Allahabad High Court Quashes State’s Rejection | NCMEI Alone Has Power To Grant Minority Status, Government Order ‘Loses Relevance’
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Single Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia has held that the power to declare an institution as a minority institution vests exclusively in the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions under the NCMEI Act, 2004, and that any reliance on the Government Order dated 28.08.1999 is unsustainable. The Court quashed the impugned order dated 10.08.2025 that had rejected the petitioner’s request for inclusion in the ongoing NEET counselling list. It further directed the competent authority to pass a fresh order by 3 PM on 13.08.2025 and communicate the same to the petitioner via email.
The matter arose from the petitioner institution’s challenge to the order dated 10.08.2025, by which its request for inclusion in the ongoing NEET counselling as a minority institution was rejected. The rejection was based on the reasoning that the minority status granted to the petitioner was not in accordance with the Government Order dated 28.08.1999.
The petitioners asserted that they are a minority institution managed by the Minority Jain Community at Greater Noida. They stated that, under the provisions of the NCMEI Act, 2004, the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions had issued a minority status certificate to them on 25.02.2025. Following this, in March 2025, the petitioner applied to the State of Uttar Pradesh to record and declare the institution’s minority status. The State Government accepted this request and issued a certificate on 07.08.2025.
The petitioner subsequently applied on 29.07.2025 and 07.08.2025 for recognition of its minority status and for inclusion of its fee structure accordingly. The application was rejected through the impugned order of 10.08.2025, which cited the U.P. Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006, and the Government Order of 1999 as the basis for non-consideration. The order stated that the minority status was not applied for in terms of the parameters prescribed in the 1999 Government Order and, therefore, could not be considered.
The petitioners contended that the NCMEI Act, 2004, defines "appropriate government" in Section 2(aa), granting the State Government authority over institutions within its territory. Section 2(g) of the NCMEI Act defines "Minority Educational Institutions," and the U.P. Act of 2006 adopts a similar definition. It was argued that under Section 11 of the NCMEI Act, the Commission alone is empowered to grant minority status, making the Government Order of 1999 obsolete.
In support of their argument, the petitioners cited the Supreme Court judgment in Chandan Das (Malakar) vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 411, where it was held that the Commission has exclusive authority to decide questions related to the minority status of institutions. Paragraph 30 of the judgment, quoting from Corporate Educational Agency v. James Mathew (2017) 15 SCC 595, was relied upon to assert that the declaration of minority status is merely a recognition of an existing fact and not a grant from the date of issuance. The petitioners also referred to Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. (2018) 6 SCC 772, wherein Section 11(f) of the NCMEI Act was interpreted to include the power to decide all questions related to minority status.
The respondent no.4, represented by counsel, defended the order on the grounds that the prescriptions in the Government Order should have been considered. However, the respondent’s counsel did not dispute the legal position as laid down in the Supreme Court judgments cited.
The Court recorded: "In the light of the prescriptions contained in the NCMEI Act, 2004 and in particular Section 11 thereof, it is clear that the power to declare an institution as a minority institution vests exclusively in the domain of the power conferred upon the commission." It further stated: "Once the Act has been enacted, the Government Order loses relevance." This legal position, the Court noted, had been explained by the Supreme Court in the cited cases.
The Court relied on the judgments in Chandan Das (Malakar) and Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny to affirm that Section 11(f) of the NCMEI Act is a wide provision empowering the Commission to decide all questions regarding the status of any institution as a minority educational institution. The Court stated the Supreme Court’s view that such declarations are of pre-existing status and that, post-enactment of the NCMEI Act, the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction.
The Court concluded that the order dated 10.08.2025, which relied on the 1999 Government Order, could not be sustained. It quashed the impugned order as well as consequential orders contained in Annexures 2 and 3.
The Court directed: "As the first round of counselling is to conclude tomorrow (13.08.2025), the respondent no.4/DGME/competent authority is directed to pass a fresh order in respect of the application filed by the petitioner by 3 PM tomorrow i.e. 13.08.2025 and communicate the same to the petitioner on their Email by 3 PM itself." It further instructed that the petitioner shall provide their email address to the respondent along with a copy of the Court’s order and that counsel for respondent no.4 shall communicate the order for compliance.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Sri Sudeep Seth, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Surjeet Kumar, Ms. Chayya Gupta, and Sri Vaibhav Sharma
For the Respondents: C.S.C., Syed Mohammad Haider Rizvi
Case Title: Sharda University Thru. Registrar And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Lko And 3 Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: AHC-LKO:47096
Case Number: WRIT - C No. - 7832 of 2025
Bench: Justice Pankaj Bhatia
