4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N.

JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

P20

4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2024

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDON

Special Leave Petition and Writ Petition Arising out of Art. 136 and 32 of the Constitution of
Indon respectively.

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. _/2023

RAGANANDA COLLEGE OF ARTS AND COMMERCE…………….……………..…...PETITIONER

V.

NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR MINORITY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION...…….…….RESPONDENT

CLUBBED WITH

WRIT PETITION [C] NO. _/2023

RAGANANDA COLLEGE OF ARTS AND COMMERCE……………………………....…PETITIONER

V.

STATE OF RAGANANDA…………………………………..………………………RESPONDENT

CLUBBED WITH

WRIT PETITION [C] NO. _/2023

RAGI SAHITYA MAHASABHA……………………………………….……………..PETITIONER

V.

STATE OF RAGANANDA……………………………………………………….…..RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

I
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ I

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONSTABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ IV
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... VI
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONSTABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................................................... IX
STATEMENT OF FACTS .............................................................................................................. X
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONSTABLE OF CONTENTS
ISSUES RAISED ....................................................................................................................... XII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................. XIII
ARGUMENTS ADVANCEDLIST OF ABBREVIATIONSTABLE OF CONTENTS
........................................................................................................... 1
1. That the Ragananda College of Arts and Commerce is a minority education institution
and the governing bodyLmembers have the right TtoABLE
IST OF ABBREVIATIONS administer the college. ........................... 1
OF CONTENTS

1.1 That Ragananda College is a minority educational institution. .................................. 1

LIST OF
1.1.1. The linguistic minority ABBREVIATIONS
Status TABLE OF C...................................................
of the Ragi Community ONTENTS 2

1.1.2. The Intent of Establishment of Ragananda College. ...................................................... 3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONSTABLE OF CONTENTS
1.1.3. The State Government’s Knowledge Regarding the Admission Procedure ..................... 4

1.1.4. Ragananda College fulfils conditions of a minority educational institution. ................. 4

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONSTABLE OF CONTENTS
1.1.5. The Recognition of linguistic minorities must be made duty of States ........................... 5

1.1.6. Ragananda University will retain the status of minority educational institution ........... 6
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONSTABLE OF CONTENTS
1.2. That, the Governing Body Members have the right to administer the college ............ 7

1.2.1 Fundamental rights

LISTconferred upon minority
OF ABBREVIATIONS educational
TABLE institutions to be checked ... 7
OF CONTENTS

1.2.2 Ragananda College and its Right to constitute its Governing Body .............................. 8

2. LIST OF
That the ‘Ragananda ABBREVIATIONS
state TABLE
university of arts CONTENTS
andOFcommerce act 2023’ is violative of
Art. 29 and 30 of the constitution and hence, invalid........................................................... 10

2.1. LIST OF
That, the Ragananda ABBREVIATIONS
University TABLEof
Act is violative CONTENTS Rights. ................ 10
OFFundamental

2.1.1. The Ragananda University Act is covered under Art. 13 of the COI. ........................... 10
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONSTABLE OF CONTENTS
2.1.2 No intent or consent on the part of Ragananda College for its conversion to Ragananda
University. ................................................................................................................................ 11
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONSTABLE OF CONTENTS
2.1.3 The effect of ‘Compulsive Scheme’ of Statute ............................................................... 12

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
II TABLE OF CONTENTS
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER TABLE OF CONTENTS
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

2.1.4 The Ragananda University Act is Arbitrary in Nature. ................................................ 13

2.1.5. The Ragananda University Act fails the Test of Proportionality. ................................. 14

2.1.6. The Ragananda University Act and the Doctrine of Colourable Legislation. .............. 15

2.2. Ragananda University Act as an ‘Unreasonable’ Regulation on the minority

educational institution. ........................................................................................................... 15

2.2.1 The Ragananda University Act curtails the existing Rights of the minority educational
institution. ................................................................................................................................ 16

2.2.2 Scope of Reasonable Regulation of a minority educational institution. ....................... 17

2.2.3 The Ragananda University Act is an ‘Unreasonable’ Regulation. ............................... 17

3. That the inherent minority character of an educational institution does not get
extinguished if the NCMEI rejects the application. .............................................................. 18

3.1. That, Fundamental Rights Art. 29 and 30 guaranteeing the Inherent Minority
Character to the Ragi Community cannot be extinguished. ................................................. 18

3.2 That, the Inherent minority Character of an institution does not depend on the
recognition by law. ................................................................................................................... 19

3.3 That, the National Commission of minority educational institutions Act, 2004 functions
to preserve the inherent minority character of an institution. ................................................. 21

4. That the National Commission for minority educational institutions Act, 2004 is
unconstitutional insofar as it fails to accommodate the rights of minorities on a linguistic
basis. 22

4.1. That, the National Commission of minority educational institutions Act, 2004 does not
cater to the rights and interests of linguistic minorities. ......................................................... 22

4.1.1. That, the invocation of safeguards guaranteed by Art. 29 and 30 confers the minority
character along with state-wise determination........................................................................ 22

4.1.2. The NCMEI Act categorically limits its scope to only religious minorities .................. 23

4.2 That, the National Commission of Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 is not in
consonance with the rights of linguistic minorities in the COI. .............................................. 24

PRAYER FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................................. XV

III
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER TABLE OF CONTENTS
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORM

& And

§ Section

¶ Paragraph

A.L.D. Andhra Legal Decisions

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Art. Art.

C.T.C. Current Tamil Nadu Cases

Cl Clause

Const. Constitution

COI Constitution of Indon

DEL Delhi

DES Deccan Education Society

G.L.R. Gujarat Law Reporter

HC High Court

Hon’ble Honorable

i.e. That is

Id. Ibidem

KANT Karnataka

MANU Manupatra

MH Maharashtra

IV
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

MLJ Madras Law Journal

MP Madhya Pradesh

National Commission for minority

NCMEI
educational institutions
National Commission for Religious and
NCRLM
Linguistic Minority

No. Number

NOC No Objection Certificate

Ors. Others

P.C.I.J. Permanent Court of International Justice

P.L.J.R. Patna Law Journal Reports

Para Paragraph

PROP. Proposition

S.C. Supreme Court

S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases

S.C.R. SC Reporter

TN Tamil Nadu

UGC University Grants Commission

UOI Union of India

v. Versus

V
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

NATIONAL CASES

A.P. Christians Medical Educational v. Government of Andhra Pradesh And Anr., 5

(1986) 2 S.C.R. 749.
Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujarat, (1974) 1 S.C.C. 717 7
Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal and Ors., 3
MANU/SCOR/05842/2024.
Andhra Kesari College of Education v. State of A.P., (2019) 9 S.C.C. 457. 15
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 S.C.C. 637. 14
Association of University Teachers v. State of Tamil Nadu and Or., 3
MANU/TN/0293/1990.
B. Manjula v. The District Elementary Education Officer, Villupuram District and 7
Ors., MANU/TN/6283/2022.
Bal Patil & Anr v. Union Of India & Ors., A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 3172. 3
Benson Enock Semual, Ahmedabad, Etc. v. State Of Gujarat And Ors., (1984) 1 17
G.L.R. 691.
Brahmo Samaj Education Society & Ors v. State Of West Bengal & Ors., (2004) 6 15
S.C.C. 224.
Chandana Das v. State of W.B., (2020) 13 S.C.C. 411. 19
Corporate Educational Agency v. James Mathew, (2017) 15 S.C.C. 595. 21
D.A.V. College Etc v. State of Punjab & Ors., (1971) S.C.R. 688. 2
Dayanand Anglo Vedic (DAV) College Trust & Management Society v. State of 4
Maharashtra, (2013) 4 S.C.C. 14.
Deccan Model Education Society v. State of Karnataka And Ors., A.I.R. 1983 4
KANT 207.
Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 648. 11
Director School Education, Department of Education v. National Commission for 21
Minority Educational Institution, (2020) S.C.C. OnLine P&H 430.
DSGMC And Ors. v. Union of India And Ors., A.I.R. ONLINE 2018 DEL 537. 5
Forum of Minority Institutions and Associations v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2011) 1 7
C.T.C. 162.

