prohibition of Religious Instructions in Educational Institutions [Article 28] 2 ae F._ Religious Freedom and Proselytisation no ae CHAPTER 13 CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS (Articles 29 and 30) pIGHT TO CONSERVE LANGUAGE, SCRIPT OR CULTURE [Article 29(1)) w 488 ight of a Citizen to admission to Edueationel Institutions [Article 29(2)] 434 When Article 29(2) does not apply “5 “Article 29(2) and Ist Amendment, 1951 eee io “Articles 29(2) and 15(D) ee RIGHT OF MINORITIES TO ESTABLISH AND ADMINISTER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS [Article 30(1)] ee Object of Article 30(1) 487 Minority . 438 Linguistic Minority af 489 Religious Minority 489 Right to Claim Minority Status 440 i (a) Right to Establish Educational Institutions we AML Right to Establish Professional Educational Institutions =... 442 (b) Right to Administer Institutions Established by the Minority... 442, Right to Establish and Administer—Not Absolute we 448 Unaided Minority Institutions 444 ‘Aided Minority Institutions we 444 (i) Right to Choose the Principal/Headmaster (ii) Right to take Disciplinary Action (iii) Governmental Policy and Article 30 (iv) Right to Select Students for Admission (iv) Right to Impart Religious Instructions (vi) Right to have a Choice of Medium of Instruction (vii) Statutory measures for maintaining educational standards and excellence in the educational institutions (viii) No Right to Collect Capitation Fee/Determination Fee Structure 4 (ix) No Right to Recognition or Affiliation 7 (x) No right to oppress or exploit the teaching staff Acquisition of property of Minority Educational Insti (Article 30 (1-A)]CHAPTER 13 NCE ee CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS (Articles 29 and 30) Articles 29 and 30 guarantee cultural and educational rights. While, Article 29(1) secures to every section of citizens, residing in the territory Avfadia, the right to conserve its own language, seript or eulture, Article 800) arantees to every religious or linguistic minority, the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. ‘The object behind Articles 29 and 30, is the recognition and preservation of the different types of people, with diverse languages and different beliefs, Snich constitute the essence of Secularism in India. ‘The Supreme Court in TMA. Pai Foundation v. State-of Karnataka,’ explained : Articles 29 and 30 do not more than seek to prosorye the differences that exist, and at the same time, unite the people to form one strong nation. Protection under Articles 29 and 90, is not a privilege, but is a protection to the religious/linguistic minority communities, to attain equality with other rligious/linguistic groups of India. It is a Constitutional mandate that a linguistic minority is entitled to conserve its language and culture? RIGHT TO CONSERVE LANGUAGE, SCRIPT OR CULTURE [Article 29(1)] . : Clause (1) of Article 29 provides; "Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinet langt culture of its own shall have the right to conserve ti thus, guarantees the right to conserve one’s own |: Todaim this right the following conditions must (a) the right can be claimed by any section of belongs to citizens and not to others,* (b) that section of citizens must be residing in any part thereof, and (©) that section of citizens must have a d culture of its own. i "right to conserve" means the right egg The right to conserve one’s own langud - Ypittid includes the right to preserve and to * 20038 SC a66. gst Edueation Society v. State of Delhi, The ick SK. Patro v. State of Bihar, AIR 1970 Si ( 483 )[ Chap, 434 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA P13 = f 4 the respond, a os en singh Daulta, lent, 9) i Sidhanti v. Partap > the eee arre chellenged tho election of the Ea aon e - a committer 1 of People on the ground that he had fat tte oe the Hind aaa election campaign to promote omentins) 123(3) of the Representation of the , one’s own language, script or eultur Sikh communities prohibited by § ort of his allegation, namely. | et Act, 1951. He gave two instances in supp 7 ‘ at the a pellnt book help from the Hindi agitation going on at that amy Samaj time and propagated that the respondent ee pee ef ailons amen 2 the Tt an (eal in Bis election meetings. 1 was further alleged by the respondent that the appellant made promises that if ae he would work for the cause of Hindi, Rejecting the contentions of the respondent, the Supreme Court observed : i " Right to conserve the language of the citizens includes the right to agitate for the protection of the language. Political agitation for conservation of the language of a section of citizens cannot, therefore, be regarded as a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(3) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 The Court held that making promises by a candidate, to work for the conservation of the electorate’s language, did not amount to corrupt practice. Unlike Article 19(1), Article 29(1) was not subjected to any reasonable restriction. The right conferred upon the citizens to conserve their language, etc., the Court held, had been made absolute by the Constitution. Section 123(3) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951, must be read subject to Article 29(1) and not to trespass upon the Fundamental Right under Article 29(1) The right contained in Article 29(1) may be exercised & i educational