Supreme Court protects minority rights in education, rules against gender-based school admissions.

The Supreme Court held that Rule 12(iii) of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959, which restricted the admission of girls into boys' secondary schools, violated Article 30(1) of the Constitution regarding minority rights to administer educational institutions. The Court quashed the orders refusing permission to admit girl students, stating that the rule must be narrowly interpreted and not applied to minority educational institutions in similar situations. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and relief was granted to the appellant without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Vires of Rule 12(iii) of Chapter VI of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959.
2. Whether Rule 12(iii) is violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution.

Summary:

1. Vires of Rule 12(iii) of Chapter VI of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959:
The appellant challenged the order dated June 5, 1973, by the Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Trivandrum, and the subsequent order dated May 2, 1974, by the District Education Officer, which refused permission to admit girl students in St. Vincent's High School. The school, initially established for boys, sought to admit girls after constructing a separate building for them. The refusal was based on Rule 12(iii) of Chapter VI of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959, which restricts the admission of girls into boys' secondary schools where there are existing girls' schools in the vicinity.

2. Whether Rule 12(iii) is violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution:
The Supreme Court examined whether Rule 12(iii) infringes on the rights of minorities to administer educational institutions of their choice under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The Court noted that the rule's dominant object was not discipline or morality but rather to protect the interests of existing girls' schools. The Court held that the rule, if interpreted broadly to prevent the admission of girls in minority boys' schools, violates Article 30. The rule must be interpreted narrowly and deemed inapplicable to minority educational institutions in similar situations. Consequently, the impugned orders were quashed as they were invalid and violated the constitutional rights of the minority institution.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and quashed the impugned orders, thereby granting relief to the appellant. No order as to costs was made.

---