This article is written by Janani Parvathy J. It provides a detailed legal analysis of the landmark decision in St. Stephen’s College vs. University of Delhi. It discusses the facts of the case, the issues raised, the arguments from both sides, and the judgment, along with the precedents cited in the ruling. This article also contains the aftermath and a critical analysis of the judgement.

Table of Contents

Introduction 

The appellants and respondents are famous education institutions providing degrees in Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), Bachelor of Commerce (B.Com.), and Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.). St. Stephen’s College vs. University of Delhi (1991) is one of the oldest landmark cases that decided the validity of minority institutions affiliated with and funded by the state. Article 29(2) cautions that religion, caste, creed, or race cannot be parameters to deny admission to a state-funded college. Additionally, through the 42nd Amendment of the Indian Constitution, it was established that the ‘State’ is separate from religion and cannot actively promote or propagate any single religion. On the other hand, Article 30 of the Constitution recognises the rights of minorities to form and administer their institutions. Article 30(2) further mandates the state to treat minority-run institutions on par with other institutions and punishes any discrimination against them. 

Keeping the above background in mind, a question arises: are state-funded and affiliated but minority-run institutions, i.e., colleges giving special preference based on religion, valid in the eyes of the law? The St. Stephen’s College case is famous for adequately answering this important legal issue. It analyses whether a minority-run institution funded by the state violates Article 29(2) or not. Furthermore, this case also examines the effect of state legislation interfering with the independence of minority-run institutions. Very few cases before this have tried to analyse this question in detail. In St. Xavier College vs. State of Gujarat (1974), a similar question was decided, and the court noted that minority-run institutions have a right to prefer and appoint students of their religion. The present case, St. Stephen’s College vs. University of Delhi, builds upon its precedent, St. Xavier College vs. State of Gujarat and  in detail analyses this issue.

Download Now

Details of the case 

Facts of the case

The Supreme Court first discussed some brief facts before providing a detailed analysis of the issue. The colleges in question are St. Stephen’s College in Delhi (affiliated with Delhi University) and Allahabad Agricultural Institute in Naini (affiliated with U.P. University). Both colleges are affiliated with and funded by the state but have their own admission processes. They give preference to Christians, as they claim to be minority-run institutions. The issue before the Court was the validity of having a separate admission programme and giving special religious preference during admissions.

Facts of the appeal by St. Stephen’s College

St. Stephen’s College is one of the oldest colleges in Delhi, initially affiliated with Calcutta University, then Punjab University, and later with Delhi University.  St. Stephen’s College offered three-year undergraduate programmes for B.A./B.Sc. (Hons), B.A. (Pass), and B.Sc. General, as well as post-graduate courses in M.A. and M.Sc. for first year students from throughout the country for the years 1980–81.

On May 25, 1980, St. Stephen’s issued an admission prospectus inviting applications, with a deadline of June 20. The prospectus also mentioned an interview round as part of the selection process. However, three days earlier, on May 22, the Vice-Chancellor, using his emergency powers under Statute 11-G(4) of Delhi University, set up an advisory committee to decide the admission and registration schedule for several undergraduate and postgraduate courses, including those at St. Stephen’s.

The advisory board proposed three changes. Firstly, it introduced merit-based criteria for admission into colleges, specifying that the percentage of marks in qualifying exams would be considered. Secondly, it established June 30 as the last date for receiving admission applications for all colleges under its jurisdiction. Lastly, the committee allowed colleges to give more weightage to particular subjects if they deemed it necessary, provided this information was disclosed in a prospectus beforehand.

On June 5, a circular was issued by the University of Delhi that listed the changes recommended by the advisory board. It reiterated that June 30 was the last date for admissions. Then, on June 9, another circular was issued, emphasising that admissions to B.Com (Hons), B.A. Pass, and B.A. Vocational programmes should be merit-based, i.e., based on the percentage of marks obtained in the qualifying exams.

The new rules introduced by the University of Delhi conflicted with St. Stephen’s admission schedule. The Delhi University Students Union complained to the University authorities that the College was violating the university’s admission process. In response to the complaint, the Registrar of the University wrote to the College on June 9th, asking to conduct the admission process based upon the new schedule released by the University. To this, the College replied that it would be difficult to conform to the new rules since they were already in the last stages of their admission process.

The Vice-Chancellor then took up the matter and wrote to the College, asking them to extend their admission dates in order to comply with the University’s guidelines and the specified deadline of June 20 for admission. The Vice-Chairman of St. Stephen’s College responded, stating that it was neither possible to remove the interview round nor to adhere to the new rules introduced by the University’s circular. 

Proceedings before the High Court

Rahul Kapoor, a student, approached the Delhi High Court through a Writ Petition No. 790 of 1980, under Article 226, challenging the distinct admission procedure and guidelines of St. Stephen’s College. The Writ Petition was filed before the High Court on June 16, 1980 and the order was passed on June 30, 1980.  The Delhi High Court ordered the College to allow applications for admission until June 30 and restricted the College from issuing the first provisional admission list until the disposal of the writ petition. The High Court noted that it issued such an order because St. Stephen’s College did not challenge the circulars of the University. Aggrieved by this order, St. Stephen’s College approached the Supreme Court and filed a Writ Petition No. 1868 of 1980 under Article 32.

Facts of the appeal by Allahabad Agricultural Institute

The Allahabad Agricultural Institute is a Christian minority institution founded in 1911 by Dr. Sam Higgin-bottom. It offers several undergraduate and postgraduate courses, including Inter Agriculture, Inter Home Science, B.Sc. in Agriculture, B.Sc. in Home Economics, B. Tech. in Agricultural Engineering, M.Sc. in Agriculture, and M.Sc. in Agricultural Engineering. 

