'Misconceived' : Supreme Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Reconsideration Of Judgment Upholding WB Madrasah Service Commission Act

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed with costs a writ petition filed by the Managing Committee of the Contai Rahamania High Madrasah in West Bengal seeking reconsideration of its 2020 judgment upholding the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih said the petition was “thoroughly misconceived” and imposed costs of ₹1,00,000 on the petitioner.

“The writ petition is thoroughly misconceived and accordingly stands dismissed with a cost of Rs. 1,00,000”, the Court said.

The petitioner had asked the Court to revisit its 2020 ruling in light of the recent decision in Vasanta Dupare v. Union of India.

In that case, the Supreme Court held that Article 32 could be invoked to reopen its own final orders in order to prevent a continuing breach of fundamental rights. The Court allowed a death-row convict to reopen the issue of sentence under Article 32, considering the subsequent judgment in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh which provided for factoring in mitigating circumstances. However, it cautioned that Article 32 could not become a routine means to reopen concluded matters.

The petitioner argued that this principle should apply to the Madrasah Service Commission case as well.

Rejecting the plea, the Court noted that the Dupare ruling was in a case involving the death penalty where the petition did not seek review of an earlier acquittal or conviction. It held that the Dupare judgment could not apply to the Madrasah Service Commission case, which is barred by the 1966 Constitution Bench ruling in Naresh Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra.

In Naresh Mirajkar, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court had held that judicial orders of competent courts cannot be directly challenged under Article 32 for violation of fundamental rights, and the proper remedy lies in appeal or review.

“Having considered the said decision, we are of the firm opinion that this court entertained that petition under Article 32 on the ground that it was the case of capital punishment and that no review of the earlier order of acquitting of conviction was prayed for. The decision would not apply to a case of the present nature which is barred in light of the Constitution bench decision of this court in Naresh Mirajkar case”, the Court stated in its order.

The 2020 judgment that the petitioner sought to challenge had upheld the constitutionality of the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008. This Act created a commission to appoint teachers in madrasas. The Calcutta High Court had in 2015 declared the Act unconstitutional on the ground that it violated Article 30 of the Constitution, which protects the rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. The Supreme Court, however, reversed that ruling.

The Supreme Court held that minority institutions do not have an absolute and unqualified right to appoint teachers. Relying on the TMA Pai Foundation case and other judgments, the Court said regulations framed in the national interest to ensure educational excellence could apply equally to minority and majority institutions. It also said that while minority institutions imparting religious education may have wider latitude in choosing teachers, institutions teaching secular subjects must prioritise merit to achieve excellence.

The 2020 judgment concluded that the Commission Act's provisions, including Sections 8, 10, 11 and 12, did not transgress the rights of minority institutions. It held that the selection and nomination of teachers by the Commission satisfied both national and minority interests and therefore were not unconstitutional.

The present petition contended that these provisions encroached upon the rights of minority institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution by vesting the power to select and recommend teachers in the Commission rather than the management. The petitioners relied on earlier larger-bench judgments to argue that the right to select and appoint teachers is an essential part of the right to administer minority institutions.

They claimed the 2020 judgment overruled or ignored these larger-bench decisions and asked the Court to place the matter before a Constitution Bench for reconsideration.

Case no. – W.P.(C) No. 878/2025

Case Title – The Managing Committee, Contai Rahamania High Madrasah v. State of West Bengal