The Hindu : National : Minority institutions cannot claim unfettered rights: counsel

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Mar 04, 2005

National

National

Minority institutions cannot claim unfettered rights: counsel

By J. Venkatesan

NEW DELHI, MARCH 3. The minority institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution cannot claim unfettered rights to administer educational institutions of their choice as such rights would be subject to reasonable restrictions and regulations.

Senior counsel K.K. Venugopal made the submission before a seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court headed by the Chief Justice, R.C. Lahoti. The Bench is hearing all issues relating to redefining the rights of minority and private non-minority unaided professional institutions.

Commercialisation

Appearing for the States of Kerala and West Bengal, and the All-India Council for Technical Education, Mr. Venugopal said that since the 1980s the demand for seats in medical, dental, engineering and other professional colleges had far exceeded the total seats available. This resulted in commercialisation of professional education. Seats were sold at mind-boggling amounts under the cover of Article 30 (right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions).

While applying the rights under Article 30 or Article 19 (1) (g) to professional colleges the need to prevent exploitation and commercialisation of professional education was relevant, especially since a single person could claim the entirety of the right under Article 30 or Article 19 (1) (g) (to carry on any trade or business). Such regulations would be justified for preventing maladministration in the case of minority institution, as were relatable to the regulations under Article 19 (6) (reasonable restrictions) in the case of non-minority institutions.

The Bench is hearing a batch of petitions and applications filed by the All-India Medical and Engineering Colleges' Association and several institutions in Kerala, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra on their right to admit students of their choice.

Quota system

Mr. Venugopal said that to protect the interests of the weaker sections, the States could fix quotas of admission under the merit and management categories and a rational fee structure as had been done in Kerala through legislation.

He felt that since a five-Judge Bench in the Islamic Academy case had correctly interpreted and applied the 11-Judge Bench judgment in the T.M.A. Pai case, the present seven-Judge Bench should not substitute a new and different methodology merely because "it believes it is a better one or a different or more plausible interpretation."

Appearing for Karnataka, senior counsel T.R. Andhyarujina said the legislation passed by the Karnataka Government fixing quotas was to protect the interests of students and no prejudice could be caused to the institutions — which profess to admit students by merit alone — by such a regulation. It was the only way of ensuring seats to the weaker sections of society. In the absence of such reservation, the students would be at the mercy of private institutions.

Common entrance test

He said only a system of common entrance test with centralised counselling could ensure that students were selected according to their merit ranking. In Karnataka, the admissions by common entrance tests conducted by the Association of Unaided Professional Institutions had been found to be arbitrary and without merit. He will continue his arguments on March 9.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National