St Stephen College Can't Alter Seat Matrix Unilaterally On Ground Of Being Minority Institute, No Unbridled Powers Against DU Policies: Delhi HC

The Court stated that minority institutions do not have unbridled powers under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution to exercise discretion against the policies framed by their affiliated universities

A single judge bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma was considering the College's petition which sought directions to the DU to approve and upload the list of Christian minority students forwarded by it on Common Seat Allocation System admissions portal. It sought admission of 19 Christian students to its BA programs.

The High Court noted that for 2024-25 academic year, the College introduced 13 B.A. Program combinations.

It observed that in Hargun Singh Ahluwalia vs. v. Delhi University & Ors. (2024 LiveLaw (Del) 981), the court held that the 13 BA programs were distinct and separate programs, having different seat matrix. It was stated that the seat matrix were to be followed by the College and DU without any deviation.

However, the College treated the 13 programs as one single program and allocated seats by changing the seat matrix. It contended that its actions are protected by Article 30 of Constitution, which confers rights on minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.

The Court referred to the observations of Division Bench of the court in St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi (2022 LiveLaw (Del) 857), where it was stated that Article 30(1) of the Constitution is not an absolute right and even the aided minority educational institutes affiliated to a University must follow the norms and procedures set by the University.

The High Court thus remarked, “Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that St. Stephen College, being an aided minority educational institute also, cannot claim to have absolute unbridled powers to exercise discretion against the policies framed by the University to which it is affiliated.”

The Court thus stated that the College cannot change the seat matrix and allocate Christian students to the programs as per their choice merely because they are a minority institute.

With respect to the admission of students, the DU in its affidavit stated that 14 students are eligible for admission as their allocation by the College was as per seat-matrix. The Court thus stated that the 14 students are entitled to admission in the BA programs.

With respect to admission of the remaining students, the Court applied the ratio of Hargun Singh Ahluwalia to the present case. As the court treated B.A. Programs being offered by the College as thirteen distinct and separate programs, it said that 5% excess allocation policy would be applicable to each of these thirteen programs.

Here, the Court noted that the College allocated one extra student to 3 courses. It stated that these allocations were in conformity with the 5% excess allocation policy. It thus held that the 3 students are entitled to admissions to the programs.

Further, for one BA program, it noted that the College has allocated 2 excess students. The Court stated that 1 allocation is beyond the seat matrix and the 5% excess allocation policy.

It stated, “In this Court's opinion, there is one allocation which is beyond the seat matrix as well as the 5% excess allocation policy, which is the 7th student in B.A. Program (Economics + Political Science). This is so, since the seat matrix for the said program permits 05 admissions and after applying the 5% excess allocation policy, the same would mean 06 admission/allocations.” The Court held that the University cannot be compelled to approve the admission of the 7th student as per merit.

The Court thus held that 18 out of 19 students are entitled to get admission in the St. Stephan College.

The Court disposed the petition and remarked “To those who could not get admission in St. Stephen's College, though they aspired for it, must know that they must not judge or define themselves by merely studying in a particular college since each one of them, who has not been able to get admission in this College, is also brilliant and will be able to fulfill his or her dreams, as what really matters is what is inside them and not always what one may try to find outside.”

Case title: St. Stephen's College vs. University of Delhi (W.P.(C) 12933/2024 & CM APPL. 53978/2024, CM APPL. 55373/2024)