15 residences at Nyayagrama will
have no adverse effect on the respondent No.4-College, in any
manner, as alleged.
50. This is a policy decision of the Government for transfer of
4+3 acres i.e., total 7 acres of land for construction of
residences for the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court and for
setting up a Super-Speciality Hospital for the general public. It
is well settled that policy decisions cannot be challenged in
absence of (a) arbitrariness; (b) procedural impropriety;
(c) perversity so as to shock the conscience of the public; and
(d) blatant derogation of the governing provisions as held in
the case of AKOLA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND
ANOTHER vs ZISHAN HUSSAIN AZHAR HUSSAIN AND
ANOTHER (2025 INSC 1398) . The following paragraphs of
the said judgment, which are relevant, are extracted
hereunder:-
"21. This Court has also held that judicial
interference by way of public interest litigation
is available only if there is injury to public
because of dereliction of constitutional
obligations on the part of the Government. The
- 34 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
writ jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be
exercised in public interest for questioning the
economic/fiscal policy or reforms sought to be
undertaken by the Government or its
functionaries. In this regard, we may gainfully
refer to the following observations made by a
three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of
BALCO Employees’ Union v. Union of
India :-
“93. Wisdom and advisability
of economic policies are
ordinarily not amenable to
judicial review unless it can be
demonstrated that the policy is
contrary to any statutory
provision or the Constitution.
In other words, it is not for the
courts to consider relative
merits of different economic
policies and consider whether a
wiser or better one can be
evolved . For testing the
correctness of a policy, the
appropriate forum is Parliament
and not the courts. Here the policy
was tested and the motion
defeated in the Lok Sabha on
1-3-2001.
[……….]
- 35 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
97. Judicial interference by
way of PIL is available if there
is injury to public because of
dereliction of constitutional or
statutory obligations on the
part of the Government. Here it
is not so and in the sphere of
economic policy or reform the
court is not the appropriate
forum. Every matter of public
interest or curiosity cannot be
the subject-matter of PIL .
Courts are not intended to and nor
should they conduct the
administration of the country.
Courts will interfere only if
there is a clear violation of
constitutional or statutory
provisions or non-compliance
by the State with its
constitutional or statutory
duties . None of these
contingencies arise in this present
case.
98. In the case of a policy
decision on economic matters,
the courts should be very
circumspect in conducting any
- 36 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
enquiry or investigation and
must be most reluctant to
impugn the judgment of the
experts who may have arrived
at a conclusion unless the
court is satisfied that there is
illegality in the decision itself .”
[Emphasis supplied]
22. Recently, in the case of Kirloskar Ferrous
Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, this Court
held as below:-
“ 54 . The doctrine of judicial
restraint, which is central to this
discussion, emphasizes that courts
should exercise caution and avoid
involvement in policy decisions, as
these are complex judgments that
require a balancing of diverse and
often competing interests. Policies
are crafted based on thorough
analysis of social, economic, and
political factors, considerations
beyond the court's purview. The
court is tasked with ensuring
that policies do not breach
constitutional provisions or
statutory limits; however, they
should not replace
- 37 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
policymakers' judgments with
their own unless absolutely
necessary .
55 . Policy decisions often require
the expertise of professionals and
specialists in fields such as
economics, public health, national
security, and environmental
science. These domains involve
specialized knowledge that judges,
as generalists in legal matters,
may lack. For instance, in
economic policy, the executive
may decide on trade tariffs or
subsidies based on extensive data
and projections that aim to
balance domestic industry support
with global trade commitments.
The courts, lacking the same level
of economic expertise and without
the authority to make trade-offs
among competing policy
objectives, is typically not
equipped to second-guess these
kinds of decisions.
56 . While courts have the
power of judicial review to
ensure that executive actions
- 38 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
and legislative enactments
comply with the Constitution,
this power is not absolute.
Judicial review is meant to act
as a safeguard against actions
that overstep legal boundaries
or infringe on fundamental
rights, but it does not entail a
comprehensive re-evaluation
of the policy's wisdom. The
judicial review of policy
decisions is limited to
assessing the legality of the
decision making process rather
than the substantive merits of
the policy itself . For example, if
a government policy infringes on
fundamental rights or
discriminates against a particular
group, the courts have a duty to
strike down such policies.
