Holding

The Society’s claim of being a minority educational institution was a pretence; the court may examine the substance of such claims, and Article 30(1) does not override statutory requirements for establishing a medical college.

Summary

The Andhra Pradesh Christian Medical Educational Society, a registered body, claimed the right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution to establish a Christian minority medical college. It had no land, funds, hospital or other infrastructure, yet admitted 60 students to a first‑year MBBS course without obtaining the required permission from the State Government, the Medical Council of India, or affiliation from Osmania University. The State Government refused permission in line with the policy of the Government of India and the Medical Council of India not to permit new medical colleges, and the University denied affiliation. The Society filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking to compel permission and affiliation; the High Court dismissed it, and the Society appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the Society’s claim of being a minority educational institution was a mere pretence, that the court may "pierce the minority veil" to verify the genuineness of such a claim, and that Article 30(1) does not confer an absolute right to establish any institution without complying with statutory and regulatory requirements. Consequently, the appeal and the students’ writ petition were dismissed, with costs awarded to the State.

Issues considered

The validity of the Society’s claim that it is a Christian minority educational institution under Article 30(1).
Whether the court can "pierce the minority veil" to examine the true nature of the institution.
Whether the State Government and the University can lawfully refuse permission and affiliation despite the minority claim.
Whether Article 30(1) provides an absolute right to establish a medical college irrespective of policy or regulatory constraints.
The entitlement of students admitted without affiliation to appear for university examinations.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh Education Act
Constitution of Indias. Art.136, s. Art.226, s. Art.30(1), s. Art.32
Medical Council of India Regulations
Osmania University Act
University Regulations

Subjects

Article 30minority educational institutionpiercing minority veilmedical college affiliationstate policyMedical Council of Indiastudents' rightsconstitutional law

Judgment

749
A

A. P. QIRISTIAHS MEDICAL EOOCATIONAL SOCIE'IY ETC.
v.
roVER!llENT OF AliOORA PRADESH & AMR.

APRIL 24, 1986 B

[O, CHINNAPPA REDDY, G.L. OZA AND K.N. SINGH, JJ,]

~ Constitution of Tndia, Art. 30(1) - Educational
>-1nstitutions - Right of minorities to establish and administer
- Court's right to pierce 'minority veil' to ascertain exact
nature of the institution. c
The appellant, a registered society, purported to
_,-- establish and administer a medical college as a Christian
1111.norities' educational institution in Andhra Pradesh. The
policy of the Government of India and the Medical Council of
India was not to permit the opening of new medical colleges. D
It was, however, open to private organisat:ions to establish
colle~es of higher education which could seek affiliation to
universities in whose jurisdiction t:1ey were located. Such
colleges could offer courses leading to degrees only if they
were affiliated to a university.
E
One of the requirements of affiliation of a medical
college with the Osmania University was the existence of a
full fledged hospital with at least 700 beds, a regular out-
patient departllll!llt, well equipped laboratories, lecture halls,
• demonstrat~on rOOllS, etc. and hostel for students or in the
t alternative provision of funds to the tune of about rupees F
twenty five crores, permission letter froa the State Govern-
llll!llt to start the medical college, and a goveri:aent order
indicating that the bye-laws of the management have been
registered as llinority institution and accepted by the Govern-
~ ,_ f
1181lt as such.
G
The appellant society could not fulfil a single
condition, apart from appointing someone as principal. Neither
the aemorandua of asaociation nor the articles of association
llllde reference to any S110unt. of corpus with which the society
::r- and the college proposed to be founded by it were to be
financed initially. It did not own any land, and it had no [{
support of the Church either. While its applicatfon for
750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 2 S.C.R.
A
affiliation was pending with the University it admitted
students to the first year of the MBBS course, despite strong'r-
protests voiced and several warnings issued by the University.