The institute has its own admission procedure and conducts a separate entrance test each year. The rules for admission into the various degree courses include a 50% quota for church-sponsored students (Christians), a separate domicile quota for U.P. students with additional reservations for church-sponsored students, a state-wise quota, scheduled caste reservations, and a 25% reservation for women. Some students  who were found ineligible for admission approached the Allahabad High Court through a writ petition under Article 226, challenging the separate reservation for church-sponsored Christian students.

Proceedings before the Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court allowed the petition, observing that the separate religious reservation for Christians violated the principle of equality. It further observed that such a reservation contravened Article 29(2) of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination by the State on the basis of religion or race. Aggrieved by the High Court’s order, the Allahabad Agricultural Institute approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court combined this appeal with other civil appeals filed by some of the students, as they were all connected and were against the same judgement of the Allahabad High Court. 

Issues raised 

The Supreme Court combined the cases of St. Stephen’s College and Allahabad Agricultural Institute and framed the following issues: 

  • Whether St. Stephen’s College is a minority-run institution?
  • Whether St. Stephen’s College, if it is a minority-run institution, should abide by the admission rules issued by Delhi University?
  • Whether Allahabad Agricultural Institute and St. Stephen’s College can reserve seats for their own community members and whether doing so would violate Article 29(2) of the Constitution? 

Arguments of the parties

Appellant 

St. Stephen’s College approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 and filed a Writ Petition No. 1868 of 1980. The college asserted that they were a minority-run institution, privileged, and independent. The counsel for the college argued that from early on, the college had been exercising its managerial powers and independently deciding its own admission schedule and processes. Setting admission dates and conducting interviews were some of the administrative functions the college had performed autonomously. The counsel further contended that these functions were performed without any interference from the University. 

The counsel argued that an admission schedule fixed by the University would violate the fundamental right of the College to perform its managerial duty, i.e., manage its own admission procedures. They contended that the management of the college needed to remain independent for better achievement of its goals and that the managerial power of the college should not be encroached upon by the University. The counsel contended that primarily the right to establish and administer minority institutions, the right to education, and the right to religion were violated by the interference of the University. The college contended that they were an autonomous body who were privileged to follow their own admission process.

Backing up their claim with statistics, the counsel for the college contended that owing to the high number of applications, it would be impossible to select students without any bias. The counsel highlighted that the college receives over 6,000 applications for merely 300 seats. The counsel further pointed out the importance of the interview process in screening and eliminating candidates, highlighting its role as an independent managerial function. Thereafter, the counsel requested that the circular issued by the University be held inapplicable to the College. 

The Court issued a conditional order, or rule nisi, allowing the College to use its own admission schedule.

Delhi University Students Union

The Delhi University Students Union was an intervenor in the petition (W.P. No. 1868 of 1980) filed by St. Stephen’s College, they prayed that St. Stephen’s College be directed to follow the rules laid down by the University through the circular. Additionally, the Delhi University Students Union, along with Dr. Mahesh Jain, approached the Supreme Court through writ petition nos. 13213-14 of 1984. under Article 32. They requested the Hon’ble Court to direct the College to abide by the university’s circular and challenged the Christian reservation provided by the College.

The Students Union argued that the College was not a minority-run institution, as it had neither been declared to be one nor recognised as one by the University. Even if it were assumed to be a minority-run institution, they argued that providing reservations on religious grounds would violate Article 29(2) since the College was funded by the State. 

Respondents

The University of Delhi was the respondent in the present case. The counsel for the University referred to the Delhi University Act, Ordinance 2, and Statute 18 to point out that colleges funded by the State were required to abide by the Statutes and Ordinances made by the University. Furthermore, the counsel highlighted Ordinance 18, specifically clause 6-A (5), which stipulates that the staff council must make recommendations for the admission policy based upon and within the guidelines laid down by the University, which cannot be contrary to the admission rules specified by the University.

The counsel also pointed out that since the College received funding from the University Grants Commission, a State body, any favoritism based on religion would violate Article 29(2) of the Constitution. The counsel further stressed that there was no violation of the fundamental rights of the College and that the College was statutorily bound to follow the circulars issued by the University. 

Laws discussed in St Stephen’s College vs. University of Delhi (1991)

Article 29 of the Indian Constitution 

Article 29 talks about the protection of the interests of minorities. Sub-clause 1 of the article empowers citizens to conserve and protect their distinct language and culture. Subclause 2 prevents discrimination by the state on grounds of religion, race, or language or any of them, and the same was analysed by the Court in this case. The Court observed that Article 29 created a bar on minority institutions receiving grants from the state if needed for their maintenance in this case.

Article 30 of the Indian Constitution 

Article 30 pertains to the rights of minorities to create and administer their own educational institutions. Article 30 empowers communities to establish and administer their own educational institutions. Subclause 2 of the article states that the state must not discriminate against a minority while giving grants. The Supreme Court comprehensively analysed Article 30 in this case. The Court observed that Article 30 of the Constitution empowered minorities to form and administer their own institutions and work towards the welfare of their community members. Article 30 also enables the institutions to reserve certain seats for the benefit of their community members. 

Sections 21 and 23 of the Delhi University Act of 1922

Section 21 of the Act specifies the formation of an executive council. Section 23 of the Delhi University Act of 1922 explains the composition of the academic council. Both the Executive Council and the Academic Council played an important role in the issuance of the new admission schedule for colleges under Delhi University and therefore, the Court briefly analysed their composition and role.