VI
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

Frank Anthony Public School Employees Association v. Union of India & Ors., 16
1987 S.C.R. (1) 238.
Gandhi Faiz-e-am-ColleUmmulge v. University of Agra, (1975) 2 S.C.C. 28. 8
H-Private Universities Management Association v. State of H.P., (2014) S.C.C. 9
OnLine HP 2892.
K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa, (1953) 2 S.C.C. 178. 15
K.P. Gopalakrishna v. State of Karnataka, (2017) S.C.C. OnLine Kar 6924. 23
K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhar-5J.) v. Union of India, (2018) 1 S.C.C. 809. 6
Kerala Education Bill, 1957, In re, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 956. 2
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225. 11
Mahatma Education Society and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 4
MANU/MH/0970/1997.
Milli Trust v. State of Bihar, (2016) 4 P.L.J.R. 853. 7
Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of M.P., (2016) 7 S.C.C. 353. 14
N. Ammad v. Emjay High School, (1998) 6 S.C.C. 674 (India). 1
P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 6 S.C.C. 537. 3
R.C. Diocese of Kottar v. The Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation and 20
Ors., MANU/TN/3119/2023.
Rajender Mohan Rana and Ors. v. Prem Prakash Chaudhary and Ors., 6
MANU/DE/3418/2011.
Rt. Rev. Bishop S. K. Patro & Ors v. State Of Bihar & Ors., (1970) 1 S.C.R. 172. 5
S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, (1983), 1 S.C.C. 51. 3
Sharif-ud-Din v. Abdul Gani Lone, (1980) 1 S.C.C. 403 (India). 6
Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny v. State of W.B., (2018) 6 S.C.C. 772. 18
St. Ignatitus Higher Secondary School v. Director of School Education, (1999) 1 20
C.T.C. 121.
St. John Inter College vs Girdhari Singh & Ors., (2001) 4 S.C.C. 296. 17
St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi, (1992) 1 S.C.C. 558. 1
State of Kerala v. Mother Provincial, (1970) 2 S.C.C. 417. 17
State Of Punjab v. Dalbir Singh, A.I.R. 2012 S.C. 1040. 11
State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights 11
and Ors., MANU/SC/0850/2010.
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (1994) 2 S.C.C. 734. 2

VII
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

Ummul Qura Educational Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2001) 6 7

A.L.D. 250.
Y. Theclamma v. Union of India, (1987) 2 S.C.C. 516. 14

STATUTES

Aliah University Act, 2007, § 3, No. 27, Acts of Parliament, 2007 (India). 6
National Commission for minority educational institution, 2004, § 11, No. 02, 19, 21
Acts of Parliament, 2004 (India).
The National Commission for minorities Act, 1992, § 2, No. 19, Acts of 21, 23
Parliament, 1992 (India).
The University Grants Commission Act, 1956, § 2, No. 03, Acts of Parliament, 9, 13
1956 (India).
University Grants Commission Guidelines for Autonomous College, 2017, 9
University Grants Commission, 2017 (India).

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

INDIA CONST. art. 13. 10

INDIA CONST. art. 29. 1
INDIA CONST. art. 30 1, 3, 24
INDIA CONST. art. 30, cl. 1. 3, 24
INDIA CONST. art. 32. 11

OTHER AUTHORITIES

National Commission for Religious and Linguistic Minorities (2007), 3

Ranganath Misra Commission Report, Ministry of minority Affairs.

CASE EMANATING FROM FOREIGN JURISDICTION

Minority Schools in Albania, Advisory Opinion, 1935 P.C.I.J. (ser. 20

A/B) No. 64.

VIII
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Ragananda College of Arts and Commerce has filed a special leave petition in the Supreme
Court of Indon. This has been done by the virtue of Art. 136 of the Constitution of Indon.1

Additionally, the petitioner has invoked the Writ Jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Indon, under Art. 32 of the Constitution of Indon to enforce their Fundamental Rights.2

1
Art. 136 of the Constitution of Indon:
“Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court—
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to
appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by
any court or tribunal in the territory of India.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any
court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.”
2
Art. 32 of the Constitution of Indon:
“Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part,
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred
by this Part is guaranteed;
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (1) and (2), Parliament may by law
empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable
by the Supreme Court under clause (2)
(4) The right guaranteed by this Art. shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution”

IX
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Timeline Event

The state of Ragananda was formed on the linguistic basis of the

1956
Ragi Language.

The state witnessed three highly destructive natural disasters

causing the death of native residents as well as out-of-state
1956-1970
migration.
This reduced the state’s population by 50%

Members of the Ragi Sahitya Mahasabha, a society aimed at

promoting the Ragi Language throughout the country,
established Ragananda College of Arts and Commerce in 1999
1990-2001 via a trust named Ragi Teaching and Education Trust.
The original Ragi-speaking population decreased by huge
margins. According to the 2001 census, there remained only
10% of Ragi-speaking households in Ragananda.

2019 The college was granted the status of ‘autonomous college’.

The Department of Higher Education of the State government

directs the college to ensure 10% of vacancies are reserved for
April 2023
state reservation and introduction of sports quota.
The College agreed to fulfil the condition of the Sports quota.

The Department of Higher Education added two more

conditions. Interference of the Department of Higher Education
May 2023 in faculty recruitment as well as student admission.
Introduction of state entrance test for admission to professional
courses.

X
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER STATEMENT OF FACTS
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

The State Cabinet approved the bill to convert the college into a
university. The college applied for a no-objection certificate
June 2023
from the National Commission for minority educational
institutions Act,2004.
Ragananda State University of Arts and Commerce Act 2023
passed. NCMEI rejected the college’s application for an NOC.
College Management filed a special leave petition in the
Supreme Court of Indon challenging the commission’s order.
August 2023 A writ petition was also filed challenging the validity of the act
passed on the grounds that it is violative of Art. 29 and 30 of
the Indon Constitution. The Ragi Sahitya Mahasabha filed a writ
petition in the Ragananda High Court challenging the validity
of the act on the same grounds.

The Supreme Court of Indon has transferred the petition filed before the High Court of
Ragananda to itself and clubbed it with the matters of the Special Leave Petition and the
Writ Petition of the College Management.

XI
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER STATEMENT OF FACTS
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE I

WHETHER THE RAGANANDA COLLEGE OF ARTS AND COMMERCE IS A MINORITY EDUCATION

INSTITUTION AND THE GOVERNING BODY MEMBERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO ADMINISTER THE

COLLEGE?

ISSUE II

WHETHER THE ‘RAGANANDA STATE UNIVERSITY OF ARTS AND COMMERCE ACT 2023’ IS
VIOLATIVE OF ART. 29 AND 30 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND HENCE, INVALID?

ISSUE III

WHETHER THE INHERENT MINORITY CHARACTER OF AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

EXTINGUISHES IF THE NCMEI REJECTS THE APPLICATION?

ISSUE IV

WHETHER THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR MINORITY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION ACT, 2004
IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL INSOFAR AS IT FAILS TO ACCOMMODATE THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES ON A

LINGUISTIC BASIS?

XII
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER ISSUES RAISED
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. THAT, THE RAGANANDA COLLEGE OF ARTS AND COMMERCE IS A MINORITY

EDUCATION INSTITUTION AND THE GOVERNING BODY MEMBERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO

ADMINISTER THE COLLEGE.

Firstly, the Ragananda College is a minority educational institution, in light of first, the Ragi
Community in the State of Ragananda are a linguistic minority by the standards prescribed by
this Hon’ble Court in Kerala Education Bill; second, the Ragi minority has the clear intent of
establishing this educational institution for preserving the Ragi culture and language, third, the
State government of Ragananda has the clarity regarding the Admission Procedure inclusive
of the Preferential Admission setup; and last, it adheres to the various Court-established
conditions that a minority educational institution must fulfil.

Secondly, the Governing Body of the Ragananda College has the right to administer the
educational institution. In light of, first, the right to administer is a part of the Fundamental
Rights conferred upon the College in regard to its minority Character, second, the right of
Ragananda College to constitute its governing body included within its right to administer the
College.

II. THAT, THE ‘RAGANANDA STATE UNIVERSITY OF ARTS AND COMMERCE ACT 2023’ IS

VIOLATIVE OF ART. 29 AND 30 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND HENCE, INVALID.

Firstly, the Ragananda State University of Arts and Commerce Act, 2023, is violative of the
provisions of Art. 29 and Art. 30, in light of first, it inherently violation of Art. 13; second,
there is no intent or consent on part of Ragananda College to undergo such conversion to
Ragananda University; and last, by using the St. Xavier’s prescribed test of ‘compulsive
scheme’ to attribute it to the Ragananda University Act as it compels the Ragananda College
out of its protection under Art. 29 and Art. 30.

Secondly, by usage of the tests of arbitrariness, proportionality, and colourable Legislation, the
Ragananda State University of Arts and Commerce, Act 2023, first, is arbitrary in nature,
second, does not qualify the Test of Proportion showing that it was disproportionate in nature,
and last, it was a by-product of a colourable legislation, as the Ragananda University Act, was

XIII
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

passed as a reactionary legislation to the refusal of the instructions previously issued by the
Department of Higher Education of the State of Ragananda.

Thirdly, the Ragananda State University of Arts and Commerce Act. 20203, is an
‘unreasonable’ Regulation, in light of curtailment of the various rights of minority educational
institutions and it exceeding the scope of a ‘reasonable’ Regulation for a minority educational
institution.

