MUMBAI:

cannot be asked to reserve seats for backward classes, the

has held in a landmark ruling. The high court bench of Justices Amjad Sayed and M S Karnik set aside as unconstitutional a circular issued 16 years ago by Mumbai University.

It held that under constitutional amendments brought about in 2006, “minority educational institutions, both aided and unaided, are exempted from enforcement of the reservation policy of the state in respect of

of citizens”.

The 2001 circular imposed a 50% reservation for backward classes in

colleges offering arts, science, commerce and other professional courses. St Xavier’s College, a leading minority institution, through its then principle Fr J M Dias and the Maharashtra Association of Minority Educational Institutions, had immediately challenged its validity, fairness and constitutionality.

There cannot be a 50% reservation for backward classes in the 50% minority quota for students belonging to the community for which these

were set up, Biren Saraf, their counsel submitted. University counsel Rui Rodrigues said it was only applying Maharashtra Reservation Policy of 1997 to minority educational institutions too. State lawyer Abhay Patki, though, said the policy never mentioned its applicability to these institutions.

The court stayed the circular in 2002. In its interim order then, it directed that reserved category students could compete for admission on merit with open category students for the balance 50% seats in “non-minority” quota. The stay continued till the matter was decided last month. The judgment was made available on Wednesday.

The issue before the high court essentially was whether there could be any reservation for backward classes in minority colleges. The field of minority and unaided institutions has been fraught with legal tussles with states. Institutions often had to seek clarity and respite against restrictive regulations from the Supreme Court.

In 2006, the 93rd amendment to the Constitution proved to be a game changer. It brought in Article 15(5) which barred states from making any special salutary law for admission of socially and educationally backward classes or reserved category students to minority institutions. Such laws, to promote education among other backward classes, though, were allowed in unaided institutions.

In 2008, a five-judge bench of Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Article 15(5) and the exemption given to minority institutions. The validity of Article 15(5) was again questioned, now by private unaided institutions in Pramati Educational Trust case. In 2014, the SC once again held that minority institutions are not within the state’s purview.

“While minority institutions remain committed to taking in deserving candidates from disadvantaged classes, to have additional reservation for the remaining seats was considered unconstitutional by us. The HC has now upheld our contention in its ruling,” said Fr Frazer Mascarenhas, former principle of St Xavier’s College.