Admission to colleges regulated by Article 29(2).

This is an appeal by the University of Madras against the judgment of Subba Rao, J., in W.P.No.341 of 1951 and the point for determination is whether the directions issued by the appellant to the affiliated colleges not to admit girl students without obtaining the permission of the Syndicate are valid. For a correct appreciation of the true scope and significance of those directions, it is necessary to state the conditions under which they came to be given. Until recently the number of girl students who sought higher education in the colleges was inconsiderable and the women’s colleges that were in existence were quite ample to provide for their needs. Latterly there has been a large increase in their number and as the existing women-colleges were not sufficient to accommodate, them, colleges which were admitting only boys also began to admit girls. Co-education became so general that by 1943, the Syndicate considered it desirable to frame certain rules for regulating the admission of women students in such mixed colleges. Women could be admitted only with the prior sanction of the Syndicate and the maximum number that could be admitted was fixed by the Syndicate on the basis of the amenities and facilities such as separate hostel, play grounds and the like provided by the College. In 1945 a Commission was appointed in accordance with section 16(12) of the Madras University Act to report on the State of higher education and its progress in the State of Madras. The Commission went into the question of women’s education and set out its views in Chapter XIII of the report. It noted with gratification that ‘the education of women had advanced rapidly in recent years’ and observed that notwithstanding the increase in the number of women’s colleges:

“they have been unable to accommodate the rapidly increasing number of applicants seeking collegiate education in every branch.”

Next, after referring to the Rules prescribed by the Syndicate in 1943, the report went on to state that:

“most colleges have not attempted anything more than a nominal compliance with the conditions imposed by the University with regard to common rooms, recreational facilities, etc. On the whole, the life of the women students in these colleges is handicapped. The atmosphere of freedom necessary for their natural development is lacking as the bulk of the students and almost the whole of the staff are men. In addition to this it becomes necessary to impose many restraints for the sake of discipline. It is the unanimous opinion of the Commission that men’s colleges should be precluded from admitting women to the Intermediate classes. The difficulties of women students at this stage are much greater because of their age and the time required to get accustomed to the change from school to college conditions of life and instruction. To achieve this very desirable object it is necessary that more women’s colleges with the necessary hostel accommodation should be established.”

Pursuant to the policy enunciated in the report the Syndicate was granted permission for co-education only when they were satisfied that the college had complied with the requisite conditions. It will thus be seen that the restrictions imposed on the admission of girl students in the colleges are not the outcome of any policy of discrimination against them as in the familiar cases of exclusion of the Coloured Races in America. The report of the Commission shows that the object of the University is to encourage higher studies among women and that the regulations are intended to ensure a proper and healthy education in conditions of co-education. The grounds for differential treatment of boys and girls are not political, but social. It is as well to bear this aspect of the matter in mind in considering whether the directions given by the University are discriminatory.

Now, turning to the facts of this case, in 1949 a new college called the Mahatma Gandhi Memorial College was fou