Bombay HC asks state govt to remove minority colleges from the scope of reservations
The court was acting upon a petition filed by two minority institutions which claimed that under article 30 (1) of the Indian Constitution, all minorities, whether religious or linguistic, had the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
Justice M S Karnik and justice N R Borkar asked the government pleader Neha Bhide to check whether the government was willing to correct the resolution so that minority unaided institutions would be exempt from reservations.
The court said that this could just be a mistake by the government for which a correction can be issued, and scheduled the next hearing of the petition on Thursday. The court added that an order from the court was not necessary when it came to making such corrections.
The government resolution directing the implementation of reservations for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes in FYJC admissions to colleges governed by minority institutions was challenged on the ground that such institutions, both aided or unaided, are excluded from applying such reservations for socially and educationally backward classes under article 15 (5) of the Indian Constitution. A similar resolution passed in 2019 was also withdrawn after it was challenged in the court.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
7 minutes ago
- Indian Express
ICSSR to issue notice to CSDS over ‘manipulation' of Maharashtra poll data
The Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) on Tuesday said it will issue a show cause notice to the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies over an erroneous claim made by Sanjay Kumar — professor and co-director of Lokniti, a research programme at the CSDS — in a social media post that two constituencies in Maharashtra had shown a significant fall in the numbers of voters between the Lok Sabha and Assembly polls last year. The ICSSR, which operates under the aegis of the Ministry of Education, is the government's apex body for research in social and human sciences. The CSDS is supported by the ICSSR. On August 17, Kumar had posted on X that Ramtek and Devlali in Maharashtra had shown 36-38% decrease in number of voters between the Lok Sabha and Assembly polls in Maharashtra. On Tuesday, he apologised for the post. 'I sincerely apologize for the tweets posted regarding Maharashtra elections. Error occurred while comparing data of 2024 LS and 2024 AS. The data in row was misread by our Data team. The tweet has since been removed. I had no intention of dispersing any form of misinformation,' Kumar said in a post on X. The Indian Express tried to contact Kumar for his comment but he could not be reached. The ICSSR accused CSDS of 'data manipulation' to create a 'narrative with the intention of undermining the sanctity of the Election Commission of India'. 'It has come to the notice of ICSSR that an individual holding responsible position at CSDS, an ICSSR-funded research institute, has made media statements that had to be retracted subsequently citing glitches in data analysis regarding elections in Maharashtra. Further, the institute has published media stories based on biased interpretation of the SIR exercise by the Election Commission of India. ICSSR holds the Indian Constitution in highest esteem. Election Commision of India is a high constitutional body which has been holding free and fair elections in the largest democracy of world for decades together. ICSSR takes serious cognizance of the data manipulation by CSDS and its attempt to create a narrative with the intention of undermining the sanctity of the Election Commision of India. This is a gross violation of the grant-in-aid rules of ICSSR, and ICSSR shall issue a show cause notice to the institute,' it said in a post on X. Earlier in the day, the Bihar Chief Electoral Officer also weighed in on the issue. 'CSDS Sanjay Kumar apologized for the tweet posted regarding Maharashtra Assembly elections. He said that error occurred while comparing data of 2024 LS and 2024 AS. His tweet is deleted now but a screenshot is attached. His data was quoted by many INC & Opposition leaders for questioning EC,' the CEO said on X. Addressing a press conference, the BJP alleged that Kumar's post on X was used as propaganda by the Congress to discredit the electoral process. BJP spokesperson Gaurav Bhatia said Kumar deleted the post after 40 hours, during which the wrong data was used as 'propaganda' by Congress leaders Pawan Khera and Rahul Gandhi. 'Congress leader Pawan Khera tweets on this and then deletes. Rahul Gandhi's baseless allegations are also based on CSDS data,' Bhatia said. He said 34,000 people viewed Kumar's post before it was deleted. 'They call themselves a survey agency but are puppets in the hands of leaders like Rahul Gandhi. They (Congress) want an agency to publicise fake data. This is a factory, a machine of dishing out lies,' he said. The BJP accused Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi of making 'false and baseless allegations of vote chori' against the Election Commission, in collusion with the CSDS. Reacting to this, Khera said: 'This is called clutching at straws. The BJP ecosystem knows pretty well that they have been caught red-handed indulging in vote chori.'
News18
7 hours ago
- News18
Sikkim University student arrested for insulting Nepali language
Gangtok, Aug 19 (PTI) A Sikkim University student, who hailed from Uttar Pradesh, was arrested on Tuesday for allegedly making insulting remarks against the Nepali language which is widely spoken in the Himalayan state, officials said. Acting on a complaint lodged by some local students, a team from Rani Pool police station reached the university campus and took Raj Shekhar Yadav into custody for questioning, officials said. Yadav, a resident of Varanasi, was later arrested. The accused, a first-semester student of Master of Commerce, allegedly said in a WhatsApp post on August 15 that Nepali is a foreign language and those speaking it should go to Nepal. Yadav, however, apologised in a video message and sought forgiveness from all for his comment. The Sikkim University Students Association through its president Anup Regmi later reported the incident to the varsity authorities and the police. The students' body also issued a press release condemning Yadav's remarks as 'divisive and harmful to peace and harmony within the university." It said that Nepali is widely spoken in Sikkim and is listed in the Eighth Schedule of the Indian Constitution. Sikkim University officials are yet to respond to the development. PTI KDK NN (This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) view comments First Published: August 19, 2025, 21:45 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Loading comments...
