Minority colleges to challenge ‘illegal' govt reservations in FYJC seats in HC
MUMBAI: The Maharashtra Association of Minority Educational Institutions (MAMEI), along with some minority colleges from the city, will file a petition in the Bombay high court on Wednesday, challenging social reservations in the First Year Junior College (FYJC) admission process for 2025-26 for vacant seats in minority colleges.
The association claims the state has, without official notification, altered the seat allocation on the centralised admission portal by applying Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST), and Other Backward Class (OBC) quotas to Open Category seats in minority colleges. This, they argue, violates long-established legal protections granted to minority institutions.
According to MAMEI, minority colleges follow a court-approved structure, 50% seats for the minority community, 10% in-house, 5% management and 35% general category—which includes sports and ex-servicemen quotas. The association says this structure has been upheld repeatedly by both the Bombay high court and the Supreme Court, including in a 2001 case where a similar state attempt was struck down.
Despite a formal letter to school education minister Dada Bhuse, the association says no response was received, prompting it to take legal action. 'The government is bypassing the legal framework without even issuing a proper resolution or circular,' said a representative.
Four Jain minority colleges—including institutions in Nagpur—have already filed separate petitions before the Bombay high court and its Nagpur bench. Another petition has been submitted by Solapur's Walchand College. Christian colleges from Nagpur may also join the legal fight.
The controversy began when minority colleges noticed discrepancies after the state uploaded the 2025-26 seat matrix on its official portal. On June 10, through a government resolution, the government again clarified that minority colleges can fill 50% seats from their respective communities. The remaining vacant seats could be passed on to other minorities and, if still unfilled, surrendered to the central pool where, it claimed, standard reservations apply.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
38 minutes ago
- The Wire
Joachim and Violet Alva: A Parliamentarian Couple Who Made History
This article is part of a series by The Wire titled 'The Early Parliamentarians', exploring the lives and work of post-independence MPs who have largely been forgotten. The series looks at the institutions they helped create, the enduring ideas they left behind and the contributions they made to nation building. Joachim Ignatius Sebastian Alva and Violet Hari Alva were the first Parliamentarian couple in history. Violet and Joachim were elected to the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha respectively in 1952. Together, the Alvas fought for independence, played a key role as lawyers, edited journals and proved themselves to be great parliamentarians. Joachim, born in Udupi in the then South Canara district of the erstwhile Madras Presidency on January 21, 1907, was a lawyer, journalist and politician from Mangalore. He was a prominent Mangalorean Catholic figure involved in the Indian independence movement. Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty. Violet was born in Ahmedabad on April 24, 1908. The two met at Bombay's Government Law College and married on November 20, 1932. Their partnership ended only in 1969, when Violet passed away. After independence, Joachim was appointed the sheriff of Bombay in 1949. In 1950, he entered the Provisional Parliament of India. He was elected to the Lok Sabha in 1952, 1957 and 1962 from North Canara. He was nominated to the Rajya Sabha in 1968 and retired in 1974. Joachim belonged to the Alva-Bhat, a Mangalorean Catholic clan from Belle in Udupi district. He was educated at the Jesuit St. Aloysius College, Mangalore, Elphinstone College, Government Law College, Mumbai and the Jesuit St. Xavier's College, Mumbai. In 1928, Joachim became the first Christian to be elected as secretary of the fifty-year-old Bombay Students' Brotherhood. Along with Khurshed Nariman, H.D. Raja, Yusuf Meherally and Soli Batliwala, he was a pioneer of the Bombay Youth League. In 1930, Joachim founded the Nationalist Christian Party with the goal of drawing the Christian community into the freedom struggle. He borrowed and earned money to pay his way through college, but was later expelled for moving a resolution at the Catholic Students Union, urging it to throw open its doors to non-Catholic students. In 1937, Joachim presided over a large meeting of Christians in Bombay addressed by Jawaharlal Nehru. As a young intellectual, he was the other brilliant orator in that meeting. Joachim after all was the best speaker in St Xavier's College in the year year 1927. He also won the gold medal at All-India Inter-Collegiate Oratorical Competitions, Banaras University, 1934. Joachim was actively involved in organising the 'No-Tax' campaign at the Bardoli Satyagraha, the boycotting of the Simon Commission and appointed President of the Bombay Congress 'War Council'. Imprisoned twice by British Indian authorities on charges of sedition for a total of three years, Joachim Alva was jail companion to Vallabhbhai Patel, Jayaprakash Narayan, Morarji Desai and J. C. Kumarappa. In 1934, Mahatma Gandhi wrote a letter to Joachim to inform him that he had missed him at Yerwada Jail because of his early release. He played an important role in the freedom struggle In 1941, in Nasik prison, Joachim wrote