2011 (5) TMI 1085 - SC - Indian Laws

Court rules against discriminatory admissions policy, emphasizes merit-based selection

Indian Medical Association Versus Union of India & Ors., Army College of Medical Sciences & Ors. And Rachit Gupta & Ors., Ashima Mutneja Versus Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University & Anr.

The court held that the executive's exemptions allowing a professional educational institution to admit only wards of Army personnel, bypassing ... Whether Army College of Medical Sciences (ACMS) is an instrumentality of the State or an aided institution - validity for seeking admission only students who are wards or children of current and former army personnel and widows of army personnel (entire group as “wards of army personnel) - (AWES) Army Welfare Education Society, it is stated, is a charitable trust that has been set up to cater to the educational needs of wards of Army personnel, both current and former, and widows of Army personnel. It is stated that the operation of its educational institutions is funded purely from regimental funds, which have been recognized to be private funds and not that of the Indian Army. ACMS, in the year 2008, began to admit students. It sought to do this by a set of rules framed by itself. HELD THAT:- Neither AWES nor ACMS, are protected by any constitutional provision that allows it to choose to be an educational institution serving only a small class of students from within the general pool. If indeed Army personnel now constitute a “Socially and Educationally Backward Class”, then under Clause (5) of Article 15, it is for the State to determine the same, and provide by law, for reservations of wards of Army personnel, in consonance with the constitutional jurisprudence extant with regard to how a Socially and Educationally Backward Class is to be delineated, for instance by removal of the creamy layer, and that the extent of reservations to be provided ought not to exceed certain levels etc. That has not happened in this instant matter. The Delhi Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-Exploitative Fee And Other Measures to Ensure Equity And Excellence) Act, 2007 (Delhi Act 80 of 2007) or any provisions thereof do not suffer from any constitutional infirmities. The validity of the Delhi Act 80 of 2007, and its provisions, are accordingly upheld. The Notification dated 14-08-2008 issued by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi permitting “the Army College of Medical Sciences, Delhi Cantonment, Delhi to allocate hundred percent seats in the said college for admission towards of Army personnel in accordance with the policy followed by the Indian Army” is ultra vires the provisions of Delhi Act 80 of 2007 and also unconstitutional. The same is accordingly set aside. The admission procedures devised by Army College of Medical Sciences, Delhi Cantonment, Delhi for admitting the students in the first year MBBS course from a pre-defined source, carved out by itself and its parent society, are illegal and ultra vires the provisions of the Delhi Act 80 of 2007. Clause (5) of Article 15 does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. we have to conclude that non-minority private unaided professional colleges do not have the right to choose their own “source” from within the general pool. The equivalence between minority and non-minority unaided institutions, apart from that distinction because of clause (1) of Article 30, was to be on the basis that both are subject to reasonable restrictions pursuant to clause (6) of Article 19, that neither minority nor non-minority institutions could maladminister their educational institutions, especially professional institutions, that affect the quality of education, and by choosing students arbitrarily from within the sources that they are entitled to choose from. that it is impermissible for us to apply the direct impact and effects test to evaluate whether clause (5) of Article 15 provisions with respect to admissions to unaided non-minority educational institutions violate the basic structure. By no stretch of imagination could the provisions of Clause (5) of Article 15 be deemed to be so wide as to eliminate an entire chapter of fundamental rights, or permit complete evisceration of even the freedom to engage in one of the occupations of the many occupations guaranteed by clause (g) of clause (1) of Article 19. The correct test would be the “essences of rights” test, i.e., the “over-arching principles” test as enunciated in M. Nagaraj [2006 (10) TMI 420 - SUPREME COURT]. that the claimed rights of non-minority educational institutions to admit students of their choice, would not only be a minor right, but if that were in fact a right, if exercised in full measure, that would be detrimental to the true nature of education as an occupation, damage the environment in which our students are taught the lessons of life, and imparted knowledge, and further also damage their ability to learn to deal with the diversity of India, and gain access to knowledge of its problems, so that they can appreciate