Point of Law: Governing Body” or the “Managing Council” — which are mentioned in Sections 54 and 55 of the “M.G.University Act” — are only advisory in nature and distinct from the Management or Educational Agency, would fully allay it.

JUDGMENT :

Being apparently threatened by certain orders and actions of the Mahatma Gandhi University, which the petitioners fear would obliterate their constitutionally guaranteed rights under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, they have filed this writ petition.

2. The petitioners in these two cases -which have been heard together, adverting to the common pleadings and reliefs – are stated to be the registered Association of the Managements of Institutions of Higher Education, as also individual Colleges; and all of them assert that said Institutions/Colleges have been declared as Minority Educational Institutions, under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.

3. The petitioners say that though the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 (the “M.G. University Act” for short) contain two provisions, namely Sections 54 and 55, requiring all institutions to have a 'Governing Body' or a Managing Committee', they have never been implemented, as far as Minority Educational Institutions are concerned; and that this is crucial because such bodies, which have nominees of the University or the Government, would impinch the constitutionally protected right of self administration. They allege that, however, through the orders impugned in these writ petitions, the University has now directed them to constitute the afore bodies and have nominated a member from their side, thus forcing them to approach this Court through this writ petition.

4. The petitioners contend that the provisions of Sections 54 and 55 of the ‘M.G. University Act’ cannot be enforced against Minority Educational Institutions since it would offend Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. They aver in this writ petition that “the word 'choice' used in Article 30(1) includes, according to various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and of this Hon’ble Apex Court and of this Hon’ble High Court, a score of rights which help to make the object of establishment and administration, a meaningful proposition. Such rights include among others, to get recognition and affiliation, to receive financial aid from the State, to select medium of instruction, to select management bodies, to select staff and students, provided they are duly qualified and the like” (sic); “that the right to ‘administer’ made available to minority under Article 30(1) means a right to conduct and manage the affairs of the institutions established by it, which is best exercised through the managing body in whom the founders of the institution or those who represent them have faith and confidence and who have fully autonomy in that sphere” (sic); further “that the ‘right to administer’ and ‘choice’ to select the managing body must be unfettered so that the founders or their representatives can shape and mould the institution as they deem appropriate and in accordance with their ideas on how the interest of the community in general will be best served” (sic).

5. The petitioners thus predicate that “interference with the ‘choice’ may take place when such persons who do not belong to the minority are sought to be inducted into the managing body, thus disturbing the composition as determined by the minority or it may take place when the managing body is sought to be replaced by another body, not of the choice of the minority.” (sic)

6. The petitioners rely on various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including Ahmedabad St.Xavier’s College Society and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others [AIR 1974 SC 1389]; State of Kerala & Others v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial and Others [AIR 1970 SC 2079]; D.A.V. College and Others v. State of Punjab [AIR 1971 SC 1737]; Rt. Rev. Bishop S.K. Patro & Others v. State of Bihar & Others [AIR 1970 SC 259] and a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Benedict Mar Gregorios v. State of Kerala & Others [ILR 1977 (1) Kerala 129] in substantiation of their plea.

7. The petitioners thus seek that Sections 54 and 55 of the ‘M.G. University Act’ be struck down, as being unconstitu