III. THAT, THE ‘RAGANANDA STATE UNIVERSITY OF ARTS AND COMMERCE ACT 2023’ IS

VIOLATIVE OF ART. 29 AND 30 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND HENCE, INVALID.

Firstly, Fundamental Rights Art. 29 and 30 guaranteeing the inherent minority character to the
Ragi Community cannot be extinguished.

Secondly, Inherent minority Character of an institution does not depend on the recognition by
law.

Thirdly, The National Commission of minority educational institutions Act, 2004 functions to
preserve the inherent minority character of an institution.

IV. THAT, THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR MINORITY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION ACT,
2004 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL INSOFAR AS IT FAILS TO ACCOMMODATE THE RIGHTS OF

MINORITIES ON A LINGUISTIC BASIS.

Firstly, The NCMEI Act, 2004 does not cater to the rights and interests of linguistic minorities.
In light of one, invocation of safeguards guaranteed by Art. 29 and 30 confers the minority
character along with state-wise determination. Secondly, The NCMEI Act categorically limits
its scope to only religious minorities.

Secondly, The NCMEI Act, 2004 is not in consonance with the rights of linguistic minorities
in the Constitution of Indon.

XIV
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THAT THE RAGANANDA COLLEGE OF ARTS AND COMMERCE IS A MINORITY EDUCATION

INSTITUTION AND THE GOVERNING BODY MEMBERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO ADMINISTER THE

COLLEGE.

1. It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that the Ragananda College of Arts and
Commerce is a minority educational institution and that the Governing Body of the
Ragananda College of Arts and Commerce has the Right to Administer the College. This
contention has been furthered by means of a two-fold argument, [1.1] Firstly, establishing
that the Ragananda College has been a minority educational institution before the
enactment of the Ragananda University Act, and that it would retain its status as a minority
educational institution even post the enactment of the Ragananda University Act, and [1.2]
Secondly, that the Ragananda College’s Governing Body falls under the Right to
Administer an educational institution within the protection of Art. 29 and Art. 30.

1.1 That Ragananda College is a minority educational institution.

2. It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that, as observed in the N.Ammad v. Emjay
High School,3 a minority institution remains a minority institution whether or not the
government or any requisite authority recognizes the same. This recognition is merely a
recognition of the factual position and open acceptance of such legal position of the
institution. It is ultimately for this Court of Law to determine whether or not such an
institution is of a minority nature.
3. It is pertinent to note that the Ragananda College’s minority educational institutional status
as under the protection of the provisions of Art. 294 and Art. 30,5 can be explored in a two-
fold manner, that is, one, before the enactment of the Ragananda State University of Arts
and Commerce Act, 2023 as in St. Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi6 where the
Court of Law ascertained the minority character of the institution based on the historical
antecedents, and two, post its enactment in August7.

3
N. Ammad v. Emjay High School, (1998) 6 S.C.C. 674 (India).
4
INDIA CONST. art. 29.
5
INDIA CONST. art. 30.
6
St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi, (1992) 1 S.C.C. 558.
7
MOOT PROP. ¶ 12.

1
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

4. With respect to the proof of the minority Status of Ragananda College before the enactment
of the Ragananda State University of Arts and Commerce Act, 2023, in order to prove the
minority status of the college, it is important to proceed in a six-fold manner, that is, [1.1.1]
Firstly, highlight the minority status of the Ragi Community, [1.1.2] Secondly, intention of
the institution’s formation, [1.1.3] Thirdly, inspecting the government’s clarity on the
institution’s admission procedure examining the, [1.1.4] Fourthly, the conditions that a
minority educational institution must fulfil, [1.1.5] Fifthly, the recognition of linguistic
minorities must be made duty of States and [1.1.6] Lastly, Ragananda University will retain
the status of minority educational institution.

1.1.1. The linguistic minority Status of the Ragi Community

5. In pertinence to the Ragi community’s status as a linguistic minority, it is respectfully

submitted to this Court that, as observed in the Kerala Education Bill Case,8 and D.A.V
College v. State of Punjab,9 a minority is a community that is numerically lesser than 50%
of the total population.
6. Although the issue of linguistic minorities does not fall under the purview of the NCMEI
Act, 2004, the government's Reply to the Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India,10
recorded that NCMEI recognizes the State’s dire recognition of linguistic minorities. In this
analysis, the review of Ragis minority Status will be with respect to the State, as per the
last record, the 2001 census, the Ragis comprised 10% of the total population of the State11,
thus rendering them a linguistic minority.
7. Moreover, the Ragananda State University of Arts and Commerce Act, 2023 is a state
legislation challenging the minority status of the Ragis, considering the establishment of a
university would be by means of a Statute, rendering it a creation of the State as noted in
S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India.12 By the application of the aforementioned test, they are
a linguistic minority. Additionally, TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka,13 Bal Patil

8
Kerala Education Bill, 1957, In re, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 956.
9
D.A.V. College Etc v. State of Punjab & Ors., (1971) S.C.R. 688.
10
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., MANU/SC/0195.
11
MOOT PROP. ¶ 3.
12
S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India, (1968) 1 S.C.R. 833.
13
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (1994) 2 S.C.C. 734.

2
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

v. Union of India,14 and PA Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra15 recognize the State to be the
unit of decision in the case of linguistic minorities.
8. The 2007 NCRLM Report mentions that the numerical basis cannot be the sole criterion
for determination of minority and that the community must additionally require social and
economic uplifting.16 This condition has been met in the present case. The factual matrix
clearly shows that the language and culture of the Ragis were on the brink of extinction and
its preservation was necessary.17
9. The Ragis’ status as a minority additionally seeks support from Senior Adv. Rakesh
Dwivedi’s Three-Point Test in the Faizan Mustafa case18 for minorities, affirmatively
fulfils the questions of numerical status, that it is not a ruling power, and that the community
considers itself a minority.
10. It is submitted to this Hon’ble Court, that this proof of minority, is the criterion that the S.P.
Mittal v. Union of India19 establishes for any community to be eligible to avail the
protection of Art. 30(1).20 Additionally, as per the finding in, the Association of University
Teachers v. Tamil Nadu,21 in continuance to Art. 29 and 30, as long as the institution is
established by a minority community, now presented before this Court in the express case,
even though it has been running as a Private educational institution, it can claim its rightful
status.

1.1.2. The Intent of Establishment of Ragananda College.

11. In pertinence with the intent of the establishment of the Ragananda College, there is a clear
aim characterized by the fear of losing the Ragi language and culture,22 and the consequent
intention to create a minority educational institution in the express case. This is mirrored in
the case of MAO College, now AMU in Azeez Basha v. Union of India,23 wherein an
institution is established by a minority community with the aim of preserving their language
and culture, sensing danger.

14
Bal Patil & Anr v. Union Of India & Ors., A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 3172.
15
P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 6 S.C.C. 537.
16
National Commission for Religious and Linguistic Minorities (2007), Ranganath Misra Commission Report,
Ministry of Minority Affairs.
17
MOOT PROP. ¶ 4.
18
Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal and Ors., MANU/SCOR/05842/2024.
19
S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, (1983), 1 S.C.C. 51.
20
INDIA CONST. art. 30, cl. 1.
21
Association of University Teachers v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., MANU/TN/0293/1990.
22
MOOT PROP. ¶ 8.
23
supra note 12.

3
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

12. In relevance to this, Mahatma Education Society v. State of Maharashtra reads,24 “The
minority status of such an institution cannot be taken away on the ground that such intention
was not disclosed in the original application.”, and original application not showing the
intent, in arguendo, would be immaterial and that the minority status shall still be accorded.

1.1.3. The State Government’s Knowledge Regarding the Admission Procedure

13. It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that the 2017 UGC Guidelines regarding the
Regulation of Autonomous Colleges, require any Autonomous College to mandatory
disclosure of the admission procedure. This clearly shows that through this mandatory
disclosure the government was very well aware of the admission procedure that was
preferential towards members of their community, that is characteristic of a minority
educational institution.
14. This knowledge, and with the inaction of the State government25 against such Admission
Preference to the Ragis, is a clear demonstration of the State’s cognizance of the Ragananda
College’s minority character.

1.1.4. Ragananda College fulfils conditions of a minority educational institution.

15. In connection to the conditions that a minority educational institution like Ragananda
College must fulfil, as the NCMEI Act, 2004 does not apply to it considering it is
‘established and administered’ by a linguistic minority, no express State-specific conditions
by the State of Ragananda were mentioned, as the ones mentioned in the Association of
University Teachers v. Tamil Nadu26 or the ‘⅔’ trustees condition belonging to the minority
in the DAV v. State of Maharashtra Case,27 giving or setting specific requirements that a
minority educational institution must fulfil.
16. In Deccan Model Education Society v. State of Karnataka,28 the Court of Law held that
the institution need not take any prior permission from the government to be started, and
the status of minority educational institution must be given to it if all conditions have been
satisfied.