how they can apply their formal knowledge in concrete social realities they will confront. Consequently, given the absolute necessity of achieving the egalitarian and social justice goals that are implied by provisions of clause (5) of Article 15, and the urgency of such a requirement, we hold that they are not a violation of the basic structure, but in fact strengthen the basic structure of our constitution. Consequently, we also find that the provisions of Delhi Act 80 of 2007, with respect to various categories of reservations provided therein to be constitutionally valid. Issues Involved:1. Can the executive abrogate a legislatively mandated and specified social justice program in the field of educationRs.2. Do private non-minority unaided professional educational institutions have the right to predefine a social group and admit into their institutions from only those social groups and exclude all other students the opportunity of being considered for admission into such educational institutionsRs.Analysis:Issue 1: Can the executive abrogate a legislatively mandated and specified social justice program in the field of educationRs.The court examined the validity of the exemptions granted by the Delhi Government to ACMS, which allowed it to admit only wards of Army personnel, thereby bypassing the provisions of the Delhi Act 80 of 2007. The court found that the Delhi Government's actions violated the principles of democratic governance and the constitutional requirement that the executive implement legislated policies. The court emphasized that the Delhi Act 80 of 2007 was enacted to ensure equity and excellence in professional education and mandated reservations for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and other socially and educationally backward classes. The court held that the exemptions granted by the Delhi Government were ultra vires and unconstitutional, as they effectively suspended the operation of the Act's provisions regarding merit-based admissions and reservations.Issue 2: Do private non-minority unaided professional educational institutions have the right to predefine a social group and admit into their institutions from only those social groups and exclude all other students the opportunity of being considered for admission into such educational institutionsRs.The court analyzed the arguments presented by the respondents, who claimed that private non-minority unaided professional educational institutions have the right to choose their own 'source' of students from within the general pool. The court referred to the judgments in TMA Pai and P.A. Inamdar, which emphasized the importance of merit-based admissions to ensure academic excellence. The court held that non-minority private unaided professional colleges do not have the right to choose their own 'source' from within the general pool. The court emphasized that the right to select students based on merit, as determined by marks secured in a common entrance test, is paramount. The court concluded that the admission policy of ACMS, which sought to admit only wards of Army personnel, was illegal and ultra vires the provisions of the Delhi Act 80 of 2007.Conclusion:1. The Delhi Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-Exploitative Fee And Other Measures to Ensure Equity And Excellence) Act, 2007 (Delhi Act 80 of 2007) or any provisions thereof do not suffer from any constitutional infirmities. The validity of the Delhi Act 80 of 2007, and its provisions, are accordingly upheld.2. The Notification dated 14-08-2008 issued by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi permitting 'the Army College of Medical Sciences, Delhi Cantonment, Delhi to allocate hundred percent seats in the said college for admission towards of Army personnel in accordance with the policy followed by the Indian Army' is ultra vires the provisions of Delhi Act 80 of 2007 and also unconstitutional. The same is accordingly set aside.3. The admission procedures devised by Army College of Medical Sciences, Delhi Cantonment, Delhi for admitting the students in the first year MBBS course from a pre-defined source, carved out by itself and its parent society, are illegal and ultra vires the provisions of the Delhi Act 80 of 2007.4. Clause (5) of Article 15 does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.Relief:The impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court is set aside. The respondents are directed to admit the Writ Petitioners into the First Year of MBBS Course in Army College of Medical Sciences, if the Writ Petitioners still so desire, for they have been deprived of their legitimate right of admission to the course, for no fault of theirs, notwithstanding the rank secured by them in the CET. The respondents are directed to ensure that the Writ Petitioners are admitted into the First Year MBBS Course in the ensuing academic year by creating supernumerary seats. The admissions already made by Army College of Medical Sciences are saved and shall not be affected in any manner whatsoever. The appeals and the writ petitions are accordingly ordered.