Article 15 of the Indian Constitution 

Article 15 prohibits discrimination of any kind. Article 15 punishes discrimination based on caste, creed, religion, race and language. Subclause 2 of Article 15 states that no discrimination in opportunity, access to public shops, religious worship places, ghats, roads, etc. can happen. However, the further sub-clauses of Article 15 allow the state to positively discriminate to empower the underprivileged and marginalised sections of society. The Court analysed whether the admission process at St. Stephens College violated Article 14 and promoted discrimination. 

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution 

Article 14 lays down the provision of equality before the law.  Article 14 states that the state cannot deny any person equality before the law, i.e., under the law, the state must treat all persons equally. It specifies two parts, the first being equality before the law and the second being equal protection of the laws. The first principle states that all persons are to be treated equally before the law, i.e., any kind of discrimination is not permitted. The second principle states a positive action, i.e., the same law shall apply to all persons equally. 

Article 226 of the Indian Constitution 

Article 226 empowers the High Court to issue writs to any person, authority, or government for the protection of fundamental rights. Any individual can file a petition under Article 226 for violation of his fundamental rights against the state or private individuals. Article 226 is similar to the power granted under Article 32, i.e., to file writ petitions before the Supreme Court. Two appellants in this case, the Delhi University Students Union and the Allahabad Agricultural University, filed a case under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging violations of their fundamental rights.  

Judgement in St Stephen’s College vs. University of Delhi (1991)

The Supreme Court observed that the first two issues were related to St. Stephen’s College only, while the third issue was related to both St. Stephen’s and the Allahabad Agricultural Institute. 

Court’s observations 

After analysing various case laws, the Supreme Court, in the present case, observed the abundance of precedents that explained minority institutions. The Supreme Court further noted that previously, many appeals challenging Muslim, Christian, and even Hindu-run minority institutions had been made. In some cases, the courts undisputedly accepted the minority status of the institution as claimed, but in other cases, the courts delved into the history to verify the minority status.

Additionally, the Hon’ble Court held that the right to ‘establish’ and ‘administer’ went hand in hand. The right to manage or administer a college would be based on who established it, and only through the establishment of a minority institution can the minority community avail itself of the right to administer it.

Further, the Supreme Court, after analysing these precedents, laid down some major parameters for a community to qualify as a minority. The first requirement is that the minority community must reside in India. The community must be a recognised and distinctly identifiable religious or linguistic minority within India or its states. A foreign missionary or institute cannot be designated as an Indian minority. The Supreme Court further restated the judgement in the A.P. Christian Education Society case to emphasise the importance of the existence of proper parameters for an institution to receive minority status. 

Additionally, through the precedents, the Court observed that Article 30 was introduced with the noble intention of protecting institutions created by linguistic or religious minorities and must not be misused by ill-intended institutions. 

Issue-wise judgement

Keeping the inferences from the analysis of several precedents in mind, the Supreme Court sought to resolve the three issues consecutively. 

First issue

The first issue was to determine whether St. Stephen’s College is a minority institution.

Origin and purpose

The Supreme Court analysed the argument presented by the counsel for the respondents, contending that the College was founded by a foreign missionary, the Cambridge Missionary, rather than local residents. The Court observed that the Cambridge Mission, along with the local body, the Society for Propagation of the Gospel, had established the College to impart Christian education and values to its students. The Court noted that since the missionary, with the help of local residents, founded the college, it qualifies as a minority institution. 

Furthermore, the Court examined the purpose of establishing the College as outlined in the 1878 report written to the Cambridge Mission. The report highlighted the issue of students leaving Christian schools to enrol in non-Christian colleges, thereby losing their biblical teachings and Christian roots. To resolve this problem, the report proposed the establishment of their own colleges where students could be taught in Christian ideas and values. Additionally, in 1879, the Cambridge Committee suggested expanding the curriculum to include secular education to broaden its scope.

Building

To determine whether the College was a minority institution, the Supreme Court thought it necessary to understand the history of the building of the College. Initially, the College building was much smaller and funded by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel (SPG). Later, a new building was constructed by the SPG on December 8, 1881, with the foundation stone bearing religious inscriptions such as ‘To the Glory of God’ and ‘religious education’. The Court further explained the religious nature of the building, noting that the new building had a large cross at the top and inscriptions of the college motto, ‘Ad Dei Gloriam’. Further, only Christian gospels formed the assembly prayers. Therefore, the Court concluded that since the College’s establishment, it has  consistently portrayed its religious nature.

Constitution

In the early years, the College was controlled by a Christian body, the Mission Council. Later, in 1913, the SPG and the Cambridge Mission jointly administered the College. The Court further observed that the present constitution of the College also reflected its religious purpose and nature. The Court relied on Clause 2 of the memorandum, which specifies that the objective of the College is to offer doctrines of Christianity based on the teachings of the Church in North India. Additionally, the Court pointed out Clause 4 of the memorandum, which specified that the members of the society were Christians. Rule 1(a) further specified that the Chairman of the College was the Bishop of the Diocese of Delhi. Moreover, Rules 1(b), 1(g), 1(h), and 1(i) indicated that the members of the Executive Committee need to be appointed by the Church. 

Management

The College was managed by the Supreme Council and the Governing Body. The Supreme Council comprised members of the Church of North India, the Bishop of the Diocese of Delhi, a person appointed by the Church of North India, and the Principal of the College. 

