CASE ANALYSIS OF

ST. STEPHEN COLLEGE V. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

(AIR 1992 SC 1630: 1992(1) SCC 558)

By:-

DEEKHSHA SHARMA

2nd Yr., BA.LLB.

THE LAWSCHOOL, UNIVERSITY OF JAMMU

Mob. : -9018241300

www.probono-india.in

August 11, 2020

INTRODUCTION

The case is a Writ Petition (Civil) 1868 of 1980.

In this case, the validity of admission programme and the preference given to Christian students
by St. Stephen’s College was challenged as violative of Delhi University circulars for admission
of B.A. and B.Com. courses.1

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

The case is related to St. Stephen's College at New Delhiaffiliated to the Delhi University. The
institution was an aided educational institution and getting grant from the State funds. They had
their own admission programme which they followed every academic year. The admission
programme provided for giving preference in favor of Christian students.

For the academic year 1980-81 the college published ‘Admission prospectus’ on May 25, 1980
providing that applications for admission for the first year course must be received in the College
office on or before June 20, 1980 ,which inter alia, provided that there would be an interview
prior to final selection for admission to the College.

On June 5, 1980 the University issued circular to all affiliated Colleges providing programme of
admission. Another circular was issued on 9 June, 1980 by the university to principals of all
affiliated colleges intimating that admission to B.A. (pass) /B.A vocational study courses be
based on the merit of percentage of marks secured by students within the qualifying examination.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

1. The first issue was that Whether St. Stephen’s College is a minority-run institution or not?
2. The second issue was that Whether St. Stephen’s College as minority institution was bound
by the University circulars or not?
3. The third issue was that Whether St. Stephen’s College is entitled to accord preference to or
reserve seats for students of Christian community and whether such preference would be
invalid under Article 29(2)?

1
(Pandey and Srivastava, 2019)
 A Bench2 consisting of 5 Judges examined the aforesaid questions in the light of rival
contentions.

ARGUMENTS FROM THE APELLANT SIDE

 It is an affiliated college admitted to the privileges of the University, but not a maintained
college.The college contended that it has been following its own admission programme
for more than hundred years and the method of interview had been followed without any
objection from the University. The selection on the basis of only marks obtained by the
candidates on the face of it would be unreasonable and violative of the fundamental right
of the College guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution.3 Therefore, it was
contended by the College that the circulars dated June 5, 1980 and June 9, 1980 are not
applicable to the College in view of its minority status.

ARGUMENTS FROM THE RESPONDENT SIDE

 The counsel from the respondent side did not say anything about the minority character
of the College but contended that the college was set up by foreign Mission from
Cambridge and not by Indian residents and therefore, not entitled to claim benefit under
Article 30(1). Delhi University and Student’s Union argued that the circulars were
regulative in character and did not impinge upon the rights guaranteed by article
30(1).Since the College is receiving aid out of State funds, it is not entitled to practice
discrimination in the matter of admission on the ground of religion and/or language. This
is plainly contrary to the mandate of Article 29(2) of the Constitution. University
directions as to admission of students to affiliated colleges does not infringe in any
manner the fundamental rights of the body administering the College, assuming without
admitting that such a body is entitled to claim a fundamental right under Article 30 of the
Constitution. The College, therefore, is bound to follow the two directions in question

2
The judges were Kania MH, K. Jagannatha Shetty, Mrs. M. Fathima Beevi, Yogeshwar Dayal, Kasliwal N. M., JJ.
3
St. Stephen College V. University of Delhi <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1545248/> accessed on 11 August, 2020
 which have been given by the University to all colleges alike in exercise of its statutory
power under the relevant Ordinances of the University.

LEGAL ASPECTS

The case revolves around the interpretation of clauses of the two articles i.e., Article 29 and
Article 30

ARTICLE 29(2)

Article 29 is a Fundamental Right enshrined in the Constitution of India. According to Clause 2

of Article 29 ‘No Citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institutions maintained
by the state or receiving aid out of the State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste,
language or any of them.’

