RP No. 510 of 2019 in W.P.(C) No. 23707 of 2018; RP No. 511 of 2019 in W.P.(C) No. 23707 of 2018; RP No. 512 of 2019 in W.P.(C) No. 22962 of 2018; RP No. 515 of 2019 in W.P.(C) No. 22168 of 2018; RP No. 516 of 2019 in W.P.(C) No. 22168 of 2018 (Review Petitions, Kerala High Court, Ernakulam)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.** **THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1941** **RP.No.510 of 2019 IN WP(C).23707/2018** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 23707/2018 DATED 31.10.2018 OF HIGH COURT.** ## **REVIEW PETITIONER/S:** **THE MEDICAL MISSION OF THE SOUTH KERALA DIOCESE OF THE CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA(SIUC) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LMS COMPOUND, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 MUHAMMED RIZWAN, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAZAK, MANNINEZHATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, THEVALAKARA, KOIVILA P.O., KOLLAM - 691 590.** - **2 ROJA SULAIMAN, AGED 19 YEARS, D/O.M.SULAIMAN, KUNNUMPURATHU VEEDU, VAYAKKAL, KOLLAM - 691 532.** - **3 ASHMIYA BASHEER, AGED 19 YEARS, D/O.BASHEER, PUTHENKANDATHIL, ADINADU SOUTH, KATTILKADAVU P.O., KOLLAM - 690 542.** - **4 AMINA S HUSSAIN, AGED 20 YEARS, D/O.SAKEERHUSSAIN, NILAVE, KUNNICODE, KUNNICODE P.O., KOLLAM - 691 508.** - **5 AMEEN ANAS, AGED 19 YEARS, D/O.ANAS T.M., THEKKANAYYATHU, KOTTUKADU, KUKUNDAPURAM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM - 691 585.** **- 2 -** **RP.510 of 2019 & connected cases** - **6 AFNA, AGAED 18 YEARS, D/O.NOWSHAD M. ALIYA, AZAD NAGAR, VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM - 691 010.** - **7 SALMA HAFEEJA, AGED 18 YEARS, D/O.ABDUL HALIK THASHBIN, THOPPIL HOUSE, MEDAYIL JUNCTION,KUREEPUZHA, KAVANAD P.O., KOLLAM - 691 003.** - **8 SHEHANA.S., AGED 19 YEARS, D/O.SHEREEF MEERA SAHIB, KADAPURAYIDOM, KANNANALLOOR P.O., THRIKKOVILVATTOM, KOLLAM - 691 576.** - **9 FARHANA SALIM, AGED 19 YEARS, D/O.SALIM, BEENAMANZIL, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645.** - **10 FATHIMA SALIM, AGED 19 YEARS, D/O.SALIM MAJEED,BEENAMANZIL, NEAR KSEB, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645.** - **11 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (S) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** - **12 COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** - **13 ADMISSION AND REE REGULATORY COMMITTEE FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION KERALA,** - **T.C.15/1553-A, PRASANTHI BUILDINGS, M.P.APPAN ROAD, VAZHUTHACAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 14.** - **14 PRINCIPAL,TRAVANCORE MEDI CITY MEDICAL COLLEGE, UMAYANALOOR, KOLLAM - 691 589.** - **15 FATHIMA SHIRIN, AGED 18 YEARS, D/O MOHAMMED SHAFI, C5 METROGARDEN, ACHANVEETTIL LANE, PACHALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682012.** - **16 SAFANIYA P., AGED 19 YEARS, D/O FAKRUDHEEN.P, PAYYOLI, THURAYUR, PAYYOLI ANGADI, PIN-673523.** **RP.510 of 2019 & - 3 - connected cases** **17 MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, CALICUT REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, PROF.P.O.J.LEBBA.** **BY ADVS. R1 TO R10 BY SRI.MANZOOR B.H. R13 BY STANDING COUNSEL SMT.MARY BENJAMIN. R17 BY SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.ANJALY N.S. SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN SRI.K.M.FAISAL (KALAMASSERY) SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SR. GP SRI.V.MANU FOR R11** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.07.2019, ALONG WITH RP.511/2019, RP.512/2019, RP.515/2019, RP.516/2019, THE COURT ON 25.07.2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **RP.510 of 2019 & - 4 - connected cases** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.** **THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1941 RP.No.511 of 2019 IN WP(C). 23707/2018** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 23707/2018 DATED 31.10.2018 of HIGHCOURT** ## **REVIEW PETITIONERS/ STRANGERS TO THE WRIT PETITION:** - **1 KERALA CHRISTIAN PROFESSIONAL COLLEGE MANAGEMENT FEDERATION,** - **(REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT), RAJAGIRI VALLEY.P.O., KALAMASSERY, -683104.** - **2 THE DIRECTOR, JUBILEE MISSION MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE, TRICHUR 680005.** **BY ADVS. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.) SRI.THOMAS GEORGE SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM** ## **- RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER RESPONDENTS:** - **1 MUHAMMED RIZWAN, S/O. ABDUL RAZAK, MANNINESHATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, THEVALAKARA, KOIVILA.P.O., KOLLAM-691590.** - **2 ROJA SULAIMAN, AGED 19 YEARS D/O.M.SULAIMAN, KUNNUMPURATHU VEEDU, VAYAKKAL, KOLLAM - 691 532.** - **3 ASHMIYA BASHEER, AGED 19 YEARS, D/O.BASHEER, PUTHENKANDATHIL, ADINADU SOUTH, KATTILKADAVU P.O., KOLLAM - 690 542.** **RP.510 of 2019 & - 5 - connected cases** - **4 AMINA S HUSSAIN, AGED 20 YEARS, D/O.SAKEERHUSSAIN, NILAVE, KUNNICODE, KUNNICODE P.O.,KOLLAM - 691 508.** - **5 AMEEN ANAS, AGED 19 YEARS, D/O.ANAS T.M., THEKKANAYYATHU, KOTTUKADU,KUKUNDAPURAM, CHAVARA,KOLLAM - 691 585.** - **6 AFNA, AGAED 18 YEARS, D/O.NOWSHAD M. ALIYA, AZAD NAGAR, VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM - 691 010.** - **7 SALMA HAFEEJA, AGED 18 YEARS, D/O.ABDUL HALIK THASHBIN, THOPPIL HOUSE, MEDAYIL JUNCTION, KUREEPUZHA, KAVANAD P.O., KOLLAM - 691 003.** - **8 SHEHANA.S., AGED 19 YEARS, D/O.SHEREEF MEERA SAHIB, KADAPURAYIDOM, KANNANALLOOR P.O., THRIKKOVILVATTOM, KOLLAM - 691 576.** - **9 FARHANA SALIM, AGED 19 YEARS, D/O.SALIM, BEENAMANZIL, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645.** - **10 FATHIMA SALIM, AGED 19 YEARS, D/O.SALIM MAJEED, BEENAMANZIL, NEAR KSEB,PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645.