A five-year limit on certification of undisputed minority status was held constitutionally unsustainable. The court rejected the objection that the institution must approach the National Commission and dismissed the State's appeal and delay-condonation application for unexplained delay and lack of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 06.08.2020
DELIVERED ON : 13.08.2020
CORAM :
The Hon'ble Mr.A.P.SAHI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND
The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
C.M.P.No.5028 of 2020 and W.A.SR.No.7173 of 2019 The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Principal Secretary, Dept. of Higher Education, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. .... Petitioner -vs-
Syed Ammal Engineering College, Rep. By its Administrative Officer, Dr.E.M.Abdullah Campus, Lanthai, Ramanathapuram 623 502. .... Respondent
Petition filed under Order IV Rules 9 (4) of AS Rules to condone the delay of 253 days in re-presenting the W.A.SR.No.7173 of 2019 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 10.03.2016 made in W.P.No.3011 of 2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.Manoharan Spl.G.P. For Respondent : Mr.Kandan Duraisami
Page 1 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
JUDGMENT
The Hon'ble Chief Justice
This appeal once again raises the continuing legal strife on behalf of the minority institutions claiming protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India to urge that their inviolable protected rights are being infringed by an effort of the State by impinging upon their existing rights to continue to enjoy the status of a minority institution established and administered by a religious minority, without there being any violation of law or mismanagement or any concern of public or national interest. The litigation again brings to the fore an assertion of such rights by educational institutions claiming protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India as against State control being imposed in the manner of recognition and continuing recognition of minority status of such institutions.
Page 2 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
that was noted in our order dated 09.07.2020 extracted hereinunder:-
“ We have heard learned Special Government Pleader and we have also perused the order dated 18.02.2013 passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu and another v. Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar.
West Bengal and others, reported in (2018) 6 SCC 772, para 19 onwards. He prays that he may be granted some more time to further study the matter in depth and then assist the Court.
List on 06.08.2020, as prayed for.“
Page 3 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
by the State by limiting the recognition of a status to a certain period is only regulatory in nature, and not prohibitory, so as to impinge upon fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that it is in the nature of a reasonable restriction to supervise, control and monitor the administrative set up of such a college so as to prevent any mal-administration or mis-management. It is urged that it is to ensure that there is no deviation in the standards of education and the regulatory control over such institutions is necessary so as to prevent the institutions from impinging any facet of the purposes for which such educational institutions have been set up. The control of the Government being
Page 4 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
necessary to that extent, the same does not amount to an interference with the minority status of the institution. The contention raised is that by issuing the Government Order to certify the minority status of an institution for a particular period of time is to extend the benefit and not to restrict the same and therefore, it is a reasonable provision which does not amount to any interference with the status of minority of the institution. Consequently, the conclusion drawn by the learned single Judge that too even based on judgments which no longer hold the field vitiates the impugned judgment.
Page 5 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
any change in the constitution of educational agency or if the institution is run contrary to the Memorandum of Association / By-laws of the Society, it would be open to the Government to issue notice and take appropriate steps in accordance with law.
Page 6 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
given in the affidavit sought for condonation of delay is that the delay had occurred on account of the fact that the request to the Government Pleader for giving his opinion was moved on 23.05.2017, which opinion was rendered on 31.05.2017. The preparation of the appeal and the delay condonation application were vetted on 01.11.2017 and have been finally approved in December, 2017.
Page 7 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
MANAGING COMMITTEE OF RAGHUNATHPUR NAFAR ACADEMY AND OTHERS, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649 . But, in order to give a quietus to the matter, we find it more appropriate to say a few words on the merits of the appeal as well.
