St. Stephen’s College Can’t Conduct Interview For Non-Minority Category Students, CUET Score Enough For Admission: Delhi High Court

St. Stephen’s College Can’t Conduct Interview For Non-Minority Category Students, CUET Score Enough For Admission

Case: Konika Poddar v. SL Stephen’s College & Ors.

Coram: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad

Case No.: W.P.(C) 8814/2022

Court Observation: “Article 30(1) is not absolute and the State has the right to formulate regulations concerning administration of a minority institution to the extent that it is for the furtherance of minority community and it is in a bid to prevent mal-administration of minority institution,”

“Aided minority educational institutions that are affiliated with the University must follow the norms and procedure of the said University. Protection under Article 30(1) can be extended to the extent that it allows the minority institution to sub classify the reservation accorded to the minority community.”

“Therefore, the right of the Petitioner-College to conduct interviews and accord to them 15% weightage for the purposes of admitting students does not extend to non-minority students, and solely pertains to its minority students,”

“In the instant case, with the advent of CUET, it cannot be said that inter se merit will not be observed. The concept of merit itself is contentious and convoluted, and is premised on the philosophy that “we get what we deserve”. Michael Sandel, an American political philosopher, in his book titled, “The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good?”, has observed how embedded in the principle of merit lies the dark side of the promise of mastery and self-making, which fails to take into consideration the surrounding factors, such as generational wealth, social capital, access to better educational resources, etc”

“When we perceive merit as a standalone concept premised on an individual’s capabilities, we fail to delve into the background of the individual which goes beyond merit and choice into the realm of luck and chance. The CUET implemented by the Respondents is an attempt to level the playing field and remove aberrations that have arisen due to the varying standards of evaluation of different State Boards. In view of this, this Court is of the opinion that the conduct of an interview over and above the CUET has the potential of introducing subjectivity and bias into the admission process, thereby eroding the very purpose for which CUET is being brought into play.”

“As a corollary, it could not have been the intent of the Constituent Assembly to allow minority institutions to implement its protectionist measures for the betterment of the minority community, and then extend this protection to the non-minority community. Such an interpretation of the provision under Article 30(1) would only defeat the purpose of the constitutional provision, which is to bring minority communities at par with the non-minority communities,”

“In order for a minority community to effectively conserve its language, script or culture by and through educational institutions, a necessary concomitant would be its right to establish and maintain educational institutions of its choice which is conferred on all minorities by virtue of Article 30(1).”

“The object of conferring the special protection by way of a right on minorities under Article 30 is to ensure that there will be equality between the majority and the minorities. This right, however, is subject to Article 29(2) which provides that 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.”

“Furthermore, the degree of interference that can be exercised by the State depends on the basic foundation of an institution. For instance, an unaided minority institution has a greater leeway in devising its administrative processes than an aided minority institution. Moreover, an unaided professional minority institution would have lesser liberty to follow its own rules and regulations than an unaided minority institution imparting higher secondary education,”

“The petitioner college is therefore directed to follow the admission policies for the year 2022-23 as formulated by respondent no. 1 to this extent,”

Previous Posts

Matrimonial Offences Including S.498A IPC May Be Quashed In Exercise Of Powers U/S 482 CrPC When Parties Arrive At Settlement: J&K&L High Court

State Does Not Have Unlimited Resources, Institutions That Waive Arrears To Seek Grant-In-Aid Can’t Be Permitted To Take U-Turn: Uttarakhand HC

Conditions Imposed During Interim Bail U/S 439(1) Cannot Be Construed To Mean “In Custody” While Reckoning Period For Default Bail: J&K&L High Court

Court In Area Where Minor Ordinarily Resides Has Jurisdiction U/S 25 Guardians & Wards Act: Uttarakhand High Court

Property Dispute Between Mother & Child Does Not Fall Under Explanation (c) To S.7(1) Family Courts Act, Civil Court Jurisdiction Not Barred: Kerala High Court

Keywords

Interview For Non-Minority Category, Interview For Non-Minority Category students