On September 26, 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that the right of minority institutions is not absolute, and is amenable to regulation. It also observed that the protection granted to minority educational institutions to admit students of their choice is subject to reasonable restrictions. It dismissed pleas challenging orders issued by the Andhra Pradesh government. The judgement came on a petition, claiming that the rules of the Andhra Pradesh government were violative of rights of minority educational institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. Other key takeaways from the judgement are as follows:
(i) The protection granted to minority educational institutions to admit students of their choice is subject to reasonable restrictions.
(ii) The court upheld rules framed by the Andhra Pradesh government which makes SC/Transfer Certificate the basis for a candidate’s claim of minority status for admission of B. Ed. courses and requires minority institutions to allot vacant seats under management quota to non-minority students on merits on the basis of conversion certificates to those who, in most of the cases, declared themselves to be Christians subsequent to the date of submitting their applications for the Entrance Test.
(iii) The criteria has been prescribed only for the purpose of determining the minority status of the candidates for admission to B. Ed. courses. This would not amount to a restriction, or impose any fetters in the matter of an individuals’ choice of religion.
(iv) It safeguards the interest of genuine minority students, so that their seats are not taken away by those who resort to false conversions overnight.
(v) As per the court, the rule was brought in view of high disproportion between the colleges and the seats available for minorities.
(vi) The court also said that its ruling did not interfere with the right of a minority educational institution in respect of benefits of the minority communities.
This important judgement has bearing on running of all government aided minority educational institutions across the counry. The court has held that the government-aided minority educational institution cannot claim to have absolute right in deciding appointment of teachers and it can be regulated by a government to ensure excellence in imparting education. The judgement strikes a balance between the two objectives of excellence in imparting education and preservation of the minorities rights.
According to Article 30, all minorities, based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
In this context, the court observed that good quality of education cannot be compromised in national interest irrespective of whether it is minority or majority educational institution. It interpreted that the essence of Article 30(1) is to ensure equal treatment between the majority and the minority institutions and that rules and regulations would apply equally to the majority institutions as well as to the minority institutions.