** - **11 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (S) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** - **12 THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** - **13 ADMISSION AND FEE REGULATORY COMMITTEE FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION KERALA,** - **T.C.15/1553-A, PRASANTHI BUILDINGS, M.P.APPAN ROAD, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 14** - **14 PRINCIPAL, TRAVANCORE MEDI CITY MEDICAL COLLEGE, UMAYANALOOR, KOLLAM - 691 589.** - **15 FATHIMA SHIRIN, D/O MOHAMMED SHAFI, C5 METROGARDEN, ACHANVEETTIL LANE, PACHALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682012.** - **16 SAFANIYA.P., D/O FAKRUDHEEN.P, PAYYOLI, THURAYUR, PAYYOLI ANGADI, PIN-673523.** **RP.510 of 2019 & - 6 - connected cases** **17 MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, PROF.P.O.J.LEBBA.** **BY ADVS.** **R1 TO R10 BY SRI.MANZOOR B.H. R11 & R12 BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.V.MANU. R13 BY STANDING COUNSEL SMT.MARY BENJAMIN. R17 BY SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.07.2019, ALONG WITH RP.516/2019, RP.515/2019, RP.512/2019, RP.510/2019, THE COURT ON 25.07.2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **- 7 -** **RP.510 of 2019 & connected cases** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.** **THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1941** **RP.No.512 of 2019 IN WP(C).22962/2018** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 22962/2018 DATED 31.10.2018 OF HIGH COURT.** ## **REVIEW PETITIONERS/ STRANGER TO THE WRIT PETITION:** **1 KERALA CHRISTIAN PROFESSIONAL COLLEGE MANGEMENT FEDERATION MANAGEMENT FEDERATION, (REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT), RAJAGIRI VALLEY P.O., KALAMASSERY, 683 104.** **2 THE DIRECTOR, JUBILEE MISSION MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE, TRICHUR - 680 005.** **BY ADVS. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.) SRI.ALEX GEORGE (CHAMAPPARAYIL)** ## **RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER – RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING TRUSTEE, QUILON MEDICAL TRUST, KOLLAM, PIN-691 020** **2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THRIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **RP.510 of 2019 & - 8 - connected cases** - **3 THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHINAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001** - **4 THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** - **5 FATHIMA SHIRIN, M.MOHAMMED SHAFI, C5 METROGARDEN, ACHANVEETTIL LANE, PACHALAM, ERNAKULAM - 682 012.** - **6 SAFANIYA P., D/O.FAKRUDHEEN P., PAYYOLI, THURAVYUR, PAYYOLI ANGADI - 673 523** - **7 MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, PROF. P.O.J.LEBBA, PIN - 673 570** **BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MANU V. FOR R2 TO R4 R1 BY SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.) SRI.THOMAS GEORGE R7 BY SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.ANJALY N.S. SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN SRI.K.M.FAISAL (KALAMASSERY) SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.07.2019, ALONG WITH RP.511/2019, RP.516/2019, RP.515/2019, RP.510/2019, THE COURT ON 25.07.2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **RP.510 of 2019 & - 9 - connected cases** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.** **THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1941 RP.No.515 of 2019 IN WP(C). 22168/2018** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 22168/2018 DATED 31.10.2018 OF HIGH COURT** ## **REVIEW PETITIONERS/ STRANGERS TO THE WRIT PETITION:** - **1 KERALA CATHOLIC ENGINEERING COLLEGE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY) RAJAGIRI VALLEY P.O., KALAMASSERY - 683 104.** - **2 THE DIRECTOR,** **RAJAGIRI SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, RAJAGIRI VALLEY P.O., KAKKANAD.** **BY ADVS. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.) SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM** ## **RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS:** - **1 SAFE DEVELOPMENT ALMS TRUST (SDA TRUST), MELAMURI, PALAKKAD - 678 006, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **2 B.RAHIM, S/O.BAVA, MANAGER, KARUNA MEDICAL COLLEGE, VILAYODI, CHITTOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 103.** - **3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **- 10 -** **RP.510 of 2019 & connected cases** - **4 THE ADMISSION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES IN KERALA, PRASANTHI BUILDING, M.P.APPAN ROAD, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.** - **5 THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, CONVENER SCREENING COMMITTEE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** - **6 FATHIMA SHIRIN, D/O.M.MOHAMMED SHAFI, C5 METROGARDEN, ACHANVEETTIL LANE, PACHALAM, ERNAKULAM - 682 012.** - **7 SAFANIYA P., D/O.FAKRUDHEEN P., PAYYOLI, THURAVYUR, PAYYOLI ANGADI - 673 523.** - **8 MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, PROF. P.O.J.LEBBA, PIN - 673 570** **BY ADVS. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN R3 BY SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER SRI.V.MANU R4 BY STANDING COUNSEL SMT.MARY BENJAMIN R8 BY ADV.SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.ANJALY N.S. SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SMT.STIYA SIVAN SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN SRI.K.M.FAISAL (KALAMASSERY) SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.07.2019, ALONG WITH RP.511/2019, RP.516/2019, RP.512/2019, RP.510/2019, THE COURT ON 25.07.2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **- 11 -** **RP.510 of 2019 & connected cases** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.** **THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1941 RP.No.516 of 2019 IN WP(C). 22168/2018** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 22168/2018 DATED 31.10.2018 OF HIGH COURT.** ## **REVIEW PETITIONERS/ STRANGERS TO THE WRIT PETITION:** - **1 KERALA CHRISTIAN PROFESSIONAL COLLEGE MANAGEMENT FEDERATION,** **(REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT), RAJAGIRI VALLEY P. O., KALAMASSERY, - 683 104** - **2 THE SECRETARY, THE MALANKARA ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOLENCHERRY** **BY ADVS. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.) SRI.THOMAS GEORGE SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM** ## **RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS:** - **1 SAFE DEVELOPMENT ALMS TRUST (SDA TRUST), MELAMURI, PALAKKAD - 678006, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **2 B. RAHIM, S/O. BAVA, MANAGER, KARUNA MEDICAL COLLEGE, VILAYODI, CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 103** - **3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN CODE - 695 001.** **RP.510 of 2019 & - 12 - connected cases** - **4 THE ADMISSION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES IN KERALA** - **PRASANTHI BUILDING, M. P. APPAN ROAD, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN** - **5 THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, CONVENER SCREENING COMMITTEE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001** - **6 FATHIMA SHIRIN, D/O. M. MOHAMMED SHAFI, C5 METROGARDEN, ACHANVEETTIL LANE, PACHALAM, ERNAKULAM - 682 012** - **7 SAFANIYA P., D/O. FAKRUDHEEN P., PAYYOLI, THURAVYUR, PAYYOLI ANGADI - 673 523** - **8 MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, P ROF. P.O.J.LEBBA, PIN - 673570** **R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN R3 BY SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER SRI.V.MANU R4 BY STANDING COUNSEL SMT.MARY BENJAMIN R8 BY ADV.SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.07.2019, ALONG WITH RP.511/2019, RP.515/2019, RP.512/2019, RP.510/2019, THE COURT ON 25.07.2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **- 13 -** **RP.510 of 2019 & connected cases** **K. Vinod Chandran & Shircy V., JJ. -----------------------------------------------R.P.No.510 of 2019 in W.P(C) No.23707 of 2018 R.P.No.511 of 2019 in W.P(C) No.23707 of 2018 R.P.No.512 of 2019 in W.P(C) No.22962 of 2018 R.P.No.515 of 2019 in W.P(C) No.22168 of 2018 R.P.No.516 of 2019 in W.P(C) No.22168 of 2018 ------------------------------------------------Dated, this the 25[th] day of July, 2019** ## **ORDER** **Vinod Chandran, J.** **A very interesting question was considered in the judgment which is sought to be reviewed. The challenge in the writ petitions was against the denial of approval to a seat matrix proffered by the educational agencies running self-financing colleges, which were minority institutions entitled to protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. In the three writ petitions considered by the another Division Bench, in which one of us was a member (Shircy V.,J.), the petitioner institutions created separate reservations within the seats set apart for minority community. Seats were reserved for dependents of various trusts, members of sects within the Muslim community, even political associations of the community and for all India Muslims which failed to receive the approval of the State. The challenge was also made against the prescription for producing certificates from the Revenue** **RP.510 of 2019 & connected cases** ## **- 14 -** **authorities; when for the Christian community, another minority community, the Government accepted production of certificates from the religious leaders. The challenge against denial of seat matrix, in the writ petitions, as proffered by the institutions was also on the ground that in the case of Christian minority institutions, the same was permitted in the earlier year. The review petitioners are those Christian institutions whose grievance is that they were not heard and that the protection under Article 30(1) has not been correctly considered in the judgment.** **2. The learned Senior Counsel Sri.Kurian George Kannanthanam appearing for some of the review petitioners point out that the minority institutions are established by various Churches within the Christian community, like Syro Malabar, Syro Malankara, Latin and so on and so forth. These are denominations within the Christian community, for which a preference was given when allotting the seats reserved for minority community. There was also preference to Dalit Christians who form a marginalized section of the community and also Priests and Nuns of the respective Churches. Then the Archdiocese of the Church, who established the Colleges, is also entitled to reserve some seats for their faithful ie: to the laity attached to the** **RP.510 of 2019 & - 15 - connected cases** **Parishes under the Archdiocese. The various minority institutions having established professional colleges, are entitled to choose the persons within their community, who are to be given preference in their educational institutions, which choice is inbuilt in the protection under Article 30(1).** **3. It is also pointed out from Annexure-I produced in R.P.No.512 of 2019 that the Government of Kerala had accepted such seat matrix and had also allotted candidates on the basis of the seat matrix in accordance with their merit as discernible from the rank list prepared under NEET. It is argued that Article 30(1) does not speak of a community and the scope of the protection available under Article 30(1), is an unfettered choice conferred on the minorities, which also has to be understood by telescoping the protection available, through Article 26 of the Constitution. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that Article 26 speaks of religious denomination or any section thereof and such a freedom available in the matter of managing religious affairs as also to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes should be understood as being re-affirmed and expanded by the protection under Article 30. Every** **RP.510 of 2019 & - 16 - connected cases** **denomination, hence, is entitled to a preference and choice, by virtue of the protection to minorities, when the minority institution is established by that denomination. There could be an unequivocal choice exercised by such denomination to give preference to certain groups within the community who are marginalized and identify the group of members, who need such uplift by way of education. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in** _**T.M.A.Pai Foundation v**_ **.** _**State of Karnataka**_ **[** _**(2002) 8 SCC 481**_ **] was relied on to advance the said proposition. The freedom of choice available under Article 30(1) extends to admission of the students, asserts the Senior Counsel.** **4. The learned Senior Counsel accepting the** **caution, we expressed as to the confined jurisdiction of review, submits that if the review is allowed and the matter is re-heard on merits, then definitely the precedents with respect to the unfettered choice will be placed before Court. It is also the compelling argument of Sri.Kannanthanam that the review petitioners herein were not heard by the earlier Division Bench and since the decision would have affected the Christian minority institutions, necessarily the Division Bench ought to have issued notice to all affected parties. There should have** **RP.510 of 2019 & - 17 - connected cases** **been more comprehensive consideration on the basis of the ecclesiastical hierarchy existing in a Christian Church, which is absent in the Muslim community.** **5. Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned Counsel appears for a charitable society, constituted for the uplift of SIUC Nadar community carrying on a professional college. It is submitted that the Nadar community, who were converts from the Hindu religion, form a separate, distinct group within the Christian community with differing practices and identity and are marginalized in so far as financial and social status. They are a minority group within the Christian community and have to be given the protection available under Article 30(1) in its true ambit and scope as available under Article 26. The learned Counsel relies on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in** _**Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta v**_ **.** _**Commissioner of Police, Calcutta**_ **[** _**(1983) 4 SCC 522**_ **].** **6. Senior Government Pleader Sri.V.Manu seeks to sustain the judgment and argues that there is absolutely no scope for review. It is pointed out that a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in** _**Christu Jyoti Institute of Technology and Science v**_ **.** _**David**_ **[** _**2001 KHC 630**_ **] had dealt with the identical issue to find that the different groups** **RP.510 of 2019 & connected cases** ## **- 18 -** **of faith coming under the Christian minority community has to claim the benefits available, equally. The above decision of the Division Bench has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1140 of 2002 by order dated 03.09.2002. It is conceded that the State cannot curtail the freedom of the minority institutions to make admissions from the minority community itself. But, however, the source is decided by the Constitution itself and there cannot be dissection of the distinct minority community into sub-sects. A benefit, preference or privilege to some, in exclusion to and sacrificing the merit of the other members of the community runs foul of the protection under Art.30(1). The word “minority” has been defined under the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 as also the Kerala State Commission for Minorities Act, 2014; under which notifications have been brought out by the respective Governments at the Union level and the State. They speak of only five minority communities and there cannot be any division of such communities enumerated in the notification further, on the basis of sub-sects, political affiliations, residence in a particular District or the nature of dependency to a trust or affiliation to a particular Church** **- 19 -** **RP.510 of 2019 & connected cases** **or allegiance to a Diocese. Sri.Babu Karukappadath, appearing for the Muslim Educational Society, seeks to sustain the judgment and argue that there is absolutely no scope for review.** **7. The Division Bench had elaborately considered the submissions made on behalf of the minority institutions by various Counsel appearing; one of whom was the learned Senior Counsel appearing in these review petitions. We cannot accept the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that, if the Christian institutions were heard then the decision would have been different. But considering the fact that the review petitioners were not parties in the writ petitions we heard them elaborately. The Division Bench, which considered the matter, has elaborately considered the various precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.** _**Bal Patil v**_ **.** _**Union of India**_ **[** _**(2005) 6 SCC 690**_ **] was cited to find that the expression “minority” as used in Articles 29 and 30 has not been defined in the Constitution. The provisions of the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992 and the definition of “minority” was noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to hold that this only provides for notifying certain communities as “minorities” who require special treatment and protection of their** **- 20 -** **RP.510 of 2019 & connected cases** **religious, cultural and educational rights. The definition under the Act enables the Central Government to identify a community as minority. The Central Government as well as the State Government has notified certain communities as “minority” under the Act, which does not call for further sub-division.** _**Bramchari Sidheswar Shai v**_ **.** _**State of W.B**_ **. [** _**(1995) 4 SCC 646**_ **] was relied on to negative the contention that merely for reason of there being distinct practices prevalent in certain religions as applicable to sub-sects and groups; there can be a claim raised of a minority within the particular religion. Therein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering whether professing, practicing, or propagating the religious doctrines and teachings of Ramakrishna belong to a different religion, distinct and separate from Hindu religion.