Sakina Tashrifwala
Published on: October 20, 2022 at 20:45 IST
The Supreme Court of India rejected to postpone the Delhi High Court‘s decision ordering St. Stephen’s College to admit non-minority students based on CUET scores without an interview on Wednesday. The College’s claim for temporary relief was denied by the Court.
As a result, the College will be required to conduct open admissions in accordance with Delhi University guidelines, without conducting interviews.
A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar has scheduled the case for hearing in mid-March.
“We see no cause to postpone the execution of the judgment. The application for temporary relief is denied,” the ruling stated.
The Bench also stated that any action taken as a result of the admission procedure will be subject to the outcome of the petition.
The Court was hearing a special leave plea filed by St. Stephen’s College in response to a Delhi High Court judgment prohibiting it from interviewing non-Christian applicants.
For such individuals, the college has insisted on an 85:15 weightage, with 85 percent weightage given to the results of the entrance examination [CUET] and 15 percent weightage given to its own interview.
To justify this approach, the college used its status as a minority institution, stating that it could make autonomous admissions decisions.
The bench had urged the senior attorneys from both parties to limit their arguments to 5 minutes each at the outset of the hearing, but the session lasted much longer.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Delhi University, contended that delaying the High Court decision would be deleterious and would have pan-India ramifications.
“No one (minority college) has questioned till now,” he continued,“but they will now.”
SG Mehta further asserted that the CUET is being offered for the first time in order to establish a unified standard of assessment. The College did not demand a separate interview under these conditions.
“If you trust them with discretion when accepting minority quota students, why not the same for open category?” “Why two standards in the same institution?” inquired the Bench.
“They can have their own method for minority candidates,” remarked SG Mehta.
An lawyer representing two law students said that due of the hidden constraints that the college has in the interview, a CUET exam topper will not obtain his course of choice. “Students who have passed the CUET are denied admission due to these concealed parameters.”
“Let merit win,” he reasoned.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the issue in the St. Stephen’s College vs. University Of Delhi case, decided on December 6, 1991, was not merit but whether the college may conduct an interview. If so, how many points?
The senior advocate stated that the goal of the interview was to determine the student’s personality rather than to re-assess him.
“The court has stated that we will not reconsider the merits.” College considers personality, among other things. That is the interview’s limitation.”
Furthermore, it was argued that grades and merit are unrelated. “Marks do not equal merit.” Please accept my gratitude. It’s impossible to connect the two….. You think 15% is excessive? “I did not fix 15%; the Court did.”
According to the government’s new education policy, marks should not be used as a criterion for admission to colleges, Sibal said the Bench.
“I demonstrated that to the Delhi High Court. They do not simply mark in foreign countries. They assess their candidates to determine their personality and whether it suits the University’s ethos…”
“Other countries are unique. “We understand the value of marks,” SG Mehta interjected.
“I’m focused on education, not grades,” Sibal responded.
The Bench went on to ask, “If uniformity exists now, what is the relevance of interviews?” If a student receives 90%, his grade is decreased because only 85% is taken.”
“It’s 85% for the CUET marks,” Sibal said.
“There is now neck-and-neck rivalry. If there are some riders, or if people are unfamiliar with the standards.”
Another concern raised by the Court during the hearing was, “If there is an interview, what is the objective assessment that you keep in mind so that a student knows?”
Background
While partially allowing two petitions, one brought by St Stephens College and another by Konika Poddar, a law student at DU, the Delhi High Court asked St Stephens College to remove its admission prospectus and produce a new public notice declaring the modified admission method.
In its ruling, the High Court stated that the basic privilege granted to minority institutions under Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution cannot be extended to non-minority members.
Poddar’s petition challenged St. Stephen’s College’s proposal to have an interview round for admissions to the general category for the academic year 2022-23, despite Delhi University’s policy prohibiting it.
The Court held that, while St. Stephens College retains the power to conduct interviews in addition to the CUET for the admission of students from the minority community, it cannot implement a policy that requires students from the non-minority community to do so as well.
Simultaneously, the Court granted St. Stephens’ petition to vacate the University Communication, which insisted on a single merit list for admission of applicants from the Christian community, regardless of denominations/sub-sects/sub-categories within the Christian community.