On May 23, 1985 the University wrote to the Society that
it was necessary to obtain the permission of the State
B
Government and the Medical Council of India in order to start
a medical college. The society was also informed that their
action in admitting students in the first year MBBS course was~~
highly irregular and illegal and that it should cancel the
admissions so made, and that attendance at the institutions
not affiliated to or recognised by the University would not
c qualify a candidate for admission to any examination conducted j
by the University. -~

On July 24, 1985 the State Government informed the+-
society that permission to start a private medical college
could not be granted. The society thereupon filed a petition
D
in the High Court seeking a writ under Art. 226 of the
Constitution to quash the refusal and to direct the Government
to grant permission and the University to grant affiliation.
The petition was dimissed in limine observing that there were
no circU111Btances to justify compelling the Government to grant
permission to the society to start a new medical college in ,...
E
view of the restrictions placed by an expert body like the
Medical Council of India that no further medical college
should be started.

In the appeal by special leave, it was contended that
F
even a single individual belonging to a minority could found a -t
minority institution and had the right so to do under the
Constitution, and neither the Government nor the University
could deny the society's right to establish a minority ~
institution, though they may impose regulatory measures in the
interests of uniformity, efficiency and excellence of
education.
G
In the writ petition filed by some of the students
admitted into the MBBS Course by the Society, it was pleaded
that the interests of students should not be sacrificed 'f
because of the conduct or folly of the management, and that
they should be permitted to appear at the university
l
examination, notwithstanding the circumstances that permission
and affiliation had not been granted to the institution.
CHRIST, MIDICAL SOCIETY v. A.P. GOVT. 751

A
Dismissing the appeal and the writ petition, the Court

BILD : l.(i) Die Court has the undoubted right to pierce
the 'ainority veil' and discover whether there is lurking
behind it no minority at all and in any case, no minority
ins~itution. (762 C-D) B

!.(ii) What is i111>ortant and what is imperative is that
there 1a1St exist some real positive index to enable the
--,. institution to be identified as an educational institution of
the minorities. Die object of Art. 30(1) is not to allOW'
bogies to be raised by pretenders but to give the minorities a
sense of security and a feeling of confidence,, not merely by c
guaranteeing the right to profess, practise and propagate
religion to religious minorities and the right to conserve
-'r their language, script and culture to linguistic minorities,
--t but also to enable all minorities, religious or linguistic, to
establish and administer educational instituti.ons of their
choice. 'nlese institutions 1111st be educational institutions of D
the minorities in truth and reality and not mere masked
phantoms. (762 H; D-F)

In the instant case, the claim of the appellant to start
a a:l.nority educational institution was no more than the merest
> pretence. Apart from the half a dozen words "as the Christian E
a:l.norities educational institutions" occurring in one of the
objects recited in the memorandum of association, there was
nothing whatever to justify the claim of the society that the
institutions proposed to be started by it were intended to be
a:l.nority educational institutions. 'nlese words were added
1 11erely to found a claim on Art. 30(1) and for no other F
purpose. 'nley were a smoke screen. (763 A-CJ

2.(1) Many, many conditions had to be fulfilled before
affiliation could be granted by the University. Yet the
society launched into the venture without fulfilling any one
of them beyond appointing someone as Principal. No one could G
have imagined that a lll!dical college would function without a
teaching hospital, without the necessary scientific equipment,
without the necessary staff, without the necessary buildings
:f and without the necessary funds. Yet, that is what the society
did or pretended to do. [761 E-{;)
H
752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 2 s.c.R.
A.

2. (ii) The establishment of a medical college in the
instant case was in the nature of a financial adventure for r
the society with a view to make money from gullible
individuals anxious to obtain admission to professional
collegiate courses. It was nothing but a daring imposture and
B skulduggery. The Court cannot, therefore, confer on it the
status and dignity of a minority institution. [761 G-H]
•
3. The admission of students into the first year MBBS
course was in defiance of the conditions laid down by the -4, ~
University. It was audacious since the society had no right to
c admit any student without first getting affiliation from the
University for the so-called medical college. By so doing, the
Society had perpetrated a huge hoax on innocent boys and
girls. (758 E-G]

4. The Court cannot by its fiat direct the University to +-
D permit the students to appear in the examination and thereby
disobey the statute, to which it owes its existence, and the
regulations made by the University itself. That would be
destructive of the rule of law. The students sought and
obtained admission in the college despite the warnings issued
by the University from time to time. That is the situation
E which they_ have brought upon themselves and they are
themselves to blame. The University acted watchfully and l
wakefully, issuing timely warnings. (764 E; G-H; 765 A-Bl

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5497 of
1985.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 17th October, 1985 of +
the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 11924 of 1985.