Page 8 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
the tenure of the period of certification of such status which was restricted to five years. In our opinion this was not a case of rejection, but of continuing the grant of status which was limited to five years. In this background, there is no occasion for the institution to file an appeal as there is no rejection by the State Government. The institution was aggrieved only on account of the infringement of its fundamental rights as alleged under Article 30 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the State did not have an authority to limit the grant of certification for a period of five years. We, therefore, do not find any strength in the arguments of the learned counsel for the State that the respondent petitioner should be compelled to file an appeal before the National Commission for Minority Educational Institution.
institution at all. The question is, can the status of recognition be limited by prescribing a tenure of five years to the validity of the certificate ?
it would be apt to mention that the issue which was raised before the
Page 9 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
Eleven Judges Bench of the Apex Court in T.M.Pai Foundation and Others vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481 , was answered
by indicating minimal of interference in administrative affairs, but approved regulatory measures that could be put into place for regulating the standards of education in the institution. The Apex Court in the Five Judges Bench decision that was constituted to explain the Eleven Judges Bench, in the case of Islamic Academy of Education and Another vs. State of Karnataka and Others, (2003) 6 SCC 697 , held that Article 30 is not absolute, however, the right under Article 30 was preserved and all minorities continue to have fundamental rights to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. It further went on to hold that the management of a minority educational institution cannot be taken over, but at the same time, entered in a caveat that the Court should not be understood to mean that even in national interest, a minority institute cannot be closed down. In sum and substance, any conditions that would completely destroy the autonomous administration of an educational institution would be ultra vires the provisions of Article 30 of the Constitution of India.
S.B.Sinha, in the Islamic Academy of Education case (supra), it
Page 10 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
was observed that minorities may have a right to establish and administer institutions of their own choice, but they do not have any fundamental right of recognition or affiliation for the said purpose. They must fulfil the requirements of law as also other conditions which may reasonably be fixed by the appropriate Government or the University. The issue of national interest and public interest were also
taken to be relevant factors while granting recognition or affiliation.
restrictions to the extent of permissible closure, if the running of the institution is against public or national interest is established, has been considered in the case of Sindhi Education Society and Another vs. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others, (2010) 8
SCC 49 .
recognition already granted under the Government Order dated 16.07.2012 did require any limitation being prescribed for the continuing recognised minority status of the institution. The respondents are right in their submissions that the issue has been directly answered in W.A. No.1130 of 2013 (between State of Tamil Nadu and Another vs. The Secretary /Correspondent, Loyola College
Page 11 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
(Autonomous) and Another , decided on 11.09.2017
(MANU/TN/5158/2017) , which is extracted hereinunder:-
“1. This appeal is directed against the judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 17.08.2012.
2.1. Respondent No.1, being aggrieved by incorporation of a defined period in the impugned G.O., with regard to its minority 3 status, had approached the learned Single Judge, via a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge, as adverted to above, quashed the impugned G.O.
Page 12 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
“..... 4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitionerCollege, namely, Loyola College, Chennai is one among the recognised educational institutions administered by the Loyola College Society formed by the members of the Congregation of Society of Jesus. The college was established by the St. Joseph's Society, Tiruchirappalli, a society registered under the Societies Act (Registration No.5228 of 1973) and for administrative convenience, a separate society namely, Loyola College Society was formed and it took over the College. The Loyola College Society is a registered Society bearing Registration No.228 of 1973. It was originally registered under the Societies Registration Act No.XXI of 1860 and after the enactment of Societies Registration Act, 1975 which came into effect on 22.04.1978, the Society became deemed to be registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1975 by virtue of Section 53 thereof. The members of the Society of Jesus are popularly known as Jesuits in the State of Tamil Nadu. There are 480 Jesuits working in various schools and colleges, social services and social work centres in Parishes and in Mission Outreach Programmes. This Jesuit Province of Tamil Nadu is called the Jesuit Madurai Province. There are totally 5 Arts and Science Colleges including Loyola and 2 Colleges of Education under the Madurai Province. Some of the other premier institutions of higher education administered by the Jesuits in India are as follows:
Page 13 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
1.Loyola-ICAM College of Engineering Technology
(LICET),Chennai.
2.Loyola Institute of Business Administration (LIBA),
Chennai.
