Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 908
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G. ROHINI & SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, JJ.
ISHAN EDUCATION RESEARCH SOCIETY – Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR MINORITY EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS & ORS. – Respondents
LPA 773, 774, 776 of 2015 & CMs 25394, 25395, 25397, 25398, 25399, 25401, 25408, 25409, 25411 of 2015
Decided On : 16-03-2017
Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Saroya, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb, Advocate
The central legal point established in the judgment is the strict interpretation and application of the provisions of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, particularly in terms of the requirements for an educational institution to be considered a Minority Educational Institution. The judgment emphasized the need for the institution to be both established and administered by a minority or minorities, and to be primarily for the benefit of the minority community, with a real positive nexus with the minority community.
Headnote:
Minority Educational Institution - Grant of Minority Status - National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act - Section 2(g) - Summary: The court discussed the provisions of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, particularly section 2(g), which defines a 'Minority Educational Institution' as a college or educational institution established and administered by a minority or minorities. The court emphasized the requirement that for an educational institution to be granted minority status, it must be both established and administered by a minority or minorities. The court also highlighted the need for the institution to be primarily for the benefit of the minority community and to have a real positive nexus with the minority community, rather than being a mere pretense. The judgment focused on the interpretation of these provisions and their application to the case, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner society sought minority status for several educational institutions established and run by them, based on the conversion of some of its members to Buddhism. The National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (NCMEI) rejected the applications, leading to the filing of petitions challenging the rejections.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the educational institutions in question did not meet the requirements for minority status as per the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act. It held that the institutions were not established and administered by a minority or minorities, and there was no evidence to prove that they were primarily for the benefit of the minority community. The court also noted the lack of a real positive nexus with the minority community and emphasized that the mere labeling of the society as a minority society was not sufficient to qualify for minority status.
Issues: The key issues revolved around whether the educational institutions met the criteria for being considered Minority Educational Institutions under the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, particularly in terms of being established and administered by a minority or minorities and being primarily for the benefit of the minority community.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation and application of the provisions of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, particularly section 2(g), and the principles established by previous Supreme Court decisions. It emphasized the need for a real positive nexus with the minority community and the requirement for the institutions to be of and for the minorities in truth and reality, rather than merely on paper.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, upholding the rejection of the applications for minority status for the educational institutions established and run by the petitioner society.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
The present appeals are being preferred against the common judgment dated 02.07.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) Nos. 4901/2013, 9265/2014 and 1992/2014. The unsuccessful petitioners are the appellants before us. Since the issue arising in these appeals is similar, we are disposing of the appeals by a common judgment.
2. LPA No. 773/2015 arises out of W.P.(C) No. 4901/2013, which was filed for according minority status to Ishan School and Ishan Institute of Law, Greater Noida, both established and run by the petitioner society. The National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (hereinafter referred to as "NCMEI") vide order dated 05.06.2013 had rejected the said applications without considering the fact that NCMEI had earlier issued a Certificate dated 04.06.2012 declaring Ishan Institute of Management and Technology, established and run by the petitioner society, as a Minority Educational Institution.
3. LPA No. 774/2015 arises out of W.P.(C) No. 9265/2014, which was filed challenging the order dated 12.08.2014 passed by the NCMEI whereby, Lord Buddha Homeopathic College and Hospital, Greater Noida established and run by the petitioner society, was refused minority status by the NCMEI.
4. LPA No. 776/2016 arises out of W.P.(C) No. 1992/2014, which was filed seeking a declaration of the Ishan Institute of Architecture and Planning, established and run by the petitioner society as Minority Educational Institution. The NCMEI passed an order dismissing the application of the petitioner society.
5. W.P.(C) Nos. 4901/2013, 9265/2014 and 1992/2014 were dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide a detailed common judgment dated 02.07.2015 holding as under:-
"24. The counsel for the petitioner Society has also drawn attention to the public notices stated to have been inserted in certain newspapers in December, 2013 in the ’Classified Columns’ by some of its members of having relinquished Hindu religion and having embraced the Buddhist religion. Attention is also invited to such a declaration having been made in the Gazette of India in 2014. However in my view, the said acts/actions simply display the desperation of the said persons to acquire the minority status for their educational institutions. They have not otherwise stated that since the year 2003, they have in their dealings viz. in the matter of marriages of their children or other ceremonies and functions not been following the Hindu religion and have adhered to the tenets of Buddhist religion. No other document where they may have declared themselves to be professing Buddhist religion has been shown or put on record. Even otherwise, as per the Rules and Regulations of the petitioner Society, the membership is open to all with no requirement of the applicant professing Buddhist religion. Similarly, ceasing to profess Buddhist religion is also not made a ground for cessation of members. As per the said Rules and Regulations, all the members have a right to seek election to the Managing Committee/Governing Body of the petitioner Society and which it can safely be presumed would administer the educational institutions established by it. There is nothing else in the said Rules and Regulations to show that the administration of the educational institutions is to be in the hands of only such of the members of the petitioner Society who profess Buddhist religion. Merely labelling a society as a minority society and which label is not even required to be given under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 would not make the society a society of the minority community, if the aims and objectives and rules and regulations show otherwise.
25. Else, the NCMEI has given detailed reasons for its decision and no fault therein has either been pointed out or is found by me.
26. The petitions are highly misconceived and have been filed and are being pursued with ulterior motives and are dismissed with cumulative cost of R
