Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 1551
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
N P Ashley & Others - Petitioner
Versus
The University of Delhi & Others - Respondent
WP (C). No. 6715 of 2019 & CM. Appl. Nos. 28233, 28385 of 2019
Decided On : 11-07-2019
For the Petitioners:Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Advocate, Sunil J. Mathews, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mohinder JS Rupal, A. Mariarputham, Sr. Advocate, Rajesh Roshan, Rahat Bansal, Romy Chacko, Apoorv Kurup, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the right of minority institutions to administer educational institutions of their choice, while also being required to maintain academic excellence and standards, and the need to maintain the Christian tenets and outlook of the institution.
Headnote:
Christian Minority - Admission Process - Constitution of the College - St. Stephen’s College Vs. Union of India (1992) 1 SCC 558, The Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. (1974) 1 SCC 717, T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2002) 8 SCC 481 - The court discussed the decision of the respondent nos.2 & 3 and the respondent no.4 to include a Christian member nominated by the Supreme Council from the Governing Body in the interview panel for Christian candidates alone. It highlighted the legal provisions and interpretations from the St. Stephen’s College Vs. Union of India case, emphasizing the right of minority institutions to administer educational institutions of their choice and the need to maintain academic excellence and standards.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the decision of the respondent nos.2 & 3 and the respondent no.4 to include a Christian member nominated by the Supreme Council from the Governing Body in the interview panel for Christian candidates alone. The petitioners also sought to restrain any other member of the Supreme Council from being present in the interview panel.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the decision to include a Christian member nominated by the Supreme Council from the Governing Body in the interview panel for Christian candidates alone did not violate the Constitution of the College. The court also noted that the petitioners had withdrawn the challenge to the interim order seeking restraint against the presence of any other member of the Supreme Council in the interview panel.
Issues: The main issue was whether the inclusion of a Christian member nominated by the Supreme Council from the Governing Body in the interview panel for Christian candidates alone violated the Constitution of the College.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal principles established in the St. Stephen’s College Vs. Union of India case, The Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. case, and T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. case to determine the rights of minority institutions to administer educational institutions of their choice, the need to maintain academic excellence and standards, and the importance of maintaining the Christian tenets and outlook of the institution.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as the court found that the decision to include a Christian member nominated by the Supreme Council from the Governing Body in the interview panel for Christian candidates alone did not violate the Constitution of the College.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioners vide this petition challenge the decision of the respondent nos.2 & 3 i.e. the Supreme Council of the St. Stephen’s College (hereinafter referred to as the ‘College’ and the Governing Body & Society of the ‘College’ through its Chairman, St. Stephen’s College, University Enclave, North Campus, New Delhi, vide which it was reflected on the website of the ‘College’ to the effect that all Christian candidates aspiring to be students of the ‘College’, would be interviewed by a board comprising one Christian member nominated by the Supreme Council from the Supreme Council or the Governing Body.
2. A further prayer that has been made by the petitioners is to the effect that no member of the respondent no.2 i.e. the Supreme Council of the ‘College’ apart from the respondent no.4 i.e. the Principal of the ‘College’ be allowed to be a member of the interview panel for admissions for the academic year 2019-20 to the St. Stephen’s College.
3. During the course of submissions that had been made on 12.06.2019 qua CM APPL.28231/2019, which was a prayer seeking an interim restraint for any persons other than the Principal of the ‘College’ as a member of the Supreme Council of the respondent no.2 being restrained from being in any interview panel for the admission of the students, reference had been made to the message from the Chairman of the ‘College’ annexed as Annexure P-5 to the petition, with which the petitioner was aggrieved, which was to the effect:
“The Supreme Council had taken a decision at its meeting held on 12th March, 2019 to take steps to ensure that the right of the Christian minority for 50% seats in admissions to the College was safeguarded. The Supreme Counsel has the power to address and oversee all matters affecting the Christian character of the college. In keeping with this the Supreme Council decided that for the admissions for the academic year 2019-2020 to the College, there would be a member of the Governing Body nominated by the Supreme Council to oversee the admission process. This in no way would impact the standard of education or of the students who would be admitted to college. The Supreme Council wishes to reiterate the fact that the high academic standards of the College continue to remain pre-eminent and to this end the Supreme Council remains committed.
This communication is made in clarification of the misrepresentation of the Principal’s Report which was reported in the media.”
4. During the course of the proceedings on 12.06.2019, it was submitted on behalf of the respondent nos.2 & 3 and the respondent no.4 that the said message dated 12.05.2019 was sought to be confined to the extent of the details in the ‘College’ Prospectus, 2019-2020 which as per the reply on behalf of the respondent nos.2 & 3 and the respondent no.4 is stated to be dated 22.05.2019. As per averments made in para 7 of the reply of the respondent nos.2 & 3 and the respondent no.4, which is stated to be vide Clause-7 of the said prospectus to be confined to the Christian candidates only in as much as Clause 7 of the prospectus reads to the effect:
“All Christian candidates will be interviewed by a Board comprising one Christian member nominated by the Supreme Council from the Supreme Council or the Governing Body.”
5. During the course of the proceedings on 12.06.2019, it was also submitted on behalf of the respondent nos.2 & 3 and the respondent no.4 that the Christian member to be nominated by the Supreme Council for interviewing of the Christian candidates would be only a member of the Governing Body of the ‘College’ in terms of its Constitution with reliance having been placed on Clause 6 of the said Constitution which describes the Governing Body of the said college which reads to the effect:
“The Governing Body of the College shall normally consist of 18 persons. These shall be members of the Society