WITH

G Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12929 of 1985.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

S. Krishnan, J.B. Dadachanji, Mrs. A.K. Verma, Joel
Peres and Ms. Lira Goswami, for the Appellant in C.A. 5497/85. i:

K.K. Venugopal, S.S. Krishna, J.B. Dadachanji, Mrs. A.K.
Verma, Joel Perses, Ms. Lira Goswami, for the Petitioners in
W.P. No. 12929/85.
• CHRIST. MIDICAL SOCIETY v. A. P. GOVT. [CHINNAPPAAf:DDY, J.] 753

~ A
T.S. Krishna111.1rthy, H.S. Gururaj, S. ·Markandeya, K.
~ Rankumar and K. Ram Mohan for the Respondents.

B.P. Singh, Ranjit Kumar and Harbans Singh for the
interveners.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. A brazen and bizarre exploitation of
-,). the naive and foolish, eager and ready-to-be-duped, aspirants
for admission to professional collegiate courses, behind the
smoke screen of the right of the minorities to establish and
administer educational institutions of their c.hoic.e - is what c
this c.ase is about. A society styling itself as the 'Andhra
Pradesh Christian Medic.al Educational Society' was registered
on August 31, 1984. The first of the objectives mentioned in
the memorandum of association of the society was, "to
,. establish, manage and maintain educational and other
···i institutions and impart education and training at all stages, D
primary, secondary, collegiate, Post-graduate a.nd doctoral, as
a <llristian Minorities' F.ducational Institutions." Another
object was "to promote, establish, manage and maintain Medic.al
colleges, Engineering colleges, Pharmacy colleges, Commerce,
1 Literature, Arts and Sciences and Management colleges and
colleges in other subjects and to promote allied activities E
for diffusion of useful knowledge and training." Other objects
were also mentioned in the Memorandum of Association. All that
is necessary to mention here is that none of the objects,
apart from the first extracted object, had anything. to do with
~ any minority. Even the first mentioned object did not specify
or elucidate what was meant by the statenrmt that education F
and training at all stages was proposed to be imparted in the
institutions of that society "As Christian Minorities"
Educational Institutions'. Apparently the wrods "as a
Christian minorities' educational institutions" were added in
order to enable the society to claim the rights guaranteed by
Art. 30(1) of the Constitution and for no other purpose. This G
will become clearer and clearer as we narrate further facts.

It is also worthy of note that neither the memorandum of
association nor the articles of association make any reference
to any amount of corpus with which the society and the
institutions proposed to be founded by it were to be f inanc.ed . H

'
754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1986] 2 s.c.R.

A initially. It was admitted before us in answer to a question
by us to the learned counsel for the appellant-society that~
the society had no funds of its own apart from what was
collected from the students.

On August 27, 1984, one Professor C.A. Adams was one of
the signatories to the memorandum of associatlon of the
B society, claiming also to be the President of a self-styled
National Congress of Indian Christian addressed a letter to~_
Smt. Indira Gandhi, late Prime Minister of India, requesting
that the Central Government may grant them permission to
establish a Central Christian University of India in Andhra
Pradesh, where Christian children would be provided with
c facilities for education in arts, sciences, engineering and
technological courses, medicine, law and theological courses. ~
The Petitions' officer attached to the Prime Minister's office+-
informed Prof. Adams that his letter had been forwarded to the
Ministry of Education and Culture for further action. On
September 20, 1984, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of
D India, Ministry of Education and Culture wrote to the Presi-
dent, National Congress of Indian Christians to the effect
that universities could only be established under Acts of
Parliament or of State Legislatures and there was, therefore,
no question of giving permission to any organisation to esta- l"~---

blish a university. However, it was pointed out that it was
E open to private organisations to establish colleges ·of higher
education which could seek affiliations to the universities in
whose jurisdiction they were established. Such colleges could
offer courses leading to university degrees only if they were
affiliated to a university. Prof. Adams then wrote to the ·~
Government of India claiming that there was no legal impedi-
F ment to the grant of permission by the GovernlfC!nt to the esta-
blishment of a university. It was said that if necessary, the
Government could initiate legislation also. In order to avoid
further delay, the letter proceeded to state, they were start-
ing professional courses in rural areas at Vikarabad in
Rangareddy District. It was stated "to start with, as per your
G advice, we are proposing to start the following faculties at
Vikarabad where we have our Christian Hospital, High School,
Church and other vacant buildings and plenty of vacant land -f ~·"

