Supreme Court Upholds Minority Rights of St. Stephen’s College but Restricts Preferential Admission for Minority Students in Aided Institutions

Court affirms St. Stephen’s College as a Christian minority institution with right to administer admissions via interviews; however, it rules that minority institutions receiving state aid cannot reserve over 50% seats for their community, balancing Articles 29(2) and 30(1) of the Constitution.

In a landmark judgment delivered on December 6, 1991, the Supreme Court of India, in a Constitution Bench comprising Justices M.H. Kania, K. Jagannatha Shetty, N.M. Kasliwal, M. Fathima Beevi, and Yogeshwar Dayal, resolved pivotal constitutional questions concerning the rights of minority educational institutions in India. The case centered around the admission policies of two premier Christian minority institutions: St. Stephen’s College, affiliated to the University of Delhi, and the Allahabad Agricultural Institute, affiliated to U.P. University.

The Court first examined whether St. Stephen’s College qualifies as a minority institution under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. After an extensive review of historical facts, governance structure, and the College’s Christian religious character, the Court affirmed that St. Stephen’s College was indeed established and administered by the Christian religious minority community and is entitled to fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 30(1).

The Court then addressed whether St. Stephen’s College, as a minority institution, must comply with University circulars mandating admission solely on merit based on qualifying examination marks. The University of Delhi had issued circulars prescribing uniform admission dates and merit-based admissions to ensure fairness and prevent arbitrariness. St. Stephen’s College’s admission process involved screening applications, followed by an interview conducted by a selection committee, which included a relaxation of up to 10% for Christian students to secure their admission.

While the Court recognized the right of minority institutions to administer their institutions free from undue interference, it also emphasized that this right is subject to reasonable regulations aimed at maintaining educational standards and fairness. After detailed scrutiny, the Court found St. Stephen’s College’s interview procedure to be a legitimate part of the administration, not arbitrary, and an effective mechanism for assessing candidates beyond mere examination marks, especially given the diverse educational boards and marking standards across India. Accordingly, the Court held that St. Stephen’s College was not bound by the University’s circulars requiring strict merit-based admission solely on marks.

The most challenging issue before the Court was whether minority institutions receiving state aid could prefer or reserve seats for candidates from their own community without violating Article 29(2), which prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, or language in aided educational institutions. The Allahabad Agricultural Institute reserved 50% of its seats for Christian students, while St. Stephen’s College gave a relaxation for Christian candidates.

The Supreme Court undertook a nuanced constitutional analysis balancing the rights of minority communities under Article 30(1) with the individual rights under Article 29(2). It rejected the contention that minority institutions could admit only their community members to the exclusion of others, noting that such an interpretation would undermine secularism and national integration. The Court emphasized that minority rights are intended to protect cultural and educational interests without fostering sectarianism or exclusion.

The Court held that minority aided institutions are entitled to give preference to their community candidates to maintain their minority character, but this preference must be balanced with the constitutional mandate of non-discrimination. It ruled that such institutions can reserve seats for their community members only up to 50% of the total intake, ensuring that at least 50% of seats remain open to candidates from other communities strictly on merit. This rule seeks to harmonize minority protections with the fundamental right of equality in admission to state-aided institutions.

As a result, the Supreme Court allowed St. Stephen’s College’s writ petition, recognizing its right to administer admissions through interviews and maintain minority character, but dismissed the college’s and Allahabad Agricultural Institute’s appeals insofar as they claimed unrestricted rights to reserve seats for their community candidates. The Court upheld the Allahabad High Court’s decision that the institute’s 50% reservation was the maximum permissible limit for aided minority institutions.

The Court also directed that admissions already made pursuant to earlier orders shall not be disturbed, allowing affected students to continue their courses.

This judgment sets a significant precedent clarifying the scope of minority rights in education under the Indian Constitution, especially the interplay between Articles 29 and 30. It confirms the autonomy of minority institutions in administration and admissions while ensuring that state aid comes with obligations of equality and non-discrimination.

IMPORTANT

• This judgement was however overruled by another Constitutional Bench in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 43318
• The Court held that ratio laid down in St. Stephen's College case is not correct. Once State aid is taken and Article 29(2) comes into play, then no question arises of trying to balance Articles 29(2) and 31. Article 29(2) must be given its full effect.

Statutory provisions:- Article 14, Article 15(4), Article 28(3), Article 29(1), Article 29(2), Article 30(1), Article 30(2), Article 337 of the Constitution of India; Delhi University Act, 1922; Ordinance II and XVIII of Delhi University Statutes

St. Stephen's College v. The University of Delhi, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 80029