HC prods govt to nix FYJC quotas in minority colleges
Mumbai: Bombay HC Wednesday asked the state to consider removing a clause in its May 6 GR that introduced social quotas (such as SC/ST/OBC/SEBC) for FYJC admissions in minority institutions.
"It can be a bona fide mistake. Issue a corrigendum. If not, we are here," said Justices Makarand Karnik & Nitin Borkar, while hearing two petitions challenging the clause. The institutions learnt about it only after their seat matrices were put up on the admission portal. The colleges argued that social quotas do not apply to minority institutions in terms of Article 15 (5) of the Constitution.
As govt pleader Neha Bhide said the GR was meant to bring uniformity in FYJC admissions, Justice Karnik questioned: "Why do you bring in minority institutions?" The judges said a similar GR was withdrawn in 2019.
Bhide said the "clause can be removed". The judges asked her to take instructions and inform them Thursday. "Every time you do not need orders from us. You can do it yourself," said Justice Karnik.
Govt pleader Neha Bhide informed Bombay high court on Wednesday that withdrawing the May 6 government resolution (GR) on FYJC admissions was not possible, but "clause 11 can be removed". Clause 11 of the GR mentions that social and parallel reservations will apply to vacancies after filling minority seats in minority institutions.
To this, Justice Makarand Karnik said: "Solve the problem." And Bhide replied: "I will come with a solution.
"
Justices Karnik and Nitin Borkar asked Bhide to di-scuss with the state advocate general and senior officials.
The judges were hearing two petitions challenging the contentious clause. The first petition was filed by Solapur's Shri APD Jain Pathashala, a trust that runs Walchand College of Arts and Science and Hirachand Nemchand College of Commerce.
The second was a joint petition by south Mumbai colleges, including St Xavier's, KC, HR, Jai Hind and Maharashtra College, along with the Maharashtra Association of Minority Educational Institutions.
On being informed by advocate S C Naidu, for the Solapur colleges, that finalisation of merit list is scheduled for Wednesday, the judges on Tuesday had directed that it will be subject to the outcome of the petitions.
Senior advocate Milind Sathe, for the Mumbai colleges, argued that social reservations do not apply to minority institutions.
About the GR, Bhide said: "For the first time, FYJC admissions are taken up online for the entire state."
The petitioners said their right under Article 30 to establish and administer educational institutions has been reiterated in SC and HC judgments "which have held that minority educational institutions are not subject to any social reservations".
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
35 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Justice Yashwant Varma case: Peer review is the proper channel
Arghya Sengupta begins his book Independence and Accountability of the Higher Indian Judiciary by juxtaposing the views of Jawaharlal Nehru and Justice Y K Sabharwal. Nehru upheld Parliament's supremacy, arguing that the judiciary could advise but not obstruct the legislative will in shaping the nation's future. In contrast, Justice Sabharwal underscored the judiciary's expanding role in securing good governance, highlighting how the Supreme Court has intervened in areas like environmental protection, electoral reform, and constitutional amendments to ensure the rule of law prevails. This tension reflects a fundamental shift. The recent disclosure of cash recovered from the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma has triggered a flurry of reactions: Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar raised concerns about the absence of punitive outcomes following an internal inquiry and cast doubts on the legal sanctity of in-house procedures. Following intervention from the Rajya Sabha, the SC dropped its inquiry into the alleged hate speech made by Justice Shekhar Yadav, sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, citing that the final authority lies with Parliament and the President. These instances beg the question: Who judges the judges? The judiciary forms one of the three pillars of a democracy and derives its authority from the Constitution. The outdated notion of legislative supremacy has now been replaced: The Supreme Court in Keshav Singh vs Speaker, Legislative Assembly (1965) and People's Union For Civil Liberties vs Union of India (2005) recognised that the Constitution is supreme. The Constitution provides strong safeguards for judicial independence, including security of tenure, fixed salaries charged to the Consolidated Fund, protection from discussion in legislatures, and immunity under laws like the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. Provisions for the removal of high court and SC judges by Parliament on grounds of 'proven misbehaviour' or 'incapacity' under Articles 124 and 217 create an accountability mechanism. Under Article 124(5), Parliament enacted the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which provides the procedures to investigate judicial misconduct. Further, on May 7, 1997, the SC's Full Court adopted the 'Restatement of Values of Judicial Life'. It authorises the Chief