COURT DIARY: PAPER IV

Paper: IV COURT DIARY- CASE ANALYSIS

CASE: I
CASE NAME: Sk. Md. Rafique v. Managing Committee, Contai Rahamania High
Madrasah and Others
CASE NUMBER: Civil Appeal No. 5808 of 2017

COURT: Supreme Court of India

CITATION: (2020) 6 SCC 689

PARTIES INVOLVED:
Appellant: Sk. Md. Rafique 
Respondent: Managing Committee, Contai Rahamania High Madrasah

BENCH: Hon’ble Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
DECIDED ON: JANUARY 06, 2020

BRIEF FACTS
1. The writ petition was filed by the Managing Committee of the Contai Rahamania High
Madrasah challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 8, 10, 11 and 12 of the
National Commission for Women Act, 1990.

2. It was contended that the process of appointing teachers in an aided Madrasah (which
was a minority institution) was entrusted to the Commission under Section 4 of the
Commission Act, whose recommendations would be binding on the Committee. As per
the Committee the provisions of the Commission Act transgressed upon the rights of a
minority institution of choosing its own teachers and was violative of Article 30 of the
Constitution.
3. The writ petition was allowed by the Single Judge of the High Court. The aggrieved
party filed appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court which was dismissed
while affirming the view taken by the Single Judge.

ISSUES

1. Whether Sections 8, 10, 11 and 12 of the National Commission for Women Act, 1990
are ultra vires as held by the High Court.

2. Whether these provisions transgress the rights conferred to the minority institutions
guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

Page1
COURT DIARY: PAPER IV

JUGEMENT

1. A point of maintainability has been taken by some of the schools The Bench framed 11
questions. Under heading- “In case private institutions can be governmental regulations
and if so, to what extent”, the discussion was under various sub-headings. The first
sub-heading was “private unaided non-minority educational institutions”. Under this
sub-heading para 50 of the leading Judgment enumerated what “the right to establish
and administer” includes:

The right to establish and administer broadly comprises the following rights:
a) to admit students
b) to set up a reasonable fee structure
c) to constitute a governing body
d) to appoint staff (teaching and non-teaching)
e) to act if there is dereliction of duty on the part of any employees.

2. The other sub-headings were “private unaided professional colleges”, “private aided
professional institutions (non-minority)” and “other aided institutions”. Since the
discussion under these sub-headings as well as the next heading does not strictly deal
with the matter in the context of minority educational institutions, we may turn to the
next heading “To what extent can the rights of aided private minority institutions to
administer be regulated”. After discussing about the extent of right under Article 30 of
the Constitution, the leading Judgment considered all the relevant cases on the point.
The following paragraphs of the judgement are noteworthy: 90, 93, 105, 106, 107,
119, 120, 121, 152, 151.

3. The various decisions touching upon the extent of rights of minority institutions as
guaranteed by the Constitution were adverted by the Hon’ble Court mainly in the
following three-fold manner:
a) Decisions up to TMA Pai Foundation
b) Decisions in TMA Pai Foundation
c) Decisions after TMA Pai Foundation

HELD

The appeal by the respondent in the Hon’ble Supreme Court were allowed and the view taken
by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court was set aside. The writ petition
was dismissed and the Sections 8, 10, 11 and 12 of the Commission Act to be valid and
constitutional. All nominations made by the Commission in pursuance of the provisions of
the Commission Act were held to be valid. However, if after the disposal of the matters by the
High Court any appointments are made by the concerned Madrasah, such appointments of
teachers shall be deemed to be valid for all purposes. But the Commission shall hereafter be

Page2
COURT DIARY: PAPER IV

competent to select and nominate teachers to various Madrasah in accordance with the
provisions of the Commission Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

CASES REFERRED:

1. Re: The Kerala Education Bill, 1957 (Para 17 of the present judgement)
2. Rev. Sidhajbhai Sabhai and Others v. State of Bombay and Another (Para 18 of the
present judgement)
3.  Rev. Father W. Proost and Ors. v. the State of Bihar and Ors. (Para 19 of the present
judgement)
4. DAV College v. State of Punjab (Para 36,37) (Para 21 of the present judgement)
5. Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society and Another v. State of Gujarat and Another
(Para 22 of the present judgement)
6. Lily Kurian v. Sr. Lewina and Others (Para 51) (Para 24 of the judgement)
7. All Saints High School, Hyderabad and Others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and
Others (Para 25 of the present judgement)
8. Bihar State Education Board v. Managing Committee Madarasa (Para 6) (Para 27 of
the present judgement)
9. St. Stephens College v. University of Delhi (Para 68) (Para 28,30 of the present
judgement)

10. In Board of Secondary Education and Teachers Training v. Jt. Director of Public
Instructions (Para 3) (Para 29 of the present judgement)
11. In Brahmo Samaj Education Society vs. State of West Bengal (Para 32 of the present
judgement)
12. P.A. Inamdar and others v. State of Maharashtra (Para 33 of the present judgement)
13. Kanya Junior High School, Bal Vidya Mandir U.P. v. Basic Shiksha Parishad,
Allahabad, U.P. and others (Para 34 of the present judgement)
14. Sindhi Education Society and another v. Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of
Delhi and others (Para 36 of the present judgement)
15. Secretary, Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T. Jose (Para 35 of the present
judgement)
16.  In Chandana Das v. State of West Bengal (Para 37 of the present judgement)
17. TMA Pai Foundation case (Para 39,40 of the present judgement)

Page3