1986 (4) TMI 343 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the minority status claimed by the Andhra Pradesh Christian Medical Educational Society.
2. Right to establish and administer educational institutions u/s 30(1) of the Constitution.
3. Compliance with regulatory requirements for affiliation and permission to start a medical college.
4. Protection of students' interests who were admitted to the unrecognized institution.

Summary:

1. Legitimacy of the Minority Status:
The Supreme Court scrutinized the claim of the Andhra Pradesh Christian Medical Educational Society that it was a minority institution. The Court found that the society's memorandum of association and actions did not substantiate the claim of being a minority institution. The Court noted that the society's use of the term "Christian Minorities' Educational Institutions" was a mere pretense to claim rights under Art. 30(1) of the Constitution. The Court concluded that the society's claim was a "smoke-screen" and a "daring imposture and skulduggery."

2. Right u/s 30(1) of the Constitution:
The Court addressed the contention that any minority, even a single individual, could establish a minority institution under Art. 30(1). The Court stated that the Government, University, and ultimately the Court have the right to investigate whether the claim of being a minority institution is well-founded. The Court emphasized that Art. 30(1) aims to give minorities a sense of security and confidence, but the institutions must be genuinely minority educational institutions, not "masked phantoms."

3. Compliance with Regulatory Requirements:
The society admitted students to the first year MBBS course without obtaining necessary permissions from the Government or affiliation from the University. The Court found that the society's actions were in defiance of the University and Government regulations. The society failed to fulfill any of the conditions required for affiliation, such as having a full-fledged hospital, necessary scientific equipment, staff, buildings, and funds. The Court criticized the society for perpetrating a "huge hoax" on innocent students and jeopardizing their careers.

4. Protection of Students' Interests:
The Court considered the plea to protect the interests of the students admitted to the unrecognized institution. The Court declined to issue directions to the University to allow the students to appear for examinations, stating that it would be a transgression of the University Act and regulations. The Court noted that the students had ignored the University's warnings and sought admission at their own risk. The Court suggested that the State Government could devise ways to compensate the students monetarily, as the society's assets had been frozen.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the society with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000 and dismissed the writ petition filed by the students without costs. The Court held that the society's claim to minority status was unfounded and that it had acted in defiance of regulatory requirements, thereby jeopardizing the students' futures.