Exemption of Minority Educational Institutions from UGC 2018 Selection Regulations under Article 30(1)

Introduction

This commentary examines the common order delivered by the Madras High Court on March 27, 2025 in W.P. Nos. 18165, 18315, 18923, 19271, 19318, 19319 of 2023 and 24801 of 2024. Petitioners—autonomous Christian minority colleges and a non‑autonomous institution—complained that the Universities of Madras and Annamalai refused to grant approval for appointments of Assistant Professors and a Principal on the sole ground that the selections were not made through a specially constituted Selection Committee as mandated by the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018 (adopted by Tamil Nadu by G.O.Ms.No.5 on 11.01.2021). They invoked Article 226 of the Constitution, arguing that forcing them to follow those regulations violated their fundamental rights under Article 30(1) to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. Respondents included the State of Tamil Nadu, the two universities, and the UGC, which filed a counter affidavit defending the Regulations’ applicability to all institutions, including minorities.

Summary of the Judgment

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh delivered a consolidated judgment. He first rejected the UGC’s preliminary objection that petitioners had not challenged the UGC Regulations themselves by way of a writ of declaration. The Court held that the earlier pronouncement by a Division Bench in The Forum of Minority Institutions and Associations v. State of Tamil Nadu (2011 (1) CTC 162) remains fully binding. That decision had struck down analogous provisions in the UGC Regulations, 2000 and 2010 as infringing Article 30(1). The 2018 Regulations did not introduce any substantive change to the selection‑committee composition for Assistant Professors and imposed even more stringent requirements for Principals. Thus, minority institutions need not re‑litigate a settled principle every time UGC issues fresh Regulations. Applying the same rationale, the Court held that the impugned refusal letters from both universities were founded solely on inapplicable UGC provisions. The orders were quashed, and the universities directed to grant approval for all challenged appointments—subject only to the candidates meeting other prescribed qualifications—within four weeks.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

In Re: The Kerala Education Bill, 1957 (AIR 1958 SC 956): Established the fundamental nature of Article 30 protections for minority education.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973 (4) SCC 225): Articulated the basic structure doctrine, underpinning the inviolability of minority rights as part of constitutional fundamentals.
Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society v. State of Gujarat (1974 (1) SCC 717): Affirmed that minority institutions retain administrative autonomy, subject only to regulations that do not dilute their core rights.
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002 (8) SCC 481) and P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005 (6) SCC 537): Clarified the extent of permissible State regulation over admissions and appointments in minority institutions.
The Forum of Minority Institutions and Associations v. State of Tamil Nadu (2011 (1) CTC 162): Division Bench of this Court held that UGC Regulations prescribing detailed Selection Committee structures for minority institutions violated Article 30(1).
Subsequent Division Bench decisions in W.P.(MD) Nos. 18989/2022 and 21964/2021: Consistently applied the 2011 forum principles to later disputes.

Legal Reasoning

Article 30(1) Scope: Article 30(1) guarantees minorities the right “to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.” The term “administer” necessarily includes the power to select teaching staff and key office‑bearers. Any regulation that imposes intrusive controls over the composition of a selection committee or mandates outside interference directly impinges on an institution’s autonomy.

Settled Principle: The 2011 Division Bench ruling of this High Court synthesized Supreme Court authority to conclude that State or UGC regulations affecting minority institutions must be confined to minimum qualifications, service conditions, grievance mechanisms, and proper utilization of aid. They must not dilute the core right to manage staff selection. The Court in 2025 found no material change in the UGC 2018 Regulations vis‑à‑vis 2000/2010—the provisions remain intrusive, and for Principals impose even more external nominees.

Preliminary Objection Rejected: UGC argued that petitioners had not directly challenged the Regulations via a declaration petition. The Court held that minority institutions need not relitigate settled law each time a new iteration of the same Regulation is notified; it suffices that the UGC was impleaded and given an opportunity to defend the rules.

Relief Directed: Since the only ground for refusal was the impugned Regulations, quashing those refusals followed as a logical consequence once the Regulations were declared inapplicable.

Impact

This judgment reaffirms the constitutional firewall around minority educational autonomy. In practical terms:

Minority colleges nationwide can rely on this precedent to resist UGC or State Governments seeking to impose standardized Selection Committee structures on them.
The decision may deter regulatory overreach in subsequent UGC or national policy reforms, prompting greater deference to institutional self‑governance for minority‑run institutions.
Universities and UGC must now calibrate any future regulations to ensure they do not intrude upon core Article 30(1) rights, or risk being struck down without repeated litigation.
The ruling could influence other High Courts and perhaps spur a Supreme Court review to crystallize a uniform national standard on minority autonomy vis‑à‑vis teacher‑selection norms.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Article 30(1): Constitutional guarantee allowing religious and linguistic minorities to found and run educational institutions without undue State interference.
Basic Structure Doctrine: Certain features of the Constitution—such as minority rights—cannot be violated even by constitutional amendments.
Writ of Declaration vs. Writ of Mandamus: A writ of declaration challenges the validity of a statute or regulation directly; a mandamus compels performance of a public duty (here, approval of qualified appointments).
“Read Down”: Judicial technique to interpret a law narrowly so as to preserve its constitutionality rather than striking it down fully.

Conclusion

The March 27, 2025 order of the Madras High Court robustly affirms that UGC Regulations 2018 and the corresponding State adoption G.O.Ms.No.5/2021 cannot infringe the core administrative autonomy guaranteed to minority institutions under Article 30(1). By vindicating the long‑standing Forum of Minority Institutions precedent, it spares minority colleges the need to challenge successive regulations and underscores that teacher‑appointment processes are integral to institutional self‑government. Going forward, universities and regulators must craft any selection guidelines with meticulous respect for minority rights, or face swift judicial invalidation. This decision thus stands as a touchstone for protecting educational diversity and pluralism in India’s constitutional scheme.