two books: Men and Supermen of Hindustan and Indian Christians and Nationalism. Although the manuscripts of both were confiscated by prison authorities, Men and Supermen of Hindustan was subsequently re-drafted and published in 1943. An early advocate of planning, the public sector, nationalised banking and state control over major industries, he condemned France's napalm bombing of Indo-China and staunchly supported the Vietnamese cause. In 1962, Joachim led India's attempts for closer ties with China, meeting Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai in passed away on June 28, 1979 at the age of 72. In 1937, Joachim Alva married Violet, a Gujarati Protestant from Ahmedabad and professor of English at St. Xavier's Indian Women's University College. Violet would also go on to become active in national politics. In 1943, she was arrested by British Indian authorities. She carried her five-month-old baby son, Chittaranjan, into Arthur Road Jail where she was imprisoned. Violet was born Violet Hari on April 24, 1908 in Ahmedabad. She was the eighth of nine children. Violet's father, Reverend Laxman Hari, was an Indian pastor of the Church of England. She graduated from St. Xavier's College, Bombay and Government Law College. For a while thereafter, she was a professor of English at the Indian Women's University, Bombay. Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty On August 9, 1943, the first anniversary of Quit India Day, Joachim and Violet founded and debuted Forum , a weekly news magazine which became known for championing the cause of independence. The magazine became a platform for patriotic Indians to write without fear and put across the Indian point of view in times of British rule. Forum blazed a trail in Indian journalism, marking the beginning of a trend of political weekly news magazines. Joachim's office was often raided for seditious material. In spite of the sweeping powers of the British Raj, he penned a historic editorial, 'Halt This March To the Gallows'. In 1944, Violet also started a women's magazine, The Begum , later renamed Indian Women . From 1945 to 1953 she was the secretary of the Agripara Rehawasi Sevamandal in Mumbai. In 1946–47 she was the deputy chairperson of the Bombay Municipal Corporation. In 1944, she was the first woman advocate in India to argue a case before a full high court. In 1947, Alva served as an honorary magistrate in Mumbai; and from 1948 to 1954, she served as the president of the juvenile court. She was actively involved with numerous social organisations such as the Young Women's Christian Association, the Business and Professional Women's Association and the International Federation of Women Lawyers. She was also the first woman to be elected to the Standing Committee of the All India Newspaper Editors Conference in 1952. In 1952, Violet was elected to the Rajya Sabha, where she made significant contributions to family planning, rights of animals subjected to research and defence strategy, especially the naval sector. She cautioned the government to be careful when dealing with foreign capital and supported linguistic states. She was Union deputy minister for home affairs from 1957 to 1962 when Jawaharlal Nehru was prime minister. In 1962, Violet became the deputy chairperson of the Rajya Sabha, thereby becoming the first female to preside over the Rajya Sabha in its history. She served two consecutive terms in Rajya Sabha as deputy chairperson. Her first term commenced on April 19, 1962 and continued until April 2, 1966. Her second term began with her election to the office of deputy chairperson on April 7, 1966 and she held the position until November 16, 1969. In 1969, Violet resigned after Indira Gandhi declined to back her as vice-president of India. Five days after she resigned as the deputy chairperson of the Rajya Sabha, on November 20, 1969, she died from cerebral haemorrhage at her residence in New Delhi. Following Violet's death, both Houses of the Parliament were adjourned for a short interval that day as a mark of respect to her. The couple were close associates of Khin Kyi, Burma's ambassador to India from 1960, widow of Burmese nationalist General Aung San. A portrait of Joachim and Violet Alva the first parliamentarian couple was unveiled in Parliament in 2007. A commemorative stamp of late Joachim and Violet Alva was released by President Pratibha Patil in New Delhi in November 2008, coinciding with the birth centenary year of Violet Alva. Joachim and Violet Alva had two sons, Niranjan and Chittaranjan, and a daughter, Maya. Niranjan is married to Margaret Alva, née Margaret Nazareth, former general secretary of the All India Congress Committee, former Union minister and governor of Uttarakhand and Rajasthan. Qurban Ali is a trilingual journalist who has covered some of modern India's major political, social and economic developments. He has a keen interest in India's freedom struggle and is now documenting the history of the socialist movement in the country. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
FYJC admissions: HC halts effect of Maharashtra decision to apply SC/ST/OBC reservation to minority institutions
