Courts must intervene when rights of minority institutions are threatened: Madras High Court

Constitutional courts must intervene to uphold the rights of minority institutions under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India if they are threatened, the Madras High Court recently said [The Principal & Secretary, Women's Christian College and ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and ors]..Justice N Anand Venkatesh said that the right under Article 30 is not a mere legal formality and judiciary must recognize its pivotal role in restoring confidence among minorities.The Court made the observations while ruling that certain regulations brought in by the University Grants Commission (UGC) in 2018 do not apply to minority educational institutions in the appointment of associate professors and principals. Justice Venkatesh ruled that such interference by the UGC would affect Article 30 of the Constitution, which gives religious and linguistic minority communities the fundamental right to administer and establish educational institutions of their choice. "The dawn of India's independence heralded a profound commitment to safeguarding the rights of minorities, instilling a sense of security amid apprehensions about their future in a newly sovereign nation. The Constitution of India, a beacon of hope, enshrined these assurances, particularly through Article 30(1), which guarantees minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. This provision was not merely a legal formality. It was a promise made by the framers to protect the cultural and educational identities of minority communities," the judgment read. .The Judiciary must recognize its pivotal role in restoring confidence among minorities.Madras High Court.Therefore, the judiciary is duty bound to protect these rights if and when they are threatened, the Court held. "In instances where these rights are threatened, it is imperative that Constitutional Courts intervene decisively to reaffirm this commitment ensuring that the foundational ideals of justice and equality are upheld. The judiciary must recognize its pivotal role in restoring confidence among minorities, acting as a guardian of the rights that were pledged to them, thus reinforcing the very essence of India's democratic ethos and its dedication to unity in diversity," it observed. .The Court was dealing with petitions filed by four minority-run, autonomous colleges - the Women's Christian College, the Madras Christian College, Stella Maris and the Sacred Heart Arts and Science College (petitioners).The petitioners were aggrieved by the refusal of the Madras University and the Annamalai University to clear the appointment of various candidates as Assistant Professors. The two Universities had refused to clear the appointments on the ground that these selections were not made through a proper selection committee as required under 2018 UGC regulations, which were adopted by the Tamil Nadu government in 2021. The UGC argued that its regulations were applicable to all institutions, including minority institutions. This position was supported by the State and the Universities. .Justice Venkatesh, however, noted that a Division Bench of the High Court had in Forum of Minority Institutions and Associations v. State of Tamil Nadu (2011) ruled that similar UGC regulations from 2000 and 2010 were not applicable to minority institutions. Justice Venkatesh found that the 2018 regulations did not bring about any substantial change to take a different view. "The minority institutions need not repeatedly challenge the UGC Regulations as and when the New Regulations are brought forth unless a substantive change has been brought about in the New Regulations, which is not the case in hand," the judge added. The Court concluded that both the 2018 UGC regulation (Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018) and the State's 2021 government order adopting these regulations violate the petitioners' rights under Article 30.Accordingly, the Madras and Annamalai Universities were ordered to clear the proposed appointments of associate professors without any reference to these regulations, provided the candidates were otherwise qualified..Senior Advocate Isaac Mohanlal represented the petitioners. Special Government Pleader D Ravichandran appeared for the State. Standing Counsel V Sudha appeared for Madras University. Standing Counsel Sithirai Anandham represented Annamalai University.Additional Solicitor General of India AR L Sundaresan assisted by Standing Counsel B Rabu Manohar appeared for the UGC..[Read Judgment]