Supreme Court of India
ANDHRA KESARI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ANRversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
- Citation
- 2019 INSC 1081
- Decided
- 25 September 2019
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- INDU MALHOTRA
Holding
The impugned Government Orders do not violate Article 30(1) and are valid as reasonable restrictions on the right of a minority institution to administer its affairs.
Summary
The appellant, a Christian minority college, challenged three Government Orders (G.O.M. No. 57, 92 and 98) that prescribed criteria for determining minority status of B.Ed. candidates, mandated centralized counselling, and required vacant management‑quota seats to be filled by non‑minority students on merit. The college argued that these provisions infringed its right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution to administer its institution and admit students of its choice. The Court examined the purpose of the orders, noting that G.O.M. No. 57 was introduced to curb the misuse of conversion certificates and protect genuine minority students, while G.O.M. No. 98 aimed to prevent seats from remaining unfilled and to promote merit. Relying on the T.M.A. Pai Foundation judgment, the Court held that the right under Article 30(1) is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable regulation. It found that the orders did not impose any fetters on the institution’s religious freedom or its core right to administer, but merely ensured transparency and efficient utilisation of seats. Consequently, the orders were held to be constitutionally valid. The Court dismissed the appeals and the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether G.O.M. No. 57, 92 and 98 violate the right guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution to establish and administer minority educational institutions.
- Whether the requirement to fill vacant management‑quota seats with non‑minority candidates on merit is a permissible regulation.
- Whether the presence of a government nominee in the counselling process interferes with the autonomy of a minority institution.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Art.30(1)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
Subjects
Article 30minority educational institutionadmission regulationsgovernment ordersB.Ed. coursereasonable restrictionconversion certificatescentralized counselling
Judgment
[2019] 12 S.C.R. 669 669
ANDHRA KESARI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ANR. A
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 106 of 2011)
SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 B
[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. C
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
D
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 E
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 F
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 G
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
H
669
670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.
A 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]
B 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
C 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
D 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
E 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]
F 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]
G 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
H candidates for admission to the B. Ed. Course. This would not
ANDHRA KESARI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ANR.v. 671
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
amount to a restriction, or impose any fetters in the matter of A
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.
Case Law Reference
B
(2002) 8 SCC 481 followed Para 5.5
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 106
of 2011.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.08.2006 of the High
Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal C
No. 928 of 2005 in Writ Petition No. 5750 of 2005.
With
Civil Appeal No. 110 of 2011, Writ Petition (C) No. 244 of 2007.
S. M. Vivekanandh, Bijoy Kumar Jain, Advs. for the Appellants. D
Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, G. N. Reddy, T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy,
Ms. Sujatha Bagadhi, P. Venkat Reddy, Prashant Tyagi, P. Srinivas
Reddy, Gopal Jha, M. P. Gupta, G. S. Makker, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E
INDU MALHOTRA, J.
1. The present Civil Appeals and Writ Petition have been filed
to challenge the vires of the Rules framed by the Government of Andhra
Pradesh vide G.O.M. No. 57 dated 21.03.2005, G.O.M. No. 92 dated
16.11.2006, and G.O.M. No. 98 dated 06.12.2006 (hereinafter referred F
to as the “impugned G.O.Ms”), for admission to the B. Ed. Course in
the State of Andhra Pradesh, and became applicable from the Academic
Year 2006 – 2007. The said G.O.Ms continue to remain in force even
as on date.
At the time of final hearing, the Counsel appearing in Writ Petition G
(Civil) No. 244 of 2007 only pressed this matter for hearing. We are
therefore, deciding the case in light of the facts in the Writ Petition.
2. The Petitioner – Institution is a minority institution which was
granted the status of a “Christian Minority Educational Institution” by
the Government of Andhra Pradesh. H
672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.
A As per G.O.M. No. 55 dated 20.03.2005, minority colleges were
permitted to fill up 85% of their total seats, with students belonging to
the minority community, as the Management Quota.
3. The Petitioner – Institution filed the present Writ Petition to
challenge the impugned G.O.Ms on the following grounds :–
B
i) As per Clause 3(i) of the G.O.M. No. 57 dated 21.03.2005,
the Government of Andhra Pradesh directed that the criteria for
determining the minority status of candidates would be as
follows :–
C “As there were reports of students/candidates obtaining
religious conversion certificates overnight by exploiting
the provisions contained in G.O. 6th above, the following
condition is prescribed. For the purpose of determining
the minority status of candidates seeking admission into
85% management quota in the B.Ed., minority colleges,
D
the Secondary School Certificates or Transfer
Certificates (T.C.) from the school from which they have
studied shall be the basis. In the absence of a T.C., the
candidate should obtain a certificate from the Head of
the Institution in which he/she studies in the proforma
E prescribed (Annexure-I) to this order. Further, the
students submitting bogus minority community
certificates shall be dealt with under the relevant
sections of the I.P.C. apart from losing their seats
following the due procedure.”
F (emphasis supplied)
ii) The second principal ground of challenge is that as per G.O.M.
No. 92 dated 16.11.2006, Clause 4(viii) provided as follows :-
“(viii) The minority status of the students shall be
G decided as per the orders issued in G.O.M. No. 57
School Education (Trg-A1) Department dated
21.03.2006.”
Clause 5 set out the general guidelines for admission in the order
of merit on the basis of the rank assigned in the Ed. CET to the
H extent of sanctioned seats.