ARTICLE 30(1)

Article 30 is also a Fundamental Right and grants certain rights to minorities, whether religious
or linguistic: Clause 1 of Article 30 states that ‘All minorities shall have the proper right to
determine and administer educational institutions of their choice’.

RESERVATION IN OTHER COUNTRIES

Affirmative action is adopted by various countries in the field of education. Different countries
use different names for Reservation. In America, it is called Affirmative Action. In Europe, it is
termed as Positive Action or Positive Discrimination. In Canada, it is called as Employment
Equity. In India, it is called reservation. In the International law, it is termed as Special
Measures.

VIEWS OF THE COURT

1. K. Jagannatha Shetty J., for the bulk, after considering the pleadings also because of the
various factors, held that St. Stephen’s College was established and administered by a
minority community, viz., the Christian community which is indisputably a spiritual
 minority in India also as within the UnionTerritoryof Delhi where the College is
located. Kasliwal,J, also agreed to the majority view on this point.
2. All the colleges of Delhi University were directed to admit students solely on the basis
of merit.
As per the second issue, the majority came to the conclusion that St. Stephen's College
was not bound by the impugned circulars of the university.
Hidayatullah J. in State of Kerala v. Mother provincial4maintains that the standard of
education is not a part of management as such. These standards concern the body politic and
are dictated by considerations of the advancement of the country and the people. The
minority institution cannot be allowed to fall below the standard of excellence expects of
educational institution or under the guise of exclusive right of management, to decline to
follow the overall pattern, while the management must be left to them, they may be
compelled to stay in step with others.
Ray, C.J. (for himself and on behalf of Palekas, J.) in AhmedabadSt. Xavier's College, v.
State of Gujarat,5stated that the right conferred on the religious and linguistic minorities to
administer educational institutions oftheir choice is not an absolute right. The right is not
free from regulations.Even as regulatory measures are necessary for maintaining the tutorial
character and content of minority institution, similarly, such measures are necessary for
ensuring orderly, efficient and sound administration.
In Sidhrajbhai V. State of Gujarat,6 the Court held that Regulations can be made to
prevent the housing of an educational institution in unhealthy surroundings or for preventing
setting up and continuation of an institution without qualified teachers. Thus regulations
made in the true interests of efficiency of instruction, discipline, health, sanitation, morality,
public order and the like may be imposed. Such regulations are not restrictions on the
substance of the right. Their main object is to secure proper functioning of the institutions in
the matters of education.
Though a regulation can be made to prevent maladministration in minority run educational
institution yet at the same time it has to be ensured that under the regulatory power nothing
is done that would destroy the character of the institution as a minority institution.

4
(1970) 2 S.C.C. 417 at 420-1.
5
A.l.R. 1974 S.C. 13 at 1398-1401)
6
AIR 1963 SC 956
 The regulations must satisfy dual test:
1. They must be reasonable, and
2. They are regulative of the educational character of the institution and are conducive in
making the institution an effective vehicle of education for the minority or other persons
who resort to it.
3. The most important question which arose in Stephen’s College case waswhether the
college and the Allahabad Agricultural Institute (another minority institution) are entitled
to reserve seats for student of their own community and whether such reservation would
be violative of clause (2) of article 29.
The majority held that the minority educational institutions were entitled to reserve fifty
per cent of seats for the students of their own community. This view results in
conclusion that clause (1) of article 30 is not subject to clause (2) of article 29 of the
Constitution.

It is humbly submitted that the above view taken by majority is contrary to the law laid down
within the previous judgments of the apex court on now.

In Bombay v. Bombay Education Society 7S.R. Das J. held that article 29(2) confers a special
right on citizens for admission into educational institutions maintained or aided by the state.To
limit this right only to citizens belonging to minority groups are going to be to supply a double
protection for such citizens and to carry that the citizens of the bulk group haven't any special
educational rights within the nature of a right to be admitted into an academic institution for the
upkeep of which they create contribution by way of taxes.. There is no cogent reason for such
discrimination.

