Sakina Tashrifwala
Published on: September 4, 2022 at 16:29 IST
A writ petition filed by the managing committee of Majna High Madrasah challenging a judgement was recently dismissed by the Supreme Court. It was challenging the judgment that supported the constitutionality of the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008.
The Bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia remarked that the writ petition was entirely misinterpreted.
The judgment passed by the Calcutta High Court that had found Sections 8, 10, 11 and 12 of the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008 to be ultra vires Article 30 of the Constitution, which deals with the Right Of Minorities to establish and administer educational institutions, was set aside by the Court.
In the meanwhile, the Court had made the following observation on whether the Act’s provisions violated the rights of minority institutions:
“If the right is taken to be absolute and unqualified, then certainly such choice must be recognised and accepted. But, if the right has not been accepted to be absolute and unqualified and the national interest must always permeate and apply, the excellence and merit must be the governing criteria.”
“Any departure from the concept of merit and excellence would not make a minority educational institution an effective vehicle to achieve what has been contemplated in various decisions of this Court. Further, if merit is not the sole and governing criteria, the minority institutions may lag behind the non-minority institutions rather than keep in step with them…”
“If the minority institution has a better candidate available than the one nominated under a regulatory regime, the institution would certainly be within its rights to reject the nomination made by the authorities..”
“…but if the person nominated for imparting education is otherwise better qualified and suitable, any rejection of such nomination by the minority institution would never help such institution in achieving excellence and as such, any such rejection would not be within the true scope of the Right protected under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.”
The Court further added that all proposals made by the Commission in the implementation of the provisions of the Commission Act to be valid and operative.