Can A Weaker Sect Among Religious Minority Claim Further Protection Under Article 30? Kerala High Court To Consider CSI Bishop's Plea

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday admitted a petition filed by a Christian sect which raises the point of whether a weaker section within a religious minority can claim further protection under Article 30 to reserve seats for that sect in the educational institutions run by it.

The writ petition was filed by the President of the South India Union of Churches (SIUC), Bishop Dr. Darmaraj Rasalam and the Medical Mission of the South Kerala Diocese of the Church of South India.

As per the petition, though the CSI South Kerala Diocese has established the Dr. Somervell Memorial CSI Medical College at Karakonam which has seats reserved for the Christian community, the number of students belonging to the SIUC sect is very less.

Justice N. Nagaresh issued notice through speed post to one of the respondents National Medical Commission. 

The Court will be dealing with the following issues: 

1) Does the Constitution of India guarantee any right to self-service?

2) If so, Is there an individual/collective right for self-help groups to establish medical colleges in India?

3) If so, is the extent of admissions permissible to be regulated?

4) Can sub-sects of religious denominations exercise their Freedom to preach, practice and propagate and preserve religion which includes establishing educational institutions? Do educational institutions fall within the scope of Article 26 of the Constitution.

5) If so, what is the extent of regulations possible for admission to medical colleges?

6) Whether Article 30 protects the right of sects of a religious community or merely the whole religion?

7) Whether the principles of equality be read into Article 30 and carve out an exemption to regulate admissions for such weaker sections not to share the entire community quota with the larger religious community to which they belong?

8) Do the present sovereign policies promote the qualitative and quantitative expansion of medical education including the beckoning of foreign investments and reciprocating student exchange programs?

The grievance of the petitioners was that members of the South Kerala Diocese could not learn medicine despite having established the Dr Somervell Memorial CSI Medical College, due to sovereign interference.

It was asserted that the right to establish an educational institution is a fundamental right under 19(1)(g) and that fundamental rights are to be enjoyed by individuals and juristic persons alike. 

The plea stated that educational institutions are also covered under Article 26. The right to establish and administer charitable educational institutions to uplift the sects of a religious denomination can only be regulated and not negated. It was submitted that the entire admissions to such educational institutions cannot be regulated.

On this premise, it was pointed out that CSI being a Christian denomination and SIUC a sect within it, it has a Constitutional right to regulate admission to medical colleges established and administered as a minority educational institution, for its own followers under Article 30(1), or else it is an interference with their choice. 

"The weaker section amongst the minority religious community is entitled to further protection of equality clauses of the Constitution and as such entitled to reserve seats for the section of the religious community in colleges established by it by reading into equality clauses to Article 30 (1) of the Constitution," reads the plea.

It was argued that if any of these rights are accepted, a good percentage of admissions to the Dr Somervell Memorial CSI Medical College can also be given to the State merit list because presently even while reserving all the seats to the Christian community, the number of SIUC students studying in the college is next to nothing.

The petitioner pointed out that only 10% of the aspiring students get admission to study undergraduate courses in medicine while adding that the Indian economy and human resources were draining due to the exodus of students to study medicine. 

The plea was moved through Advocates B. Vinod, I.V Pramod, H. Josh, K.V Sasidharan, Leela S, Sreemukund R and Saira Souraj P. 

Case Title: Most Rev. Dr. Darmaraj Rasalam & Anr v. Union of India & Ors.