24
Mahatma Education Society and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., MANU/MH/0970/1997.
25
MOOT PROP. ¶ 6.
26
supra note 21.
27
Dayanand Anglo Vedic (DAV) College Trust & Management Society v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 S.C.C.
14.
28
Deccan Model Education Society v. State of Karnataka And Ors., A.I.R. 1983 KANT 207.

4
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

17. In addition to this Petitioner humbly submit before this Court the various criteria
established by the Indian courts through a large history of cases, which have been sufficed
in the present case. For example, In S.K.Patro v. State of Bihar,29 lays down that the
minority persons claiming privilege under Art. 30(1), must be residents of India. The same
has been fulfilled in the express case30. DSGMC v. Union of India 31 solicits some form of
special privilege to persons from the minority community with the intent of preserving the
minority character of such institution which is also materially fulfilled by means of
admission preference32 and original intent of establishment33.
18. Andhra Pradesh Christian Medical Association v. Government of Andhra Pradesh,34
recognized a ‘Positive Index’ text, which was important in ascertaining the minority
character of an educational institution. The case law reads, “What is important and what is
imperative is that there must exist some real positive index to enable the institution to be
identified as an educational institution of the minorities.” The test is “whether the institution
does in any manner serve or promote the interests of the minority to which it claims to
belong?” This condition is fulfilled as it indeed helps promote the interests of the Ragi
community in the State of Ragananda35. Fulfilment of all of the court-established tests is a
clear connotation of the Ragananda College’s minority Character.

1.1.5. The Recognition of linguistic minorities must be made duty of States

19. It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of
India36 regarding the constitutionality of Section 2(c) of the NCM Act, 199237 was met with
a government Reply that the States ‘can’ notify linguistic minorities. In light of TMA Pai
Foundation v. State of Karnataka,38 the word ‘can’ must be interpreted as ‘should’ as there
is no legally determined or formalized body for the determination of such linguistic
minorities, and additionally because the state is considered the unit of decision.

29
Rt. Rev. Bishop S. K. Patro & Ors v. State Of Bihar & Ors., (1970) 1 S.C.R. 172.
30
MOOT PROP. ¶ 4.
31
DSGMC And Ors. v. Union of India And Ors., A.I.R. ONLINE 2018 DEL 537.
32
MOOT PROP. ¶ 4.
33
MOOT PROP. ¶ 4.
34
A.P. Christians Medical Educational v. Government of Andhra Pradesh And Anr., (1986) 2 S.C.R. 749.
35
MOOT PROP. ¶ 4.
36
supra note 10.
37
The National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992, § 2, No. 19, Acts of Parliament, 1992 (India).
38
supra note 13.

5
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

20. CJI D.Y. Chandrachud in Faizan Mustafa case explored the original legislative intent of
Art. 30(1), and has called it a duty of the State government to recognize such minorities.39
This government reply additionally, in arguendo can be read in conjunction with Rajender
Mohan Rana v. Prem Prakash Chaudhary40 and Sharif-Ud Din v. Abdul Gani Lone,41
giving the word a stricter interpretation based on the legislative intent, thus interpreting it
in such a manner that it becomes that States’ duty to notify linguistic minorities.

1.1.6. Ragananda University will retain the status of minority educational institution

21. With respect to the review of the minority Status post the enactment of the Ragananda State
University of Arts and Commerce Act, 2023, that is, even in the case that the Ragananda
University is established by means of statute, the institution will retain its character as a
minority educational institution.
22. In light of the contradicting case laws in Azeez Basha v. Union of India,42 first holding that
a university can be of minority Character, secondly, going on to establish a university is a
creation of a Statute, and concluding erroneously that universities cannot be minority
educational institutions as they are a creation of the State by means of statute. For example,
there exists minority educational institutions like Aliah University in Kolkata, an Urdu
minority educational institution as well as a State Public University as under Section 3(3)
as per the Aliah University Act, 2007.43
23. As in the aforementioned case, Ragananda University would be considered a minority
educational institution created by linguistic minority Ragis, and in consequence, the
primary aim of the State must now be to protect the Fundamental Rights of the minority
and the minority educational institution in question under Art. 29 and Art. 30, in light of
the Supreme Court holding in Faizan Mustafa regarding Fundamental Rights’44 primacy
and how they cannot be subservient to legislative acts such as the Ragananda State
University of Arts and Commerce Act, 2023, as reaffirmed in K.S.Puttaswamy v. Union of
India.45 This affirms that the established Ragi institution would be a minority educational
institution primarily, and then a State Public University. In light of the above contentions,
The Ragananda College of Arts and Commerce is a minority educational institution.

39
supra note 18.
40
Rajender Mohan Rana and Ors. v. Prem Prakash Chaudhary and Ors., MANU/DE/3418/2011.
41
Sharif-ud-Din v. Abdul Gani Lone, (1980) 1 S.C.C. 403 (India).
42
supra note 12.
43
Aliah University Act, 2007, § 3, No. 27, Acts of Parliament, 2007 (India).
44
supra note 18.
45
K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhar-5J.) v. Union of India, (2018) 1 S.C.C. 809.

6
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

1.2. That, the Governing Body Members have the right to administer the college

24. It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that Governing Body members of the
Ragananda College have the Right to administer the college and the highlighting of the
same, must happen in a two-fold manner, that is, [1.2.1] Firstly, check the Fundamental
Rights conferred upon such minority educational institution, and highlight that such
Fundamental Rights of establishment and administration cannot be subservient to other
legislations, and [1.2.2] Secondly, by conducting a check using the established conditions
regarding the right to constitute a Governing Body.

1.2.1 Fundamental rights conferred upon minority educational institutions to be checked

25. In pertinence with the Fundamental Rights conferred upon minority educational
institutions, such as the Ragananda College, it is respectfully submitted to the Hon’ble
Court that, Art. 30(1) postulates that members of both linguistic as well as religious
minorities could establish as well as administer such established educational institutions.
Several cases like Ummul Qura Educational Society v. government of Andhra Pradesh,46
Forum of minority institutions v. State of Tamil Nadu,47 Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College
Society v. State of Gujarat,48 and Kerala Education Bill Case49 recognize and define the
Right to Administer a minority educational institution to be a material part of Art. 30(1).
26. In B. Manjula v. The District Elementary Education,50 it is observed that the right of
administration and appointment is vested with the minority School Management, and such
a Fundamental Right cannot be taken away.
27. This view seeks inordinate support from Milli Trust v. State of Bihar,51 wherein a Division
Bench of Patna High Court had declared Section 60(1) of the Bihar State Universities Act,
1976, and the proviso to Para 1 of the statute No. 32 of the University framed under the
above Act as unconstitutional, to the extent it applies to a minority educational institution,
being violative of Art. 30(1) of the Constitution. The reasoning attributed to this was that
it vests the right to form a governing body in minority education with the management, that
is the members of the minority, and not the state university it is affiliated to.

46
Ummul Qura Educational Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2001) 6 A.L.D. 250.
47
Forum of minority institutions and Associations v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2011) 1 C.T.C. 162.
48
Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujarat, (1974) 1 S.C.C. 717.
49
supra note 8.
50
B. Manjula v. The District Elementary Education Officer, Villupuram District and Ors., MANU/TN/6283/2022.
51
Milli Trust v. State of Bihar, (2016) 4 P.L.J.R. 853.

7
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

28. Moreover, in Gandhi Faiz-e-am College Shahajahanpur v. University of Agra and

another,52 it was held, that the requirement regarding a college having a governing body
that must include persons other than those who are members of the concerned religious or
linguistic minority, takes away the right to administer from the minority community.
Furthermore, it was observed by the Court that such requirements aim at divesting the
Fundamental Right to administer from that minority which establishes the institution.
29. The aforementioned cases are of great relevance to express case, to show that it is a
Fundamental Right of such linguistic minorities like the Ragis to establish and
consequently ‘administer’ their institutions, showing that the established Governing Body
has the Right to such administration of Ragananda College.
30. In respect to the Fundamental Rights of the minority Community to establish and
administer such minority educational institutions, and how they cannot be subservient to
other legislations, the Supreme Court in the case of Faizan Mustafa53 observed that such
Fundamental Rights to establish and administer such minority educational institutions,
cannot be subservient to other legislations like the Ragananda State University of Arts and
Commerce Act, 2023, or in the above case, any legislations pertaining to recognition of
degrees, regulations on infrastructure, and so on, clearly showing the legislative intent of
Art. 30 and its corresponding paramountcy.

