Point of Law : Law could not be deemed to be unreasonable unless it was totally destructive or annihilative of the right under Art.30(1).

JUDGMENT:

The Managers and Principals of certain Aided Minority Educational Institutions established and administered by the Christian Community in the State have approached this Court with this writ petition seeking for a declaration that the Board of Adjudication of the Students Grievances (‘BASG’ for short) constituted under Chapter 27 of the Mahatma Gandhi University First Statutes, 1997 (‘Statutes’ for short) has no authority to adjudicate the grievances of the students pertaining to disciplinary proceedings initiated or action taken against them by the Principals of the petitioners' institution. They have also sought for a declaration that Rule 9 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Students Code of Conduct Rules, 2005, (‘Code of Conduct Rules’ for short) would not be applicable to the minority educational institutions run by the petitioners.

2. The facts as detailed in the petition are as under. The petitioners contend that the Colleges run by them are minority institutions and are entitled to the protection guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioners, it is by now settled by a catena of judgments that all minorities, linguistic or religious, have an absolute right to establish and administer the educational institutions and any law or executive directions which seeks to infringe the substance of such rights would be void to that extent. The right to administer, according to the petitioners, would mean management of the affairs of the institutions and the same would include taking disciplinary action against its students, staff etc. It is contended that the minority management would have the exclusive right to initiate appropriate action to enforce and ensure discipline in the campus without the interference of external bodies.

3. The petitioners contend that the Code of Conduct Rules, 2005 was framed on the basis of UO No.162/2004/2/Elen dated 16.02.2005. The aforesaid Rules have been made with an object to maintain and enforce good conduct inside the classrooms and campus in the affiliated Colleges, Department of Teaching and Research and the Self Financing Schools of the MG University. Rule 9 of the Code of Conduct Rules reads as follows:

“9. Right to Appeal-A student against whom the disciplinary orders had been passed; shall have a right to appeal to the Board for Adjudication of Students' Grievances as provided in Chapter 27 of Mahatma Gandhi University Statue 1997. The appellate authority shall have the power to set aside, modify or cancel the order, provided the appeal is found to be genuine and filed within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. The appellate authority shall also have the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal if it is proved to the satisfaction of the appellate authority by the appellant that he was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the time.”

4. By invoking the above Rule, any student, against whom disciplinary action is taken by the Principal, can file an appeal before the BASG and the said Board by exercising appellate powers, is entitled to set aside, modify or cancel the order of disciplinary action taken by the Principal against the students. There are eleven members in the BASG which include three students. Rule 9 thus confers powers to the BASG to veto the disciplinary action taken by the Head of the Institution. This would amount to interfering with the disciplinary power of the minority institutions and would fetter the rights of administration under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. It is contended that only reasonable restrictions can be read into the administrative powers of a minority educational institution and the exercise of such powers should be targeted in such a way that the right of administration can be exercised for the betterment of the institution.

5. As per Rule 6 of the Code of Conduct Rules, the Principal has been conferred the powers to initiate disciplinary action ag