We can run down minority institutions at our own peril, observes Delhi HC

Even as the NEET controversy drags on before the Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court had some interesting observations to make on the status of minority educational institutions..The private unaided minority schools approached the High Court against a circular issued by the Delhi Government..The circular mandates all private schools which have received land from the Delhi Development Authority, to obtain the permission of the State Government before hiking their fees..It is the school’s claim that any provisions which insist on prior permission of the Department of Education do not apply to ‘unaided minority schools’..The petition filed by Advocate Romy Chacko and listed before Justice Manmohan, saw the case being transferred to the Bench headed by Chief Justice G Rohini which is hearing petitions on the similar issue..During the hearing, without passing any comments on the merits of the case, Justice Manmohan discussed the role and importance of minority institutions and how cases over the years had reinforced their autonomy under the Constitution..“When the history of education in India is written, the role of minority institutions will be held in high regard. The judgment in TMA Pai gave rights to minority institutions to even fix their own fee structure; we can run them down only at our own peril.”.The Division Bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath had earlier passed an order on January 19 [Justice for All v Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors] holding that the fees charged by unaided schools was subject to regulation by the DoE..The Bench had further prohibited private unaided schools, which were allotted land by the DDA or other government agencies, from increasing fees without the prior sanction of the DoE. The private schools affected by that order had then moved a review petition against the decision which is presently being heard by the Chief’s court..Ryan International has challenged the Delhi Government Circular on grounds of it being violative of Article 30(1) which bestows rights on minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice..“The prior permission clause is always treated as an obstruction to the free exercise of the right under article 30(1) of the Constitution. If the same is permitted, it is easy for the state to deprive a minority educational institution of their constitutional right to administer the educational institution by denying the prior permission sought by the management…..…Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned order issued by the government is violative of article 30(1) of the Constitution and hence the same is not applicable to minority schools.”