3.Xavier Labour Research Institute (XLRI),
Jamshedpur
4.Xavier Institute of Management (XIM),
Bhubaneswar
5.Loyola College , Thiruvananthapuram
6.St.Xavier's College, Ahmedabad
7.St.Xavier's College, Mumbai
8.St.Xavier's College, Kolkota
9.St.Joseph's College, Bangalore
10.St.Joseph's College, Trichy
11.St.Joseph's College of Commerce, Bangalore
12.St.Aloysius College, Mangalore
13.Xavier Institute of Engineering, Mumbai
14.St.Xavier's College of Management and Research,
Mumbai
15.St.Xavier's College of Education, Mumbai
16.St.Xavier's College, Thiruvananthapuram
17.Andhra Loyola College,Vijayawada
18.St.Joseph's College, Darjeeling
19.St.Xavier's College, Ranchi
20.Xavier Institute of Social Studies, Ranchi
21.St.Xavier's College, Palayamkottai
22.St.Xavier;s College of Education, Palayamkottai
23.Arul Anandar College, Karumattur-Madurai
24.Vidyajoti College of Theology, Delhi
Page 14 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
25.Loyola College, Thiruvannamalai
26.Loyola College of Education, Chennai.
Page 15 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
Government Order for the grant of minority status. The details are as under:
(i) The college has been established with the definite aim of promoting the educational interest and the social advancement of the Christian population.
(ii) The members of the Society which runs the college are all Christians by birth. They belong to the Roman Catholic order of Christianity.
(iii) The college has been functioning as a fullfledged Christian Minority Educational Institution.
(iv) The Educational Agency, namely, the Society is a Christian organisation.
(v) Christianity is a religion recognised and declared as Minority in the State of Tamil Nadu.
The first respondent issued orders recognizing the status of the college as Minority college for one year from 2004-2005. Every year applications were submitted by the petitioner and orders recognizing the college as Minority Institution were issued for the years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007.
Page 16 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
educational agency and its objects. .....”
4.1. The minority status of Loyola College was restricted, as noted above, to a period of five years spanning between 20072008 and 2011-2012.
4.2. The learned Single Judge, relying upon a Division Bench judgement in the case of : Thirumuruga Kirupanantha Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational and Charitable Trust, Salem V. State of Tamil Nadu, 2001 (3) MLJ 433 , ruled against the appellants.
Page 17 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
institution, orders of de-recognition, as a minority institution, can be passed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relies upon a judgement of a Division Bench of this Court in the matter :
Secretary, Jeyaraj Annapackiam College V. State of Tamil
Nadu, (2013) 8 MLJ 509 .
“.... 7. We are in entire agreement with 9 the Division
Bench judgement of this Court reported in Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational and Charitable Trust, Salem V.
State of Tamil Nadu . Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The minority status given to the appellant will hold good without any restriction period. However, if the respondents are able to
Page 18 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
find any change in the constitution of educational agency or if the institution is run contrary to the Memorandum of Association/Bye-laws of the Society, it is open to the Government to issue notice and take appropriate decision in accordance with law. ....”
interfere with the impugned judgement.
however, be no order as to costs. “
Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational and Charitable Trust, Salem V.
State of Tamil Nadu, 2001 (3) MLJ 433 , which had already been set aside on 18.02.2013. We find that the aforesaid submission is correct. The judgment in the case of Thirumuruga Kirupanantha Variyar
Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational and Charitable
Trust, Salem (surpra) was taken up in appeal before the Apex Court in
the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs Thirumuruga Kirupanantha Variyar ,
Civil Appeal No.6730 of 2004 and the ground on which it was set aside
is worth noticing. The judgment dated 18.02.2013 is extracted hereinunder:-
Page 19 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 31.7.2001 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 815 of 1999 by which it has set aside the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.1.1999 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent challenging the order dated 29.9.1998 by which the Government of Tamil Nadu has cancelled the linguistic minority certificate issued in respect of the educational institution for the year 1997-98.
In order to decide this appeal, it is not necessary for us to give the facts in detail. It is evident from the record that a Trust was created for imparting the education. Subsequently, an amendment was brought in the Trust Deed on the basis of which certain preference was given to the persons belonging to a particular community to which the Trustee belonged. A certificate dated 27.10.1997 was granted by the revenue authorities conferring certain benefits under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India for the purpose of admission of medical students for the year 1997-98.