However, in the absence of
constitutional or legal
violations, the courts should
respect the policy choices
made by the executive or
legislature .
57 . The duty of the court in policy-
related cases is primarily to
- 39 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
determine whether the policy
falls within the scope of the
authority granted to the
relevant body. If the policy
decision is within the
executive's legal authority and
has been made following
proper procedures, the courts
should defer to the expertise
and discretion of the policy-
makers, even if the policy
appears unwise or imprudent .
This restraint ensures that the
courts do not impose its own
perspective on policy matters that
are rightly the responsibility of
other branches.
58 . Economic and social policies
often involve significant
redistribution of resources,
prioritization of interests, and
balancing of public needs, which
requires careful consideration by
those with specialized knowledge
and broad perspectives. In the
realm of economic policy, for
instance, questions regarding
the allocation of subsidies,
fiscal deficits, or budget
- 40 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
allocations are best managed
by the executive, which has
access to economic data and is
accountable to the public for its
financial management. Judicial
interference in such areas risks
creating disruptions in the
economic balance that
policymakers are trying to
achieve .
59 . Courts should assume that
policy-makers act in good faith
unless there is clear evidence to
the contrary. As long as the
policy does not contravene the
Constitution or violate
statutory provisions, it is not
the role of the courts to
question the wisdom or
fairness of such policy .
60 . While judicial restraint is
essential in respecting the
boundaries of each branch of
government, it does not mean that
courts abdicate their responsibility
to protect constitutional rights. The
courts must still intervene if a
policy infringes on fundamental
- 41 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
rights, discriminates unfairly, or
breaches statutory provisions. The
role of the court in such instances
is to protect individuals and groups
from unlawful actions while
maintaining the overall integrity of
the policy-making process. This
balance ensures that while courts
do not interfere in matters of
policy wisdom, they remain
vigilant guardians of constitutional
rights.”
[Emphasis supplied]
26. In light of the above express admissions, it
becomes evident that the power of the
appellant-Corporation to revise the rate of
municipal taxes was never the subject matter
of challenge before the High Court. The only
issue that was urged before the High Court
pertained to the procedure and mode adopted
by the appellant-Corporation while effecting
such revision. In the absence of any challenge
to the substantive authority of the appellant-
Corporation to revise municipal taxes, the
scope of scrutiny before the High Court stood
confined solely to examining whether the
statutory procedure had been complied with.
We are of the considered view that the High
Court ought not to have embarked upon a
- 42 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
roving inquiry into the merits or wisdom of the
decision to revise the tax rates unless it was
demonstrated that the procedure adopted by
the appellant-Corporation was ex-facie
arbitrary, perverse, unreasonable or in blatant
derogation of the governing statutory
provisions. No such material was placed before
the Court, nor does the record disclose any
such infirmity. In these circumstances, the
High Court transgressed the permissible limits
of judicial review in interfering with the
decision of the appellant-Corporation to revise
the rate of property taxes."
51. Therefore, we do not find that the allotment of 4 acres of
land which is adjacent to Nyayagrama in any manner will
impede or is against the public interest, but it is in furtherance
of the larger public interest i.e., to ensure the independence of
the Judiciary which is the basic foundation of the Constitution.
52. When the respondent No.4-College has huge excess land
than what is required at the present, 3 acres of land allotted to
construct the Super-Specialty Hospital for general public cannot
be termed to be against the public interest. In fact, the larger
public interest would be served by having a Super-Speciality
Hospital for general public by the State.
- 43 -
WP No. 6908 of 2026
53. We, therefore, find no substance in this writ petition
inasmuch as no public interest is abridged or acted against in
providing 4 acres of land to the High Court for construction of
official residences to the Hon'ble Judges and 3 acres of land for
constructing the Super-Specialty Hospital for general public.
54. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view
that no public interest is involved in the present petition, which
has been filed as a PIL. Therefore, we dismiss this writ petition,
however, without costs.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
BKV
CT:SN