Once a minority institute, always a minority institute: Calcutta high court

A school once recognized as a minority institution would continue to avail itself of minority privileges, it made a difference or not, whether or not it received a minority certificate from West Bengal Minorities Commission, Calcutta High Court ruled on Thursday.

"Once a minority, always a minority," said Chief Justice T S Sivagnanam, rejecting a PIL filed in 2019, praying that schools operated by West Bengal Association of Christian Schools could not claim minority status as the association had not made an application to the commission for renewal of minority status.

Referencing a Supreme Court ruling (in the N Ahmed versus Management of MJ High School, 1988), amongst others, the CJ noted: "It is clearly apparent that the petitioner has no knowledge of the various Supreme Court rulings on interpretations of Article 30(1) of the Constitution."

The judge proceeded to refer to the 1988 Supreme Court ruling that held that "a school which is otherwise a minority school would continue to be so. The declaration (by the state) is only an acceptance of a legal character antecedent to the said declaration."

The CJ, during the hearing of the petition, remembered his judicial experience as a judge when the Tamil Nadu state determined that minority schools needed to renew annually their minority certificate.

"The settled law is that you can't insist upon a listed minority body to go to govt and seek a minority certificate. Rule 33 of the Management Rules, 1969, stipulates that such schools may seek a certificate," said the CJ.

The CJ, noting that Rule 33 of the Management Rules, 1969, was left out in 2008, noted: "The exclusion of Rule 33 will not in any way influence the right of the West Bengal Association of Christian Schools. State govt made special rules for the minority-run private institutions granted to them under Article 26 and 30 of the Constitution."

The respondent schools' counsel pleaded that the Christian schools had been established and managed since 1800. The counsel presented that they were included as minority institutions years ago when West Bengal Minorities Commission did not exist. "Now the petitioner is stating that I am not able to enjoy the minority status because I did not receive a certificate from the commission," the counsel added.

The division bench of CJ Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) had "serious doubt" regarding the bonafides of the petitioner. "The petitioner has annexed some internal documents of the schools and drafted a petition of almost 170 pages without stating the source from where he obtained those materials," the CJ noted.

Petitioner's counsel argued that there were quite a number of petitions against the schools pending in the high court and accessible online. "It is easy to obtain those documents," the counsel explained.

The division bench was adverse to such a submission. The bench in its order expressed that the court would have levied exemplary costs against the petitioner but did not so do because the petitioner was a social worker working towards providing education to the poor and downtrodden people of rural India.