After the Maharashtra government refused to withdraw its decision to apply SC/ST/OBC reservation to minority trust-run junior colleges for the First Year Junior College (FYJC) admissions, the Bombay High Court on Thursday stayed the effect of the decision, dealing the government a setback. The court granted the interim relief to colleges run by minority trusts and their association after finding substance in their submissions. 'Accordingly, as far as admission to Class 11 is concerned, the mandate of social reservation shall not be made applicable to any minority educational institutions,' the court held and directed the state government to take steps in that regard. The state will have to update the online admission portal in accordance with court order. This came after the government lawyer informed the court that she had no instructions from the officials to withdraw the relevant clause in the government resolution issued by the school education department. On Wednesday, the court asked the government to consider withdrawing the relevant portion of the government resolution. The court also reminded the government that it had withdrawn a similar government resolution in 2019. A bench of Justices Makarand S Karnik and Nitin R Borkar passed an interim order on a batch of petitions by the Maharashtra Association of Minority Educational Institutions, two minority colleges in Solapur and those from South Mumbai, including Jai Hind, KC, HR and St Xavier's colleges, challenging the government resolution. Senior advocate Milind Sathe and advocate S C Naidu, appearing for petitioners, argued that the decision was 'arbitrary' and 'imposed without any authority of law' and without hearing or consulting them. They claimed that minority institutions were excluded from applying social reservations under Article 15(5) of the Constitution and that they can establish and administer educational institutions, as per Article 30 (1). Government Pleader Neha Bhide, however, defended the decision stating that minority educational institutions' rights were not fettered by the government resolution, as per which she said social reservation was applicable only to the surrendered seats from the minority quota and would not therefore affect such institutions. As per the established practice followed until the previous academic year, 45 per cent of the total intake in minority institutions was kept open to all students, regardless of category, after allocating 50 per cent for the respective minority community and 5 per cent for the management quota. However, this year, after the impugned government resolution, the FYJC admission portal showed that SC/ST/OBC reservation is being applied to those 45 per cent seats, which led to confusion and controversy in FYJC admissions for 2025-26. Clause 11 in the May 6 government resolution stated, 'If admissions are lower than the intake capacity in minority quota, admissions can be given as per interchanging between linguistic and religious minority groups. Even after that, if seats remain vacant, those surrendered vacant seats will be filled based on the centralised admission process where all social and parallel reservations are applicable.' While colleges claimed that the government resolution pertained to leftover seats in the minority quota, government officials had said it implied that social reservation would be applicable to all open (non-minority) seats in minority-trust-run colleges. Thereafter, the state government issued a corrective resolution on June 2, which implied social reservation to all open seats in minority colleges. The Association, through its writ plea for setting aside the relevant portion of the government resolution, also sought the court's directive to authorities to take immediate steps to correct/update the online admission portal for Class 11 admissions for the member institutions. On June 10, the government issued a new corrective government resolution, which brought back the same sentence along with additional inputs from the May 6 government resolution. The court has asked the state government to file its reply to the pleas within four weeks and posted further hearing to August 6.
The Wire
3 hours ago
- The Wire
From Custodianship to Control: The Conflict Around Sacred Sites in the Eastern Mediterranean
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Politics From Custodianship to Control: The Conflict Around Sacred Sites in the Eastern Mediterranean K.M. Seethi 34 minutes ago The very concept of religious endowments, spiritual heritage, and independent worship is jeopardised when sacred spaces are subordinated to administrative decisions and development agendas. St. Catherine's Monastery in the Sinai Peninsula, Egypt. Photo: Joonas Plaan via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 2.0) Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now In recent years, sacred sites across the Eastern Mediterranean have become flashpoints in a broader conflict between religious heritage and state power. When Turkey's highest court ruled in 2020 to reconvert the Hagia Sophia from a museum into a mosque, global reactions were swift – critiquing what many viewed as a retreat from secularism and an assertion of majoritarian identity over pluralist heritage. Now, a similar controversy gets underway in Egypt, where a court ruling on May 28, 2025, declared that the 1,500-year-old St. Catherine's Monastery and its surrounding lands are 'public property' of the state, purportedly ending its historical autonomy. This ruling has triggered a rift between Cairo and Athens and provoked deep concern among the global Orthodox Christian community. Despite Egypt's formal assurances that the monastery's religious character will be preserved, the court's assertion of state ownership indicates a shift with far-reaching implications, not only for the monks who inhabit the site, but for the principle of religious custodianship itself. Much like the Hagia Sophia decision, Egypt's move is not merely administrative. It rather