The said order was set aside by subsequent order which was challenged before the learned Single Judge. The main reason of challenge of the subsequent order of withdrawal of the minority certificate had been that the order was passed by the Government without giving any opportunity of hearing or issuing any show cause notice to the respondent or trust or trustees. However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The Division Bench, while dealing with the writ appeal, has not only allowed the writ appeal rather granted a minority community certificate to the respondent assessing the
Page 20 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
merit itself.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and we are of the view that in such a fact situation, the Division Bench ought to have set aside the order of recall of the minority certificate and ask the Government to reconsider after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned but it was certainly not permissible for it to take the task of Government upon itself and grant the minority certificate .
In view of the above, we set aside the judgment and orders passed by the Division Bench, learned Single Judge as well as by the State Government dated 29.9.1998. The State Government is directed to issue fresh show cause notice to the respondent within a period of four weeks from today and respondent is directed to submit the reply within a period of two weeks after receiving the said show cause notice. The Government will decide the same after considering the contents taken in the reply to the show cause and if considered necessary, after giving opportunity of hearing within a period of four weeks thereafter.
The appeal is allowed accordingly.
Page 21 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
presently involved, namely, the period for which a certificate should be issued.
Loyala College case before the Apex Court was disposed of on 05.03.2018 granting liberty to the State to take appropriate steps against the judgment dated 11.09.2017 and if they are still not satisfied, they will be at liberty to seek further remedy. The order of the Apex Court dated 05.03.2018 is extracted hereinunder:-
“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
Delay condoned.
It is stated that the judgment, which is the basis of the impugned judgment, was set aside by this Court on 18.02.2013 in C.A. No.6730/2004, titled “State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. Vs. Thirumuruga Kirupananda Vairyar”.
In view of above, it will be open to the petitioners to move the High Court for consideration of this aspect in accordance with law.
If the petitioners are not satisfied with the order which may be passed, they will be at liberty to take remedy against the same. The special leave petitions are disposed of in above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also stand disposed of. “
Page 22 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
2019 in W.A.No.1130 of 2013, and the Division Bench after hearing the review application and taking notice of these developments and other judgments, held that the State authorities have a right to monitor and regulate, but the view taken by the Division Bench in the judgment dated 11.09.2017 did not suffer from any infirmity. It was again observed that the State has been authorised under the Government orders to take appropriate action if any infraction as to the minority status of the institution comes to their knowledge but limiting the period of certification was unconstitutional. Thus, the final tally is still in favour of the respondent institution by the Coordinate Bench in the judgment dated 21.02.2020, reported in MANU/TN/1877/2020 , which is extracted hereinunder:-
Page 23 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
warrants interference and accordingly, allowed the writ petition and quashed the said impugned Government Order.
(6) Mrs.Narmadha Sampath, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.V.Kathirvelu, learned Special Government Pleader [Edn] has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment in WA.No.1130 of 2013 and would submit that the Division Bench of this Court has placed heavy reliance upon the judgment reported in 2001 [3] MLJ 433 [Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational and Charitable Trust, Salem Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu] and it was followed in a subsequent decision / judgment reported in 2013 [8] MLJ 509 [Secretary, Jeyaraj Annapackiam College V. State of Tamil Nadu]. The learned Additional Advocate General has
Page 24 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
invited the attention of this Court to the judgment dated 18.12.2013 made in Civil Appeal No.6730 of 2004 [State of Tamil Nadu and Another Vs. Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar] and would submit that the judgment in Thirumurga Kirupananda Variyar's case has been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above cited judgment and as such, it is not open to the 1 st respondent/College to claim Minority Status without any restriction of the period. It is also pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, by drawing the attention of this Court to various Government Orders, dated 17.06.1998 ; 06.05.2003 ; 11.12.2006 ; 12.03.2007 as well as the impugned Government Order No.363 dated 08.10.2009, which was quashed by the order passed in WP/NO.24606 of 2012 and would submit that in the judgment reported in 2002 [8] SCC 481 [T.M.A.Pai Foundation V. State of Karnataka and others], it was observed that as regards framing of ''indicia'' for treating an educational institution as a Minority Institution, it was held that the said issue will be dealt with by a Regular Bench and since the Regular Bench is yet to be constituted, the Government, through various orders, had fixed the criteria/conditions for extension of the Religious Minority Status already granted to the Minority Colleges and the conditions are only minimal and only for the purpose of regulating it without appending the Constitution Right to Religious Minority and it cannot be faulted with.