H
suitable for further expansion belonging to our christian
churches." The Government of India was further requested to
address the University of Hyderabad to grant affiliation to •
CHRIST. MIDI CAL SOCIETY v. A. P. GOVT. [CHINNAf'PAREDDY, J. ] 755

-., their colleges and to recomiend to the All-India Institution A
of Medical Sciences to affiliate their medical college. The
Government was also requested to sanction 'the Central grant'
for these colleges. Earlier in the letter it was also mention-
ed that the Prime Minister was kind enough to agree to grant
permission for establishing the Central Christian University
of India in Andhra Pradesh for the benefit of two crores of B
Christians living in India. Most of the statements in the
letter are either misleading or false. That the Prime Minister
had agreed to the establishment of a Central Christian Univer-
sity is admitted before us to be false. Similarly the
reference to "our Christian Hospital, High School, and Church
and vacant buildings" would give an impression that the
hospital, high-school, etc. were institutions of the c
self-styled National Congress of Indian Christians. None of
those institutions is even remotely connected with this
-so-called organisation. This was admitted before us in answer
to a question by us. While Prof. Adams in his capacity as the
so-called President of the National Congress of Indian
Christians correspondent with the Central Government, the same D
Professor Adams in another capacity, namely Chairman of the
Andhra Pradesh Christian Medical Educational Society, entered
..> into a correspondence with the Chief Minister of the Govern-
ment of Andhra Pradesh and the Vice Chancellor, Osmania
University. He and one Christopher, who described himself as
the Secretary of the Society addressed a letter to the Chief E
Minister claiming that under the provisions of Art.30(1) of
the Constitution, they, the Christian minority had the right
i- to establish educational institutions of their choice and
requested him to initiate necessary action for the establish-
ment of a Central Christian University of India as suggested
by the Government of India and to grant permission for esta- F
blishing a Christian Medical College at Vikarabad. It was
mentioned in the letter that the Government of India had in-
formed them that either Parliament or the State Legislature
had to initiate action for establishing a university, but the
Government of India had permitted them to start professional
colleges and seek affiliation of the University within whose G
}. jurisdiction they fell. It is unnecessary to repeat that the
reference to the grant of permission was false. On November
30, 1984, Christopher, Secretary of the National Congress of
Indian Christians wrote a circlar letter to the Vice-Chan-
cellors of the Osmania University, the Hyderabad Central
H
756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 2 s.c.R.
A

University and eight other universities all over India ~
requesting them to grant affiliation to their colleges. On
January 22, 1985, the Registrar of the Osmania University
replied stating that it was necessary for the association to
submit documentary evidence regarding the fulfilment of the
B conditions prescribed for affiliation and to submit an appli-
cation in the prescribed form. The conditions of affiliation
of a medical college were mentioned as :-

"l. These should be. full fledged Hospital with at
least (700) beds.
c
2. There should be a regular out-patient deptt.
Casualty Dematology well equipped labs., Lecture
Halls, Demonstration Rooms for students.

3. There should be a full fledged theatres in the
D College, three with seating capacity fer 150 to 200
students each and one with seating capacity for 350
to 400 students, Lecture Theatres and Demonstration
rooms should be provided with necessary
Audio-Visual aids. In addition to the Lecture
Theatres, there should be an auditorium where 800
E to 1000 persons could be seated. ..(

4, Acconmodation has to be provided for the
following Departments 1. Anatomy 2. Physiology 3,
Bio-chemistry 4. Pharmacology 5. Pathology 6, Micro
Biology 7. Forensic Medicine 8. Social and
F Preventive Medicine 9. General Medicine 10. Surgery +
11. Obstetrics and Gynaeology 12. Blood Bank.

Acconmodation has to be provided for the following ~
Departments :

G 5. The cost of equipment for pre-parclinical is
Rs.l crore and recurring expenditure on the pre-and
Paraclinical staff is Rs.24,00 lakhs p.a.