** **8. The distinction drawn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of the right available under Article 25 and Article 30(1) was stressed, placing reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in** _**A.S.E.Trust v**_ **.** _**The Director of Education, Delhi Administration**_ **[** _**AIR 1976 Delhi 207**_ **]. The claim of Arya Samaj Education Trust, Delhi for the benefit of right under Article 30(1); was rejected specifically referring to the word “religion” in Article 25, which takes** **RP.510 of 2019 & - 21 - connected cases** **in the religion as a whole and its sections and sects. The Division Bench categorically held that there cannot be a further categorization of a minority community into separate denominations within it.** **9.** _**T.M.A.Pai Foundation**_ **was relied on to find that the minority status of a community is to be decided treating the country or the State as a unit.** _**Modern Dental College and Research Centre v**_ **.** _**State of Madhya Pradesh**_ **[** _**(2016) 7 SCC 353**_ **] was relied on for the proposition that the right of unaided professional colleges to admit students of their choice is subject to selection of students on the basis of their merit through a transparent, fair and non-exploitative procedure. Paragraph 36 of the said judgment was also relied on as to the manner of determining the merit.** _**P.A.Inamdar v**_ **.** _**State of Maharashtra**_ **[** _**(2005) 6 SCC 537**_ **] was relied on for looking at the extent to which grant of admission to non-minorities could be permitted in such minority educational institutions, wherein it was categorically held that though the minority institution to retain its character, has to cater to the requirements of such minority community, nonetheless the minority status is not lost if there is a sprinkling of non-minority students admitted. The extent to which State** **- 22 -** **RP.510 of 2019 & connected cases** **regulation can be allowed insofar as a minority institution was also delineated with reference to the precedents. The well accepted proposition that Article 30(1) is not an absolute right and is subject to any regulation made by the State to maintain standards and uniformity in education was re-stated.** **10. The seat matrix proposed by the colleges, envisaging grant of admission to various sects and creeds within the religion was found to be invalid and illegal, especially then it would lead to merit being compromised and the minority community members themselves being prejudiced by such categorization. The settled position of law that** _**inter se**_ **merit among the candidates would have to be maintained even while selecting candidates for admission to a minority institution was reiterated with reliance placed on** _**Islamic Academy of Education v**_ **.** _**State of Karnataka**_ **[** _**(2003) 6 SCC 697**_ **].** _**Indian Medical Association v**_ **.** _**Union of India**_ **[** _**(2011) 7 SCC 179**_ **] was relied on to find, what the source is. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found the regulations by the State in the case of non-minority educational institutions, to be on the higher side; especially when selection of students is made from the general pool, based on merit and marks obtained in the** **RP.510 of 2019 & - 23 - connected cases** **qualifying examination. The ability to choose within a smaller group within the general pool, was a right available to the minority institutions under Article 30(1). The ability to so choose within a smaller group was held to be not a right to choose the source, which was held to be one given and determined by the Constitution itself. The source was found to be the minority community and depends only on whether the group claiming to be minority is actually a minority community or not. When the minority community is identified there cannot be further dissection of the same.** **11. The minority communities notified by the Government are only five in number – Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Budhists and Zoroastrians (Parsis). We cannot accept the contention of the review petitioners that the right available under Article 30(1) has to be telescoped through the freedom conferred under Article 26. The reliance placed** **on** _**Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta**_ **is absolutely misplaced. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in that case was not considering the extension of the protection under Article 30(1); to a religious denomination within the Hindu religion. Ananda Margis were held to be a denomination of Hindu religion, even going by their own averment that they** **RP.510 of 2019 & - 24 - connected cases** **were Shaivites which was and is a well known segment of Hindu religion. There the question was whether the Ananda Margis in carrying out a procession, could also indulge in the unique practice of “Tandava” carrying lethal weapons and a skull, all of which had symbolic significance to the tenets practiced by them. The Supreme Court though found them entitled to carry on processions when there is no prohibition under the Cr.P.C; all the same held the “Tandava”, with the props of skull and lethal weapons to be objectionable to public morals and detrimental to maintenance of law and order, thus dis-entitling protection under Articles 25 and 26. There never arose a question of the protection under Article 30(1).