Page 25 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
permitted without any restriction, in the event of mal / misadministration and other shortcomings, it will be extremely difficult to set right the same. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in imposing reasonable and minimal restrictions to monitor such institutions, especially, in the context of students welfare. Hence, prays for allowing of the Review application.
(8) Per contra, Mr.Issac Mohanlal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.P.Godson Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent/College, has drawn the attention of this Court to Thirumuruga Kirubananda Variyar's case reported in AIR 2002 Mad 42 and would submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, thought fit to interfere with the said judgment only for the reason that the Division Bench, in the said judgment, rather granted a Minority Community Certificate to the appellant/respondent therein assessing the merit itself and therefore, only for the said reason, had remanded the matter to the State Government to decide the said issue and therefore, the learned Additional Advocate General is not correct in making submission that the reasons given in the said judgment has been set aside in toto. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent/College has also placed heavy reliance upon the judgment reported in 1998 [6] SCC 674 [N.Ammad Vs. Manager, Emjay High School and Others] and would submit that as per the said decision, when a declaration to the effect that an Institution is a Minority Institution, the recognition pertains to a factual position that the said Institution was established and is
Page 26 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
being administered by a Minority Community and such a declaration is only an open acceptance of a legal character which should necessarily have existed antecedent to such declaration and the said decision has also been subsequently referred to and reiterated in the decision reported in 2017 [8] SCALE 364 [Manager, Corporate Educational Agency V. James Mathew and Others].
(10)The learned Senior counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent/College further submitted that insofar as the 1
Page 27 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
st respondent/College is concerned, it is one of the premier Educational Institutions in India and its Minority Status is never in doubt and the Government Orders referred to by the learned Additional Advocate General also provides for withdrawal of Minority Status by the said Institution, is guilty of commission or omission of any action which is against the Minority Status and as such, there is no necessity to restrict the Minority Status insofar as the 1 st respondent/College is concerned and prays for dismissal of the review application.
Page 28 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
which should necessarily have existed antecedent to such declaration. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the contention that the school can claim protection only after the Government declared it as a minority school on 02.08.1994.''
''The rights conferred by Article 30 of the Constitution of to minorities are in two parts. The first part is the right to establish the institution of the minority's choice and the second part relates to the right to administration of such institution. The word ''establishment'' herein means bringing into
Page 29 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
being of an institution and it must be by minority community. ''Administration'' means management of the affairs of the institution. Minorities in India have a right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice and the State Government or the Universities cannot interfere with the day-today management of such institutions by the members of minority community. Though Article 30 itself does not lay down any limitation upon the right of a minority to administer its educational institution, but this right is not absolute. This is subject to reasonable regulations regulations for the benefit of the institution and the State Government and Universities can issue directions from time to time for the maintenance of standards and excellence of such institution, which is necessary in the national interest.''
Page 30 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
Article 30[1] of the Constitution of India are not absolute and are immuned from any reasonable restrictions.
Page 31 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
of the management of minority educational institutions and the Regulations to promote academic excellence and standards and laid down the proposition that the Right guaranteed under Article 30[1] of the Constitution of India, is not absolute or above the law and that the conditions considering the welfare of the students and teachers must apply in order to provide proper academic atmosphere so long as the conditions did not interfere with the right of administration or management. [paragraph No.106]. The Hon'ble Apex Court of India, in the said decision, has also upheld the vires of certain provisions of West Bengal Madarasah Service Commission Act, 2008.
