St. Stephen's College Can't Conduct Interview For Non-Minority Category Students, CUET Score Enough For Admission: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court on Monday said that St Stephens college must follow the admission policy of the Delhi University for the academic sessions 2022-23 for students belonging to non-minority category applying to undergraduate courses. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that St Stephens college shall follow the directive that...
The Delhi High Court on Monday said that St Stephens college must follow the admission policy of the Delhi University for the academic sessions 2022-23 for students belonging to non-minority category applying to undergraduate courses.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that St Stephens college shall follow the directive that 100% weightage must be given to CUET 2022 score for the admission of students belonging to the non minority category applying to such courses.
The Court therefore directed St Stephens college to withdraw its admission prospectus and issue a fresh public notice declaring the amended admission procedure.
The Court also observed that the fundamental right under Article 30(1) of Constitution of India accorded to minority institution cannot be extended to non minority members.
"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," the Court said.
It added, "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."
The Court was of the view that while St Stephens College retains its authority to conduct interviews in addition to the CUET for the admission of students belonging to the minority community, it cannot devise a policy that forces the non-minority community to undergo an interview as well.
"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," the Court said.
The Court also noted that the reason why CUET was imposed was because of the varying standards of evaluation and teaching of different State Boards in allocation of marks that placed students of one Board at a disadvantage than the other. It also said that CUET was meant to be a method to standardise and uniformalise the process of evaluation by providing all applicants a level playground for proving their merit.
It was observed that no sufficient explanation was advanced on behalf of St Stephens College as to how the taking away of its right to conduct interviews for its non-minority candidates will deprive its fundamental right under Article 30(1) when it still retains its right to prefer its minority community and conduct an interview for its minority population.
"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," the Court said.
It added "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."
It therefore concluded that even though there exist limitations to the regulations of the State when it comes to interfering in the admission process instituted by St Stephens College under its fundamental right as per Article 30(1) for the minority community, the Delhi University was well within its right to formulate policies regulating the right of the college, if it was of the opinion that the admission policies of the College may potentially lead to maladministration and lower the standard of excellence of the institution.
Observing that minorities' right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India is not absolute, the Court ruled that the State has the right to formulate regulations concerning the administration of a minority institution to the extent of furtherance of the interest of such minority community and in a bid to prevent maladministration.
the fundamental right under Article 30 is not absolute and there are limitations that can be implemented by the State, the said limitations are only for the furtherance of the interest of minority communities and to prevent any instances of maladministration.
The Court also observed that the right of a minority institution to administer and manage the affairs of the institution is for the purpose of ensuring that the minority community is relegated to a position that places it at par with the majority community.
"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," the Court said.
It added "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."
The Court was of the view that an educational institution seeking recognition or affiliation cannot claim total immunity from regulations of legislature or the university. It added that in such circumstances, the one thread that runs through is that the State's ability to institute regulations circumscribing the right to administer of a minority institution under Article 30(1) is maintained, but the validity of the same depends on the purpose of the said regulations.
"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," it added.
The Court thus partly allowed the two petitions, one filed by St Stephens college and another PIL filed by Konika Poddar, a law student at DU.
The plea filed by Poddar challenged the decision of St. Stephen's College to conduct an interview round for admissions to general category for the academic year 2022-23, despite Delhi University's policy doing away with the same.
On the other hand, the petition filed by St Stephens college sought quashing of a communication issued by Delhi University dated May 9, 2022 in so far as it insisted on 100% weightage for CUET 2022 score for admission to undergraduate courses under the general category and also for insisting on a single merit list for admission of candidates belonging to Christian community regardless of any denominations/ sub-sects / sub categories within the Christian community.
Thus, while quashing the said communication, the Court however added that Delhi University cannot insist upon a single merit list for admission of candidates belonging to Christian community regardless of any denomination or sub categories within the Christian community.
"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," the Court ordered.
Case Title: Konika Poddar v. SL Stephen's College & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 857