6. The Management should establish the Labs. for
anatomy Physilogy and Bio-chemistry immediately.
*
H
7. Amount to be provided for the construction of
the following :-
CHRIST. MIDICAL SOCIETY v. A.P. GOVT. [CHINNAPPAREDDY, J.] 757

l. Hospital (700) beds Rs. 7 crores.
A
2. College Rs. 3 crores.
3. Library, Administrative
Block, Auditorium Animal House
and Works shop Rs. l crore
4. Hospital Rs. 1-1/2 crores
5. Equipment & Furniture for
B
(i) Hospital Rs. 7-1/2 crores
(ii) College Hostels Rs. 5 crores.

8. The Management should appoint a Principal with
immediate effect to run the Medical College.

9. Permission letter from the Govt. of Andhra c
Pradesh to start a Medical College.

10. A Govt. Order indicating that the Bye-laws of
the Ma;iagement has been registered as Minority
Institution and accepted by the Government as such.
D
11. Docu111?ntary evidence for the Land for locating
the college and hospital.

12. Plan of the proposed building in which the
college and Hospital in proposed to be start.
E
13. Copies of the Order placed with firl!S for
furniture, books, equipment, if any, or a
resolution to the effect that the manage111?nt would
provide necessary funds for furniture, equipment
and books etc.
F
14. A copy of the constitution of the Governing
Body and a copy of the Certificate of Registration
of the Governing Body."

The National Congress of Indian Christians was requested to
furnish information as required in the annexture in 10 copies. G
Thereafter on March 19, 1983, Professor Adams as Chairman of
the Christian Medical Education Society wrote to the
Registrar, Osmania University informing the latter that the
Management was taking necessary action in regard to the
various matters 111?nt.ioned in the letter of the University
H
758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 2 S.C.R.

A
dated January 22, 1985 and that one Dr. K. Sanjeeva Rao had\.-
been appointed as Principal of that College. It was stated in ·
the letter that there was no need to get the permission of the
State Governl!Ent as the Christian Colllllllllity had a right to
establish its own educational institutions under Art. 30 of
the Constitution. But if permission was necessary permission
had already been granted by the Central Governl!Ent in their
B
letter dated September 20, 1984. It was also l!Entioned that
'plans and estimates' of the proposed medical college at..( -
Muttangi, Medak District were enclosed. The University was
further inforl!Ed that 60 students had already been admitted to
the first year of University MBBS course of 1984 session and
that classes were functioning from February 25, 1985. The
c University was requested to send its screening Committee to
inspect the college. The University was also requested to
grant temporary affiliation. The letter contained the usual-+-
false statel!Ents. The statel!Ent that the Central Governl!Ent
had granted permission was of course false. The statel!Ent
referring to 'plans and estimates' of the proposed college
D
building at Muttangi, Medak District was again a misleading
statel!Ent as it is now admitted that the society does not own
any land in MutJ:angi. Though the University had called upon
the society to fulfil several conditions before affiliation ,
could be granted, it is clear from the letter that apart from -"'
appointing so11Ebody as Principal of the College, nothing what-
E
ever had been done to comply with any of the other conditions.
The society itself did not ref er to any effort made by it to
fulfil any of the other conditions. The admission of 60
students into the first year MBBS course was in defiance of
the conditions laid down by the University. It was audacious +
since the society had no right to admit any student without
F
getting affiliation from the University. By purporting to
admit students into the so-called l!Edical college, the society ~
had perpetrated a huge hoax on innoceI!t boys and girls. The'
University wrote to the society on May 23, 1985 pointing out
that according to the procedure laid down, affiliation could
not be granted without obtaining the feasibility report of the
G
Screening Committee. It was also pointed out that it was
necessary to obtain the permission of the State Government and
the Medical Council of India in order to start a medical ct
college. The society was informed that their action in admitt-
ing students in the first year MBBS course was highly
H
CHRIST. MIDI CAL SOCIETY v. A. P. GOVT. [ CHINNAPPAREDDY, J. ] 759