(19)Now, coming to the facts of the instant case, it is not in serious dispute that Loyola College is one of the premier Institutions administered by the 1 st respondent and the learned Single Judge, in the order dated 17.09.2012 in WP.No.24606 of 2012 as well as the Division Bench of this Court in paragraph No.3 of judgment dated 11.09.2017 made in WA.No.1130 of 2017, had also taken into consideration the fact that very many number of Institutions are run and administered by the said Trust/Society in India. It is to be reiterated at this juncture that the said important fact remains undisputed.
regard, also gives a leverage to the concerned authorities to take necessary action in the event of materials/information come to their knowledge for withdrawal of Minority Status after affording an opportunity to the concerned Institution. Therefore, the review applicants have been granted such a
Page 32 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
power in the Government Orders, to take appropriate action if any infraction as to the Minority Status come to their knowledge.
Page 33 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
Thus, the prescription of limitation of certification of minority rights guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution of India may not be permissible in these circumstances.
period of certification of minority status is necessary to monitor in our opinion also is not logically made out, inasmuch as, the State can take appropriate steps if it finds any deviation in the status of minority or otherwise of the institution for the limited purpose of certification and recognition granted by it. However, the issuance of the certificate for five years in the present case does not indicate any reason not to continue it beyond five years. Even in the affidavit filed in support of the appeal or before the learned single Judge, no material was brought forth to even remotely suggest that the institution had violated any
regulation or norms so as to disentitle it to continue to claim recognition as an institution having minority status. This is a case where there is no such material and therefore, there cannot be any justification for making a provision so as to limit recognition. On the other hand, putting a limitation would not serve any such purpose inasmuch as even during the pendency or continuance of a certificate,
Page 34 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
the State is not denuded by the power of withdrawing any such recognition if any violation is established upon a due consideration of
the facts by following the procedure prescribed by law. There is no rationale decipherable in restricting the period so as to connect it with the power of withdrawal of recognition of the State Government. If the power of the State Government can be exercised reasonably, there is no rational nexus between the object of limiting the period of certification with the object of exercising control or the power of withdrawal of recognition. The status of minority of an institution and the power to withdraw the recognition or certification though connected with each other, are differently placed. The power of withdrawal of recognition or certification is still there with the Government even if the recognition or certification is for an unlimited period. Accordingly, the limitation prescribed does not pass the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India or reasonableness as well. Thus,
the prescription of limitation of certification of minority rights guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution of India may not be permissible in these circumstances.
Page 35 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
not amount to conferment of a minority status and is rather a recognition and acknowledgment of the existing minority status of an institution. The existence, therefore, of such a fundamental right is not dependent upon certification, but is dependent upon the ingredients of the establishment and administration of an educational institution, which, in the present case, has not been disputed by the State at all.
“12. Counsel for both sides conceded that there is no provision in the Act which enables the Government to declare a school as a minority school. If so, a school which is otherwise a minority school would continue to be so whether the Government declared it as such or not. Declaration by the Government is at best only a recognition of an existing fact. Article 30(1) of
the Constitution reads thus:
“30. (1) All minorities, whether based on religion or
language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.”
13. When the Government declared the School as a minority school it has recognised a factual position that the School was established and is being administered by a minority
Page 36 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
community. The declaration is only an open acceptance of a legal character which should necessarily have existed antecedent to such declaration. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the contention that the School can claim protection only after the Government declared it as a minority school on 2-8-1994.
..
15. A Constitution Bench of seven Judges of this Court in Kerala Education Bill, 1957, Re [AIR 1958 SC 956] has examined the constitutional validity of the Bill which was the precursor to the Act when the President of India had sought the advice of the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution. One of the propositions laid down by the said Constitution Bench in the said decision is this: the right guaranteed under Article 30(1) is a right that is absolute and any law or executive direction which infringes the substance of that right is void to the extent of infringement. But the absolute character of the right will not preclude making of regulations in the true interests of efficiency or instruction, discipline, health, sanitation, morality, public order and the like, as such regulations are not restrictions on the substance of the right guaranteed by the Constitution.
16. The aforesaid proposition was approved by another Constitution Bench of this Court in Sidhrajbhai Sabbaiv.State of Gujarat [AIR 1963 SC 540 : 1962 Ker LT 135] and also by a nineJudge Bench of this Court in Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Societyv.State of Gujarat [(1974) 1 SCC 717] .
