Supreme Court Upholds NCMEI’s Power to Declare Minority Status of Existing Educational Institutions: Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny vs. State of West Bengal (2018)

Date of the Judgment: April 18, 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 327
Judges: Adarsh Kumar Goel, J., R.F. Nariman, J. (authored the judgment)
Can an educational institution, initially established as a secular entity, later be declared a minority institution? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question, clarifying the powers of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (NCMEI) in declaring the minority status of existing institutions. This judgment arose from a dispute involving Cluny Women’s College, which initially sought to be a secular institution but later claimed minority status. The Supreme Court held that the NCMEI has the power to declare the minority status of existing educational institutions, even those that were not initially established as such.

Case Background

The Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny, a society registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961, founded on March 26, 1973, aimed to establish educational institutions primarily for Catholics but open to all. Initially, the society sought to establish Cluny Women’s College as a secular institution, explicitly stating they did not want minority status. The North Bengal University approved the college as a non-minority secular institution on July 21, 1998. However, on June 27, 2007, the society applied to the NCMEI for a minority status certificate, which was granted on October 23, 2007. This led to legal challenges from the University, and the governing body set up under the statute of the University, resulting in the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The society filed a writ petition (W.P. No. 4406 of 2010) challenging the University’s governing body statute and seeking to restrain it from interfering with the society’s governing body. Simultaneously, the University’s governing body filed a writ petition (W.P. No. 5002(W) of 2010) seeking to cancel the minority status declaration by NCMEI. A single judge of the High Court ruled that the NCMEI lacked original jurisdiction to declare the minority status of Cluny Women’s College, invalidating the NCMEI order and certificate. This decision was upheld by a Division Bench of the High Court. The NCMEI appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 (the 2004 Act), particularly Sections 10 and 11(f).

• Section 2 of the 2004 Act defines key terms, including “appropriate Government” and “Competent authority.”
• Section 10 of the 2004 Act, as amended in 2006 and 2010, deals with the right to establish a minority educational institution. It states that any person desiring to establish a minority educational institution may apply to the competent authority for a no-objection certificate. The 2010 amendment added the phrase “subject to the provisions contained in any other law for the time being in force”.
• Section 11 of the 2004 Act outlines the functions of the NCMEI. As amended in 2006, it includes the power to:
  • Advise the Central or State Government on minority education.
  • Enquire into complaints regarding the violation of minority rights.
  • Intervene in court proceedings involving minority educational rights.
  • Review safeguards for the protection of minority educational rights.
  • Specify measures to promote and preserve the minority status of institutions.
  • “decide all questions relating to the status of any institution as a Minority Educational Institution and declare its status as such;” (Section 11(f)).
  • Make recommendations for the effective implementation of schemes related to minority educational institutions.
• Section 12 of the 2004 Act outlines the powers of the Commission, including the power to summon witnesses, require document production, and receive evidence. It also states that the decision of the Commission shall be final in case of any dispute between a minority educational institution and a University relating to its affiliation.
• Section 12A of the 2004 Act provides for appeals against orders of the competent authority refusing to grant a no-objection certificate.
• Section 12B of the 2004 Act allows appeals to the NCMEI when an authority established by the Central or State Government rejects an application for minority status.
• Section 12C of the 2004 Act empowers the NCMEI to cancel the minority status of an institution under certain circumstances.
• Section 12F of the 2004 Act bars the jurisdiction of all courts except the Supreme Court and High Courts exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
• Section 22 of the 2004 Act gives the Act overriding effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent in any other law.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the fundamental right under Article 30 of the Constitution grants all minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court focused on the interpretation of Sections 10 and 11(f) of the 2004 Act.

• Arguments on behalf of the NCMEI:
  • The NCMEI argued that Section 11(f) provides an independent power to decide on the minority status of an institution, separate from the power under Sections 12A and 12B, which are appellate powers.
  • It was contended that the 2004 Act confers concurrent powers on competent authorities, Central/State Government authorities, and the NCMEI to decide on minority status.
• Arguments on behalf of the petitioner-society:
  • The society argued that since no competent authority was set up under the statute at the time of application, they could only approach the NCMEI.
  • It was submitted that Section 10(1) applies only to the establishment of a new minority institution, whereas Section 11(f) applies to institutions already established before the 2004 Act.
• Arguments on behalf of the respondent No.3:
  • The respondent argued that Section 10 deals with the grant of a certificate to a person who desires to establish a minority educational institution for the first time.
  • It was argued that Section 11(f) is wide enough to include the power to declare the status of minority educational institutions established before the 2004 Act.
  • The respondent contended that Cluny Women’s College was set up as a secular college, and the decision to seek minority status was a later change of heart.

The innovativeness of the argument by the petitioner-society was that it argued that since no competent authority was set up under the statute at the time of application, they could only approach the NCMEI.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the NCMEI has the power to declare the minority status of an existing educational institution under Section 11(f) of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004.