** **12. As has been held by the Division Bench, in the decision under review, the protection available under Article 30(1) is to the minority communities and there can be no sub-division made within the minority community, thus giving short shrift to merit and putting at peril the larger interest of the community members as a whole. A division or dissection, made by the educational agency, of the community into sub-sects and denominations, however laudable and** _**bonafide**_ **the object be, would run foul of the very constitutional vision, of providing an integrated,** **- 25 -** **RP.510 of 2019 & connected cases** **egalitarian, all inclusive society, enabling a level playing field to the minority community members. If the freedom available to the religious denominations under Article 26, is extended, projected and telescoped into Article 30(1); then Ananda Margis, who were found, by the Supreme Court, to be a separate denomination within the Hindu community could claim protection under Article 30(1); though they cannot be regarded as a minority community. The minority institutions definitely have an unfettered right to admit their students to the institutions, on merit through a transparent, non-exploitative and fair procedure. Any discrimination on grounds of different practices, distinct social or financial status, political affiliations, nativity to a district, dependency to a Trust or allegiance to a Church etc. would frustrate and violate the protection granted to the minorities. It would be prejudicial to the members of the community itself who are excluded on grounds of the distinctions which often are artificial; viewed in the perspective of the protection envisaged under Article 30(1).** **13. The ecclesiastical hierarchy existing in the Christian Church does not confer on the Christian community any separate status from the other minority communities, to** **- 26 -** **RP.510 of 2019 & connected cases** **make a division within the community, to favour some. However good the intentions are it results in exclusion of meritorious others, from the same community; whatever their status, standing, affiliations, allegiance or practises are. When the institution, to be retained the status of minority, is required to primarily cater to the members of that community there cannot be an exclusion of some belonging to the same community. Reckoning the status of minority, also would have to be on the unit of the State or the Centre and there cannot be a further demarcation of areas on the basis of the sub-division of a State into districts and thehsils.** **14. The choice is not of the minority institution to decide the source from which appointments are to be made. The source is clearly defined, though by implication, as the minority religious community which is enabled the protection under Article 30(1). Here there is a common merit list prepared and there are students available within the minority community, who are by-passed for reason of their not being included in the preferred groups or the divisions of revenue territory, different practices of faith, social or financial status. When the minority community has a right to admit a student of their community** **RP.510 of 2019 & - 27 - connected cases** **in preference to a student of any other community, even ignoring comparative merit; among their own community members, merit cannot be ignored, in which event it would be obliterating the very objective of the protection guaranteed under Article 30(1). There cannot be a source found by the institution different from the community; even if that source is culled out from the community itself.** **15. The decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in** _**Christu Jyoti Institute of Technology and Science Vs. David 2001 KHC 630**_ **is apposite. A Christian minority institution, run by Roman Catholics denied admission to a student, a Christian, for reason of his being a Protestant. The contention raised by the College was that there are Colleges run by the Protestants and the appellant, run by Roman Catholics was established for the benefit of that particular community, though it comes within the Christian religion. The Division Bench headed by S.B. Sinha C.J (as he then was) found, on the basis of the Minorities Commission Act that the minority defined therein was among others, Christians and that the minority status certificate issued to the appellant also showed it as an institution run by the Christian Minority Community. It was held:-** _**“ For the purpose of deriving the benefits under Art. 29 & 30**_ **- 28 -** **RP.510 of 2019 & connected cases** _**read with the provisions of the Act and the Rules, different groups of faiths among the “Christianity” put together would constitute “Christianity Minority Community”. All the different groups of faiths among the Christianity are equally entitled to claim the benefits provided for their community.”(sic-para 15).**_ **This decision has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil appeal No. 1140 of 2002 by order dated 03.09.2002; giving the precedent, the exalted sheen under Article 141 of the Constitution.** **16. Both the Courts in** _**Christu Jyoti Institute of Technology and Science**_ **have pertinently noticed the statute of that State, which is available in this State too. Though a certificate is not relied on, it does not brook any dispute that the review petitioners are minority institutions and their status cannot be doubted merely for reason of there being no certificate issued under a statute. Art. 30(1) specifically enables protection to two groups or categories, religious and linguistic minorities and it cannot extend to sub-sects, denominations or groups professing different tenets or distinct practises, in exclusion of the persons who come within the well defined religious categories. If it was otherwise, linguistic** **RP.510 of 2019 & connected cases** ## **- 29 -** **minorities will have to be defined by the different dialects. We would refer to the vernacular language of the State, Malayalam, as spoken of in different parts of the State, which evokes at times a smile for its uniqueness as also the brash or musical quality of its rendition, celebrated in movies and mimicked in jest; nevertheless does not qualify for a linguistic minority status.