1.2.2 Ragananda College and its Right to constitute its Governing Body

31. In relevance to conditions regarding the Right to constitute a Governing Body,54 firstly,
TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka,55 clearly observes the ‘Constitution of a
Governing Body’, is an important indicium of the Right to administer an educational
institution, showing that it forms a very integral part of the already vested ‘Right to
Administer’ in a minority educational institution, under Art. 30.
32. The above argument receives direct support from Ummul Qura Educational Society
government of Andhra Pradesh,56 wherein the Court observes that the ‘Right to Administer’
towards such minority educational institution must ensure that that this administration must
be free of external control, “providing freedom to the founders of the institution and their

52
Gandhi Faiz-e-am-College v. University of Agra, (1975) 2 S.C.C. 283.
53
supra note 18.
54
MOOT PROP. ¶ 5.
55
supra note 13.
56
supra note 46.

8
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

nominees to mould the institution as they think fit and in accordance with their ideas of
how best the interest of the community in general and the established institution, in
particular, will be served” showing that the members of the Governing Body are the
nominees in question and are very much within their rights to constitute such Governing
Body and administer the Ragananda College.
33. The University Grants Commissions’ Regulations for Autonomous Colleges of 2017, reads
in Guideline 10 Rule (i),57 that Autonomous Colleges such as Ragananda College have the
Right to constitute their own Governing Body, giving more authority to the above
arguments. Moreover, in Faizan Mustafa,58 the bench observed that the expression
'Administer’ meant something that is a continuing exercise and doesn't fix itself to a specific
moment in the past.
34. The expression 'Of their Choice' implies that a minority community not only has the option
to establish an institution but also the freedom to designate another or itself, for that matter,
entity for its administration, without jeopardizing the minority status of the institution,
showing that the voluntarily designated members comprising the Governing Body of
Ragananda College have the Right to Administer it.
35. In the express case, the Ragananda College’s Governing Body is one that has been
voluntarily designated59, and fulfilling all other requirements as mentioned above, thus
showing its Right to Administer the Ragananda College.
36. It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that, even in the case that Ragananda College
was solely an Unaided Private educational institution, in arguendo, in H. Private
Universities Management Association v. State of H.P.60 the court observed that the Right
to establish an institution included the right to administer the same, giving the requisite
authority to the Private Unaided institution to constitute a Governing Body on its own as a
means of its due administration. Therefore, the members of the governing body of the
Ragananda College of Arts and Commerce have the right to administer.

57
University Grants Commission Guidelines for Autonomous College, 2017, University Grants Commission,
2017 (India).
58
supra note 18.
59
MOOT PROP. ¶ 5.
60
H-Private Universities Management Association v. State of H.P., (2014) S.C.C. OnLine HP 2892.

9
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

2. THAT THE ‘RAGANANDA STATE UNIVERSITY OF ARTS AND COMMERCE ACT 2023’ IS

VIOLATIVE OF ART. 29 AND 30 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND HENCE, INVALID.

37. It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that the Ragananda University Act is
unconstitutional in nature in light of Ragananda College’s minority Character. This
contention has been furthered by means of a two-fold argument, [2.1] Firstly, establishing
that the Ragananda State University of Arts and Commerce Act, 2023 is violative of
Fundamental Rights, and by usage of tests of arbitrariness, proportionality, colourable
legislation it is additionally proved that the Act fails against these tests thus, deeming it
unconstitutional, and, [2.2] Secondly, by proving that the Act is an unreasonable regulation
on the Rights of the Ragananda College of Arts and Commerce, that is a minority
educational institution.

2.1. That, the Ragananda University Act is violative of Fundamental Rights.

38. It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that the delineation of the unconstitutionality
of the Ragananda State University of Arts and Commerce Act, 2023, in light of the
protection of Ragananda College as a minority educational institution under the provisions
of Art. 29 and Art. 30, must be in a six-fold manner, that is, [2.1.1] Firstly, that the Act is
covered under the provisions of Art. 13,61 [2.1.2] Secondly, that there was no intent or
consent on part of the Ragananda College for such conversion to University, [2.1.3]
Thirdly, review of the effect of ‘compulsive scheme’ statutes, [2.1.4] fourthly, by showing
that the Act, is arbitrary in nature, [2.1.5] fifthly, by examination of the Ragananda State
University of Arts and Commerce Act, 2023 by using the test of proportionality, and [2.1.6]
Lastly, by using the test of colourable legislation on the Ragananda State University of Arts
and Commerce Act, 2023.

2.1.1. The Ragananda University Act is covered under Art. 13 of the COI.

39. The Ragananda University Act, a legislative act has been passed by the State of Ragananda
to convert Ragananda College, a minority educational institution under the protections of
Art. 29 and Art. 30, both Fundamental Rights as prescribed in the Constitution of Indon.
40. Art. 13 reads that any law in force within Indon, that is inconsistent or in derogation with
the Fundamental Rights as prescribed by the Constitution, will be declared void expressly

61
INDIA CONST. art. 13.

10
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

and Art. 3262 on this ground gives the Supreme Court of Indon the Power to declare any
such law ‘unconstitutional’ and have the encroached rights enforced as required by law.

40.1.The Court in State of Punjab v. Dalbir Singh,63 observed the scope of Art. 13(2)
extended to the prohibition of any law which takes away or abridged Fundamental
Rights, and the Court in State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of
Democratic Rights,64 as reaffirmed in Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh,65
observed that any law in violation of the Fundamental Rights would be in direct
violation of the Basic Structure Doctrine as set in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of
Kerala.66

40.2.In light of Azeez Basha v. Union of India setting the precedent that the State is the
creator of any University,67 and that the control of the minority over such institution
ceases upon the birth of a University by means of statute, the Ragananda State
University of Arts and Commerce Act, 2023 is in violation of the provisions of Art.
29 and Art. 30, that is the minority Rights to preserve their culture, and establish and
administer institutions established consequently, which is observed by the Court to
be an important right within the purview of the minority Fundamental Rights in
innumerable cases like Ummul Qura Educational Society v. government of Andhra
Pradesh,68 Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s,69 and Kerala Education Bill.70

2.1.2 No intent or consent on the part of Ragananda College for its conversion to
Ragananda University.

41. In pertinence to no consent or intent of the Ragananda College in its conversion to a

University, it is respectfully submitted to this Hon’ble Court that, in contrast to Azeez Basha
v. Union of India wherein the Muslim minority showed their intent to conversion and
formation of consequent Aligarh Muslim University,71 by means of participating in

62
INDIA CONST. art. 32.
63
State Of Punjab v. Dalbir Singh, A.I.R. 2012 S.C. 1040.
64
State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights and Ors.,
MANU/SC/0850/2010.
65
Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 648.
66
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225.
67
supra note 12.
68
supra note 46.
69
supra note 48.
70
supra note 8.
71
supra note 12.

11
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

negotiations with the government and paying a handsome part of the Rs.30,00,000/-
demanded by the government for such establishment of University, the Petitioner’s in the
express case showed no intent for such formation of Ragananda University.

41.1. Moreover, in light of their original intent supported by the legal complications arising
from Azeez Basha v. Union of India,72 the Petitioner had always wanted to retain their
rights under Art. 29 and Art. 30 to administer the minority Ragananda College on
their own accord as per the Constitutional Guarantee, showing no intent or consent to
such arbitrary conversion.

42. In the factual example of Fergusson College, the Deccan Education Society was given the
Green Flag by the State government to become a State Public University, which was
refused by DES in order to avoid excessive State Control in administration, for example in
the matters of recruiting teachers and so on. Here, DES refused the State Public University
Status and exercised its powers to apply and become a State Private University, thus
showing that consent to conversion is an important aspect, which wasn’t the situation in
the express case of Ragananda College. The Ragananda State University of Arts and
Commerce Act, 2023 was neither an express product of such intent nor consent.

43. Moreover, the Department of Education has notified a formalized procedure for ‘Creation
of Universities by Upgradation of Existing Autonomous Colleges’ by means of Form
DPR02, and there is no mention of usage or filling of this form. The above two cases and
the non-information regarding the usage form shows that the Ragananda State University
of Arts and Commerce Act, 2023 neglects the requirement of the consent of the Ragananda
College, protected by means of Art. 29 and Art. 30, for the establishment of such
Ragananda University, thus rendering it unconstitutional.

2.1.3 The effect of ‘Compulsive Scheme’ of Statute

44. In respect to the review of the Ragananda State University of Arts and Commerce Act,
2023 as a ‘compulsive scheme’ statute, it is respectfully submitted to this Hon’ble Court
that, the Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s case73 may be referred to wherein the Gujarat University
Act, had S.5(1) and S.41 as provisions that entailed that all affiliated institutions would be

72
Id.
73
supra note 48.

12
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

considered ‘constituent colleges’ established by separate statutes each, in this context

involving the institution in question, that was of minority nature.

