Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 27948
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S. Manikumar, CJ, Shaji P. Chaly, J
JUSTINE PALLIVATHUKKAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (MINORITY WELFARE) DEPARTMENT – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 17496 OF 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: J.JULIAN XAVIER, C.JOSEPH ANTONY, ASHA TREESA JOSE, SRI. RAJU JOSEPH
For the Respondents:SHRI.V.MANU, SENIOR G.P., SRI.K.ANAND, BENNY ANTONY PAREL, AMEER SALIM, SRI.K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, ADVOCATE GENERAL
Legislation allowing appointments from the same minority community in the Commission does not violate Articles 14 and 16; the legislative purpose is prioritized over community representation.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Kerala State Commission for Minorities (Amendment) Act, 2017 - Writ petition challenging amendment on grounds of unconstitutionality and violation of fundamental rights - Amendment allowing members from the same community contravening original intention of representation from different communities - Court found the amendment reasonable for smooth functioning without violating Articles 14 and 16. The amendment did not grant arbitrary powers and still aims at the advancement of all minority communities. (Paras 1-49)
(B) Public Interest Litigation - The scope of public interest litigation in challenging legislative competence and rights protected by the Constitution - The measure of reasoning beyond malafide claims by the petitioner - The need for legislative purpose over composition. (Paras 12-40)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contended against an amendment allowing appointments from the same minority community, asserting violations of equality before law and contesting lack of legislative competence, having previously succeeded in a parallel case regarding scholarship quotas.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the amendment, emphasizing its alignment with legislative purpose and the constitutional framework, serving the broader interest of minority advancement.
Issues: Whether the amendment to allow community members in the Commission violates fundamental rights ensuring equality and community representation.
Ratio Decidendi: The amendment was upheld as not undermining constitutional principles; the relation of legislative purpose was prioritized over community representation.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against minority commission appointments and legislative amendments. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. legislative purpose of the amendment and preceding complaints. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. argument against constitutional validity of legislative actions. (Para 12 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. court's evaluation of claims regarding community representation. (Para 24 , 25 , 27 , 38 , 48) |
JUDGMENT
S. Manikumar, CJ
Petitioner, claiming to be a lawyer by profession and a member of the Roman Catholic community, a recognized minority community in the State, has filed the instant public interest writ petition challenging the Kerala State Commission for Minorities (Amendment) Act, 2017 , on the ground that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India .
2. Reliefs sought for in the writ petition are as under:
(i) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other Writ, Order, of direction, quashing Exhibit-P1 amendment Act, the same being unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 13(2) of the Constitution of India .
(ii) Issue a declaration that the appointment of persons from the same minority community as members of the Kerala State Minority Commission is unconstitutional and void.
(iii) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or direction, directing the 1st respondent Government to reconstitute the 2nd respondent Commission by including persons from different minority communities in Commission.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petition are that; petitioner approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C) (cited supra)No. 24355 of 2020, challenging the disproportionate and discriminatory quota fixed by the Government in the matter of educational scholarship among minority communities. After hearing the Government and affected parties, this Court allowed the said writ petition by declaring that the quota fixed for educational scholarships in the ratio 80:20, is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India .
4. The present writ petition is filed in public interest, challenging a legislation by which, the State Government has given unbridled power to constitute a Minority Commission in the State under the Kerala State Commission for Minorities Act, 2014 ('Act, 2014' for short). Pursuant to the said legislation, viz., Kerala State Commission for Minorities (Amendment) Act, 2017 , clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 was amended on the ground that the same is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
5. Section 3 of the Act, 2014 as it originally stood, specifies that if the Chairman of the Commission is appointed from a particular minority community, the other members should be from another minority community. Therefore, when the Commission was originally constituted, a member of the Muslim Community was appointed as the Chairman and a member belonging to Roman Catholic community was appointed as a member. Thereafter, amendment was made through an Ordinance, viz., Kerala State Commission for Minorities (Amendment) Ordinance, 2017, which came into force w.e.f 3.2.2017, and an Act was passed. As per the amended provision, the word 'another' contained in (2)(b) was substituted by the letter 'a' by which, the stipulation in the original enactment that the Chairman and member shall be from different communities was taken away.
6. Petitioner has further stated that after the term of the members originally constituted had expired, the Chairman and a woman member were appointed, keeping the post of the 3rd member vacant. The amendment was brought in as submitted above and thereafter, the 4th respondent, who is a member of Muslim Community, was appointed.
7. Petitioner has contended that action of the State Government in appointing the Chairman, as well as other member from the Muslim community, is arbitrary, mala fide, and negation to the interest of other minority communities. The amendment has given unbridled power to the E