Hindustan Times
8 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Centre in SC opposes fixing timelines for Prez, guv for assent to bills
New Delhi, The Centre on Tuesday opposed in the Supreme Court imposition of fixed timelines on governors and President for taking decisions on bills passed by state legislatures, saying such constraints were "consciously omitted" by the framers of the Constitution. Centre in SC opposes fixing timelines for Prez, guv for assent to bills Challenging the April 8 verdict that fixed timelines for grant of assent to bills, Attorney General R Venkataramani informed a five judge Constitution bench headed by Chief justice B R Gavai that the judgement tied the hands of President who was "virtually robbed of her powers". "You bind the hands of the President. The highest consideration of whether to assent or not must remain open," he said. While the attorney general was assisting in his personal capacity, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Centre before the bench also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar. The top court began hearing the presidential reference, seeking opinion on whether President and governors can be legally bound by specific timeframes while exercising their constitutional role in assenting to, or returning, bills. Mehta urged the bench to examine the larger constitutional question the role of President and governors in India's federal structure. "When we are making or interpreting a Constitution, we do it idealistically," Mehta said. He added, "The forefathers of the Constitution were visionary and foresaw potential abuse of provisions. But every problem does not warrant judicial intervention." Mehta said there was no top court decision on the questions raised in the reference so far. "Presidential reference under Article 143 does not invite this court to 'sit in appeal' over State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, 2025 INSC 481 and rather, it seeks independent questions of constitutional law of considerable public importance arising out of Articles 200, 201, 142, 143, 145 and 361," he said. He referred to the constituent assembly debates and historical background of certain constitutional schemes to highlight the framers of the Constitution debated and decided not to fix any timelines for governors and President. Under the 1915 Act, Mehta said, there was no provision for returning bills and the 1935 Government of India Act, however, introduced a measure of discretion for "Governor-General", including sending back bills on grounds such as repugnancy or violation of fundamental rights. He said the Constituent Assembly explicitly considered and rejected proposals for rigid timelines. "At one stage, the draft suggested that a bill be assented to 'not later than six weeks', later changed to 'as soon as possible'," Mehta said, citing the intervention of B R Ambedkar, the architect of the Indian Constitution. The CJI, however, said some members in the constituent assembly had in fact argued for reasonable timelines, pointing out "even six weeks seemed too long". However, the law officer said the "idea was not to bind the highest constitutional functionaries" by rigid deadlines. "The conscious omission of a timeline was deliberate," he said. Mehta argued a system where the highest functionaries were expected to discharge their duties legally and with constitutional morality was followed in the country. "Binding them down with fixed periods would undermine the vision of the framers," he said. Mehta continued, "President has the right to assent or withhold assent when a bill is first presented. However, if he returns the bill and the house passes it again, President is bound to give assent. There is no ambiguity on this point." President, he said, while described as a "nominal head" during debates, was nonetheless an elected constitutional authority. "Unlike the Governor-General, President functions on the aid and advice of the council of ministers. That distinction must be respected," Mehta said. The attorney general called the April 8 verdict a "judicial overreach into the legislative domain". Venkataramani said the verdict effectively rewrote constitutional provisions and curtailed the discretionary space available to Governor and President. The AG said in the Tamil Nadu judgment, the court "entered into the legislative domain" and suggested President to seek the Supreme Court's opinion under Article 143 if doubts arose on a bill. "Can the court go to the extent where it says, let me take pen and paper and rewrite the Constitution," he asked. He said the judgment virtually bound President and governors to act mechanically on the aid and advice of state governments, stripping them of independent constitutional application of mind. "President is being told not to look at executive policy. Governor and President are virtually robbed of their discretion," he said. He referred to Article 145 and said it stipulated the constitutional questions of substantial importance to be heard by at least a five-judge bench. Article 145 mandates a minimum of five judges to decide any case involving a substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution or for hearing any reference. The AG maintained the Tamil Nadu verdict breached the mandate. "If there are multiple, conflicting judgments of smaller benches, then such matters must necessarily go before a larger bench for conclusive authority," Venkataramani argued. He said routine matters under Articles 14 and 21 might not attract the mandate, but "issues of working of the Constitution and its integrity" certainly did. Venkataramani said the Tamil Nadu judgment altered the original meaning of Article 200, which governs gubernatorial assent to bills. While the AG said President's constitutional role was being constrained by judicial directions, the SG argued the issue was sui generis , requiring the court's guidance. "This has created a constitutional functional problem. Am I bound by the three month deadline? Am I bound by Article 200 directions? Or should all states come to the Supreme Court," he asked. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