44.1. S.5, in this case, had the power to “compel” the institution out of its protection under
Fundamental Rights. The Court in light of these facts, observed that the appropriation
of such a title would mean losing its prior status and losing its inherent minority
character and further observed, this to be a model of a ‘compulsive scheme’, that is
struck down by Art. 30(1).

45. This model of the ‘compulsive scheme’ of the statute as in the above case, can be attributed
to the express case where the Ragananda State University of Arts and Commerce Act, 2023
forcing the minority educational institution out of its protection under Fundamental Rights
can be considered a similar statute of the nature of ‘compulsive scheme’, thus rendering it
duly unconstitutional, as reaffirmed in Faizan Mustafa74 that Fundamental Rights must not
be subservient to Legislative Acts.

2.1.4 The Ragananda University Act is Arbitrary in Nature.

46. In relevance to the test of Arbitrariness being applied to the Ragananda State University of
Arts and Commerce Act, 2023, it is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that, the Act
did not seek any form of approval or consent from the Ragananda Autonomous College
cum minority educational institution to convert it into a University within the definition of
Section 2(f) of UGC Guidelines, 1956.75
47. It is imperative to note that there is no lucid information regarding the standard procedure
of conversion of such minority educational institutions, which are established to protect the
minority community under the provisions of Art. 29 and Art. 30, giving the State the power
to be arbitrary in its decisions, using in its favour such arising ambiguity.
48. In light of this, there is neither any clarity regarding the material conversion process nor
the rationale behind the same, even though the college has served its innate purpose with
effect, thus showing clear arbitrariness on the part of the State government in such
conversion and going against the provisions guaranteed under Art. 29 and Art. 30 to
Ragananda College, thus rendering it unconstitutional.

74
supra note 18.
75
The University Grants Commission Act, 1956, § 2, No. 03, Acts of Parliament, 1956 (India).

13
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

49. As held in Mrs. Y.Theclamma v. Union of India,76 it would be concluded that the endeavour
of the court in all the cases has been to strike a balance between the constitutional obligation
to protect what is secured to the minorities under Art. 30(1) with the social necessity to
protect the members of the staff against arbitrariness and victimization.

2.1.5. The Ragananda University Act fails the Test of Proportionality.

50. In pertinence to the usage of the test of Proportionality being applied to the Ragananda
State University of Arts and Commerce Act, 2023, it is respectfully submitted to this
Hon’ble Court that, in light of the essential Fundamental Rights under Art. 29 and Art. 30
being curtailed by the Ragananda State University of Arts and Commerce Act, it is
important to conduct such review of unconstitutionality on the basis of the Doctrine of
Proportionality as well.
51. It is observed by the Court in Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of
Madhya Pradesh that, “Jurisprudentially, “proportionality” can be defined as the set of
rules determining the necessary and sufficient conditions for limitation of a constitutionally
protected right by a law to be constitutionally permissible.”77
52. Furthermore, the Court goes on to record that, “The exercise which, therefore, is to be taken
is to find out as to whether the limitation of constitutional rights is for a purpose that is
reasonable and necessary in a democratic society and such an exercise involves the
weighing up of competitive values, and ultimately an assessment based on proportionality”,
showing clearly that there must be a reasonable aim and justification in the interest of the
general public for the enactment of such curtailing measures as in K.S.Puttaswamy v. Union
of India78 and Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India.79
53. In the express case, the ‘Act’ curtails Fundamental Rights, and there is no logic, rationale,
or clear justification for the same, nor does it prove that it is to benefit of the general public
and that such encroachment of Fundamental Rights is extremely necessary for the same,
thus rendering it unconstitutional, and unsatisfactory with the proportionality check.

76
Y. Theclamma v. Union of India, (1987) 2 S.C.C. 516.
77
Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of M.P., (2016) 7 S.C.C. 353.; K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhar-
5J.) v. Union of India, (2018) 1 S.C.C. 809.
78
supra note 45.
79
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 S.C.C. 637.

14
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

2.1.6. The Ragananda University Act and the Doctrine of Colourable Legislation.

54. In respect to the application of the test of Colourable Legislation on the Ragananda State
University of Arts and Commerce Act, 2023, it is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court
that, in light of the Instructions given by the Department of Higher Education, and the
consequent refusal to perform by the Ragananda College, the State passed the Act, thus
rendering the use of the Doctrine of Colourable Legislation, that entails what cannot be
done directly cannot be done indirectly as observed by the Court in K.C. Gajapati Narayan
Deo v. State of Orissa.80
55. In the express case, it is clear that the refusal to perform such instructions81 by a rightly
entitled minority educational institution that stated correct grounds of being unaided82 as a
reason for refusal as noted in the TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka,83 Andhra
Kesari College of Education v. State of Andhra Pradesh84 and the Brahmo Samaj Education
v. State of A.P.,85 was consequently followed by the legislative attempt 86 or rather a
‘reactionary legislation’ to indirectly impose State power on such minority educational
institutions.
56. Thus, when such regulations could not be imposed directly due to a justified legal reason,
it cannot be done by means of using the Statute as a tool of indirect power to establish State
control ignorant of minority rights, rendering the University Act, failed in the eyes of such
Doctrine and consequently of unconstitutional nature, as it tries to indirectly remove the
safeguards of Art. 29 and Art. 30 on Ragananda College of Arts and Commerce. In light of
the above contentions, the Ragananda State University of Arts and Commerce Act, 2023 is
violative of the fundamental rights as prescribed in the Constitution of Indon.

2.2. Ragananda University Act as an ‘Unreasonable’ Regulation on the minority

educational institution.

57. It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that the Court in, Frank Anthony v. Union of
India observed that, "The extent of the right under Art. 30(1) is to be determined, not with
reference to any concept of state necessity and general societal interest but with reference

80
K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa, (1953) 2 S.C.C. 178.
81
MOOT PROP. ¶ 8.
82
MOOT PROP. ¶ 8.
83
supra note 13.
84
Andhra Kesari College of Education v. State of A.P., (2019) 9 S.C.C. 457.
85
Brahmo Samaj Education Society & Ors v. State Of West Bengal & Ors., (2004) 6 S.C.C. 224.
86
MOOT PROP. ¶ 12.

15
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

to the educational institutions themselves, that is, with reference to the goal of making the
institutions effective vehicles of education for the minority community or other persons
who resort to them.”87
58. In light of the above observation, it is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that,
Ragananda State University of Arts and Commerce Act, 2023 assumes the character of an
‘Unreasonable’ Regulation, in light of the Ragananda College protected under the
provisions of Art. 29 and Art. 30 and infringe on the Rights of the Ragi minority, and the
delineation of the same must be in a three-fold manner, wherein [2.2.1] Firstly, it is
highlighted how the existing rights of the minority educational institution are curtailed upon
the inception of the Act, [2.2.2] Secondly, there is an examination on what the scope of
State regulations can be for minority educational institutions, [2.2.3] and lastly, the
Ragananda University Act is an ‘unreasonable’ regulation.

2.2.1 The Ragananda University Act curtails the existing Rights of the minority
educational institution.

59. In regard to the first-fold assertion, the minority educational institution, for the matter of
illustration, has the Right of control over its student admissions and employee recruitments
falling under the purview of the Right to administer under Art. 30(1) as noted by the Court
in several cases like PA Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra,88 and St. Xavier’s.89
60. In the case of admission of students, PA Inamdar,90 vehemently observed that a minority
educational institution has a right to admit students of its own choice, allowing safeguarded
preferential admission. But with the coming of the Ragananda State University of Arts and
Commerce Act, 2023, there will be a more uniformized, non-preferential form of
admission, along with other applicable reservations, proving to be detrimental to the Ragi
community, thus infringing on their constitutional guarantee as under Art. 30.
61. Moreover, with regards to employee recruitment freedom given to minority educational
institutions, in Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s v. State of Gujarat,91 clearly noted that the selection
and appointment of teachers are perhaps one the most important facets of the right to
administer an educational institution, and any encroachment of this as the Act by means of

87
Frank Anthony Public School Employees Association v. Union of India & Ors., (1987) S.C.R. (1) 238.
88
supra note 15.
89
supra note 48.
90
supra note 15.
91
supra not 48.