Rule 3 specifies the role of the Supreme Council, directing it to give religious and moral instruction to the students. Rule 4 further mandates that the Vice-Principal should be a member of the church. Rule 5 specifies that the administration of the College shall be carried out by the governing body. The Court accepted the argument of the counsel for the appellants that the governing body of the College was a religious body. The Court pointed out that Rule 6 lays down that the Chairman of the Governing Body shall be the Bishop of the Diocese and that the Vice-Chairman shall also be a church-appointed member. 

Additionally, the categories a to m outline the members of the society, with only members of categories k, l, and m being non-Christian. The Court observed that the presence of three non-Christian members does not affect the overall Christian nature of the institution. Therefore, the Court concluded that the Supreme Council and Governing Body were run and administered by the Christian minority of India.

Principal

The Court further highlighted the distinct nature of the appointment of the principal of St. Stephen’s College. The rules of St. Stephen’s College mandated that the principal must be a Christian from the Church of North India. The principal was given control over admissions and the maintenance of order and discipline in the College. The Court observed that this was different from other colleges, where the principal was appointed by the governing body. Additionally, the Court noted that the immovable property of the College was entrusted to Indian Church trustees. 

Delhi University Act and Ordinance

The Court rejected the respondents’ argument that St. Stephen’s College lost its minority status when it became affiliated with Delhi University, and since students were admitted to the University and not directly to the College, a religious reservation could not be given. While rejecting this argument, the Court stated that the State cannot deprive an institution of its minority character. The Court observed that a minority institution has its own character and can manage its own affairs, and any coercive action by the State to the contrary would be illegal. The Court further emphasised that the minority community possesses full rights to administer and manage the institution, while the State is empowered to pass prudent regulations that do not abridge its fundamental rights.

Additionally, the Court noted the absence of an explicit provision in the Delhi University Act, 1922, allowing for the overriding of a college’s managerial powers. The Court highlighted Section 23 of the Delhi University Act, which specifies that the Academic Council is responsible for the maintenance of the College. Subsequently, the Court analysed Section 30 of the Delhi University Act, which details the procedure for admission into the institution. 

Firstly, the Court discussed Clause 4 of the first Ordinance, which states that candidates seeking admission into a college must satisfy the requirements of the college. The Court then emphasised Clause 3 of the Ordinance, which states that admission shall be finalised by the Principal of the College. Clause 3 also empowers the Vice-Chancellor to allow admission under extraordinary circumstances. 

Ordinance 18, Clause 6A(1), mandates the formation of a Staff Council in every college and empowers the Staff Council to perform managerial functions, including organising the admission process. The Court observed, after the complete reading of the Delhi University Act and Ordinances, that no provision existed related to depriving a college of its minority status. Furthermore, the court noted that students apply for a seat in the College and not directly to the University. However, the Court also highlighted Rule 8, which provides that the College did not follow all the regulations of the University regarding its constitution and the appointment of its Principal. The Court further noted that the College was an autonomous institution with the right to appoint its own Principal and constitute its own governing body.

Therefore, the Apex Court concluded from the above analysis that St. Stephen’s College, despite being affiliated with the University of Delhi, was a minority-run institution entitled to protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.

Second issue

The second issue was whether St. Stephen’s College, as a minority institution, should follow the circulars issued by the University. The first circular, dated June 5, 1980, mandated that the admission process be solely based on merit. The second circular, dated June 9, 1980, specified a uniform admission schedule to be followed by all colleges. Unfortunately, the schedule released by the University contradicted the previously issued schedule of the college. 

The college contended that it had been following its own admission schedule for over a hundred years without any interference from the state, arguing that its admission programme was essential for the development of the College and that it received protection as a minority institution under Article 30(1). The counsel for the appellants further contended that the admission programme could not be interfered with unless there was evidence of maladministration.

Admission Programme of St Stephen’s College

The Court noted that the applications, once received, were classified and then directed to the tutor supervising that division. From there, the applications were sent to two teachers of the concerned department for scrutiny. The applications were further analysed based on the combination of the subjects taken. The two teachers from the concerned department then prepared a list of suitable candidates. These shortlisted candidates would undergo screening through an interview process conducted by the Selection Committee, which included the Principal. The interview included questions assessing the candidates on general awareness, current issues, personal interests, and hobbies. The interview grades and the personal opinions of the Committee Members were considered in preparing the final list of candidates. 

Concession to Christian students

Another aspect the Court analysed in detail was the concessions given to Christian students. Christian students received a concession of 10% on the qualifying marks. Further, candidates from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were given a concession of 50% on the qualifying marks. Sportspersons were granted a waiver of 10-15%, according to the admission policy of the College. The Court also pointed out Annexure 1, which highlighted the results of these concessions.

Court’s observations and decision

The Court analysed Article 30 and explained that religious or linguistic minorities have the right to form and manage educational institutions. Furthermore, the Court interpreted that administration under Article 30(1) meant the management of the institution’s affairs. The Court observed that the management of such an institution must be free from state control for the founders to use the institution for the benefit of the community members. 

However, the Court also observed that maintaining standards of education was not a managerial function. It was observed that the State was concerned with the advancement of the country and its people, including the quality of education. Therefore, the Court concluded that the State possessed the right to regulate and check the standard of education, and minority institutions cannot fall below a specified standard; they cannot refuse to follow the standardised education pattern set by the State. 

The Court analysed several cases, including State of Bombay vs. Bombay Education Society (1955), the Kerala Education Bill and Sidhajbhai Sabhai vs. State of Bombay (1963), and Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society vs. State of Gujarat (1974). In St. Xavier’s case, it was held that after affiliation with the University, both the University and the minority institution must together decide the standard and method of education. Regulations that promote the interests of teachers and students, improve efficiency and ensure fairness can be issued. Furthermore, the Supreme Court observed in St. Xavier’s case that regulating all educational and academic matters at a college was permissible and desirable. The Court also analysed Justice Mathew’s observation in Xavier’s case. 

