The Madras High Court recently underscored the necessity of safeguarding the rights of minority institutions by ruling that the University Grants Commission (UGC) norms for the selection of Assistant Professors and Principals do not apply to these institutions. The court reaffirmed that minority institutions have the constitutional right to establish and administer educational institutions without external interference.
Justice Anand Venkatesh emphasized that the Indian Constitution contains provisions to protect the cultural and educational identity of minority communities. He stated:
"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. 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."
Read Also:- Madras High Court Clarifies: Which Provision Prevails Between Sections 43B & 40A of the Income Tax Act?
The court was hearing petitions filed by four autonomous colleges and one non-autonomous college seeking a directive for the respective universities to grant approval for appointments to the positions of Assistant Professor and Principal. The petitioners argued that the UGC Regulation 2018, adopted by the State Government through a Government Order in 2021, could not be imposed on minority institutions by mandating a specific selection process through a Selection Committee. They contended that such a requirement violated the fundamental rights of minority institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
However, the UGC maintained that the 2018 Regulation applied to all institutions, including minority institutions, regardless of whether they were aided or self-financed. It explained that for minority institutions, the Selection Committee is appointed from a list suggested by the institution itself, as provided under the UGC Regulations. The UGC argued that this insistence aimed to maintain educational standards and did not infringe upon the institution's fundamental rights.
Read Also:- Kunal Kamra Moves Madras High Court Seeking Transit Anticipatory Bail In Mumbai FIR; Hearing Scheduled Today
The State and the universities opposed the petition, asserting that approval could not be granted unless the selection process adhered to the UGC Regulations 2018. They argued that appointments made by the colleges were not valid under these norms and sought the dismissal of the writ petitions.
The court, relying on previous rulings that exempted minority institutions from similar regulations in 2000 and 2010, concluded that the 2018 Regulation also did not apply to these institutions. It found that the UGC Regulation interfered with the administrative autonomy of minority institutions, thereby diluting their right to establish and manage their educational institutions independently.
The court also observed that the selection criteria for the position of Principal, as per the 2018 Regulation, were even more rigid, requiring the inclusion of external members recommended by the Vice Chancellor. While the UGC argued that some of these external members belonged to the minority community, the court rejected this claim, stating that such an inclusion still diluted the institution’s rights.
Consequently, the court ruled that the 2018 Regulation was not applicable to minority institutions and directed the universities to grant approval for the selections made by the colleges, provided the selected candidates met the required qualifications.
Case Details:
Case Title: The Principal & Secretary, Women's Christian College and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Case No: WP.No.18165 of 2023 etc. cases