16
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

State involvement in administration and recruitment of employees, would infringe upon the
constitutional guarantees to a minority educational institution as recorded in Benson Emock
Semual v. State of Gujarat as well.92

2.2.2 Scope of Reasonable Regulation of a minority educational institution.

62. In relevance to the question of the scope of State imposed regulations on a minority
educational institution, such as Ragananda College, it is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble
Court that, Managing Committee St. John Inter-College observes that “When any
regulatory measure is assailed, it would be obligatory for the court to find out as to whether
the provisions secure a reasonable balance between ensuring a standard of excellence of
the institution and of preserving the right of the minority to administer the institution as a
minority institution.”,93 showing that the test of reasonable balance has to be employed and
on the above grounds the Ragananda State University of Arts and Commerce Act, 2023
doesn’t preserve the right of the minority to administer Ragananda College, and curtails
existing rights, thus rendering it an ‘Unreasonable regulation’.
63. The case law in Kerala Education Bill offers some more clarity on what may still be
reasonable regulations,94 by observing that "The right to administer cannot obviously
include the right to maladminister. The minority cannot surely ask for aid or recognition
for an educational institution run by them in unhealthy surroundings. Without any
competent teachers possessing any semblance of qualification, and which does not maintain
even a fair standard of teaching or which teaches matters subversive of the welfare of the
scholars.”
64. The imposed regulation in the express case, in the form of the Act, is not in the nature of
the aforementioned allowed regulations either as affirmed by State of Kerala v. Mother
Provincial,95 and goes on to curtail the constitutional guarantees of Art. 29 and Art. 30 on
Ragananda College, thus exceeding the scope of reasonable regulation.

2.2.3 The Ragananda University Act is an ‘Unreasonable’ Regulation.

65. It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that, ‘Reasonable’ regulations should not be
such as to destroy or take away the right of the minorities to administer educational

92
Benson Enock Semual, Ahmedabad, Etc. v. State Of Gujarat And Ors., (1984) 1 G.L.R. 691.
93
St. John Inter College v. Girdhari Singh & Ors., (2001) 4 S.C.C. 296.
94
supra note 8.
95
State of Kerala v. Mother Provincial, (1970) 2 S.C.C. 417.

17
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

institutions of their choice or should be of such nature that it does not amount to surrender
by the minorities their right to administer or “hand-cuff managements into uniformity” as
observed in Gandhi-Faiz-e-Am Case.96
66. In the express case, the Ragananda State University of Arts and Commerce Act, 2023, as a
regulation causes the surrender of the Fundamental Rights of minorities in the form of
curtailing the Right to Administration of the Ragananda College by the Ragis, thus
amounting to its connotation as an ‘Unreasonable’ Regulation.
67. This above test would deem the Act, an ‘Unreasonable’ Regulation of the Rights of a
minority and minority educational institutions to establish and administer their minority
educational institutions, thus crossing the boundary of regulatory power, and entering the
line of encroachment of Fundamental Rights of Ragananda College as a minority
educational institution as under Art. 29 and Art. 30, thus rendering the Act
unconstitutional. In light of the above contentions, the Ragananda State University of Arts
and Commerce Act, 2023 is an ‘unreasonable’ regulation on the minority educational
institution.

3. THAT THE INHERENT MINORITY CHARACTER OF AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION DOES

NOT GET EXTINGUISHED IF THE NCMEI REJECTS THE APPLICATION.

68. It is It is humbly submitted to the hon’ble court that the inherent minority character of an
educational institution does not extinguish if the NCMEI rejects the application. This
contention is established via a three-fold argument. [3.1] Firstly, Fundamental Rights Art.
29 and 30 guaranteeing the inherent minority character to the Ragi Community cannot be
extinguished; [3.2] Secondly, inherent minority character of an institution does not depend
on the recognition by law; [3.3] Thirdly, the National Commission of Minority Educational
Institutions Act, 2004 functions to preserve the inherent minority character of an institution.

3.1. That, Fundamental Rights Art. 29 and 30 guaranteeing the Inherent Minority
Character to the Ragi Community cannot be extinguished.

69. It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Court that the Art. 29 and 30 of the constitution of
Indon guarantee the Citizens the right to conserve any distinct language, script or culture
of its own shall have the right to conserve the same and the right to establish and administer
educational institutions of their choice respectively. In Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny v. State

96
supra note 52.

18
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

of West Bengal,97 the apex court’s judgment emphasized on the principal that no
fundamental rights can be waived under the garb of the power exercised by statutory
authorities like the National Commission of minority educational institution. A religious or
linguistic minority in India can choose to establish and run an educational institution on a
non-minority basis but it cannot lose its right to change its mind and assert its minority
character on a subsequent date.
70. The Supreme Court analysed the vague and overbroad powers of the NCMEI under section
11 (f).98 The power under Section 11(f) clothes the NCMEI with the power to decide any
question that may arise with regard to the right to establish and or administer educational
institutions by a minority.99 The use of the word “any” here signifies the deep, arbitrary and
pervasive control being exercised by the NCMEI in terms of determining the minority
character of an institution.
71. Part III of the Constitution of Indon embodies the fundamental rights which must be
construed in a wider notion to secure the vision of justice of the founding fathers. Chandana
Malakar v. The State of West Bengal revisits the immunisation of Fundamental Rights
enshrined under Art. 29 and 30 to the doctrine of waiver.100 In the instant case, the
constitutional safeguard provided to the Ragi-speaking community under Art. 29 and 30
is a matter of public policy and interest.101
72. In Ahmadabad St. Xavier’s College Society v. State of Gujarat,102 it was contended that
rights conferred by Art. 30(1) could neither be taken away nor abridged by the state on
account of injection of Art. 13(2) of the constitution. Parliament cannot in exercise of its
amending power abrogate the rights of minorities as it would directly strip minority
educational institutions of their minority character. Fundamental Rights appertaining to the
minorities would not be liable to be abrogated by any constitutional amendment.

3.2 That, the Inherent minority Character of an institution does not depend on the
recognition by law.

73. In the Re Kerala Education Bill,103 the freedom of minority institutions has been elucidated
upon. The bench reiterated the fact that every minority institution has the right to establish

97
Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny v. State of W.B., (2018) 6 S.C.C. 772.
98
National Commission for Minority Educational Institution, 2004, § 11, No. 02, Acts of Parliament, 2004 (India).
99
Id.
100
Chandana Das v. State of W.B., (2020) 13 S.C.C. 411.
101
MOOT PROP. ¶ 2.
102
supra note 48.
103
supra note 8.

19
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

such educational institutions that will serve both purposes, that of conserving their religion,
language or culture and giving a thorough good general education to their children. The
Court held that Art. 30(1) cannot be limited and should equally operate in favour of
educational institutions, whether established pre or post the commencement of the
Constitution.
74. The use of the words “of their choice” in Art. 30(1) indicates the extent of liberty and
freedom the constitution intends to grant to the minority community. Hence, any rejection
of a No Objection Certificate by the NCMEI does not amount to any shedding of the
minority status of the community. Rights conferred on minorities under Art. 29 and 30 are
an instrument to ensure equality and conservation of their identity. Therefore, Art. 29 and
30 do not amount to a means to attain recognition by law.
75. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in N. Ammad v. Manager. Emjay High School104 considered
the effect of the declaration of a minority educational institution upon its inherent minority
character. It was held that if the government had not categorically declared the institution
as a minority institution, the status of minority institution will continue. The declaration is
only an open acceptance of a legal character.
76. The said principal was upheld in St. Ignatitus Higher Secondary School v. Director of
School Education,105 in view of the judgment in The Diocese of Kottar v. The State of Tamil
Nadu.106 A conjoint reading of the cited judicial precedents along with case at hand points
out the undoubtable minority status of the petitioners.
77. The permanent Court of International Justice in the minority Schools in Albania Case,
1935107 upheld the non-requirement of a categorical and explicit recognition or declaration
by law in order to qualify as a minority educational institution.
78. In The Manager v. State of Kerala,108 the Kerala High Court upheld certification from the
National Commission for minority educational institutions that it is not a requirement to
treat an institution as a minority institution. Hence, absence of certification which formally
declares the Ragananda College of Arts and Commerce as a minority educational institution
is not a necessity. Furthermore, the Apex Court, while hearing an appeal to this judgment,
held that declaration of inherent minority character emanates from the date when the

104
supra note 3.
105
St. Ignatitus Higher Secondary School v. Director of School Education, (1999) 1 C.T.C. 121.
106
R.C. Diocese of Kottar v. The Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation and Ors.,
MANU/TN/3119/2023.
107
Minority Schools in Albania, Advisory Opinion, (1935) P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 64.
108
The Manager, St. Paul's Higher Secondary School v. State of Kerala and Ors., MANU/KE/5126/2019.

20
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

institution was established. Consequently, the minority educational institution status was
conferred upon the Ragananda College of Arts and Commerce in 1999 i.e. the year of
establishment.109

3.3 That, the National Commission of minority educational institutions Act, 2004 functions
to preserve the inherent minority character of an institution.

