Academic Futures Can’t Be Sacrificed at the Altar of Lease Formalities: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Save Hotel Management Institute

“When Over 250 Students Face Displacement Due to Legal Finality, Article 142 Must Step In—Justice Is Not Blind to Educational Crisis” —  In an emphatic declaration that procedural technicalities must not obstruct the arc of justice, the Supreme Court of India invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to permit the temporary relocation of a Hotel Management Institute for two years, even though it failed to comply with AICTE’s standard lease norms.

Though the appellant had already agreed to vacate the disputed land following a mediated settlement, the Court made it clear that: “If we fail to exercise our powers under Article 142, the career of about 250 students would be jeopardized.”

Lease Expired, Possession Lost, But What About the Students?

The case centered on a property in Mangalore leased in 1912 and later subleased for Hotel Motimahal, which also housed the Motimahal College of Hotel Management. By 1984, M/s A.J. Shetty & Co. Pvt. Ltd. had acquired the lease rights and continued operations. When the lease expired in 2011, the original landlord, St. Antony’s Charity Institutes, refused renewal, leading to prolonged litigation.

The High Court decreed in 2024 that the appellants must vacate, pay mesne profits of ₹50,000/day with interest, and handed over possession. The matter reached the Supreme Court, where mediation led by Justice A.S. Bopanna (retired) culminated in a binding settlement:

• Vacate by April 30, 2025.

• Pay reduced mesne profits (₹23,000/day) without interest.

• Clear all dues by April 30, 2026 backed by a bank guarantee.

The complication arose when the Institute sought to shift temporarily to an alternative site while constructing a new permanent campus — a shift objected to by AICTE and Mangalore University, citing that the new site lacked the required 30-year lease or ownership.

Supreme Court: “Rule Must Yield to Justice in the Face of Irreversible Educational Loss”

Rejecting the objections of the regulators, the Court took a pragmatic and compassionate approach: “The Institute is functional since 2004 with valid approvals and sufficient academic infrastructure. The temporary campus, though lacking a 30-year lease, is not inadequate. Refusing permission now would mean destruction of 250 academic lives.”

The Bench noted that the only hurdle was the duration of the lease, and the Institute had already initiated construction of a compliant permanent campus. Invoking Article 142, the Court ruled: “In exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction, we direct AICTE and the University not to insist on lease ownership norms for a period of two years. This is a one-time exception.”

It added: “The Institute must relocate to the fully compliant permanent campus on or before April 30, 2027.”

Settlement Upheld, Justice Rendered

While giving educational relief, the Court also upheld the mediated settlement between the hotel and the landlord, giving it the seal of judicial finality. The landlord’s right to possession and compensation remained intact, while the students’ right to continuity was safeguarded.

“Justice in this case lies not in nullifying the landlord’s rights, but in crafting a middle path to preserve educational continuity.”

This judgment highlights the transformative power of Article 142, allowing the Court to bridge legal gaps when formal compliance risks collateral injustice. By balancing contractual finality with educational exigency, the Court delivered a message that the law must walk with society, not stand in its way.

“The Constitution empowers this Court to do complete justice — and that includes rescuing academic futures trapped between legal lines.”

Date of Decision: April 23, 2025