17. Thus the legal position adumbrated in Kerala Education Bill, Re [AIR 1958 SC 956] remains unchanged now. “
Page 37 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
24.It has to be kept in mind that in such matters, one is dealing with fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III and not with a lease or a licence or a privilege at the pleasure of the Government. A periodical renewal of a Certificate by limiting its validity may not be necessary for an existing status of minority protected as a fundamental right under Art.30 of the Constitution of India, it is not something akin to the extension of a beneficial social scheme which may require a periodical physical verification of the living status of a human being or like renewal of a gun licence which is also a privilege, or in the like manner a driving licence. The principles of administrative law, therefore, while being pressed into service, in the mechanism of granting of certificates and its continuance or otherwise have to be subservient to the constitutional mandate preserved under Art.30 of the Constitution of India.
the grant of certification or otherwise when the legal character of the minority status of an institution on its own undergoes a transformation. For example, an institution initially established as a secular institution or conversly as a minority institution can undergo such a fundamental change so as to destroy its basic character. It is trite to remember Heraclitus who said - “There is nothing permanent
Page 38 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
except change”. Thus a living nature of the status of minority unless duly transformed in a way so as to loose its basic character, minority or otherwise, cannot be deprived of its status which is not dependent upon a certification. The certification or its withdrawal may have an impact upon rights and privileges that may be available to such institutions from the Government and therefore, the Government can exercise control to that extent by imposing regulatory conditions which do not impinge upon the administration of the institution.
Page 39 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
arguments advanced on behalf of the State even in this appeal.
For all the foregoing reasons, we are neither satisfied with the
explanation on delay nor on the merits of the submissions and hence,
the appeal as well as the condone delay application are dismissed. No
costs.
(A.P.S., CJ.) (S.K.R., J.)
13.08.2020
Index : Yes
sra
To
Page 40 of 41
CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
The Hon'ble Chief Justice and Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.
(sra)
To The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Principal Secretary, Dept. of Higher Education, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. CMP.No.5028 of 2020 and WA.No.SR 7173 of 2019
13.08.2020
Page 41 of 41
3 issues framed by the court
Could the State limit an institution's undisputed minority-status certification to five years?
Was an appeal to the National Commission required where minority status was recognised but its certification tenure was restricted?
Had the State shown sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing and re-presenting its appeal?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
ESHA BHATTACHARJEE v. MANAGING COMMITTEE OF RAGHUNATHPUR NAFAR ACADEMY AND OTHERSRelied on¶50
(2013) 12 SCC 649 · Who else cites this
Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny and others v. State of West Bengal and othersExplained¶55
(2018) 6 SCC 772 · Who else cites this
Governing Body of Paramveer Albert Ekka Memorial College vs. State of JharkhandExplained¶55
Governing Body of Paramveer Albert Ekka Memorial College vs. State of Jharkhand, (2018) 6 SCC 788 · Who else cites this
T.M.Pai Foundation and Others vs. State of KarnatakaRelied on¶68
T.M.Pai Foundation and Others vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481 · Who else cites this
Islamic Academy of Education and Another vs. State of Karnataka and OthersRelied on¶69
Islamic Academy of Education and Another vs. State of Karnataka and Others, (2003) 6 SCC 697 · Who else cites this
State of Tamil Nadu and Another vs. The Secretary /Correspondent, Loyola College (Autonomous) and AnotherFollowed¶81
(MANU/TN/5158/2017)
State of Tamil Nadu vs Thirumuruga Kirupanantha VariyarExplained¶167
Civil Appeal No.6730 of 2004
Loyala College caseReferred¶173
Loyala College case
MANU/TN/1877/2020Followed¶183
N.Ammad vs. Manager, Emjay High School and OthersRelied on¶270
N.Ammad vs. Manager, Emjay High School and Others, (1998) 6 SCC 674 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
The State of Tamil Nadu
Syed Ammal Engineering College
A.P.SAHI
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