The Supreme Court further examined a somewhat contrary case, Lily Kurian vs. Sr. Lewina (1978). In this case, it was held that any interference in the right of the minority community to administer or promote their interests was unconstitutional. 

However, the Court reasoned that a detailed study was unnecessary. The Court observed that institutions do not possess the right to poor management. It was further observed that it is part of the State’s duty to make regulations for uniformity in education standards. 

The Court further observed that although minority institutions cannot claim exemption from standard laws or regulations applicable to all communities, they may be exempted from regulations that violate their rights under Article 30 of the Constitution. The Court also noted that while selection and admission are core parts of management, they could still be regulated reasonably. However, any such regulation interfering with the selection procedure must be for the welfare of the minority community. 

To explain this point, the Supreme Court cited several examples. One example was the Bombay Government’s order that forced schools to use only the mother tongue, which was found to be restrictive in State of Bombay vs. Bombay Education Society (1955). The Court also analysed Rt. Rev. Magr. Mark Netto vs. State of Kerala (1979), where the State refused to allow the minority community to allocate seats for female candidates. In this case, the regional Deputy Director denied admission for girls, stating that the College was a Muslim minority-run institution and had been a boys’ school previously. It was held in this case that the denial of admission for girls was the misuse of regulatory authority powers and was thus in violation of Article 30.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court cited the Director of School Education, Government of T.N. vs. Rev. Brother G. Arogiasamy (1970). In this case, the Madras High Court analysed the uniform procedure laid down by the State, which directed that candidates needed to be selected based on an interview. The Madras High Court held that this requirement restricted the freedom of minority communities to manage their own institutions.

After the above analysis, the Court observed that, in the present case, the circulars issued by the University would deny the College the right to benefit its community and appoint members of its community. The Court pointed out that if there was no concession given to Christians and the merit-based system of the circular was followed, then Christian students would be disadvantaged by the huge competition. Further, the Court highlighted that  the minority nature of the institution would be defeated. 

The next question before the Supreme Court was whether the admission  process of the College was scientific for which  the Court analysed the admission and selection procedure of the College and held that it was both scientific and rational. The Court observed that it did not violate equality principles but only existed to empower the minority. It further highlighted that marks were a qualification for the interview process, which was conducted by faculty experts. The Court also observed that the selection was done keeping in mind the overall skills and talents of the candidates.

Additionally, the Court recognised the interview as a supplementary test. It pointed out several precedents regarding the interview and the principles laid down through these precedents. The Court had previously established that interview marks must constitute a maximum of 15% of the total marks, with more weight given to the written exam. The Supreme Court concluded that the interview procedure of the College was legal and not arbitrary. The interview process at the College did not permit any individual to confer more marks; it was instead scientific and systematic.

Further, the Supreme Court analysed the admission policy. It observed that the College had several rational reasons for following its own admission policy. The Court restated some of the appellant’s arguments while analysing these reasons. During this process, the Court examined D.N. Chanchala vs. State of Mysore (1971). It was held in this case that the result of a candidate in one exam could not be compared to another because the parameters of the evaluation are distinct. The Court further observed that the College’s admission programme was based on the qualifications of the students and rejected the claim that it was arbitrary. Therefore, the Court concluded that the College was not bound by the circulars of the University. 

Third issue

The third issue pertained to both St. Stephen’s College and the Allahabad Agricultural Institute. The issue was whether separate religious reservations given by state-affiliated minority institutions violated Article 29(2). 

The Court observed that both the Institute and the College received funds from the State. The Institute reserved 50% of its seats for Christians, and therefore, some students with higher merit were not given admission because they were not Christians.

Article 29(2) states that the state shall not discriminate based on religion in admission processes. The counsel for the University argued that the College, by giving reservations to Christians, was violating Article 29(2). However, the Court also noted that minority institutions are established to promote their community, and if they were disallowed from providing reservations for their members, it would defeat the purpose of their establishment.

The Court observed that resolving the issue of discrimination on the grounds of religion was the most challenging, as it had not been properly addressed before. 

Allahabad High Court’s decision

The Supreme Court considered that it was important to analyse the judgement of the Allahabad High Court in this matter first. The High Court had accepted the contention of the University and held that denial of admission on the grounds of religion was discrimination. The High Court held that the powers under Article 30(1) and 29(2) were to be balanced properly, but that the right under Article 30 could not violate Article 29(2).

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had followed the liberal individualist theory and overlooked the rights of the minority community granted by Article 30(1). Therefore, the Supreme Court found it important to analyse minority rights under Article 30.

Prenatal history of minority rights

The Supreme Court observed that minorities require several safeguards or group rights for their protection, and Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution provide these group rights. The Court also analysed the recommendations of the Advisory Committee of the Constituent Assembly on minorities. The drafting committee itself sought to distinguish between the right to protect a script and religion and the right to establish an institution. In the initial draft, ‘minority’ was replaced with ‘any section of the citizens’, but in the later stages, the word ‘minority’ was retained through Article 30(1). 

The Court further observed that there was a need to extend the provision of positive discrimination for minorities in admission to state-funded institutions. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had explained that to prevent a narrow interpretation of the word ‘minority’, the term was previously changed to ‘any section of citizens’. After explaining the background, the Court decided to delve into Articles 29(1) and 30(1). 

