Maharashtra files SLP against HC verdict in minority institutions reservation case
Swati Deshpande| TNN | Jun 29, 2018, 16:09 IST
Mumbai University
Source : https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/maharashtra-files-slp-against-hc-verdict-in-minority-institutions-reservation-case/articleshow/64793661.cms
Swati Deshpande| TNN | Jun 29, 2018, 16:09 IST
Mumbai University
MUMBAI:
About six months after the Bombay high courtcame to the aid of minority
educational institutions and held that they need not reserve seats for
backward class students, Maharashtra government has finally moved the
Supreme Court against the ruling.
The state had recently stayed degree college admissions over quota reservations.
The high court, in its landmark ruling last October by a bench of Justices Amjad Sayed and MS Karnik, had set aside as unconstitutional, a circular issued 17 years ago by the Mumbai university.
The 2001 circular imposed a 50 percent reservation for backward class in minority colleges offering arts, science, commerce and other professional courses.
St Xavier’s College, a leading minority educational institution, through its then principle Fr JM Dias and the Maharashtra Association of Minority Educational Institutions had immediately challenged its validity, fairness and constitutionality.
The HC had set aside the circular dated May 30, 2001 to the extent it provides 50% reservation of seats for backward class students for admission to all courses mentioned in it, in minority colleges.
The state, which recently stayed admission process, had said it would move the SC. It filed a special leave petition days before the SC reopens after summer break. The SLP filed through state lawyer Nishant Katneshwarkar has sought condonation of a delay of about five months in the filing. Rules provide for a SLP to be filed within 90 days of the HC judgment.
The SLP seeks to undo the “injustice” to students from minority section.
“The case in hand is a classic example of “Summam Jus Summa Injuria” i.e. extreme justice is extreme injustice,” says the SLP. It lists out two scenarios for the SC to have a “proper consideration of the case”.
The first illustration says there are many religious or linguistic minority institutions imparting education. “A student from a wealthy family will be able to get admission in a linguistic minority institution on the basis of his linguistic minority but a student from down trodden class will not be able to get admission as he does not belong to that minority quota.”
The second scenario states, “It is a fact that in most of the minority institutions, the required number of students from that particular minority are not admitted. No doubt, the State can take action of withdrawal of their recognition as a minority institution, being the welfare State, the State has not taken action against such minority institutions with a benevolent intention that the students who are taking education in the said institutions should not be deprived of from their education.”
The SLP will be mentioned for a hearing on Monday.
The HC held that under the Constitutional amendments brought about in 2006, ‘minority’ educational institutions "both aided and unaided are exempted from enforcement of the reservation policy of the State in respect of backward class of citizens."
The issue would be whether the state policy is applicable to minority institutions.
In 2002, the HC had stayed the circular. Its interim order, then, had directed that reserved category students could compete for admission on merit with open category students in the balance 50 percent seats from ‘non-minority’ quota. The stay continued till the matter was finally decided.
The Constitution under Article 30 (1) provides for rights of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and run educational institutions.
The field of minority and unaided institutions has been fraught with legal tussles with states. Institutions often had to seek clarity and respite against restrictive regulations, from the Supreme Court.
In 2006, the 93rd amendment to the Indian Constitution mended some pain for minority institutions and proved to be a game changer. It brought in Article 15(5) which barred states from making any special salutary law for admission of socially and educationally backward class or reserved category students to minority educational institutions. Such laws, to promote education among other backward classes were however allowed in unaided educational institutions.
In 2008, a five-judge bench of the SC had upheld the constitutional validity of Article 15(5) and the exemption given to minority institutions. The validity of Article 15(5) was again questioned, now by private unaided institutions in Pramati educational trust case. The SC once again, in 2014, held that 'minority' educational institutions, aided or unaided, are not within the state’s purview.
"The circular is violative of Articles 30 (1) read with Article 15(5) of the Constitution of India. It cannot be sustained,’’ said the HC bench after analysing the SC rulings. It allowed St Xavier’s plea but clarified that it was for the state to verify which of the association’s members are infact minority institutions.
The state had recently stayed degree college admissions over quota reservations.
The high court, in its landmark ruling last October by a bench of Justices Amjad Sayed and MS Karnik, had set aside as unconstitutional, a circular issued 17 years ago by the Mumbai university.
The 2001 circular imposed a 50 percent reservation for backward class in minority colleges offering arts, science, commerce and other professional courses.
St Xavier’s College, a leading minority educational institution, through its then principle Fr JM Dias and the Maharashtra Association of Minority Educational Institutions had immediately challenged its validity, fairness and constitutionality.
The HC had set aside the circular dated May 30, 2001 to the extent it provides 50% reservation of seats for backward class students for admission to all courses mentioned in it, in minority colleges.
The state, which recently stayed admission process, had said it would move the SC. It filed a special leave petition days before the SC reopens after summer break. The SLP filed through state lawyer Nishant Katneshwarkar has sought condonation of a delay of about five months in the filing. Rules provide for a SLP to be filed within 90 days of the HC judgment.
The SLP seeks to undo the “injustice” to students from minority section.
“The case in hand is a classic example of “Summam Jus Summa Injuria” i.e. extreme justice is extreme injustice,” says the SLP. It lists out two scenarios for the SC to have a “proper consideration of the case”.
The first illustration says there are many religious or linguistic minority institutions imparting education. “A student from a wealthy family will be able to get admission in a linguistic minority institution on the basis of his linguistic minority but a student from down trodden class will not be able to get admission as he does not belong to that minority quota.”
The second scenario states, “It is a fact that in most of the minority institutions, the required number of students from that particular minority are not admitted. No doubt, the State can take action of withdrawal of their recognition as a minority institution, being the welfare State, the State has not taken action against such minority institutions with a benevolent intention that the students who are taking education in the said institutions should not be deprived of from their education.”
The SLP will be mentioned for a hearing on Monday.
The HC held that under the Constitutional amendments brought about in 2006, ‘minority’ educational institutions "both aided and unaided are exempted from enforcement of the reservation policy of the State in respect of backward class of citizens."
The issue would be whether the state policy is applicable to minority institutions.
In 2002, the HC had stayed the circular. Its interim order, then, had directed that reserved category students could compete for admission on merit with open category students in the balance 50 percent seats from ‘non-minority’ quota. The stay continued till the matter was finally decided.
The Constitution under Article 30 (1) provides for rights of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and run educational institutions.
The field of minority and unaided institutions has been fraught with legal tussles with states. Institutions often had to seek clarity and respite against restrictive regulations, from the Supreme Court.
In 2006, the 93rd amendment to the Indian Constitution mended some pain for minority institutions and proved to be a game changer. It brought in Article 15(5) which barred states from making any special salutary law for admission of socially and educationally backward class or reserved category students to minority educational institutions. Such laws, to promote education among other backward classes were however allowed in unaided educational institutions.
In 2008, a five-judge bench of the SC had upheld the constitutional validity of Article 15(5) and the exemption given to minority institutions. The validity of Article 15(5) was again questioned, now by private unaided institutions in Pramati educational trust case. The SC once again, in 2014, held that 'minority' educational institutions, aided or unaided, are not within the state’s purview.
"The circular is violative of Articles 30 (1) read with Article 15(5) of the Constitution of India. It cannot be sustained,’’ said the HC bench after analysing the SC rulings. It allowed St Xavier’s plea but clarified that it was for the state to verify which of the association’s members are infact minority institutions.
Source : https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/maharashtra-files-slp-against-hc-verdict-in-minority-institutions-reservation-case/articleshow/64793661.cms
No comments:
Post a Comment