** **17. The learned Senior Counsel specifically took us through paragraph 84 of** _**T.M.A.Pai Foundation**_ **to canvass his contention that the right to a minority institution under Article 30(1) has to be complemented with the right available to a religious denomination under Article 26. Paragraph 84 specifically referred to the freedom to religious affairs as provided by Article 26, which right is available to every religious denomination or any section thereof. A caution was also expressed insofar as the right to be exercised in a manner that is in conformity with public order, morality and health. In fact, paragraph 84 drew a distinction between Article 25(1) and Article 26, the former granting freedom of conscience and right to profess, practice and propagate religion. It was held that these are complementary; but, however, the distinction is that Article 26 is not the right of an individual and is** **RP.510 of 2019 & - 30 - connected cases** **confined to a religious denomination while Article 25 refers to all persons who are so conferred with individual rights. The rights under Articles 25 and 26 were unequivocally held to be possible of being exercised by both majority or minority religions. In fact, paragraph 92 is apposite and we extract the same hereunder:** **“92. Article 30(1) bestows on the minorities, whether based on religion or language, the right to establish and administer an educational institution of their choice. Unlike Articles 25 and 26, Article 30(1) does not specifically state that the right under Article 30(1) is subject to public order, morality and health or to other provisions of Part III. This sub-article also does not specifically mention that the right to establish and administer a minority educational institution would be subject to any rules or regulations”.** **We cannot find the Supreme Court having conferred any right under Article 30(1) to the denominations spoken of in Article 26. There can also be no telescoping of the rights under Article 30(1), by resort to Article 26 and thus conferment of such protection to a denomination within a minority religion, in exclusion of the community itself. This would be in contravention of the equal protection available to the other members of the minority religion.** **- 31 -** **RP.510 of 2019 & connected cases** **18.** _**T.M.A.Pai Foundation**_ **referred copiously and extracted from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in** _**Ahmedabad St.Xavier's College Society v**_ **.** _**State of Gujarat**_ **[** _**(1974) 1 SCC 717**_ **]. Referring to the concurring decision of Khanna,J. in** _**Ahmedabad St.Xavier's College Society**_ **paragraph 74 was extracted in paragraph 119, wherein analyzing clause (1) of Article 30 it was held that the right which has been conferred by the clause is on two types of minorities; based either on religion or language. The copious references made from various judgments also time and again refers to the protection being available to minorities based on religion or language, as is the specific words employed in the Constitution under Article 30(1). All the decisions referred to in** _**T.M.A.Pai Foundation**_ **whenever making reference to minorities qualifies it with the words “whether based on religion or language” as is seen from the Constitution. This qualification of minorities based on “religion” or “language” are the two definitive, decisive indices of minority categorization.** **19. We are also not impressed with the contention of the learned Senior Counsel, that if a review is occasioned and the matter heard afresh, there could be** **RP.510 of 2019 & - 32 - connected cases** **precedents placed to enable us to find differently, from the decision already rendered, on the choice conferred on minority institutions. We do not find a precedent higher or heavier than** _**T.M.A.Pai Foundation.**_ **The choice cannot extend to the minority institution, finding a source from within the minority religion, thus frustrating the very protection granted to the minorities as a whole. Here we refer to paragraph 114 & 120 of** _**T.M.A.Pai Foundation**_ **, wherein paragraph 12 & 77 of** _**Ahmedabad St.Xavier's College Society**_ **were extracted with approval, which explained the rationale behind Article 30. We make the very same extract from** _**T.M.A.Pai Foundation**_ **:** **"114. Elaborating on the meaning and intent of Article 30, the learned Chief Justice further observed as follows: (SCC p. 744, para 12)** **“** _**12**_ **. The real reason embodied in Article 30(1) of the Constitution is the conscience of the nation that the minorities, religious as well as linguistic, are not prohibited from establishing and administering educational institutions of their choice for the purpose of giving their children the best general education to make them complete men and women of the country. The minorities are given this protection under Article 30 in order to preserve and strengthen the integrity and unity of the country. The sphere of general secular education is intended to develop the commonness of boys and girls of our country. This is in the true spirit of liberty, equality and fraternity through the medium of education. If religious or linguistic minorities are not given protection under Article 30 to establish and administer educational** **- 33 -** **RP.510 of 2019 & connected cases** **institutions of their choice, they will feel isolated and separate. General secular education will open doors of perception and act as the natural light of mind for our countrymen to live in the whole".