•
irregular and illegal and the society was asked to cancel the A
4 admissions made by them. It was also pointed out that atten-
dance at the institutions not affiliated or recognised by the
University would not qualify a candidate for admission to any
examination conducted by the university.
B
At this juncture, it is necessary to irention that the
Andhra Pradesh Christian Medical Education Society inserted an
,. · advertiseirent in the 'Deccan Chroni<:le' of December 9, 1984
~ inviting -applications from candidates for admission to the
first year MBBS course of the Andhra Pradesh r-entral Institute
of Medical Sciences. When the advertiseirent care to the notice
of the University authorities, they published a notification
llL, informing the public in general and the student community in c
W particular that the Osmania University had neither permitted
+ nor granted affiliation in the MBBS course to the above
institution' and 'whoever seeks admission in the above
institution will be doing so at his/her own risk'. The society
appears to have been inserting advertiseirents off and on
inviting applications for admission to the MBBS course. So on D
March 4, 1985 the University once again published a
notification in the newspapers containing a similar warning.
The warning was also broadcast on the radio and telecast on
A the television. Despite all this, the society again inserted
an advertiseirent in the newspapers inviting applications from
candidates for admission to the first year MBBS course for the E
1985 session. The University once again, had to publish a
notification warning the public. On June 5, 1985, the society
inserted an advertiseirent in the 'Decean Chronicle' styled as
~a 'reply notice', signed by an Advocate. The notice contained
the oft-repeated false .allegation that the Central Governirent
had granted permission to the society to start professional F
~ colleges and that the Priire Minister herself had recomirended
the grant of permission. It was claimed that the Osmania
University had no power to interfere with the affairs of the
Christian Medical College and that the notification published
by the Osmania University was unconstitutional and uncalled
G
for. It was also stated that the manageirent was seeking
affiliation with other universitites and had made good
~progress. This of course is another false stateirent. There is
' nothing whatever to indicate that the institution had made any
progress in obtaining affiliation from any other university.

H
760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 2 s.c.R.
A

On July 24, 1985, the Government of Andhra Pradesh wrote
to the society informing them that permission to start aY-
private medical college could not be granted as it was the
policy of the Government of India and the Medical Council of
India not to permit opening of new medical colleges. Before
B us, the petitioner society disputed the statement that there
was any policy decision of the Government of India or the
Medical Council of India not to permit opening of new Medical
colleges. But two letters - one from the Medical Council o~ _
India to the Government of Andhra Pradesh and another from the
Government of India to the Medical Council of India - have
C teen brought to our notice. In the letter dated January 16,
1981 from the Medical Council of India to the Government of
Andhra Pradesh it is stated, "The council ls against the ....
starting of any new medical colleges until all the existing . .
ones are put on a firm footing." In the letter of the Govern+•-
ment of India to the Medical Council of India, it is stated,
D "At present there are 106 medical colleges in the country with
an annual out turn of 12,500 medical graduates per year. This
out put is considered sufficient to meet the medical man power
requirements of the country. Therefore, the present policy of
the Government of India is not to permit setting up of new
medical colleges."
E
On the refusal of the Government of Andhra Pradesh tcf
grant permission to the society to start a medical college,
the society filed a. writ petition in the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh seeking a writ to quash the refusal of permission by
the Government of Andhra Pradesh and to direct the Government
F to grant permission and the University to grant affiliation"+-·
The claim for the issue of a writ was based on the fundamental
right guaranteed by Art. 30(1) of the Constitution. The writ
pet it ion was dismissed in limine by the High Court by a_s
speaking order on the ground that there were no circumstances_,...
to justtfy compelling the Government to grant permission to .
G the society to start a new medical college in view of, the
restriction placed by an expert body like a Medical Council of
India that no further medical college should be started. The
society has filed this appeal by special leave of this court
under Art. 136 of the Constitution.

H Even while narrating the facts, we think, we have said
enough to justify a refusal by us to exercise our discretion-
ary jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the Constitution. We do not
CHRIST. MID1C/\.L SOC1ETY v. /\.,P. GOVT. [CHINN/\.PP/\.REDDY, J,] 761
A