reflects a wider recast in how sacred spaces are governed, framed, and politicised in the name of national identity, development, and control. The court ruling has resulted in strong resistance from the monastery's monks, who have now closed the sacred site in protest and visitors are not allowed to enter the place. Historical continuity and legal precedent St. Catherine's Monastery, established in 548 AD by order of Byzantine Emperor Justinian I, is not merely an architectural relic. It is one of the oldest continuously inhabited Christian monasteries in the world, and a symbol of religious coexistence in the region. Placed at the foot of Mount Sinai, where tradition holds that Moses received the Ten Commandments, the monastery occupies sacred terrain central to Abrahamic religious memory. Its legal and moral foundation, however, extends beyond its Christian origins. Following the Arab conquest of Egypt in the 7th century, the monastery was granted a written covenant of protection (ʿ ahd) reportedly issued by Prophet Muhammad himself, and transcribed by Caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib. Though the original manuscript was later taken to Istanbul by Sultan Selim I during the Ottoman conquest, a copy remains housed in the monastery's archive. This covenant, promising the security of the monks, their property, and their freedom of worship, became a touchstone for interfaith legal protection under Islamic governance, an example of how early Islamic legal thought could accommodate pluralism. This protective tradition was reaffirmed over centuries by successive Islamic dynasties, including the Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids, Ayyubids, Mamluks, and Ottomans. These regimes issued firmans (royal decrees) upholding the Prophet's covenant, thereby creating an enduring chain of recognition that spanned religious, linguistic, and political divides. Also Read: Has India's Suspension of Indus Waters Treaty Caused a New Faultline in South Asia? Even under postcolonial Egypt, no previous regime – not even during the nationalist wave following the 1952 revolution – sought to unilaterally redefine the monastery's legal status or revoke its historically acknowledged autonomy. A key feature of the monastery's operational continuity was its network of waqf properties – endowments legally donated under Islamic law from both Christian-majority and Muslim-majority territories, including Cyprus, Crete, Cairo, Gaza, and Syria. These waqfs were not informal gifts but were formally registered, validated by Islamic qadis (judges) and court notaries, and formed part of the economic bedrock supporting the monastery's religious and charitable activities. The Islamic legal framework thus became a custodian of Christian monasticism, demonstrating a rare case of juridical pluralism, in which Islamic courts institutionalised the preservation of a non-Islamic religious community. Thousands of historical manuscripts, written in Arabic, Greek, Syriac, Coptic, and Georgian, remain preserved within the monastery's library, some dating back to the 4th and 5th centuries, including the famed Codex Sinaiticus, one of the earliest complete copies of the Christian Bible. These texts reflect a shared intellectual heritage, with scholars from both Christian and Muslim worlds contributing to the preservation and study of sacred knowledge. The library is considered second in global significance only to the Vatican Library. Against this deeply interlocked legal and religious history, the 2025 Egyptian court ruling that classifies the monastery and its lands as 'public state property' appears legally ahistorical and morally discontinuous. The claim disregards not only centuries of uninterrupted monastic use but also binding legal customs rooted in Islamic jurisprudence. Furthermore, the idea that the monastery's inhabitants are merely beneficiaries rather than legal custodians – after over 1,450 years of unbroken presence – undermines both Islamic norms of protected dhimmi status and international principles on the rights of religious minorities and cultural property. In essence, the monastery stands at the crossroads of sacred continuity and statist disruption. Any attempt to recast its status as a purely administrative or developmental concern must reckon with a multifaith legal ecosystem, one that long upheld coexistence and recognised historical possession, religious function, and communal stewardship as grounds for legal legitimacy. The 'great transfiguration project' and tourism-driven development Launched in 2020, Egypt's ' Great Transfiguration Project ' aims to transform the Saint Catherine area in South Sinai into a premier destination for religious, environmental, and medical tourism. The initiative includes the development of infrastructure such as hotels, bazaars, heritage centres, and even an airport, all designed to attract a global audience of pilgrims and tourists. The project is promoted by the Egyptian government as a means to showcase the spiritual and historical significance of the region, particularly Mount Sinai, revered in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. While officials assert that the monastery's sanctity will remain untouched, critics express concern that the project's true intent is to appropriate sacred land and reframe the space as a state-controlled tourism hub. This could potentially compromise the spiritual character of the area and the autonomy of the monastery. The ruling, which declares the monastery and surrounding sites as state property, goes in line with a broader pattern of the