Case Title: SK Md Raffique V. Managing Committee, Contai Rehmania High Madrasah and ors
The West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act of 2008 was maintained as constitutional by the Supreme Court, which noted that minority educational institutions do not have an absolute and unconditional right to be appointed.
In this case, the legality of the West Bengal Madrasah Service Panel Act of 2008—which established a commission to choose instructors in madrasas—was at issue.
The Act was ruled to be in violation of Article 30 of the Constitution, which addresses minorities' rights to create and run educational institutions, by the Calcutta High Court in 2015 in response to petitions brought by managing committees of several madrasas. The High Court had agreed with the argument that a minority institution's freedom to select its own instructors was right.
The main issue involved was whether the Act's provisions are violative Article 30?
A few teachers who had been appointed under the Act appealed the HC decision to the Supreme Court. The question that the Apex Court panel was debating was whether Sections 8, 10, 11, and 12 of the Commission Act violated the rights of minority institutions that were protected by the Indian Constitution. Judgments about the topic at hand:-
The Supreme Court rulings up to the TMA Pai Foundation case are thoroughly covered in the judgement by Justice UU Lalit. It also explains the choice made in the TMA Pai Foundation case and the ones that followed.
Importantly, the bench noted that because the purpose of Article 30(1) is to guarantee equality between the majority and minority institutions, a regulation framed in the national interest regarding the right to appoint teachers must necessarily apply to all institutions, regardless of whether they are run by majority or minority. Thus, it was added:
"An objection can certainly be raised if an unfavourable treatment is meted out to an educational institution established and administered by the minority. But if ensuring excellence in educational institutions is the underlying principle behind a regulatory regime and the mechanism of selection of teachers is so designed to achieve excellence in institutions, the matter may stand on a completely different footing."
The bench then considered the following issue: Would the minority institution be within its rights to reject such nomination only in the name of exercising a right of choice, if the candidates who are selected and nominated under the regulatory regime to impart education which is purely secular in character are better qualified?
“If the right is taken to be absolute and unqualified, then certainly such a 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, 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 criterion, the minority institutions may lag behind the non-minority institutions rather than keep in step with them.”
Applying the guidelines established in the ruling in the TMA Pai Foundation case, the bench found that the Act's provisions could not be interpreted as violating the rights of minority institutions. Both the national interest and the interests of minority educational institutions would be satisfied by the selection and nomination of teachers by the Commission established in accordance with the Commission Act's provisions, and it was further stated that these provisions do not violate the rights of minority educational institutions.