The sub-issue was whether an institution initially established as a secular college could later be declared a minority educational institution.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Governing Body OF P.A.E.M. College v. State of Jharkhand* to support its view that the Commission has the power to decide all questions relating to the status of any institution as a minority educational institution and declare its status as such.
• The Court concurred with the view in Corporate Educational Agency v. James Mathew, (2017) 15 SCC 595*, which held that Section 11(f) confers jurisdiction on the NCMEI to issue a certificate regarding the status of a minority educational institution.
• The Court emphasized the importance of Article 30 of the Constitution of India*, stating that it grants a fundamental right to all minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
• The Court interpreted Section 10 of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004* as applying to the grant of a no-objection certificate to a minority educational institution at its inception.
• The Court interpreted Section 11(f) of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004* as a wide provision that empowers the NCMEI to decide all questions relating to the status of an institution as a minority educational institution and to declare its status as such.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the wide powers of the NCMEI under Section 11(f) of the 2004 Act, stating that the NCMEI has the power to decide all questions relating to the status of an institution as a minority educational institution and to declare its status as such. The Court also highlighted that this power is to be exercised, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. The Court also considered the fundamental rights of minorities under Article 30 of the Constitution, which grants them the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered and rejected the argument that Section 11(f) could not be used to declare the minority status of an institution that was initially established as a secular institution. The Court emphasized that the fundamental right under Article 30 cannot be waived. The Court also noted that the University of North Bengal had accepted the NCMEI’s order, and therefore, it was not necessary to send the matter back to the NCMEI for a de novo hearing.

The Court reasoned that the expression “all questions” as well as the expression “relating to”, which are words of wide import, clothe the NCMEI with the power to decide any question that may arise, which may relate directly or indirectly, with respect to the status of an institution as a minority education institution.

The Court held that,
“Harmoniously read, all applications for the establishment of a minority educational institution after the Amendment Act of 2006 must go only to the competent authority set up under the statute. On the other hand, for the declaration of its status as a minority educational institution at any stage post establishment, the NCMEI would have the power to decide the question and declare such institution’s minority status.”

The Court also stated that,
“The power under Section 11(f), read by itself, would clothe the NCMEI with the power to decide any question that may arise with regard to the right to establish and/or administer educational institutions by a minority. The power does not stop there. It also includes the power to declare such institution as a minority educational institution, which is established and administered as such, so that it can avail of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution.”

The Court further observed that,
“Once the Commission thus issues a certificate, it is a declaration of an existing status.”

The Court held that the NCMEI’s order dated 23.10.2007 and the certificate dated 25.10.2007 are valid in law.

The Court did not find it necessary to remand the matter back to the NCMEI for a de novo hearing, as the University of North Bengal had accepted the NCMEI’s order dated 5.11.2009, in which the NCMEI went into the question of whether a secular institution could be declared as a minority educational institution.

The court also stated that the fundamental right under Article 30 cannot be waived.

Key Takeaways

• The NCMEI has the power to declare the minority status of existing educational institutions under Section 11(f) of the 2004 Act.
• Section 10(1) of the 2004 Act applies to the establishment of new minority educational institutions, while Section 11(f) applies to the declaration of minority status at any stage post-establishment.
• The fundamental right under Article 30 of the Constitution, which grants minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions, cannot be waived.
• Educational institutions initially established as secular entities can later be declared minority institutions.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the NCMEI has the power to declare the minority status of existing educational institutions under Section 11(f) of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004. This judgment clarifies the interplay between Sections 10 and 11(f) of the Act, holding that Section 10(1) applies to the establishment of new minority educational institutions, while Section 11(f) applies to the declaration of minority status at any stage post-establishment. This is a change in the previous positions of law where the High Courts had conflicting views on the reach of these provisions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgment of the Calcutta High Court. The Court upheld the NCMEI’s order dated October 23, 2007, and the certificate dated October 25, 2007, declaring them valid in law. The Court clarified that the NCMEI has the power to declare the minority status of existing educational institutions, even those that were not initially established as such, under Section 11(f) of the 2004 Act.

Category

• Minority Rights
  • Minority Educational Institutions
  • National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004
  • Section 10, National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004
  • Section 11(f), National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004
  • Article 30, Constitution of India
• Educational Law
  • Educational Institutions
  • Affiliation
  • Secular Institutions

FAQ

Q: What is the main issue addressed in this judgment?
A: The main issue was whether the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (NCMEI) has the power to declare the minority status of existing educational institutions, even those that were not initially established as such.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court held that the NCMEI has the power to declare the minority status of existing educational institutions under Section 11(f) of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004.

Q: What is the difference between Section 10 and Section 11(f) of the Act?
A: Section 10 applies to the establishment of new minority educational institutions, requiring them to obtain a no-objection certificate from the competent authority. Section 11(f) empowers the NCMEI to decide on the minority status of any institution at any stage post-establishment.

Q: Can an educational institution initially established as a secular institution later be declared a minority institution?
A: Yes, the Supreme Court held that the fundamental right under Article 30 of the Constitution cannot be waived, and an institution can later be declared a minority institution.

Q: What is the significance of Article 30 of the Constitution in this judgment?
A: Article 30 grants all minorities the fundamental right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice, which was a key consideration in the court’s decision.

Q: What does this judgment mean for minority educational institutions?
A: This judgment clarifies that the NCMEI has the authority to declare the minority status of existing institutions, ensuring that they can avail of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution.