The Supreme Court of India has issued a notice on petitions challenging the Gujarat High Court’s decision upholding the 2021 amendments to the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education (GSHSE) Act. These amendments allow the state to establish rules governing the recruitment of teachers and principals in linguistic and religious minority schools.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh passed the order after hearing arguments from Senior Advocate C.U. Singh, representing the petitioners. The Supreme Court's intervention follows concerns that the Gujarat High Court’s ruling contradicts past landmark judgments concerning minority rights in education.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Upholds Gujarat Government's Sabarmati Ashram Redevelopment Plan

Senior Advocate C.U. Singh, arguing for the petitioners, pointed out that the Gujarat High Court failed to consider key rulings from larger Supreme Court benches. He stated that the High Court’s approach heavily relied on the S.K. Mohd. Rafique v. Contai Rahamania High Madrasah case (a two-judge bench ruling) while overlooking crucial judgments from nine-judge and eleven-judge benches that explicitly protect minority rights in educational institutions.

To strengthen his argument, Singh cited the recent Aligarh Muslim University case, which reaffirmed the constitutional protection granted to minority-run institutions.

"There is a consistent and unanimous view that regulatory measures [can be taken]…" - Justice Surya Kant

While acknowledging that some regulations could be imposed, Singh emphasized that such regulatory power should not extend to the selection of teachers and principals. He agreed that the state could set minimum qualifications and eligibility criteria but argued that the choice of educators must rest with the minority institutions themselves.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Sets Legal Precedent on Acquittal of Innocent Bystanders in Group Clashes

At one point, Justice Kant remarked:

"The finding is that the Selection Committee or the Executive Committee (eventually who will select) is dominated by minority."

Countering this, Singh clarified that the committee is entirely government-nominated, comprising eleven members appointed by the state government.

After considering the arguments, the Supreme Court issued a notice regarding the petitions. Additionally, on the petitioners' request for an interim stay, the Court issued a separate notice on an application seeking immediate relief. However, the Court declined to grant a stay without first hearing the government's response.

Justice Kant reassured Singh:

"Even if they notify, we are not bound, you are not bound."

This implies that even if the government proceeds with implementation, the final outcome of the case will determine the law’s enforceability.

Read Also:- SC Collegium Proposes Eight New Judges for Gujarat High Court

High Court's Justification for Upholding the Law

Earlier, the Gujarat High Court had upheld the 2021 amendments to the GSHSE Act, stating that the state does not have unfettered, uncontrolled, or unlimited power to regulate minority institutions. However, it also ruled that merely granting regulatory authority to the state does not automatically violate Article 30 of the Indian Constitution, which protects the rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.

While referring to landmark cases such as TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka and Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society v. State of Gujarat, the High Court emphasized that minority institutions cannot claim complete immunity from state regulations, particularly when seeking government affiliation or recognition.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Clarifies Lalita Kumari Judgment: Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory Before FIR in All Cases

The court found that the 2021 amendments introduced a centralized recruitment process for teachers and principals in minority schools. The High Court clarified:

"The power of the State to regulate, though, is not unfettered or unlimited but mere conferment of power by enabling provisions itself, cannot be perceived as infringement of the protection of Article 30 (1) of the Constitution."

It further stated:

"The language of the above provisions is not such, which can be said to be unfettered, uncannalized or unlimited power of the State to make regulations. The legislature and the Board must remain mindful of constitutional constraints while framing rules governing minority institutions."

Case Title:

(1) ST. XAVIERS HIGH SCHOOL LOYOLA HALL AND ANR. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 8438/2025

(2) DEEP DARSHAN HIGH SCHOOL TRUSTEE AND ANR. Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 8082/2025