Case Analysis of St. Stephens College vs University of Delhi [1]
1) Introduction
St. Stephens College at Delhi is affiliated with Delhi University and is one of the three original constituent colleges. A student had filed a writ petition under Article 226 in the High Court which was then committed to the Supreme Court under Article 32. The supreme court decision was given by a 5-judge bench comprising Justice M.H. Kania, Justice K.J. Shetty, Justice N.M. Kasliwal, Justice M. Fathima Beevi, and Justice Y. Dayal. It was given on 6th December 1991.
2) Analysis of the case is as follows-
i) Facts of the case
St. Stephens College (petitioner) is affiliated with the University of Delhi (respondent). The petitioner, on 25 May 1980, published its admission prospectus for the academic year 1980-81, which provided that the application for admission of new students must be received by the college before or on 20 June 1980 and that there would be a final interview round before admission. This admission prospectus also gave preference to Christian students as the college claimed that it is entitled to have its admission program since they are a religious minority institution.
On 22 May 1980, the vice-chancellor of the University of Delhi, constituted an advisory committee to consider dates for admission for various undergraduate and postgraduate courses and other related matters for the academic session of 1980-81. The advisory committee listed that admission to B.A. (Pass)/B.A. Vocational Studies Courses, B.Com. (Pass) B.A. (Hons.) and B.Com. (Hons.) Courses will be based on marks obtained in qualifying examinations. The last date for receipt of applications to all the undergraduate courses will be June 30, 1980, which would be uniformly adhered to by all the Colleges.
These recommendations were accepted by the Central Admission Committee and by the Vice-Chancellor of the University.
On June 5, 1980, the University issued a circular to all affiliated colleges prescribing the last date for the receipt of applications as June 30, 1980.
The Delhi University Students Union had complained to the University authorities that the College was violating the University Statutes and Ordinances by fixing its schedule for receipt of applications as well as by mandating an interview round before admission.
Based on this complaint, the Registrar of the University wrote a letter dated June 9, 1980, requesting the Principal of the College to conform to the University schedule communicated to the College by the circular dated June 5, 1980.
To this the College management pointed out that since they have already proceeded with their program, it would not be possible to make any changes in their admission program at such a later stage.
Then the Vice-Chancellor addressed a letter dated June 7/9, 1980, to the Chairman of the Governing Body of the College stating the decision of the Central Admission Committee and the last date for receipt of admission forms for undergraduate courses, violating which would be very embarrassing to the University authorities.
The Principal of the College was not available at that time and in his absence, the Vice - Chairman of the College replied by letter dated June 12, 1980, to the Vice - Chancellor stating that "the interview of prospective students by a competent body is an integral part of admission procedure at St. Stephen's College and this policy has been followed and highly valued throughout the history of the college ...", thus indirectly pointing out that the College couldn't adhere to the University Circulars. He, however, assured the Vice-Chancellor that no admission list would be put up before July 2, 1980.
A student named Rahul Kapoor seeking admission to the College for an undergraduate course filed a Writ Petition No. 790 of 1980 in the High Court of Delhi under Article 226 of the Constitution on June 16, 1980, challenging the admission schedule of St. Stephen's College and the interview test prescribed for candidates.
Writ petitions were filed before the high court as well as the supreme court challenging the admission schedule and policy of interview tests.
ii) Issue faced by the court.
Supreme Court was faced with three issues-
Whether St. Stephens College is a minority-run institution?
Whether St. Stephens College as a minority institution bound by university circulars dated June 5 and 9, 1980?
Whether St. Stephen's College and the Allahabad Agricultural Institute are entitled to accord preference to or reserve seats for students of their community and whether such preference or reservation would be invalid under Article 29(2) of the Constitution.
iii) Laws involved.
The articles that were involved in the arguments are-
Article 226 of the Indian constitution
Article 32 of the Indian constitution
Article 29 (2) of the Indian constitution
29. Protection of interests of minorities- (2) No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language, or any of them.
Article 30 (1) of the Indian constitution
"30. Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. - (1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice."
iv) Arguments
The following arguments were made -
It was contended that the college was bound to follow all university policies, rules, regulations, and ordinances regarding admission and that the college was not a minority institution and was not entitled to discriminate against students based on religion as it was receiving the grant in aid from the government and hence such discrimination was violative of Article 29(2).
On June 30, 1980, the High Court passed an order directing the College, to receive the applications for admission till June 30, 1980, and prohibiting the College from announcing the admission list, for which the prescribed date was July 2, 1980, till the disposal of the writ petition.
The college also filed a writ petition before the supreme court taking the stand that it was a religious minority-run institution and circulars dated June 5 and 9, 1980 issued by the university were violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under article 30.
