Punjab and Haryana High Court: Article 30 Of Constitution Not Only Refers To The Religious Minorities But Also To Linguistic Minorities

Must Read

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus....

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Follow us

The Punjab and Haryana High Court in its latest judgement rejected the writ petition by Chandigarh Associations and submitted that an institution is a minority institution within the meaning of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, provided it was established by a religious or linguistic minority. The kind of education to be imparted is the choice of the minority.

The entire controversy in the case of ‘The Director School Education vs National Commission for Minority, on 20 March 2020’, revolves around the status of the school. The primary dispute that arose between the parties is whether respondent No.3- ‘school’ is a minority educational institution or not.

The society, on one hand, objectified an organization of minority holding the Punjabi Language, Punjabi Culture, History of Prophets and Gurus being taught on top priority yet admission being open into the school irrespective of caste, creed, community and religion. The Chandigarh Administration meanwhile, notified a scheme requiring an allottee to reserve 15% or more seats for students belonging to economically weaker sections of the society and charging of nominal fee from them.

Court’s Decision

Article 30(1) of the Constitution provides that all minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

There is no reason why the benefit of Art. 30(1) should be limited only to educational institutions established after the commencement of the Constitution. The language employed in Art. 30(1) is wide enough to cover both pre-Constitution and post-Constitution institutions.

The Sikh minority community certificates to students applying for admission in the school against a quota of 20% reserved for them. Thus, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this short ground.

Secondly, the school was allotted land in the year 1988 and the 1996 Scheme nowhere states that the terms thereof would be applicable to existing schools also. A direction to the existing schools to comply with terms of the 1996 Scheme was unlawful.

There are three conditions which must be fulfilled before the protection and privileges of Art. 30(1) may be claimed, namely,

  • there must be a minority community,
  • one or more of the members of that community should, after the commencement of the Constitution, seek to exercise the right to establish an educational institution of his or their choice, and
  • the educational institution must be established for the members of his or their own community

A minority educational institution cannot be forced to implement directions of the State to reserve seats for economically weaker sections of the society as the same would be a violation of its fundamental right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.

Without prejudice to the provisions contained in the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992 (19 of 1992), where an authority established by the Central Government or any State Government, rejects the application for the grant of such status, the aggrieved person may appeal against such order of the authority to the Commission.

Article 30 not only refers to religious minorities but also to linguistic minorities. The right to establish an institution is their choice and there stands no limitation on the subjects being taught or to admitting students belonging to other communities as well.

On merits, it has been contended that the record indicates that the founder members of the society belonged to the Sikh religion.

From the observations, the Bench held that for the enjoyment of the right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, the minority should not only establish an educational institution but the same should also be for the benefit, financial benefit, of the minority community.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

3 COMMENTS

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that the petitioners were entitled to...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there is no requirement of passing...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -