Constitution of India:
Art. 30(1) – Right to administer minority institutions – Impugned Government Orders in respect of admission to B.Ed. Course in the minority institutions challenged as violative of Art.30(1) – Held: G.O. No.57 prescribed a uniform criteria for determining the status of all minority students, in order to prevent misuse of status certificates – This rather safeguarded the interest of genuine minority students – G.O. No.98 by providing that unfilled minority seats be filled with unreserved meritorious students, only ensured that vacant seats were not wasted – Thus, the G.Os. do not impose any fetters on the freedom of the minority institutions to profess, propagate and practice their religion or the right to establish and administer their educational institution and hence are not violative of Art.30(1) – The right of minority institution is not absolute – The protection granted to them is amenable to reasonable restrictions.
Disposing of the appeals and the writ petition, the Court HELD: 1. The impugned G.O.Ms are not violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. Article 30(1) states that all minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The impugned G.O.Ms do not whittle down the right of the minority institutions in any manner. The right of minority institutions is not absolute, and is amenable to regulation. The protection granted to Minority Educational Institutions to admit students of their choice is subject to reasonable restrictions. [Para 5.5] [676-C-D]
2. G.O.M. No. 57 prescribed a uniform criteria for determination of the status of all minority students. It safeguards the interest of genuine minority students, so that their seats are not taken away by those who resort to false conversions overnight, for the purpose of securing admission. This would preserve the minority character of the Institution, rather than act as an intrusion of the same. [Para 5.1] [675-B-C]
3. With respect to G.O.M. No. 98, the requirement to fill up the vacant seats by non-minority candidates was based on statistical data which showed that the number of colleges, and the seats available for minorities, were highly disproportionate, and far in excess of the population as per the 2001 census. The distinct possibility of seats remaining unfilled in the Minority Institutions every year, would not be in the interest of the Minority Educational Institutions. With this object in mind, G.O.M. No. 98 was issued to ensure that the vacant seats in the 85% Management Quota did not remain unfilled during any academic year. The G.O.M. merely stipulated that if the said Quota remained unfilled by minority students, it would be filled from the merit list of successful candidates, as allotted by the Convenor, Ed. CET to promote excellence in education. By this process, an opportunity was granted to the CET qualified nonminority candidates to secure quality education, which would subserve the interest of the nation. This G.O.M. does not, in any manner, interfere with the right of a Minority Educational Institution to manage its affairs for the benefit of the Minority Community. On the contrary, it ensures that vacant seats are not wasted, and are filled up by meritorious and deserving candidates. [Para 5.3] [675-E-H; 676-A]
4. Furthermore, the presence of a Government Nominee in the counselling process was to ensure that the admission process is fair, transparent, and non-exploitative, and is based on merit. This would not interfere with the admission process of the minority institutions in any manner. [Para 5.4] [676-B]
5. The impugned G.O.Ms do not impose any fetters on the freedom of the minority institutions to profess, propagate, and practice their religion, or the right to establish and administer their educational institutions. The criteria has been prescribed only for the purpose of determining the minority status of the candidates for admission to the B. Ed. Course. This would not amount to a restriction, or impose any fetters in the matter of an individual’s choice of religion. [Para 5.6] [676-H; 677-A-B]
T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2002) 8 SCC 481 – followed.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.