** **xxx xxx xxx** **120. Explaining the rationale behind Article 30, it was observed at SCR p. 224, as follows: (SCC p. 772, para 77)** **“** _**77**_ **. The idea of giving some special rights to the minorities is not to have a kind of a privileged or pampered section of the population but to give to the minorities a sense of security and a feeling of confidence. The great leaders of India since time immemorial had preached the doctrine of tolerance and catholicity of outlook. Those noble ideas were enshrined in the Constitution. Special rights for minorities were designed not to create inequality. Their real effect was to bring about equality by ensuring the preservation of the minority institutions and by guaranteeing to the minorities autonomy in the matter of the administration of those institutions. The differential treatment for the minorities by giving them special rights is intended to bring about an equilibrium, so that the ideal of equality may not be reduced to a mere abstract idea but should become a living reality and result in true, genuine equality, an equality not merely in theory but also in fact.”** **20.** _**T.M.A.Pai Foundation**_ **was relied on in** _**Indian**_ _**Medical Association**_ **to find that “the rights of minority unaided educational institutions to select students, based on merit, is with respect to students who belong to that same minority. It is not a right to define source as such”** **- 34 -** **RP.510 of 2019 & connected cases** **(sic – para 79). We also deem it appropriate that paragraphs 97 and 101 of** _**Indian Medical Association**_ **be extracted:** **“97. A clear set of distinctions emerge between educational institutions that are started and operated by minorities and non-minorities. The level of regulation that the State can impose under clause (6) of Article 19 on the freedoms enjoyed pursuant to sub-clause (** _**g**_ **) of clause (1) of Article 19 by non-minority educational institutions would be greater than what could be imposed on minority institutions under Article 30(1) continuing to maintain minority status by admitting mostly students of the minority to which the minority institution claims it belongs to, except for a sprinkling of non-minority students. The critical difference in regulation that would be higher in the case of non-minority educational institutions is that they only select students from the general pool, and based on merit as determined by marks secured in qualifying examinations. The ability to choose from a smaller group within the general pool, becomes available only to those who are constitutionally protected under clause (1) of Article 30. Even that ability to choose from within the smaller group is not really a right to choose a “source”. The source is given. The source can only be the minority to which the minority educational institution claims it** **- 35 -** **RP.510 of 2019 & connected cases** **belongs to. Once the choice is exercised to be an educational institution that serves a minority, the source itself is given by clause (1) of Article 30 and depends on whether the group claiming to be a minority is actually a minority or not, as determined at the State level.** **xxx xxx xxx** **101. What stands out therefore, is that even though it is quite clearly and explicitly stated that maintenance of merit as determined by marks secured in qualifying examinations is an absolute necessity under clause (6) of Article 19 for those enjoying the freedoms only under sub-clause (** _**g**_ **) of clause (1) of Article 19, the protection of clause (1) of Article 30 to minorities is extended to choosing those with merit, based on marks on the qualifying examinations, amongst their own minority group. There is no choice of “source” here. The choice is only with - respect to being a minority or a non minority educational institution. If the choice is exercised that the promoters wish to start a minority educational institution, the source immediately gets affixed, by clause (1) of Article 30 and a determination of who falls within that minority group. The educational institution does not do that. The State does that, following a constitutionally mandated and permissible process. In that sense, even there it is the State which delineates the “source” so that the protections of clause (1) of** **- 36 -** **RP.510 of 2019 & connected cases** **Article 30 indeed flow to the minorities that the State was expected to protect.** **(underlining by us for emphasis)** **21. The protection as envisaged in the Constitution took the minority communities as a whole and gave them such special protection to bring about an equilibrium and if privilege is granted to a particular group, sub sect or denomination, then it would create inequality among the minorities themselves, which would obliterate the concept of equality as also defeat and violate the Constitutional vision enshrined in Article 30(1). We find no way to differ from the decision under review on any grounds urged much less one of a mistake apparent on the face of the record. We are conscious of the fact that the State had in the case of the review petitioners, allotted candidates in accordance with the approved seat matrix for the earlier year, which had also found the approval of the statutory body, the Admission Supervisory Committee. The ASC on the basis of the declaration made in the decision under review, had refused to approve the admissions; which motivated the review petitions. We proceed no further on that aspect since the challenge to the order of the ASC, is pending consideration before another Division Bench.** **RP.510 of 2019 & - 37 - connected cases** ## **The review petitions stand rejected. No order as** ## **to costs.** **Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/SHIRCY V. JUDGE** **Vku/-** **RP.510 of 2019 & - 38 - connected cases** ## **APPENDIX OF RP 511/2019** **PETITIONER'S/S ANNEXURE:** **ANNEXURE I** **COPY OF ORDER DATED 23-6-2018 ISSUED BY THE HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (S) DEPARTMENT.** **RP.510 of 2019 & - 39 - connected cases** ## **APPENDIX OF RP 512/2019** **PETITIONER'S/S ANNEXURE:** **ANNEXURE I** **COPY OF ORDER DATED 23-6-2018 ISSUED BY THE HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (S) DEPARTMENT.** **RP.510 of 2019 & - 40 - connected cases** ## **APPENDIX OF RP 516/2019** **PETITIONER'S/S ANNEXURE:** **ANNEXURE I** **COPY OF ORDER DATED 23-6-2018 ISSUED BY THE HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (S) DEPARTMENT.** **[ true copy ]**