In a significant challenge to fiscal policy and equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, the Kerala High Court was called upon to decide whether the withdrawal of property tax exemptions for unaided schools, while continuing them for government-owned and aided institutions, amounted to unconstitutional discrimination. At the heart of the dispute lay the question of whether such a classification between self-financing and publicly funded schools could withstand judicial scrutiny under the twin tests of permissible classification. Read on to explore how the Court examined this contentious issue.
Brief facts:
The case arose when several unaided schools and educational trusts approached the Kerala High Court, challenging amendments to Section 207 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Section 235 of the Kerala Municipality Act introduced by the Kerala Finance (No.2) Act, 2023. These amendments removed property tax exemptions previously available to privately managed unaided schools, restricting the benefit only to schools owned, aided, or managed by the Government. The petitioners contended that the amendment resulted in an unreasonable classification, violating Article 14 of the Constitution.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioners contended that excluding unaided schools from property tax exemptions while continuing to grant them to government-owned or aided schools amounted to an unreasonable classification. They argued that no intelligible basis was provided to differentiate between unaided and government/aided schools. They also asserted that such classification violated the principle of equality under Article 14. Additionally, the petitioners highlighted that their institutions were regulated and monitored under various statutes, including fee regulations, to demonstrate that their functioning was not materially different from that of government-aided schools.
Contenttions of the Respondent:
The State argued that government-owned and aided schools are funded and maintained through public money, including for infrastructure and teacher salaries, and that imposing property tax on such institutions would place an additional burden on public funds. In contrast, unaided schools operate on fees collected from students and are financially independent, which, according to the State, creates a clear distinction justifying the classification. The State asserted that taxing statutes are granted wide latitude and that classifications are permissible if they are rationally connected to the statute’s objective.
Observation of the Court:
The Court emphasized the principles governing challenges to statutory provisions on grounds of unreasonable classification, particularly in taxing statutes. It noted that such challenges succeed only if the enactment exceeds legislative competence or violates fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution. Focusing on Article 14, which mandates equality before the law, the Court drew from State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. Nalla Raja Reddy & Others, and outlined the twin tests for permissible classification, "(i) the classification must be founded on an intelligible differential which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group; and (ii) that the differential must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.”
The Court observed while referring to the case Kunnathat Thathunni Moopil Nair v. The State of Kerala, that taxing statutes enjoy greater latitude due to the " inherent complexity of fiscal adjustment of diverse elements, permit a larger discretion to the Legislature in the matter of classification, so long it adheres to the fundamental principles underlying the said doctrine.” It further cautioned, "Though a law ex facie appears to treat all that fall within a class alike, if in effect it operates unevenly on persons or property similarly situated, it may be said that the law offends the equality clause." However, the Court found no such unevenness, noting that the amendment's object, to avoid additional burden on public funds used for government institutions, bears a rational nexus to the classification.
The Court accepted the State's justification that government-owned, managed, or aided schools are established and maintained at public expense to provide free or low-cost education, setting them apart from unaided schools that rely on student fees. This distinction creates an "intelligible differentia," as unaided institutions operate on a self-financing model without depending on the public exchequer for infrastructure or salaries. The Court further observed, "Since imparting free education or at very low expenses, is one of the primary functions of the State, giving incentives to building where such primary functions are carried out, so as to make it more feasible, by providing tax exemptions, can only be understood to be in furtherance of the objects of the enactments."
Addressing the petitioner's reliance on earlier judicial precedents, the Court distinguished them, noting that the classification in the present context is neither illogical nor unjust but is aligned with fiscal policy objectives. The Court also relied on prior High Court rulings, observing, "this classification is made, by granting exemption to the building owned or financed by the Government, on the basis that public money is utilised for the construction and maintenance of such buildings; whereas in the case of the buildings and hostels owned and maintained by private management of self-financing institutions, the public money has not been involved."
The decision of the Court:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court dismissed all the writ petitions, upholding the constitutional validity of the amendments under the Kerala Finance (No.2) Act, 2023. The Court held that the classification between government/aided schools and unaided schools was reasonable, based on intelligible differentia, and consistent with the objectives of the statutory framework.
Case Title: Dr.Abraham Thalothil Vs. State Of Kerala and Ors.
Case No: WP(C) No. 24012 of 2023
Coram: Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A.
Advocate For Petitioner: Adv Shri.H.Ramanan
Advocate For Respondent: Spl. Govt. Pleader Deepak. R.
Picture Source :
