SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 2502

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT 
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Esther Santham Higher Secondary School - Appellant 
Versus 
The Director of School Education - Respondent 
W.P.(MD)No.19608 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.17393, 17394 and 21879 of 2018
Decided on : 28-04-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.M.Joseph Thatheus Jerome
For the Respondents:Mr.M.Gangadharan, Government Advocate

Minority educational institutions can be established without prior permission, but the State may require a minimum percentage of admissions from the minority community to maintain their status.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 29(2) and 30 - Educational institutions established by religious minority trusts - Writ Petition challenging G.O.(Ms)No.65, School Education Department, regarding minimum percentage of admissions for minority status - Established law that minority institutions can be founded without prior permission, necessity of minority declaration not being precondition - G.O.(Ms)No.65 aims to ensure at least 50% minority admissions in every academic year while safeguarding minority students’ interests. (Paras 16, 29, 30)

(B) Educational Administration - Right of minority educational institutions to regulate admissions and not be constrained by state-imposed caps on minority student admissions, while acknowledging the minimum cap necessary for preserving minority status. (Para 27)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a school established by a minority trust, contested an order from the government directing a closure based on the lack of prior permission and minority status, despite previous court orders favoring the petitioner's claims.

Findings of Court:
The G.O.(Ms)No.65, requiring a minimum cap on minority student admissions, aligns with the Constitution, promoting the interests of minority students.

Issues: Whether the State has the right to impose a minimum admission cap for minority status and if such measures align with constitutional provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that minority institutions must admit at least 50% from their community to maintain status while confirming that no upper cap can be enforced by the State for admissions.

Result: Writ Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. establishment and challenges of the school. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments regarding minority status recognition. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. observations on minority status and admission guidelines. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 24 , 27)
4. legal basis for minority admission caps. (Para 18 , 22 , 23 , 26 , 30)
5. writ petition dismissed. (Para 31)

ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed, seeking to quash the order of the 4th respondent Government made in G.O.(Ms)No.65, School Education (MS) Department, dated 05.04.2018, insofar as the petitioner Esther Santham Higher Secondary School, International Youth fellowship in Christ Old No. 1/113-A, New No.1/197, Kalvilai Road, Meignanapuram, Tuticorin District, is concerned.

Gist of the case:-

2.The petitioner trust established the Esther Sandanam High School by obtaining all necessary certificates from the statutory authority. However, another minority institution in the same area objected to the founding of the school. Taking note of the objection, the third respondent passed an order in Na.Ka.No.3785/82 dated 30.08.2012, directing that the petitioner school is functioning without prior permission and therefore, has to be closed down and the students be admitted in the nearby school. The petitioner having applied for declaration of minority status to the educational agency and its institution challenged the aforesaid order by filing Writ Petition in W.P. (MD)No.12577 of 2012. This Court by order dated 07.01.2013, allowed the said Writ Petition as follows:-

“10. Therefore, the writ Petition to dispose of on the following terms:-

(i) The impugned order for the closure of the School is set aside.

(ii) The respondents 2 and 3 are directed to forward the application of the petitioner for recognition and grant of minority status to the first respondent viz., the Director of School Education, within a week of receipt of copy of this order with necessary enclosures.

(iii) Within 4 weeks of receipt of the application from the respondents 2 and 3, the first respondent shall conduct an enquiry and give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

(iv) In the meantime, the proposal application of the School for permitting the students to write the examinations shall be processed. If recognition is granted before the end of February 2013, the children shall be permitted to write the examinations in the same school itself. If recognition could not be granted before the end of February 2013, the children shall be permitted to write the examination in another nearby Higher Secondary School other than the fourth respondent School.

11.The Writ Petition is disposed of on the above terms.”

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the Government filed a Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD)No.306 of 2013, and in the meanwhile, rejected the petitioner's request for recognition for the school, treating it as a non-minority school, since it had not obtained the status of the trust as one of the minority character. The petitioner therefore, challenged the same by filing W.P. (MD)No.9260 of 2013.

4. In the interregnum, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court disposed of the Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD)No.306 of 2013, directing the petitioner herein to apply for minority status separately to the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner preferred an application independently, for declaring it as a minority educational agency and since no orders were passed, the petitioner filed another Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.36010 of 2013 and this Court by order dated 26.11.2013, directed the respondent therein to pass order within two months from the date of receipt of the order.

5. The petitioner in the meanwhile, had approached the State Minority Commission and the authorities were pleased to verify the records and recommended the case of the petitioner herein for grant of minority declaration status through its no objection letter dated 19.12.2013. The said no objecti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top