In P.A.V. College, Jullundar v. State of Punjab, 8 Reddy J. pointed out that the reading of
articles 29 and 30 together would cause the conclusion that a spiritual or linguistic minority
features a right to establish and administer educational institutions of its choice for effectively
conserving its distinctive language, script or culture, which right, however, is subject to the
regulatory power of the state for maintaining and facilitating the excellence of its standards. This
right is further subject to clause (2) of article 29.

7
A.l.R. 1954 S.C. 561 at 566.
8
(1971) 2 S.C.C 269 at 273.
OVERVIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT

The Court held by a majority9 of 4:1 thatthe college is established and administered by a
Minority community. Further, the college is not bound to follow the University circulars as it
will deprive the college of their minority character. The right selection of students is an
important facet of administration which is rightly protected under Article 30(1). This power also
can be regulated but the regulation must be reasonable and should be conducive of the minority
institutions. The University circular to select students on the Uniform basis of marks secured in
the qualifying examinations would deny the right to the college to admit students belonging to
Christian community as they generally lack merit when compared to students of majority
community. Unless some concession is provided to the Minority community students, they will
have no chance of getting admission to the College. The majority held that Minority Educational
Institutions were entitled to reserve fifty percent of seats for the students of their own community
candidates and are entitled to give them preference in admissions as it is necessary to maintain
the minority character of institutions.The admission of other community candidates shall be done
purely on the idea of merit. The Supreme Court held that even a minority institution receiving
aid from state funds was entitled to accord preference to or reserve seats for candidates
belonging to its own community on the basis of religion or language.However, the court allowed
such institutions to admit students of its own community to the extent of fifty per cent of the
annual intake and insisted that such differential treatment must be in conformity with the
university's standards. The court held that differential treatment of students in the admission
process did not violate Article 29(2) or Article 14 (equality before law) of the Constitution and it
was essential to maintain the minority character of the institution.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, the Court was of the view that the St. Stephen College was a Minority run institution
established and administered by Minorities and therefore, was not bound by the University
circulars as it would deny the right conferred to them by the Constitution in Article 30(1). The
right conferred by Article 30(1) is intended to be real and effective and not a mere pious and
abstract sentiment. Such a right cannot be directed to making the institution effective as
9
The majority view was taken by Kania MH, K. Jagannath Shetty, Mrs. M. Fathima Beevi, Yogeshwar Dayal JJ.,
and minority view was given by Kasliwal, N.M. J.
educational institution, while retaining its character as minority institution. The major and most
important decision which was given in this case was that of reservation of seats in the minority
educational institutions. It was held by majority that the Minority aided educational institutions
may preserve fifty percent of the seats for their community students and may give preference to
them in admissions.

SUGGESTIONS

Former Supreme Court judge V.R. Krishna Iyer, once said: “The first caution is that reservation
must be kept in restraint by the stress of competence. You can't extend the shelter of reservation
where minimum qualifications are absent. Similarly, all the simplest talent can't be completely
excluded by wholesale reservation.” This author thinks this statement to be of great importance
and needs the Indian Judiciary to suits this.

REFERENCES

1. Dr. J. N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India (first published 1969, Central Law Agency)
2. State of Kerala V. Mother Provincial, (1970) 2 S.C.C. 417 at 420-1
3. St. Xavier's College, v. State of Gujarat,A.l.R. 1974 S.C. 13 at 1398-1401)
4. Sidhrajbhai V. State of Gujarat, AIR 1963 SC 956
5. Bombay v. Bombay Education Society, A.l.R. 1954 S.C. 561 at 566.
6. P.A. V. College, Jullundar v. State of Punjab, (1971) 2 S.C.C 269 at 273.

BRIEF ABOUT AUTHOR

Deekhsha Sharma is a 2nd year Ba.LLB(Hons.) student at The Law School, University of
Jammu. She has a keen interest in Criminal Law, Family Law and Constitutional Law.
She was associated with Niti Manthan as their Legal Research and Content Writer. She is also
the campus Ambassador of Lex Bona Fide.