Justice to constitute an in-house committee to investigate allegations against judges of the higher judiciary. This was recognised in C Ravichandran Iyer vs Justice A M Bhattacharjee (1995). The VP, in one of his latest speeches, spoke of the need to revisit K Veeraswami vs Union of India (1991) in light of the controversy around Justice Varma's case. However, such arguments overlook the constitutional and legal procedures provided for investigating allegations against judges. The Constitution does not permit ad-hoc procedures in matters involving the higher judiciary. Even prior to the Constitution's enactment, the Government of India Act, 1935, provided for a judicial disciplinary committee comprising judges. After Independence, when then-MP Meghnad Saha complained against a judge, Lok Sabha Speaker G V Mavalankar refrained from immediate action. He sought the opinion of the CJI before proceeding. While drafting the Judges Inquiry Bill, 1964 under Article 124(5), eminent legal figures like C K Daphtary and G S Pathak emphasised that complaints against judges should originate from MPs, not the executive, and be submitted to the Speaker or Chairman. If accepted, a three-member judicial committee would investigate the charges. Only if the committee finds the judge guilty may Parliament initiate a debate; otherwise, the motion is dropped. This framework was upheld in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability vs Union of India (1991), wherein the Court highlighted practices from countries like the US, Canada, and Australia, where initial investigations are conducted by a judicial body, with legislative involvement occurring later. In Veeraswami, the Court held that judges can be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, but only with presidential sanction after consultation with the CJI. This ensures accountability and judicial independence. In Justice Varma's case, any investigation must be initiated through a motion in Parliament, followed by a judicial inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. As the Court held in the Sub-Committee case, such inquiries are quasi-criminal in nature and cannot be replaced by political or administrative processes without violating constitutional safeguards. Harry T Edwards, Chief Justice of Appeals for the District of Columbia, noted in a 1989 paper that 'the ideal of judicial independence is not compromised when judges are monitored and are regulated by their own peers'. The Supreme Court in A M Bhattacharjee noted that 'peer review' is in the best interest of judicial independence and in consonance with international practices. The Law Commission of India in its 195th Report recommended the Judicial (Inquiry) Bill 2005, establishing the National Judicial Council, which was to consist of five judges, with the CJI as chairman. The Commission noted that this practice of inquiry finds its roots in various international principles like the Siracusa Principles (1981) and the Latimer guidelines for the Commonwealth (1998). The judiciary, like any other institution, must be held accountable. But that accountability must be enforced within a constitutionally protected framework that ensures independence from political pressures. The rule of law demands not just that justice be done — but that it be done through proper channels, and equally for all. The writer is assistant professor, Jindal Global Law School
Indian Express
36 minutes ago
- Indian Express
US judge says Trump illegally deployed National Guard to help with LA protests, must return control
A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Thursday directing President Donald Trump to return control of the National Guard to California. The order, which takes effect at noon Friday, said the deployment of the Guard was illegal and both violated the Tenth Amendment and exceeded Trump's statutory authority. The White House had no immediate comment on the ruling. US District Judge Charles Breyer said Trump overstepped his bounds in ordering the deployment of roughly 4,000 National Guard members to Los Angeles after protests erupted over the immigration crackdown. It was not immediately clear how that would change the situation on the ground. California Gov. Gavin Newsom sued to block the Guard's deployment against his wishes. California later filed an emergency motion asking the judge to block the Guard from assisting with immigration raids. He argued that the troops were originally deployed to protect federal buildings and wanted the court to block the troops from helping protect immigration agents during the raids, saying that involving the Guard would only escalate tensions and promote civil unrest. In a broad ruling, the judge determined Trump had not properly called the Guard up in the first place. Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman, speaking in an interview with The Associated Press and one other media outlet, said that as of Wednesday about 500 of the Guard troops have been trained to accompany agents on immigration operations. Photos of Guard soldiers providing security for the agents have already been circulated by immigration officials. Sherman is commander of Task Force 51, which is overseeing the Guard troops and Marines sent to Los Angeles. Earlier in the day Breyer said he intended to rule quickly. 'This country was founded in response to a monarch, and the Constitution is a document of limitations. I'm trying to figure out where the lines are drawn,' the judge said before a packed courtroom.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Allow FYJC aspirants to edit college choices: Principals after court stay
