c




 




Article 29 of the Constitution of India defines the protection of interest of minorities: -

Clause (1)
Clause (1) gives protection to every section of the citizens having distinct language, script or culture by guaranteeing
their right to conserve the same. If such section desires to preserve their own language and culture, the state would
not stand in their way. A minority community can effectively conserve its language, script or culture by and through
educational institutions and therefore necessary concomitant to the right to conserve its distinctive language, script
or culture and that is what is conferred on all minorities by article 30(1). But article 29(1), neither controls the scope
of article 30(1) nor is controlled by that article. The scope of the two is different. Article 29(1) is not confined to
minorities but extends to all sections of citizens. Similarly article 30(1) is not confined to those minorities, which
have 'distinct language, script or culture' but extends to all religious and linguistic minorities. Further, article 30(1)
gives only the right to establish and administer educational institutions of minorities' choice while article 29(1) gives
a very general right 'to conserve' the language, script or culture. Thus, the right under article 30(1) need not be
exercised for conserving language, script or culture.

Clause (2)
Clause (2) relates to admission into educational institutions, which are maintained or aided by state funds. No citizen
shall be denied admission in such institutions on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them.
Article 15 prohibits discrimination against citizen on ground of religion, etc. but the scope of two articles is
different. Firstly, article 15(1) protects all citizens against the state where as the protection of article 29(2) extends to
the state or anybody who denies the right conferred by it.

Secondly, article 15 protects all citizens against discrimination generally but article 29(2) is a protection against a
particular species of wrong, namely, denial of admission into educational institutions maintained or aided by the
state . Finally, the specific grounds on which discrimination is prohibited are not the same in two articles. 'Place of
birth' and 'sex' do not occur in article 29(2), while 'language' is not mentioned in article 15.

The right to admission into an educational institution is a right, which is an individual citizen, has as a citizen and
not as a member of a community or class of citizen. Hence a school run by a minority, if it is aided by state funds,
cannot refuse admission to children belonging to other communities. But the minority community may reserve up to
50 percent of the seats for the members of its own community in an educational institution established and
administered by it even if the institution is getting aid from the State. The state, however, cannot direct minority
educational institutions to restrict admission to the members of their own communities. Article 29(2), however, does
not confer a legal right on the members belonging to other communities to freely profess, practice and propagate
their religion within the precincts of a college run by a minority community . Article 29(2) cannot be invoked where
refusal of admission to a student is on the ground of his not possessing requisite qualifications or where a student is
expelled from an institution for acts of indiscipline.

To overcome the conflict with article 15 as well as article 29 the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, added
clause (4) to article 15 to the effect that nothing in article 15 and article 29(2) shall prevent state from making any
special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizen or for the
schedule caste and the schedule tribes. The state is empowered to reserve seats in state colleges for socially and
educationally backward classes of citizen or for SC and ST.


V 






 
 



Article 30 of the Constitution of India defines Rights of Minority to Establish and Administer Educational
Institutions: -
1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational
institutions of their choice.
[1-A) In making any law providing for the compulsory acquisition of any property of an educational institution
establish and administered by a minority, referred in clause (1), the State shall ensure that the amount fixed by or
determined under such law for the acquisition of such property is such as would not restrict or abrogate the right
guaranteed under that clause.]
2) The State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on
the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language.

Clause (1)
Clause (1) gives rights to all minorities based on religion or language the right to establish and administer
educational institution of their own choice. Article 29 and 30 are grouped together it will wrong to restrict the rights
of minority to establish and administer educational institution concerned with language script and culture of the
minorities. The reasons are: Firstly, article 29 confers the fundamental rights on any section of the citizen which will
include the majority also where as article 30(1) confers all rights on all minorities. Secondly, article 29(1) is
concerned with language, script or culture, whereas article 30(1) deals with minorities based on religion or language.
Thirdly, article 29(1) is concern with the right to conserve language, script or culture, whereas article 30(1) deals
with right to establish and administer educational institutions of the minorities of their choice. Fourthly, the
conservation of language, script or culture under article 29(1) may be by means wholly unconnected with
educational institutions, and similarly establishment and administer educational institutions by a minority under
article 30(1) may be unconnected with any motive to conserve language, script or culture. A minority may
administer an institution for religious education, which is wholly unconnected with any question of conserving
language, script or culture. It may be that article 29(1) and article 30(1) overlap, but the former cannot limit the
width of the latter. The scope of article 30 rests on the fact that right to establish and administer educational
institution of their own choice is guaranteed only to linguistic or religious minorities, and no other section of citizens
has such a right. Further article 30(1) gives the right to linguistic minorities irrespective of their religion. It is,
therefore, not at all possible to exclude secular education from article 30.

The expression 'minority' in article 30 remains undefined though the court has observed that it refers to any
community which is numerically less than 50 percent of the population of a particular state as a whole when a law in
consideration of which the question of minority right is to be determined as a State law. A community, which is
minority in specific area of the State though a majority in the state as a whole, would not be treated as minority for
the purpose of this article. A minority could not also be determined in relation to entire population of the country. If
it was a state law, the minorities must be recognized in relation of that state. But the fact that the expression minority
an article 30(1) is used to distinct from 'Any section of citizen' in article 29(1) lends support to the view that article
30(1) deals with national minorities or minorities recognized in the context of entire nation. In that case, however,
article 30(1) would become inapplicable to the national majority even if it is a minority in any particular state, e.g.,
Hindus in Punjab or Jammu and Kashmir.

Although article 30(1) does not speak of citizens, the minority competent to claim the protection of that article must
be a minority of person residing in India. 'The minority under article 30 must necessarily mean those who farm a
distinct and identifiable group of citizen in India'. Article 30(1) does not confer upon foreigners not residents in
India the right to set up educational institutions of their choice. The right conferred on minorities is to establish
educational institutions of their choice. It does not say that minority based on religion should establish educational
institutions for teaching of their own language alone. The article leave it to their choice to establish such educational
institutions as will serve both the purpose, namely, the purpose of conserving their religion, language, or culture, and
also the purpose of giving a thorough general education to their children. Minorities are, however, not entitled to
have educational institutions exclusively for their benefit.

In D. A. V. College v. State Of Punjab , it was observed that, a linguistic minority for the purpose of art. 30(1) is one
which must at least have a separate spoken language. It is not necessary that that language should also have a
distinct script for those who speak it to be a linguistic minority. Religious or linguistic minorities should be
determined only in relation to the particular legislation which is sought to be impugned, namely that if it is the State
Legislature these minorities have to be determined in relation to the population of the State. AryaSamajis have a
distinct script of their own, namely Devnagri therefore they are entitled to invoke the right guaranteed under art.
29(1) because they are a section of citizens having a distinct script and under art.30(1) because of their being a
religious minority. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of s. 4 do not in our view offend by themselves any of the rights of the
petitioners either under art. 29(1) or art.30(1) of the Constitution. Nowhere there is a mandate for compelling
Colleges affiliated to it either to study the religious teachings of Guru Nanak or to adopt in any way the culture of
the Sikhs.

Thus religious or linguistic minorities should be determined only in relation to the particular legislation which is
sought to be impugned, namely that if it is the State Legislature these minorities is to be determined in relation to the
population of the State.

It was held that, religious instruction is that which is imparted for inculcating the tenets, the rituals, the observances,
ceremonies and modes of worship of a particular sect or denomination. To provide for academic study of life and
teaching or the philosophy and culture of any great saint of India in relation to or the impact on the Indian and world
civilizations cannot be considered as making provision for religious instructions. The State of Punjab is created as a
unilingual State with Punjabi as its language and if provision is made for study of Punjabi language that does not
furnish a ground for discrimination nor can the provision for study of the life and teachings of Guru Nanak afford
any cause for complaint on grounds of violation of art. 14 of the Constitution. The right to form association implies
that several individuals get together and form voluntarily an association with a common aim, legitimate purpose and
having a community of interest. The right extends inter alia to the formation of an association or Union. Section 5 of
the impugned Act does not effect the right of D.A.V. College Trust and Society to form an association. Therefore,
there is no infringement of art. 19(1)(c).

The right conferred on minorities is to establish educational institutions of their choice. It does not say that minority
based on religion should establish educational institutions for teaching of their own language alone. The article leave
it to their choice to establish such educational institutions as will serve both the purpose, namely, the purpose of
conserving their religion, language, or culture, and also the purpose of giving a thorough general education to their
children. Minorities are, however, not entitled to have educational institutions exclusively for their benefit.

Clause (2)
Clause (2) is only a phase of non-discrimination clause of the constitution and does not derogate provisions made in
clause (1). The clause is expressed in negative terms: the state is therefore enjoined not to discriminate in granting
aid to educational institutions on the ground that the management of the institutions is in the hands of minority,
religious or linguistic. The clause does not mean that the state is competent otherwise to discriminate so as to impose
restrictions upon the substance of rights to establish and administer educational institutions by minorities. The rights
established by article 30 (1) is intended to be a real right for the protection of the minorities in the matter of setting
up of education institution of their choice.


Ö 


The article first came up for interpretation before a seven judge Constitution Bench constituted to consider the
reference made by the President under article 143 in In re Kerla Education Bill sponsored by the Communist
Government of the state which was stoutly opposed by Christians and Muslims. Chief justice S.R. Das delivered the
majority opinion. He spoke for six judges- the sole dissent by justiceVenkataramaAiyar being confined to the
question whether minority institutions were entitled also to recognition and state aid as part of the right guaranteed
by article 30(1). C. J. Das held, inter alia:

a) An institution, in order to be entitled to the protection, need not deny admission to members of other
communities.
b) It is not necessary that an institution run by religious minority should impart only religious education or that one
run by the linguistic minority should teach language only. Institution imparting general secular education is equally
protected. The minority has a right to give "a thorough, good general education".
c) Grant of aid or recognition to such institution cannot be made dependent on their submitting to such stringent
conditions as amount to surrendering their right to administer to them. However the right to administer does not
include the right to misadministration reasonable regulations can be made.
d) Regulation prescribing the qualifications for teachers was held reasonable. Those relating to protection and
security of teachers and to reservation in favor of backward classes which covered government schools and aided
schools alike, were "perilously near violating that right", but "at present advised" were held to be permissible
regulations. Provision centralizing recruitment of teachers through State Public Service Commission and taking over
the collection of fees etc. were held to be destructive of rights of minorities to manage the institutions.

Clauses of the Bill, which authorized the taking over of management in the event of specified failings, in effect,
annihilated the minorities' right to administer educational institutions of their choice.