9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 19(1)(f), 19(1)(g), 26(a), (b), (c), (d), and 30(1) of the Constitution. 2. Legitimacy of Government Orders and Rules regarding reservation of seats in private training colleges. 3. Withholding of grant-in-aid and withdrawal of recognition of the college. Detailed Analysis: 1. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 19(1)(f), 19(1)(g), 26(a), (b), (c), (d), and 30(1) of the Constitution: The petitioners argued that their fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and (g), 26(a), (b), (c), (d), and 30(1) were violated by the Government's orders and rules. They claimed that their rights to acquire, hold, and dispose of property (Article 19(1)(f)) and to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade, or business (Article 19(1)(g)) were infringed. The Court, however, found that the rules and orders did not violate these rights as they did not interfere with the right to property or the right to practice a profession. The Court stated that interference with the right of bare management of an educational institution does not amount to infringement of the right to property under Article 19(1)(f). Regarding Article 26, which deals with the freedom to manage religious affairs, the Court did not find it necessary to express an opinion, as the case was sufficiently addressed under Article 30(1). 2. Legitimacy of Government Orders and Rules regarding Reservation of Seats in Private Training Colleges: The Government of Bombay issued orders requiring private training colleges to reserve 80% of their seats for teachers nominated by the Government. The petitioners argued that this infringed their right under Article 30(1) to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The Court held that Article 30(1) provides minorities with an absolute right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice, and any law or executive direction that infringes this right would be void. The Court acknowledged that while reasonable regulations in the interest of efficiency of instruction, discipline, health, sanitation, morality, public order, and the like could be imposed, these regulations must be directed towards making the institution effective as an educational institution. The Court emphasized that the regulations must satisfy a dual test: they must be reasonable and must be conducive to making the institution an effective vehicle of education for the minority community or other persons who resort to it. 3. Withholding of Grant-in-Aid and Withdrawal of Recognition of the College: The Government threatened to withhold grant-in-aid and withdraw recognition of the college if it did not comply with the reservation orders. The Court found that such threats and conditions infringed the fundamental freedom guaranteed under Article 30(1). The Court stated that the right to administer educational institutions includes the right to admit students of their own choice, and the enforcement of restrictions through threats to withdraw recognition and refuse grants was not justified. The Court referred to the Kerala Education Bill case, which established that while the State could impose reasonable regulations, these must not be destructive or annihilative of the character of the minority institution. The Court concluded that the rules and orders in question were not in the interest of the institution but were instead conceived in the interest of the public or the nation as a whole, which was not permissible under Article 30(1). Conclusion: The Court held that Rule 5(2) of the Rules for Primary Training Colleges and Rules 11 and 14 for recognition of Private Training Institutions, insofar as they related to the reservation of seats under Government orders, infringed the fundamental freedom guaranteed under Article 30(1). The petitioners were entitled to writs directing the State of Bombay and the Director of Education not to compel them to reserve 80% or any seats for Government-nominated teachers and not to withdraw recognition or withhold grant-in-aid based on non-compliance with the impugned rules and orders. The petition was allowed, and the petitioners were awarded costs.
|
