ANDHRA KESARI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ANR versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 12 S.C.R. 669 · Decided: 25-09-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDU MALHOTRA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
669
ANDHRA KESARI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ANR.
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 106 of 2011)
SEPTEMBER 25, 2019
[INDU MALHOTRA AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
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
   [2019] 12 S.C.R. 669
669
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
670
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
the interest of genuine minority students, so that their seats are
not taken away by those who resort to false conversions over-
night, 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 non-
minority 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
671
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 Foundatio

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.