The Court observed that Article 29 gives communities the right to conserve their script and religion and that the right under Article 30 is not limited to setting up an institution to conserve this script, language, or religion. The Court noted that the scope of Article 30 is much wider. 

The Court further observed that Article 29(2) does not nullify the right granted to minorities under Article 30(1). It emphasised that protecting the interests of the minority community is also very important. In an obiter dictum, the Court noted that no minority would want to become the majority. The Court subsequently referred to Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that ethnic, religious, or linguistic minorities cannot be denied their right to practise and profess their religion.

The Court then analysed another contention by the counsel: that in a secular democratic nation, the government cannot fund or promote the interests of any particular community, and that a minority institution cannot receive state aid. The Court acknowledged that historically, state grants were not often given to minority institutions.  However, it emphasised Article 30(2), which directs the state not to discriminate while granting aid to educational institutions. Therefore, the Court held that minority institutions can receive financial aid from the State.

The Court further observed that receiving state funds does not mean non-applicability of Article 30(1). It was noted in obiter that educational institutions are not businesses and therefore need aid and grants for their survival, including minority-run institutions. The Court affirmed that the same applied to the College and the institute. 

The Supreme Court then addressed the next contention of the counsel for the appellants, who argued that Article 30(1) was subject to Article 29(1). The Supreme Court analysed the Kerala Education Bill and the DAV College case, which widened the scope of Article 29(1) beyond just its application with respect to Article 30(1). However, the Supreme Court identified a lacuna in the analysis of the existing matter. 

The Court observed that minorities were entitled to a special status and could not be treated neutrally, highlighting that the purpose of Article 30 was to protect minorities and that narrow judicial interpretation should not undermine this higher goal. The Court further noted that India is a multilayered nation with various considerations and understandings amongst its people. The Court restated the words of Chief Justice Marshall to underscore the importance of constitutional values. 

In analysing the case of University of California vs. Allen Bakke (1978), where the special admission programme of the University was struck down because it preferred people based on their race, the Supreme Court observed that this case was irrelevant to the Indian provisions due to the absence of an Article 30(1) clause in the U.S. Constitution.

Minority Rights

The Court observed that right under Article 30(1) was not only related to students and the founders but also entitled parents to admit their wards in an institution of their own community. The Court further noted that a balance needed to be struck between Article 30(1) and Article 29(2).

Moreover, the Court recognised the principle of positive discrimination, which asserts that to treat all equally, some need to be treated unequally. The Supreme Court, in this case, relied on the Kerala Education Bill case, where discrimination in favour of religious minorities was approved. It further analysed M.R. Balaji vs. State of Mysore and State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1975), where the principle of positive discrimination was approved for backward classes. In these cases, preferential treatment for the benefit of the backward community was held to be legal. Therefore, the Court observed that no illegality existed in the preference given in the selection process. 

Furthermore, the Court relied on Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh vs. Union of India (1980), where it was held that the State also has a duty to ensure equality of opportunity, which includes the upliftment of the underprivileged. Therefore, while allowing special preference under Article 30, the Court cautioned that it needs to be balanced with Article 29(2). 

Additionally, the Court relied on Article 337 of the Constitution, which gave special concessions to the Anglo-Indian community for ten years from independence. They were granted special permission to obtain grants from the State for maintaining their educational institutions. 

Final judgement

Therefore, after the above detailed analysis, the Court finally concluded that under Article 30(1), minority institutions can provide special preferences to their community members. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition of the College and the Institute and observed that there was no violation of Article 29(2) owing to the rights granted under Article 30(1). Thus, the High Court’s judgement was reversed, and the Court further laid down that admissions made before the High Court’s order were to remain undisturbed. 

Guidelines

The Supreme Court also issued some guidelines related to minority rights under Article 30(1). Firstly, the Court observed that minority institutions can prefer members of their community. Secondly, the Court empowered the State to regulate the concessions given in the admission process. Furthermore, it mandates that such preferences or reservations cannot exceed 50% of the total seats for admission. Thus, the Court laid down that at least 50% of the seats must be available to non-minorities, whose admission should be based on merit.

Dissenting opinion

Justice N. M. Kasliwal dissented from the opinion of the majority judges in this case. To begin with, Justice Kasliwal re-analysed the facts, issues, and contentions of the parties. He first examined the validity of the interview round in the admission procedure. While acknowledging the importance of the interview in the selection process as argued by the counsel, Justice Kasliwal observed that the College has not specified the weightage division between the interview and the qualifying exam. Therefore, he concluded that the selection depended heavily on the interview, and was thus arbitrary. He cited R.Chitralekha vs. State of Mysore (1964), along with some other cases, to substantiate his point.

Additionally, he highlighted that only 6-10% of people were appointed through Christian reservations, leaving the fate of the remaining 90% of students to be determined by an interview. This, he argued, violated equality under Article 14. Therefore, the dissenting Judge concluded that appointing people through an interview was arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Justice Kasliwal further observed that the University was entitled to lay down regulations. He pointed out Ordinance 18 of the Delhi University Act, 1922, which prevents the College from having an admission policy contrary to that of the University. Justice Kasliwal noted that the tough competition and lack of colleges had driven the University to issue the circulars, and since the circulars were meant to benefit the students and the admission process, they were reasonable. 

Justice Kalsiwal then addressed the question of whether the College and the institute could give preferential treatment to their minority community. He explained and emphasised Article 29(2), observing that if an educational institution formed under Article 30, while receiving State funds, preferred a particular community, it was discrimination. He further noted that when the College was receiving funds from the State, it could not clearly provide reservations specifically for a certain community. 