Egyptian state centralising control over religious and heritage sites – a policy trend that some describe as 'Neo-Ikhwanism' in practice, despite the regime's avowed opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood. The judiciary's role in this case, appearing to follow executive instructions, has raised further questions about the independence of Egypt's legal system in matters involving religious minorities and cultural heritage. The Greek Orthodox Church has denounced the ruling as an attempt to alter a system that has been in place for 15 centuries. Hagia Sophia and comparative reflections Both St. Catherine's Monastery in Egypt and Hagia Sophia in Turkey are symbolic of ancient Christian heritage, shaped by centuries of religious coexistence and later, politicised reinterpretation. Founded under Emperor Justinian I in the 6th century, St. Catherine's Monastery has continuously functioned as a Greek Orthodox monastic site at the foot of Mount Sinai. It gained protection under Islamic rule due to a covenant (achtiname) reportedly issued by the Prophet Muhammad himself, guaranteeing the safety and autonomy of the monastery and its monks. Similarly, Hagia Sophia, built in 537 CE by the same emperor, served as the seat of Eastern Orthodoxy for nearly a millennium before its conversion into a mosque after the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453. It was later secularised into a museum by Kemal Atatürk in 1935 – symbolising modern Turkey's secular turn – until its controversial reconversion into a mosque in 2020 by President Erdoğan. Both sites are UNESCO World Heritage Sites and represent a shared history of interfaith reverence and cultural diplomacy. However, their status in the 21st century reveals a troubling pattern – religious heritage sites are increasingly reinterpreted through state-centred narratives. While Hagia Sophia remains open to visitors with Christian mosaics veiled during Islamic prayers, the recent court ruling in Egypt effectively transfers ownership of St. Catherine's to the state, rendering the monks 'beneficiaries' rather than rightful custodians. This redefinition of sacred space – whether as a mosque-turned-museum or monastery-turned-tourist site—points to a clearer erosion of religious pluralism. Both cases raise urgent questions about the future of minority heritage in the face of state appropriation, and about the fragility of interfaith pacts that once upheld mutual respect and autonomy. While Hagia Sophia's reconversion caters to nationalist-religious sentiment, the expropriation of St. Catherine's reflects a more bureaucratic assertion of sovereignty over religious minorities. In both cases, long-standing interfaith understandings – whether Ottoman-era endowments in Istanbul or early Islamic covenants in Sinai – are being reinterpreted or sidelined by modern states seeking to consolidate control over religious heritage. Implications and the erosion of religious pluralism The legal redefinition of ownership and use of Saint Catherine's Monastery brings significant implications for religious pluralism, minority rights, and cultural preservation in Egypt. The very concept of religious endowments, spiritual heritage, and independent worship is jeopardised when sacred spaces are subordinated to administrative decisions and development agendas. The Egyptian state's position also raises questions about its international credibility, particularly in light of UNESCO conventions. Saint Catherine's Monastery has been designated a World Heritage Site since 2002, recognised for its cultural and historical significance. The move risks diplomatic fallout with Greece and broader Orthodox Christian communities, as well as undermining Egypt's image as a promoter of religious coexistence. The case of Saint Catherine's Monastery is not an isolated legal matter – it serves as a serious test case for how modern states treat ancient religious traditions and the communities that uphold them. It is also a barometer of Egypt's commitment to historical continuity, interfaith pacts, and pluralist governance. The encroachment – whether direct or administrative – on such a profound spiritual site calls for urgent international dialogue and domestic introspection. If the Egyptian government continues to advance its tourism ambitions at the expense of sacred heritage, it risks transforming a sanctuary of prayer into a showcase of expropriated piety – a place where ancient holiness is preserved not for spiritual veneration but for curated spectacle. The author is Director, Inter University Centre for Social Science Research and Extension (IUCSSRE), Mahatma Gandhi University (MGU), Kerala. He also served as ICSSR Senior Fellow, Senior Professor of International Relations and Dean of Social Sciences at MGU. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News 7 Indians Injured in Deadly German Car Attack; Saudi Ex-Muslim Suspect with Far-Right Views Arrested Who Gets to Think in India? Renaming the Pataudi Trophy: Understanding Why the Decision Matters Arrest of Ashoka University Professor: NHRC Says Haryana Police Yet to Respond to Its Notice Is Ashoka University the Next Target After Professor Ali Khan? The Liberal Arts University in the Age of AI and 'Activism' Ashoka University Can't Call Its Refusal to Stand Up to BJP's Bullying 'Institutional Neutrality' Perhaps, This is Why The Innocent Men-Tourists Died in Pahalgam Founders of Ashoka Should Know that a University Can't be Equated With Hierarchies of a Corporate Office View in Desktop Mode About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