The averments in the writ petition, argued by St. Stephens are that it is a religious minority-run institution. It is a constituent College, like an affiliated college admitted to the privileges of the University, but not a maintained college. From the very beginning, the College has been exercising certain obvious and inherent managerial powers: one of them was to fix reasonable dates for admission and the other was for an interview of the candidates. These managerial functions have never been questioned or interfered with by the University. Even assuming, without conceding that within the general power of the regulations, the University has the power to prescribe the date for admission, this would be ex-facie violative of the fundamental right of the College to fix this schedule is ex-facie managerial.
The management must be free of control so that the founders or their nominees can mold the institution as they think fit and per their ideas of how the interests of the community in general and the institution, in particular, will be best served. No part of this management can be taken away and vested in another body without an encroachment upon the guaranteed right.
The selection based on only marks obtained by the candidates on the face of it would be unreasonable and violative of the fundamental right of the College guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution. With these and other contentions, the College prayed for a declaration that the circulars dated June 5 and 9, 1980 issued by the University are void qua the College given its minority status.
V) Judgement
After referring to various similar cases like State of Bombay V. Bombay Education Society[2], S. Aziz Basha versus Union of India[3], A.P. Christian Medical Educational Society V. Government of U.P.[4], the court decided that-
The words establish and administer used in Article 30(1) are to be read conjunctively and the right claimed by the minority community to administer the educational institution depends on proof of establishment of the institution. Hence proof of establishment became a precedent condition for claiming the right to administer the institution.
The minority must be a minority person residing in India, must be well defined religious or linguistic minority, and must not envisage the rights of foreign missionaries.
There must exist some positive index to enable the educational institution to be identified with religious or linguistic minorities.
The minorities whether based on religion or language have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The administration of educational institutions of their choice under Article 30(1) means 'management of the affairs of the institution'.
St. Stephens College was constituted as a self-contained and autonomous institution, and it has the right to choose its own Governing Body and select and appoint its own Principal both of which have a great contributing factor to maintain the minority character of the institution. The University has at no stage raised any objection about any of the provisions of the Constitution of the College. From these facts and circumstances, it becomes clear that St. Stephen's College was established and administered by a minority community, viz., the Christian community which is indisputably a religious minority in India as well as in the Union territory of Delhi where the College is located.
There is no substance in the contention that St. Stephen College lost its minority status being affiliated with the University of Delhi. Moreover, there is no provision in the Delhi University Act with overriding powers precluding the management of the College from exercising its right to administer the College as a minority institution. In matters of admission of students to Degree courses including Honours courses, the candidates must apply to the College of their choice and not to the University and it is for the Principal of the College or Dean of Faculties concerned to take a decision and make final admission. It is, therefore, wrong to state that there is no admission to the College but only to the University.
The right to select students for admission is an important facet of administration. This power also could be regulated but the regulation must be reasonable just like any other regulation. It should be conducive to the welfare of the minority institution or for the betterment of those who resort to it.
The interview can be seen as a supplementary test to evaluate the suitability of the candidates for college admission, but minimal weightage should be given i.e. the interview marks should not be more than 15 percent of the total marks since the student's personality is yet to develop completely.
After considering the various clauses and ordinances of the Delhi University Act, the court held that St. Stevens College is a minority and that there is no provision in the act with overriding powers that precludes the management of the college, the college is an autonomous institution and can elect their principal that contributes largely to state the minority character of the institution. Further, the University of Delhi has also not objected to the provisions of the constitution of the college and that no point denied or admitted the minority character of the college. Thus St. Stevens College can be considered a minority institution.
the court severely criticized the judgment given by the Allahabad High Court in the case of the Allahabad Agricultural Institute as it was driven by the Western political theory or the liberal individualist theory.
The court emphasized the fact that articles 29(2) and 30(1) give preference and a right to admit their community candidates and set up their educational institutions, but the court indicated a point through the Re, Kerela Education Bill [5]that the minorities cannot establish educational institutions only for the benefit of their community. Article 30(1) that mentions the rights of minorities should have a reasonable relation between the aim and the means employed. In theSidhajbhai case[6], the court struck down the recognition offered when the government ordered to reserve 80 percent of seats for government nominees and only 20 percent for the management with a menace that the grant-in-aid would be withheld.
Thus, the court held that the minority-run institutions can give preference to their community candidates and that the minority institutions should have at least 50 percent of the annual admission and other community admissions should be done based on merit.
The judgment was supported by the 4:1 majority and the court dismissed the petition stating that the Allahabad High Court judgment stands modified, but the directions given should not be disturbed and the candidates so admitted should be allowed to complete their courses.
Citation
1) St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi, (1992) 1 SCC 558
2) AIR 1954 SC 561.
3) AIR 1968 SC 662.
4) AIR (1986) 2 SCC 667.
5) Kerela Education Bill, 1957, Re, 1959 SCR 995.
6) Sidhajbhai Sabhai V. State of Bombay, AIR 1963 SC 540.