Moreover, Justice Kasliwal pointed out that an exception to Article 30(1) was the standard of education, which the State was empowered to regulate. He observed  that Article 29(1) was complementary to Article 30(1). However, Article 29(2) was a distinct and special provision inserted to prevent preference by the State. Justice Kasliwal argued that Article 29(2) was a special right that prevailed over the general right guaranteed by Article 30(1). To substantiate this stance, he relied on the scope of Article 29(2) as explained in several precedents, such as the Kerala Education Bill and St. Xavier’s case. Additionally, he invoked the principle of Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant, which states that special laws prevail over general laws.

Justice Kalsiwal further observed that constitutional principles emphasise unity amidst diversity and discourage religious divisions. He argued that Article 30(1) cannot override this principle of unity or the intentions of the constitution makers. Therefore, he held that preferential treatment towards Christians by the College and the institute was unconstitutional, and Justice Kalsiwal thereby upheld the High Court order. However, Justice Kalsiwal also accepted that those already admitted should not be disturbed.

Precedents referred

Before deciding on the matter at hand, the Supreme Court referred to several precedents, some of which are listed below:

  • The first case referred to was the State of Bombay vs. Bombay Education Society (1954). The Supreme Court observed that in this case, the school in question, i.e., Bernes High School Deolali, Nasik, Bombay, was a recognised Anglo-Indian community-run school, and therefore, it was a linguistic minority that was to be supported under Article 30. 
  • The second case referred to was Rev. Sidhajbhai Sabhai and Others vs. The State of Bombay (1962). The college in focus, Mary Brown Memorial Training College, was established to benefit the Christian community, and funded by the Irish Christian missionary, scholars’ fees, and grants from the state government. Therefore, owing to the above facts, the college was held to be a Christian minority-run institution. 
  • Further, in Rev. Father W. Proost and Others vs. The State of Bihar (1968), it was undisputed that St. Xavier’s College was founded by the Jesuits of Ranchi and therefore it was held as a minority-run institution. 
  • In Gandhi Faiz-E-Am-College, Shahjahanpur vs. University of Agra (1966), the G.F. College was run by the Muslim community. The Court observed that since the community that managed and administered the G.F. College were members of a religious minority, the college was a minority-run institution and therefore was protected under Article 30 from interference by the State. Therefore, the Court held that ‘generally’ the G.F. College could be held as a minority institution.
  • In D.A.V. College and Others vs. The State of Punjab (1971), the Court analysed whether the Arya Samaj, run by the Hindu community, is a linguistic minority in Punjab. The Arya Samaj became an area of focus because the DAV College was established and administered by the Arya Samaj under Article 29(2). It was held that a linguistic minority must have a separate spoken language or a distinct script. In the case of Arya Samaj, they had a distinct script and were thus entitled to protection under Article 29(1). Additionally, as a religious minority in Punjab, they were entitled under Article 30(1) to establish their own institutions. The Court further observed that a religion need not be a minority throughout the nation; proving that the religion was a minority in a particular state would entitle it to receive the protections of Articles 29(1) and 30(1) in that specific state.
  • In the case of A.P. Christians Medical Education Society vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Another (1986), the Court observed that the government or state university has the right to verify the minority status of a college. The Court further observed that a proper index to identify minority-run institutions must be available. In order to obtain minority status, it needs to be proven that the institutions were run by recognised minorities.
  • The Court further analysed the case of Chikkala Samuel vs. District Educational Officer, Hyderabad (1981), where the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that institutions imparting secular education must prove that they also serve the minority community and that they were established for the benefit of the minority community they belong to. The Court observed that without the same, there would be no relation between the minority community and the institution. 
  • The next reference is Rajershi Memorial Basic Training School vs. State of Kerala (1972). In this case, the Kerala High Court held that the founder of a school or college belonging to a minority community was insufficient for it to be recognised as a minority institution. It needs to be proven that a minority community established and ran the college for their benefit. 
  • The Supreme Court next cited S. Azeez Basha vs. Union of India (1967). In this case, an appeal was made to the Court challenging the 1951 and 1965 Amendment Acts, which amended the Aligarh Muslim University Act,1920. These amendments sought to restrict the autonomy of the Muslim community to manage the affairs of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). The petitioners alleged that these Acts violated Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court examined the college’s history and the AMU Act, 1920, noting that although AMU was initially established as a minority institution, it lost that status in 1920 when central legislation passed the AMU Act. Thus, AMU was deemed a state-owned college and not protected under Article 30(1). The Court further observed that it could not be proven that AMU sought to benefit and empower the Community it represented i.e the Muslim community.
  • The next landmark judgement referred to was Rt. Rev. Bishop S.K. Patro and Others vs. State of Bihar (1969). The Supreme Court observed that a detailed discussion of the S.K. Patro case would be helpful to the present case. The Education Department of Bihar ordered C.M.S. College to alter the constitution of their managing committee. The school viewed this as an interference with the management activity of a Christian minority institution and challenged it before the High Court of Patna. The High Court observed that C.M.S. College was not entitled to protection under Article 30 because they failed to prove that it was a minority-run institution established to benefit Christians. The High Court further observed that protection for a minority institution under Article 30 would extend only to a community that is a minority with reference to the population of India. It further observed that C.M.S College was founded by the Church Missionary Society of London, a non-citizen. Therefore, the High Court concluded that C.M.S. College was not a minority-run institution.

