8. The Management should appoint a Principal with immediate effect to run the Medical College.
9. Permission letter from the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh to start a Medical College.
10. A Govt. Order indicating that the Bye-laws of the Management has been registered as Minority Institution and accepted by the Government as such.
11. Documentary 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.
Even while narrating the facts, we think, we have said enough to justify a refusal by us to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the Constitution. We do not 761 have any doubt that the claim of the petitioner to start a minority educational institution 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 memorandum of association, 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. As we had already mentioned the petitioner had the termerity to admit or pretend to admit students in the 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 Government, in disregard of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, the Osmania University Act and the Regulations of the Osmania University and with total indifference 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 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 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 society and the so-called institutions were started as business ventures with a view to make money from gullible individuals anxious to obtain admission to professional 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 institution.
It was seriously contended before us that any minority, even a single individual belonging to a minority, could found a 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, at the very threshold as it were, howsoever they may impose regulatory measures in the interests of uniformity, 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 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 minorities 'a sense of security and a feeling of confidence' not merely by guaranteeing the right to 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 institutions of their choice. These institutions must be educational institutions of the minorities in truth and reality and not mere masked phantoms. They may be institutions intended to give the children of the minorities the best general and professional education, to make them complete men and women of the country and to enable them to go out into the world fully prepared and equipped. They may be institutions where special provision is made to the advantage and for the advancement of the minority children. They may be institutions where the parents of the children of the minority community may expect that education in accordance with the basic tenets of their religion would be imparted by or under the guidance of teachers, learned and steeped in the faith. They may 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 must exist some real positive index to enable the institution to be identified 763 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 memorandum of association, there is nothing whatever, in the memorandum or 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. 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 nor could affiliation be refused by the University to a minority institution on the ground that the Government of India and 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, 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 minority to start a medical college on the ground that there were already enough medical colleges in the country was tantamount 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 minority community joins the mainstream of national life, it must subject itself to the national interest. The right guaranteed by Art. 30(1) gives the minority the full liberty to establish educational institutions of its own choice. If the minority community expresses its choice and opts to join the scheme of national educational policy, it must naturally abide by the 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 problem of unemployment in a sphere where there should be none. It appears, if one may borrow the words of Sir Roger de Coverley, 'there is much to be said on both sides'. In view 764 of our conclusion on the other issues we do not want to venture an opinion on this question.