Mumbai: The school education department may have to allow students from socially and economically backward classes to change their preferences on the FYJC admission portal following Bombay high court's stay on the controversial clause in the May 6 govt resolution (GR) that introduced social reservations in the 50% non-minority seats in minority institutions, said principals of city colleges. This, they added, may delay the admission process further. While department officials said that necessary steps will be taken for the welfare of students, no decision was made on providing the editing option on the portal until Thursday night. Many students belonging to the socially and economically backward classes would have chosen minority institutions on the admission portal, said a principal. "There is a possibility that all their 10 choices are for minority institutions or even if they selected two or three, their order of preferences will be affected. Now, with the HC decision, these students will have to be given a fair chance to edit their options and to apply to the same colleges under the open category too, based on their merit. Or maybe to choose other colleges too. If they are not allowed to change now, there could be confusion after the allotment," added the principal. The allotment list for the first round is set to be released on June 26. Another principal pointed out that govt did not issue clear guidelines prior to the commencement of admissions. "The May 6 GR talks only about admissions to vacant minority seats. There was no application of mind behind bringing such a regulation. If govt was clear about its intention, institutions would have moved court before. Now, we just hope the change does not impact the admission schedule much," said the principal, pointing out that SSC results were out over a month ago. A govt official confirmed that no decision has been made yet. "We will study the HC order copy and then take appropriate action for the larger benefit of students. We will make necessary changes, if needed," said the official, adding that this is the first time that students have access to thousands of colleges across the state by just filling one form for Rs 100. Meanwhile, admissions to in-house, minority, and management quotas commenced Thursday. Of the over 1.1 lakh students who applied under these quotas, 9,087 have secured admissions. Mumbai: The school education department may have to allow students from socially and economically backward classes to change their preferences on the FYJC admission portal following Bombay high court's stay on the controversial clause in the May 6 govt resolution (GR) that introduced social reservations in the 50% non-minority seats in minority institutions, said principals of city colleges. This, they added, may delay the admission process further. While department officials said that necessary steps will be taken for the welfare of students, no decision was made on providing the editing option on the portal until Thursday night. Many students belonging to the socially and economically backward classes would have chosen minority institutions on the admission portal, said a principal. "There is a possibility that all their 10 choices are for minority institutions or even if they selected two or three, their order of preferences will be affected. Now, with the HC decision, these students will have to be given a fair chance to edit their options and to apply to the same colleges under the open category too, based on their merit. Or maybe to choose other colleges too. If they are not allowed to change now, there could be confusion after the allotment," added the principal. The allotment list for the first round is set to be released on June 26. Another principal pointed out that govt did not issue clear guidelines prior to the commencement of admissions. "The May 6 GR talks only about admissions to vacant minority seats. There was no application of mind behind bringing such a regulation. If govt was clear about its intention, institutions would have moved court before. Now, we just hope the change does not impact the admission schedule much," said the principal, pointing out that SSC results were out over a month ago. A govt official confirmed that no decision has been made yet. "We will study the HC order copy and then take appropriate action for the larger benefit of students. We will make necessary changes, if needed," said the official, adding that this is the first time that students have access to thousands of colleges across the state by just filling one form for Rs 100. Meanwhile, admissions to in-house, minority, and management quotas commenced Thursday. Of the over 1.1 lakh students who applied under these quotas, 9,087 have secured admissions. Follow more information on Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad here . Get real-time live updates on rescue operations and check full list of passengers onboard AI 171 .
