Kerala High Court Issues Notice In PIL Challenging 50% Reservation For Muslims In State-Run Coaching Centre ICSR

Update: 2022-05-19 03:45 GMT
story

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the 50% reservation for Muslims in the State-run Institute of Career Studies & Research (ICSR) in the Malappuram district.A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly issued notice on the plea moved by an advocate practising in the High Court.The ICSR was...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the 50% reservation for Muslims in the State-run Institute of Career Studies & Research (ICSR) in the Malappuram district.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly issued notice on the plea moved by an advocate practising in the High Court.

The ICSR was established collaboratively by the Ministry of Local Self Government and the Centre for Continuing Education Kerala (CCEK) and has been conducting courses for Civil Service aspirants. 50% of the total seats in this institute are reserved for Muslim minority students, 8% seats are reserved for SC students, and 2% for ST students. The reserved categories are exempted from payment of the course fee as well. This reservation was authorised by a government order issued by the State in 2010.

The petitioner has challenged this government order sanctioning such reservation and exempting the reserved category students from paying the course fee of Rs. 61,000/-.

The PIL argued that granting the 50% reservation on the basis of the religion of the candidates violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. Moreover, the reservation in the Institute exceeds 50%, and hence in violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The said reservation is unconstitutional for numerous reasons cited in the Petition.  

The Government Pleader sought 10 days' time to respond to the PIL. The plea was moved through Advocates S. Prasanth and K. Arjun Venugopal.

"Reservation on the basis of religion alone is in violation of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. Article 15(1) says that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth. It is trite law that religious reservation is unconstitutional," reads the plea. 

Reliance was also placed on a decision striking down a scholarship scheme by the state at 80% to Muslims and 20% to Latin Catholic Christians and Converted Christians to argue that the dictum therein will squarely apply to the case at hand, where the State is granting 50% reservation to just one minority community to the total exclusion of other minority communities.

It has also been submitted that the reservation that stands at 60% in the institute violates the settled law laid down by Supreme Court. The Petitioner has contended that this reservation limits the benefit of such coaching to one religion.

"The reservation policy is also against the stated aim of the 3rd Respondent Academy, which is "to provide quality coaching to Civil Service aspirants of the state at a relatively moderate cost" and not to aspirants from a particular religious community alone."

The plea further alleged that the reservation granted to the Muslim community in the coaching given to enter administrative services was without any need because the said community was adequately represented in the administrative services.

"Meritorious candidates from other religions, including those belonging to backward classes among Hindus and Christians, are being denied the opportunity to get admission to the Institution on account of the excessive and baseless reservation of 50% of the seats for a particular religious community." 

The petitioner also pointed out that not even the creamy layer or the economically affluent among the Muslim community are excluded from the benefit of waiver of the fee.

"Since the 2nd Respondent that is managing the 4th Respondent institute is funded by grants from central and State Governments, taxpayers' money is being expended to grant the unconstitutional largesse to a religious community", the petition says.

Case Title: Arun Roy v. State of Kerala & Ors. 

Tags:    

Similar News