ANDHRA KESARI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ANR.v. 673
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
Clause 6 prescribed centralized counselling as the only mode for A
admission even in respect of minority institutions.
iii) The third ground of challenge is the amendment made to
G.O.M. No. 92 dated 16.11.2006 vide G.O.M. No. 98 dated
06.12.2006. The following clause was incorporated by the
amendment :– B
“(8). In clause (iii) (b), after sub-clause para (10), the
following shall be inserted, namely :-
(10 A). The Convenor, Ed. CET-AC Admissions shall
conduct the counselling in phases if required till the last C
rank of Ed. CET. The Convenor, Ed. CET-AC Admissions
shall fill the left over seats of the un-aided colleges in
the presence of a Government nominee by following rule
of reservation through counselling process, in case the
seats in minority colleges are to be filled up with non-
minority candidates.” D
(emphasis supplied)
iv) It was submitted on behalf of the Petitioner – Institution that
the direction under G.O.M. No. 98 dated 06.12.2006 that unfilled
seats in the 85% Management Quota, be allotted by the E
Convenor, Ed. CET to non-minority students on merit, is an
intrusion on the right to administer the minority institutions
conferred by Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.
4. The Respondent – State contended that the impugned G.O.Ms
do not in any manner violate the fundamental rights of the Petitioner – F
Institutions whatsoever.
4.1. The condition making the SSC Certificate as the basis for
proving the minority status of the student, was imposed in light
of the statistical data, which revealed that many students were
converting over-night so as to obtain admission in the G
Management Quota of Minority Educational Institutions.
4.2. The Petitioner – Institution had an unhindered right to select
minority students to fill up the 85% of the seats by the
Management Quota, subject to merit in the Common Entrance
Test. H
674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.
A If however, seats in the Management Quota of the Minority
Education Institution, remained unfilled by students from the
minority community, the unfilled seats would be allotted by the
Convenor to candidates on the basis of merit in the Common
Entrance Test.
B 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and
perused the material on record, as also the written submissions filed
by the parties. We would observe :–
5.1. G.O.M. No. 57 dated 21.03.2005 had been issued for the
purpose of determining the minority status of candidates
C seeking admission in the Management Quota. The G.O.M.
provides that the SSC/Transfer Certificate should be the
basis for making a valid claim by a candidate that he or she
belongs to the minority religion, to be eligible for admission.
Statistical data was placed on record before the High
D Court, which is recorded in the impugned judgment, which
highlights that Baptism Certificates were being obtained by
students from other communities, so as to obtain admission
in the Management Quota of Minority Educational
Institutions.
E In the additional counter affidavit filed by the Respondent
– State before the High Court, it was revealed that a large
number of admissions were made on the basis of conversion
certificates. The enquiry conducted revealed that 67 out of
200 students in New College of Education, Nizamabad; 90
out of 136 in Rayalseema College of Education, Kurnool;
F
82 out of 102 in Bhongir College of Education, Bhongir; 60
out of 85 in Jyoti College of Education, Siricilla; 91 out of
102 in Anebesent College of Education, Khammam; 85 out
of 102 in Trinity College of Education, were admitted on the
basis of Baptism Certificates. In most of these cases, the
G candidates declared themselves to be Christians subsequent
to the date of submitting their applications for the Entrance
Test.
Considering the extensive misuse of such certificates, the
State Government deemed it appropriate to issue G.O.M.
H No. 57 dated 21.03.2005 making the SCC Certificate as the
ANDHRA KESARI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ANR.v. 675
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
basis for determining the minority status of a student, in order A
to prevent misuse of Conversion Certificates by ineligible
candidates, so as to ensure that only bona fide students
were granted admission in the Management Quota of
Minority Institutions.
G.O.M. No. 57 prescribed a uniform criteria for B
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 over-night, for the purpose of securing
admission. This would preserve the minority character of
C
the Institution, rather than act as an intrusion of the same.
5.2. The impugned G.O.Ms grant full autonomy to the Minority
Educational Institutions to provide quality education for the
minority community, by filling up 85% seats with meritorious
minority students, and granting them priority for admission
D
in such institutions.
5.3. 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
E
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
F
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 G
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 H
676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.
A 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.
5.4. Furthermore, the presence of a Government Nominee in the
counselling process was to ensure that the admission process
B 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.
5.5. The impugned G.O.Ms are not violative of Article 30(1) of
the Constitution of India. Article 30(1) states that all
C 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
D amenable to regulation. The protection granted to Minority
Educational Institutions to admit students of their choice is
subject to reasonable restrictions.
In T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of
Karnataka and Ors.,1 this Court held that :–
E “The right to admit students being an essential facet of
the right to administer educational institutions of their
choice, as contemplated under Article 30 of the
Constitution, the state government or the university may
not be entitled to interfere with that right, so long as
F the admission to the unaided educational institutions is
on a transparent basis and the merit is adequately taken
care of. The right to administer, not being absolute, there
could be regulatory measures for ensuring educational
standards and maintaining excellence thereof, and it is
more so in the matter of admissions to professional
G institutions.”
(emphasis supplied)
5.6. The impugned G.O.Ms do not impose any fetters on the
freedom of the minority institutions to profess, propagate,
1
H (2002) 8 SCC 481.
ANDHRA KESARI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ANR.v. 677
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
and practice their religion, or the right to establish and A
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.
B
5.7. The contention of the Petitioner – Institution that the
impugned G.O.Ms are unconstitutional, and violative of their
fundamental rights, is liable to be rejected.
5.8. The impugned G.O.Ms were brought into force w.e.f. the
academic year 2006-2007. These G.O.Ms have remained C
in force ever since. All Minority Educational Institutions in
the State of Andhra Pradesh, including the Petitioner
Institution, have been following these G.O.Ms since the past
over 13 academic years without any complaint. There is no
justifiable reason why the same should be discontinued at
this stage. D
In light of the aforesaid discussion, the Civil Appeals and
the Writ Petition are dismissed as being devoid of any merit.
All pending Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed
of.
E
Ordered accordingly.
Kalpana K. Tripathy Matters disposed of.
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Article 30"Sign in to search