have any doubt that the claim of the petitioner to start a
minority educational iMtitution was no more than the merest
pretence. Except the words, "As the Christian Minorities
Educational Institutions" occurring in one of the objects of
the society, as mentioned in the memorand11m of association, B
there is nothing whatever to justify the claim of the society
that the institutions proposed to be started by it were
'minority educational institutions'. Every letter written by
the society whether to the Central Government, the State
Government or the University contained false and misleading
statements. /\.s we had already mentioned the petitioner had
the termerity to admit or pretend to admit students in the c
first year MBBS course without any permission being granted by
the Government for the starting of the medical college and
without any affiliation being granted by the University. The
society did this despite the strong protest voiced by the
University and the several warnings issued by the university.
The society acted in defiance of the University and the D
Government, in disregard of the provisions of the /\.ndhra
Pradesh Education /\.ct, the Osmania University Act and the
Regulations of the Osmania University and· with total in-
difference to the interest and welfare of the students. The
society has played havoc with the careers of several score
students and jeopardised their future irretrievably. Obviously E
the so-called establishment of a medical college was in the
nature of a financial adventure for the so-called society and
its office bearers, but an educational misadventure for the
students. Many, many conditions had to be fulfilled before
affiliation could be granted by the University. Yet the
society launched into the venture without fulfilling a single F
condition beyond appointing someone as principal. No one could
have imagined that a medical college could function without a
teaching hospital, without the necessary scientific equipment,
without the necessary staff, without the necessary buildings
and without the necessary funds. Yet that is what the society
did or pretended to do. We do not have any doubt that the G
society and the so-called institutions were started as
business ventures with a view to make rooney from gullible
individuals anxious to obtain admission to p·rofessional
colleges. It was nothing but a daring imposture and
scul-duggery. By no stretch of imagination, can we confer on
it the status and dignity of a minority insti.tution. H
762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 2 s.c.R.

A It was seriously contended before us that any minority,
even a single individual belonging to a lllinority, could found
a minority institution and had the right so to do under the
Constitution an·! neither the Government nor the University
could deny the society's right to establish a minority
institution, at the very threshold as it were, howsoever they
lll'iy impose regulatory measures in the interests of uniformity,
B efficiency and excellence of education. The fallacy of the
argument in so far as the instant case is concerned lies in
thinking that neither the Government nor the University has
the right to go behind the claim that the institution is a
minority institution and to investigate and satisfy itself
whether the claim is well -founded or ill -founded. The
c Government, the University and ultimately the court have the
undoubted right to pierce the 'minority veil' - with due
apologies to the Corporate Lawyers - and discover whether
there is lurking behind it no minority at all and in any case,
no minority institution. The object of Art. 30(1) is not to
allow bogies to be raised by pretenders but to give the
D minorities 'a sense of security and a feeling of confidence'
not merely by guaranteeing the right t~ profess, practise and
propagate religion to religious minorities and the right to
conserve their language, script and culture to linguistic
minorities, but also to enable all minorities, religious or
linguistic, to establish and administer educational
E institutions of their choice. These institutions nust be
educational institutions of the minorities in truth and
reality and not mere masked phantom;;·. They lll'iY be institutions
intended to give the children of the minorities the best
general and professional education, to lll'ike them complete men
and women of the country and to enable them to go out into the
F world fully prepared and equipped. They lll'iY be institutions
where special provision is lll'ide to the advantage and for the
advancement of the minority children. They lll'iY be institutions
where the parents of the children of the minority conmmity
may expect that education in accordance with the basic tenets
of their religion would be imparted by or under the guidance
G of teachers, learned and steeped in the faith. They lll'iY be
institutions where the parents expect their children to grow
in a pervasive atmosphere which is in pharmonyx with their
religion or conducive to the pursuit to it. What is important
and what is imperative is that there nust exist some real
positive index to enable the institution to be identified
H
CHRIST, MIDICAL SOCIETY v. A.P. GOvr. [CHINNAPPAREDDY, J,] 763

A
as an educational institution of the minorities. We have
~ already said that in the present case apart from the half a
dozen words 'as a Christian minorities institution' occurring
in one of the objects recited in the meioorandum of
association, there is nothing whatever, in the memorandum or
B
the articles of association or in the actions of the society
to indicate that the institution was intended to be a minority
educational institution. As already found by us these half a
dozen words were introduced merely to found a claim on Art.
~ f. 30(1 ). They were a smoke-screen.