The Supreme Court overturned the Patna High Court’s decision in the C.M.S. College case. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court ignored two important facts. Firstly, evidence showed that local Christians actively participated in forming and managing the College. Additionally, the College was formed using funds from both the Christian Missionary Society of London and local Christians. Secondly, the Supreme Court observed that although, to receive protection under Article 30, minority communities must be Indian residents, the same does not extend to the founders of minority institutions. The Court further noted that in the backdrop of 1854, during British India, it was not compulsory for the College to be founded by an Indian resident to receive protection under Article 30.

Critical analysis of St Stephen’s College vs. University of Delhi (1991)

St. Stephen’s College vs. University of Delhi is a landmark judgement that interpreted the law surrounding minority rights and state-funded minority institutions for the first time. The Court analysed several issues and laid down key guidelines in this case. This is the first case where the Court analysed the nexus between Article 30(1) and Article 29(2). The judgement was delivered in a 4:1 ratio, with Justice Kalsiwal dissenting. Key aspects clarified regarding Article 30(1) and Article 29(2) include:

  • Constitution of a minority educational institution: In this case, the Court laid down that for an institution to qualify for minority status, it had to be proven that local residents from the minority community were somehow involved in the establishment and funding process. Even if foreign missionaries provided the majority of funding, there must be active participation from local community members, it is only then that the institution would constitute a minority institution. The Court explained this while observing that though St. Stephen’s College was established by the Cambridge Missionary, the local residents, through the Society for the Propagation of the Gospels, also contributed to its formation.
  • Autonomy of a minority-run institution: Another important aspect clarified by this judgement was the impact of state regulations on minority institutions. The Court recognised that the State not only possesses adequate jurisdiction but also has a duty to maintain proper standards of education. To maintain such uniform standards of education, the State may interfere with the functions of a minority-run institution but such interference must be reasonable and related to the welfare of the minority community. It affirmed that St. Stephen’s College was not bound by the directions of the University, asserting its autonomy.
  • Article 30(1) and Article 29(2): The Court, while highlighting the importance of non-discrimination by the State, also pointed out the principle of positive discrimination. Positive discrimination was not only explained but also upheld in this case. It refers to treating some people unequally to ensure equality of opportunity. Further, in this case, the purpose of Article 30(1) was also explained in detail. So, this became a historic case that justified preferential treatment of a community for their upliftment. The judgement also widened the scope of Article 29(1).
  • State funded minority run institution: This case marked the first legal decision in Indian history to decide the legality of such an institution. It affirmed that minority institutions were entitled to receive funds from the State, not only because it is essential for their functioning and management but also because of Article 30(2) of the Constitution.

The dissenting opinion in St. Stephen’s case presented a compelling argument. The dissenting judge prioritised Article 29(2) and the principle of secularism over Article 30(1). In essence, the case was a tussle between Article 29(2), concerning state funding, and Article 30(1), regarding minority institutions, where the Court upheld the importance of protection of minority rights. It is noteworthy that the judgement was given against the backdrop of situations in the year 1991, suggesting that a review may or may not be needed. However, the judgement is eloquent and detailed in its discussion of precedents, the intentions of the constitution makers, and the relevant Articles of the Constitution. It has since served as a precedent for several other cases in the future.

Aftermath

Several cases have referenced and discussed the landmark judgement of St. Stephen’s College vs. University of Delhi, as it was the first landmark case to decide a major question of law. Some notable cases are:

  • The State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Principal, Abhay Nandan Inter College (2021): The Court cited the St. Stephen’s College case to differentiate between the rights of minority and non-minority institutions. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that financial aid to educational institutions from the government is not a fundamental right. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits only negative discrimination and not valid discrimination.
  • Madha Engineering College vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2006): The Madras High Court, in the Madha Engineering case, referenced the St. Stephen’s College Case while analysing the validity of state legislation affecting the autonomy of an unaided minority educational institution. The Madras High Court observed the precedent set in the St. Stephen’s College case regarding the autonomy of minority institutions and held that such institutions could have their own admission schedule.

These cases show how the principles established in the St. Stephen’s College case have been influencing subsequent legal interpretations and decisions related to minority rights and state regulation of educational institutions.

Conclusion 

In conclusion, St. Stephen’s case marked a historic milestone in Indian jurisprudential history by examining the autonomy of minority institutions and how they could function independently of the State. Not only did the Supreme Court affirm the ability of minority institutions to operate independently but it also laid down that only reasonable regulations for the welfare of the community could be issued by the State. Though some may criticise the judgement for excessively prioritising Article 30(1) and ignoring the secular nature of India, the case was the first one to comprehensively analyse the issue. This landmark judgement also laid the foundation for future courts to either accept or reject this stance. 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Whether a minority institution can follow its own admission schedule?

Yes, the Supreme Court held in the case of St. Stephen’s College vs. University of Delhi that a minority-run institution can indeed maintain a distinct admission policy and procedure such that it benefits the minority community.

Can the State fund a minority-run institution?

It was held in the St. Stephen’s College case that even minority institutions were entitled to receive State funds. The reasoning of the Court behind such a decision was that the Court recognised the ground reality that all colleges, both minority and non-minority, require State’s aid for proper functioning.

What is the scope of Article 29(1) of the Constitution?

The Apex Court, in the St. Stephen’s College case, widened the scope of Article 29(1). It was observed that the ambit of Article 29(1) was bigger than Article 30(1).

When can the state interfere with a minority-run institution ?

The Court laid down in the St. Stephen’s College case that the State could interfere in all aspects of the management of a minority-run institution, provided such interference was necessary to maintain the ‘standard’ of education and needed for the welfare of the minority community.

References

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here