79. As per Section 11 of the NCMEI Act, 2004,110 the commission shall intervene in any
proceeding involving any deprivation or violation of the educational rights of the minorities
before a court with the leave of such court as well as review the safeguards provided by or
under the Constitution, or any law for the time being in force, for the protection of
educational rights of the minorities and recommend measures for their effective
implementation. Here, the functions of the commission are aimed at preserving the inherent
minority character of an institution instead of becoming an impediment in their process of
acquiring a minority status. Corporate Educational Agency v. James Mathew,111 sheds light
on the functions of NCMEI and the authority as well as power it exercises in terms of
according minority status to educational institutions.
80. In Director School Education, Department of Education v. National Commission for
minority educational institution,112 the court decided the minority educational institution
status of a school within the meaning of Art. 30(1) of the Constitution. Furthermore, the
appointment of an additional authority by the State Administration for the purpose of
granting no-objection certificate to minority educational institutions was held legally valid
in this case. Hence, as per section 2(ca) of the NCMEI Act, 2004,113 the NCMEI is not the
competent authority while granting a no-objection certificate to the petitioner i.e. the Ragi
Sahitya Mahasabha.114 As a result, the inherent minority character of the Ragananda
College of Arts and Commerce remains intact. In light of the above contentions, the
inherent minority character of the Ragananda College of Arts and Commerce is not
extinguished if the NCMEI rejects the application.

109
MOOT PROP. ¶ 5.
110
National Commission for Minority Educational Institution, 2004, § 11, No. 02, Acts of Parliament, 2004
(India).
111
Corporate Educational Agency v. James Mathew, (2017) 15 S.C.C. 595.
112
Director School Education, Department of Education v. National Commission for Minority Educational
Institution, (2020) S.C.C. OnLine P&H 430.
113
National Commission for Minority Educational Institution, 2004, § 02, No. 02, Acts of Parliament, 2004
(India).
114
MOOT PROP. ¶ 11.

21
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

4. THAT THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR MINORITY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS ACT,

2004 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL INSOFAR AS IT FAILS TO ACCOMMODATE THE RIGHTS OF

MINORITIES ON A LINGUISTIC BASIS.

81. It is humbly submitted to the hon’ble court that the NCMEI Act 2004 is unconstitutional as
it fails to accommodate the rights of minorities on a linguistic basis. This contention has
been established via a two-fold argument, [4.1] Firstly, the NCMEI Act, 2004 does not
cater to the rights and interests of linguistic minorities; [4.2] Secondly, the NCMEI Act,
2004 is not in consonance with the rights of linguistic minorities in the Constitution of
Indon.

4.1. That, the National Commission of minority educational institutions Act, 2004 does not
cater to the rights and interests of linguistic minorities.

82. It is humbly submitted to the hon’ble court that the NCMEI Act, 2004 does not cater to the
rights and interests of linguistic minorities. This contention is established via a two-fold
argument, [4.1.1] Firstly, invocation of safeguards guaranteed by Art. 29 and 30 confers
the minority character along with state-wise determination, and [4.1.2] Secondly, the
NCMEI Act categorically limits its scope to only religious minorities.

4.1.1. That, the invocation of safeguards guaranteed by Art. 29 and 30 confers the minority
character along with state-wise determination.

83. It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court that religious and linguistic minorities
are given protection under Art. 30 to establish and administer educational institutions of
their choice for the purpose of furthering the aim of protecting their language, script and
culture. The incidence of consecutive natural disasters and emigration led to a substantial
decrease in the native population of the state of Ragananda. As a result, invocation of the
safeguards guaranteed by Art. 29 and 30 was a necessary step in preserving the interests of
the Ragi-speaking community.115
84. In TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka,116 the scope of the term ‘minority’ in Art.
30 of the constitution was elaborated upon to encompass both linguistic as well as religious
minorities in it. Moreover, reorganization of the states has been on linguistic lines,

115
MOOT PROP. ¶ 2.
116
supra note 13.

22
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

therefore, making the state as the unit for determination of minority and not the whole of
India. Therefore, religious and linguistic minorities, who have been put on an equal footing
upon interpretation of Art. 30, have to be considered state-wise. This stipulates that the
minority character of the Ragi-speaking community must be determined based on the
population of Ragis in Ragananda.

4.1.2. The NCMEI Act categorically limits its scope to only religious minorities

85. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the test of ‘minority’, as
prescribed in Section 2(g) of the NCMEI Act is that educational institutions must have been
established ‘and’ must be administered by a minority or minorities.117 ‘minority’ is defined
in Section 2(f) as a community notified as such by the Central government.118
86. The National Commission for minorities educational institutions (NCMEI) under the
Ministry of Human Resource Development gives the minority status to the educational
institutions on the basis of six religious communities notified by the Ministry of HRD under
the NCMEI Act, 2004, viz., Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Zoroastrians (Parsis)
and Jains only. linguistic minorities do not come under the ambit of the NCMEI Act, 2004.
87. In K.P. Gopalakrishna v. State of Karnataka,119 It was held that in the absence of any
notification by the Central government indicating the linguistic minorities, it would be
inexplicable as to how the Commission would adjudicate as to the linguistic minority status
of any applicant. Therefore, the rejection of the application of the petitioner seeking
linguistic minority status is without any basis.
88. A document published by the NCMEI enumerating the Guidelines for determination of
minority Status and related matters in respect of minority educational institutions, explicitly
states that ‘The Commission does not entertain applications for linguistic minority’.
Therefore, linguistic minority interests like that of the Ragi-Speaking Community have
been left unaccounted for.120

117
National Commission for Minority Educational Institution, 2004, § 02, No. 02, Acts of Parliament, 2004
(India).
118
Id.
119
K.P. Gopalakrishna v. State of Karnataka, (2017) S.C.C. OnLine Kar 6924.
120
MOOT PROP. ¶ 3.

23
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

4.2 That, the National Commission of Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 is not in
consonance with the rights of linguistic minorities in the COI.

89. It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indon that the NCMEI Act, 2004
does not lay down provisions in accordance with the constitutional safeguards provided to
linguistic minorities. Art. 30(1) gives certain rights not only to religious minorities but also
to linguistic minorities, the right conferred on such minorities is to establish educational
institutions of their choice.121
90. The legal maxim ‘Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium’ which translates to where there is a right,
expounds upon the plight of the Ragi-speaking community. When a remedy is barred by
the statute, the corresponding right in whose violation of the remedy would be sought
becomes unenforceable. When the remedy is barred by a statute, it is rendered a disabling
statute. The NCMEI Act, 2004, by restricting its purview to attending applications only of
the religious minorities, has assumed the position of a disabling statute as it takes away the
rights of linguistic minorities.
91. The idea of giving some special rights to the minorities is not to give rise to a privileged or
pampered section of the population but to instil a sense of security and confidence in the
minority communities of Indon. In the instant case the NCMEI Act, 2004 fails to
accommodate the rights of the Ragi-speaking community as a whole by rejecting its
application for ‘no objection certificate’. This goes antithetical to the spirit and objective
of the NCMEI Act, 2004 which is to safeguard the educational rights of the minorities
enshrined in Art. 30(1) of the Constitution. Therefore, the NCMEI Act, 2004 is not in
consonance with the provisions of the Constitution of Indon.

121
INDIA CONST. art. 30, cl. 1.

24
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 4th PADMA SHRI DR. N.N. JAIN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, IN LIGHT OF THE FACTS STATED, ISSUES RAISED, AUTHORITIES CITED AND
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED, IT IS MOST HUMBLY IMPLORED BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT THAT

IT MAY BE PLEASED TO:

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

I. Firstly, declare that the Ragi Community of the State of Ragananda is a linguistic
PRAYER
minority under the protection FOR RELIEF
of Art. 29 and 30 of the Constitution of Indon,
and declare that, it is the duty of the States of Indon to recognise linguistic
minorities. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
II. Secondly, declare that, the Ragananda College of Arts and Commerce is a minority
educational institution andPRAYER
the Governing
FOR RELIEFBody Members have the Right to
Administer the College under the protection of Art. 29 and 30 of the Constitution
of Indon.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
III. Thirdly, declare that, the Ragananda State University of Arts and Commerce Act,
2023 is violative of Art. 29 and 30 of the Constitution of Indon, thus, may render
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
it Unconstitutional.
IV. Fourthly, declare that, the Ragananda State University of Arts and Commerce Act,
PRAYER FOR
2023 is an Unreasonable regulation on a RELIEF educational institution under the
minority
protection of Art. 29 and 30 of the Constitution of Indon.
V. Fifthly, observe that, the inherent
PRAYERminority Character of an educational institution
FOR RELIEF
does not extinguish if the NCMEI rejects the application.
VI. Lastly, declare that, the National Commission for minority educational institution
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Act, 2004 is Unconstitutional insofar as it fails to accommodate the Rights of
minorities on a linguistic basis.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

And /or pass any other writ that it may be pleased to, in the interest of Justice, Equity and
PRAYER FOR
Good Conscience, and for this act of kindness, RELIEF on behalf of the Petitioner shall
the Counsels
duty bound forever pray.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Respectfully Submitted,
Counsels on behalf of the Petitioner
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

PRAYER
XVFOR RELIEF
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER PRAYER FOR RELIEF