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 The court also reminded the government that it had withdrawn a similar government resolution in 2019.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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
36 minutes ago
- News18
Supreme Court Issues Notice To Karnataka For Ban On Kamal Haasan's Thug Life
Last Updated: During the film's audio launch, Kamal Haasan claimed that 'Kannada is born out of Tamil', sparking strong reactions in Karnataka. The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on a plea challenging Karnataka's 'extra-judicial ban" on the screening of 'Thug Life' — a film by veteran filmmaker Mani Ratnam and superstar Kamal Haasan. A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan sought responses of Karnataka's Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary (Home) and Director General of Police in the matter and posted the petition for further hearing on Tuesday (June 17). During the film's audio launch, Kamal Haasan claimed that 'Kannada is born out of Tamil", sparking strong reactions in Karnataka. The writ petition filed by Bengaluru's M. Mahesh Reddy claimed that despite certification by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), the Karnataka government has prevented Thug Life's theatrical release through oral instructions and police interference. Advocate A. Velan, representing the petitioner, contended that such actions amounted to an unconstitutional restriction on free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Karnataka government has completely 'capitulated" to extremist elements, who were attacking linguistic minorities and calling for the burning of theatres, submitted Velan. As per the petition, the ban stems from a deliberate campaign of terror, including explicit threats of arson against cinema halls, incitement to large-scale communal violence targeting linguistic minorities, and a chilling call for a repeat of past anti-Tamil riots. 'This reign of intimidation is a direct, flagrant violation of the Fundamental Rights to Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19(1)(a)) and to Practice any Profession (Article 19(1)(g)). More seriously, it is a calculated attack on the secular fabric and public order of the State," stated the petition. Following the row over Haasan's remarks on the origins of the Kannada language, the film's producer, Raaj Kamal Films International, had petitioned the Karnataka High Court seeking protection. However, the Karnataka HC suggested that Kamal Haasan issue an apology, but the actor-politician has refused to do so. As a result of the actor's refusal to issue an outright apology, the film's release in Karnataka has been postponed indefinitely.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court issues notice to Karnataka seeking response on ‘Thug Life' ban
NEW DELHI The Supreme Court on Friday sought the State of Karnataka to respond to a petition seeking to ensure the safe and unimpeded screening of Kamal Haasan's Tamil movie Thug Life in the State. A Vacation Bench headed by Justice PK Mishra was also asked by petitioner, M. Mahesh Reddy, represented by advocate Athenam Velan, to take action against elements who have issued threats and incited violence against theatres and the makers of the film. Issuing notice to the States, the court scheduled the case on Tuesday. The Bench recorded Mr. Velan's submission that a duly CBFC-certified Tamil feature film was not allowed to be screened in theatres in Karnataka. 'The so-called ban under threat of violence stems not from any lawful process but from a deliberate campaign of terror, including explicit threat of arson against cinema halls, incitement of large-scale violence targeting linguistic minorities,' Mr. Velan argued. Earlier this week, the petitioner, a Bengaluru resident, had sought urgent listing, saying 'fringe elements' were threatening arson against theatres which screen the film. Mr. Velan had said the move to appeal the apex court was necessitated by the fact that the Karnataka High Court had 'distressingly appeared to prioritise appeasement' in proceedings seeking the judicial protection of the fundamental right to free speech and expression. 'Instead of a clear directive to the State to stop the illegal threats and protect a certified film's exhibition – fundamental to restoring law and order – the discussion reportedly focused on whether Mr. Kamal Haasan should apologise to the very fringe elements intimidating him and threatening public order. This effective endorsement of coercive censorship by suggesting compromise with perpetrators makes the High Court pathway currently ineffective for securing justice, compelling this urgent appeal in the Supreme Court as the ultimate guardian of the Constitution,' the petition had submitted. The petition has questioned the Karnataka government's 'flagrant failure' to maintain law and order in the State and protect constitutional freedoms. It said the 'unconstitutional extra-judicial ban' in Karnataka stems not from any lawful process but from a deliberate campaign of terror and a chilling call for a repeat of past anti-Tamil riots. 'This serious situation occurs within a disturbing societal context where chauvinistic elements have targeted linguistic minorities such as Hindi speakers in Bengaluru with impunity, fostering a climate of fear that now directly threatens constitutional order over this film…,' the petition has highlighted.
Scroll.in
3 hours ago
- Scroll.in
Allow authorities to issue ‘no caste, no community' certificates: Madras HC to Tamil Nadu
The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu government to issue orders empowering revenue officials to grant 'no caste, no community' certificates to applicants, Live Law reported on Thursday. In the order pronounced on Tuesday, a bench of Justices MS Ramesh and N Senthilkumar observed that the intention of a person to shun religious and caste-based identity was laudable, The Hindu reported. It would promote the prohibition of caste-based discrimination, it added. The court was hearing an appeal against a single judge's order from February 2024. The judge had dismissed a petition filed by a man who was seeking a government certificate stating that he and his family belonged to no religion or caste, Live Law reported. While he acknowledged the man's request, the judge noted that the government had not empowered tehsildars to issue such a certificate. Allowing a writ appeal against the order on Tuesday, the High Court said that the single judge appeared to have been 'misguided' by an additional government pleader's argument that revenue officials were not empowered to issue 'no caste, no community' certificates, The Hindu reported. The bench added that 'even otherwise, when there is a constitutional mandate under Article 25 of the Constitution, the revenue authorities cannot wriggle out of this constitutional obligation by quoting absence of any rule or GO [government order] to that effect'. Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion. The court directed the Tirupattur collector and tehsildar to issue the certificate to the appellant within a month. Authoring the verdict, Ramesh wrote that in India, religion and caste are two social identifiers that influence several aspects of life, including personal identity, politics and social interactions. 'While the Constitution prohibits caste based discrimination, caste and religion still play a significant role in social life, politics, education and employment through reservation policies,' he said.