It was contended before us that the permission to start
a new medical college could not be refused by the Government c
nor could affiliation be refused by the University to a minor-
..,_ ity institution on the ground that the Government of India and
If the Medical Council of India had taken a policy decision not
-+ to permit the starting of new medical colleges. It was said
that such a policy decision would deny the minorities their
right to establish an educational institution of their choice, D
guaranteed by Art. 30(1) of the Constitution. The argument was
that the right to establish an educational institution was an
absolute right of the minorities and that no restriction,
based on any ground of the public interest or state or social
necessity could be placed on that right so as to destroy that
~-right itself, It was said that to deny permission to a minor-
E
ity to start a medical college on the ground that there were
already enough medical colleges in the country was tant~unt
to denying the right of the minority guaranteed under Art.
30(1), On the other hand, it was said, when in the pursuit of
general or professional educational for its members, a minor-
F
+ ity comm.mity joins the mainstream of national life, it llllSt
subject itself to the national interest. The right guaranteed

r
bY Art. 30(1) gives the minority the full liberty to establish
educational institutions of its own choice. If the minority
COllllll.lnity expresses its choice and opts to join the scheme of
national educational policy, it llJ.lst naturally abide by the
G
terms of that policy unless the terms require the surrender of
the right under Art. 30(1), It was said that a medical college
needed very heavy investment and that to produce doctors
beyond need would be a national waste apart from creating a
-f- problem of unemployment in a sphere where there should be
· none. It appears, if one may borrow the words of Sir Roger de H
Coverley, 'there is llllch to be said on both sides'. In view
764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 2 S.C.R.

A
of our conclusion on the other issues we do not want to
venture an opinion on this question. ,.._

Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned counsel for the students
who have been admitted into the MBBS course of this insti-
tution, pleaded that the interests of the students should not
B be sacrificed because of the conduct or folly of the manage-
ment and that they should be permitted to appear at the
University examination notwithstanding the circumstance that
permission and affiliation had not been granted to the.+ -
institution. He invited our attention to the circumstance that
students of the Medical college established by the Daru-Salaam
c Educational Trust were permitted to appear at the examination
notwithstanding the fact that affiliation had not by then been
granted by the University. Shri Venugopal suggested that we _,..
might issue appropriate directions to the University to Jiii
protect the interests of the students. We do not think that we +-I
~

can possibly acceed to the request made by Shri Venugopal on
D behalf of the students. Any direction of the nature sought by
Shri Venugopal would be in clear transgression of the provi-
sions of the University Act and the regulations of the
University. We cannot by our fiat direct the University to
disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the
regulations made by the University itself. We cannot imagine
E anything tlXlre destructive of the rule of law than a direction_~
by the court to disobey the laws. The case of the medical
college started by the Daru-Salaam Trust appears to stand on a
different footing as we find from the record placed before us
that permission had been granted by the State Government to

l
the Trust to start the medical college and on that account,
F the University had granted provisional affiliation. We also +-
find that the Medical Council of India took strong and serious
exception to the grant of provisional affiliation whereupon
the University withdrew the affiliati.on granted to the
college. We are unable to treat what the University did in the
case of the Daru-Salaam Medcial College as a precedent in the
G present case to direct the University to do· something which it
is forbidden from doing by the University Act and the
regulations of the University. We regret that the students who
have been admitted into the college have not only lost the
tlXlney which they DllSt. have spent to gain admission into the ~
college, but have also lost one or two years of precious time
H virtually jeopardising their future careers. But that is a
CHRIST. MIDICAL SOCIETY v. A.P. GOVT. [CHINNAPPAREDDY, J,) 765

situation which they have brought upon thenselves as they A
sought and obtained admission in the college despite the
warnings issued by the University from tilll! to tilll!. We are
happy to note that the University acted Wlltchfully and wake-
fully, issuing tilll!ly warnings to those seeking admission to
the institution. We are sure many 111.1st have taken heed of the
warnings issued by the university and refrained from seeking B
admission to the institution. If solll! did not heed the
. warnings issued by the university, they are thenselves to
. blalll!. Even so if they can be compensated in solll! manner,
there is no reason why that may not. be done. We are told that
the assets of the institutions, which have sprung out of the
funds collected from the students, have been frozen. It is up
to the State Governlll!nt to devise suitable ways, legislative c
~- and administrative, to compenstate the students at least
monetarily. The appeal filed by the society is dismissed with
+ costs which we quantify at Rs. 10,000. The writ petition filed
by the students is dismissed but, in the circunstances,
without costs.
D

P. S.S. Appeal and Petition dismissed,