RT. REV. MAGR. MARK NETTO versus GOVT. OF KERALA & ORS.

Citation: [1979] 1 S.C.R. 609 · Decided: 11-09-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
.~---+-
609 
RT. REV. MAGR. MARK NETTO 
v . 
• 
GOVT. OF KERALA & ORS. 
September 11, 1978 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, CJ., R. S. SARKARIA, N. L. UNTWALIA, 
0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND A. P. SEN, J.T.J 
Constitution of India-Article 30(1) Kerala Education Rules 1959-Rule 
12(iii). 
The right of a n1inority educational Institute-Whether state can refuse a 
rninority educational institution from admitting the girl students. 
The appellant opened a High School mainly for the benefit of the students 
of the Christian community in the year 194 7. The necessary sanction was 
accorded by the Govt. of Travancore. O'nly boys were admitted in the school 
till the end of the academic year 1971-72. In the subsequent 
year, 
the 
management constructed building in the school compourid to provide accom;. 
modation for girl students. 
The Manager applied to the Regional Deputy 
Director for permission to admit girl students in the school. The regional 
Deputy Director refused to give sanction for admission of the girl students. 
The main ground of refusal was that the school was not opened as a mixed 
school and that the school had been running purely as a boys' school for 
25 yea.rs. Another reason given was that there was facility for the education 
of the girls of the locality in a near·by girls school which was established by 
the Muslims and was also a minority institution. An appeal filed before the 
educational authority failed. 
Under rule 12(i) of Kerala Education Rules, 1954 all primary schools 
are deemed to- be mixed schools and the admission thereto shall be open to 
boys and girls alike. Under the special circumstances the 
Director 
may 
exempt particular institutions so that admission thereto might be restricted to 
boys or girls. Rule 12(ii) provides that admission to schools which are specifi· 
cally recognised as girls' schools shall be restricted to girls. 
However, 
the 
Director has power to empower boys below 12 years up to 7th standard to 
be admitted. Rule 12(iii) provides that the girls may be admitted in schools 
for boys if in the town there are no girls' schools. 
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the order 
of the educational authorities. The High Court came to the conclusion that 
since only boys were admitted in the school for a long time the ~eJf·imposed 
restriction by the management made· it a boys' school and that the authorities 
bad powers under rule 12(iii) to prevent the school from admitting the girls. 
The High Court held that the basis of the rules was that as far as possible 
girls should be given education in girls' schools only and that it was in the 
nature of regulation for discipline. 
Allowing the appeal the Court, 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
610 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1979] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: (1) The ambit and content of Art. 30 of the Constitution has 
B 
been the subject matter of consideration and pronouncement by this Collrt 
in several decisions. [614 Al 
In Re Tlte Kera/a Education Bill, 1957, [1959) SCR 995; Tile Alimedabad 
St. Xaviers College Society & Anr. etc. v. State of Gujarat -& Anr., [1975] t 
SCR I 73 referred to. 
The ·right conferred on the religious and linguistic minorities to administer 
educational institutions of their choice is not an absolute right. 
The right is 
not free from regulation. Just as regulatory measures are necessary for main~ 
taining the educational character and content of minority institutions, similarly 
regulatory measures are necessary for ensuring orderly, efficient and sound 
administration of the school in the matter of maintaining discipline, health. 
C 
morality and so on and so forth. [615 A-CJ 
D 
E 
F 
G 
(2) The dominant object of rule 12 is not for the sake of discipline or 
morality. Any appreciation of the deterioration in the moral standard of stu-
dents, if co--education is permitted in secondary schools, does not seem to be 
the main basis of the rule, although it may be a secondary one. [615 E-F] 
(3) The self-imposed restriction by the management in vogue for a number 
of years restricting the administration for boys only is \vholly insufficient to 
cast a legal ban on them not to admit girls. While granting the permission 
for opening the school no restriction was imposed for not admitting any girl 
student. If the successor school authorities wanted to depart from the self· 
imposed restriction, they could only be prevented from doing so on valid. 
lega-1 and reasonable grounds and not otherwise.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.