institutions and by imparting instructions to the children opt imunity in their own language® The right, thus, includes (le right to establish educational institutions as also the right to eh i of instruction® in educational institutions s0 established, SS In D.AY. College, Jullundur y. §; 7 held that the setting up of the Guru N Promote, inter alia, the studies and literature and to undertake measures eld ae did not infringe Article 29(1), o minority qewerity language, the Court held, stifling of the minority language on the rights of those aedieee Tae fe woula : ic [Article 29(2)} Article 292) provides : "No citizen shall FAIR 1965 SC 185 Emphaals adda Oe denied 5 DAV..College, Bhatinda ¥. State of j 6. Associated Management v. State 7 AIR 1971 SC 1737. °f Karnataka,492529337 ] CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS. 435 onal institution maintained by the State or receivi i iiyon rounds only of religion, race, caste, language CMON State , is Article guarantees to every citizen the rij i spain inecined by te Sat aided Ey te ce ere Menied admission to such institutions on the ground only of religion, ea] be aerlanguage or any of them. Fee, cate, oe contained in Article 29(2) is available to evory citizen of India, whether belonging to a minority or majority group. It is a right of a citizen Mya citizen and not as a member of any community or class. Gho right being a fundamental right, cannot be interfered with by any instructions, rules or regulations.’ In State of Bombay v. Bombay Education Society,” the State Government issued an Order banning ‘admission of all those whose language was not English into schools having English as medium of instruction. The egor of the Government was struck down as violative of Article 29(2). ‘The Government contended that the order was issued with the object of promoting national language. However, the Court held that the object of derlying the impugned order and the mode ‘and manner adopted therein undieve that object, could not, protect the order from being challenged as te ative of the right contained in Article 292). When Article 29(2) does not apply “Artile 29(2) prohibits denial of admission into educational institutions maintained or aided by the State, on the ground only of religion, race, caste or langwage or any of them. It is, therefore, not attracted in cases where the vision is denied on a ground other than those specified therein. For example, where seats in the educational institutions att reserved by the State Government on the basis of residence or domicile or sex!' or on. the basis of = need of the inhabitants of that State, there would be no violation of Article 9(2). Merely because, as a result of Article 29(2), there is a legal right in members of Hindu community to get admission into the college, would not een that there is overy right under Article 25 to freely profess, i and propagate their religion, within the precincts of the college 1 minority community." “Article 29(2) cannot be invoked for seeking admission into institutions getting no grants-in-aid from the State," The term 29(2) covers grants made by the Government, including the g Under Article 337.4 Again, the Court cannot compel an al institution, to grant admission to a ‘candidate not holding cligibility qualifications from an institution recognised by it.'* aay a en Sele AU EB Biate of Bombay v. Bombay Education Society, Ain 1954 SC 561. © State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan,, AIR 1951 SC 226. For f SC 561. y. State of Kerala, AIR 1958 Ker. 33. 'y. Principal, St. Paul's College, AIR 1987 Cal 524, state of Punjab, AIR 1981 P & H 227. ‘Eaueation Bill, 1957, AIR. 1958 SC 950, Article 937 @ educational grants for <( Chap 3 1A & CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDI 51 Article 29(2) and Ist Amendment, 19 airajan,}® the communal G9, dras v. Champakam Do! in proportion to several Alacer coe an esses? ‘and engineering ale ae ee olative oF AraaE communities was struck down by the Supre i d to ensure advancement of 26/2). To nullify the effect of this decision and to ently ON or stitution socially and educationally backward classes o! citizen 7a to the effeel a (First Amendment) Act, 1951 added Claiis ee the State from making "nothing in Article 15 or in Article 29(2) oer he eucationally and socially rovisior the advancement 0 ‘duled Tribes*, Feet aiocsen ofeteons or for the Scheduled Castes and She c ny Article 15(4) is added for the advancement a a eee ee Fights of the backward classes or of Schoduled Castes or Scheduled’ Beibegs | Therefore, if students belonging to backward classes secured more 1 2 a reserved number of seats on their own merit, rule of reservi etre 3S aro : t r ibed number, for, in that invoked to deny them admission over the prescri ml in case, their fundamental right under Article 29(2) would be infringed. A ol Articles 29(2) and 15(1) Like Article 29(2), Article 15(1) also prohibits discrimination against the citizens, but there are significant differences between the two— () While Article 15(1) prohibits discrimination on the ground of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth, Article 29(2) prohibits denial of admission to educational institutions aided or maintained by the State on the ground of religion, race, caste or language. A (ii) Article 15(1) extends against the State, while Article 29(2) extends against the State as well as others, i.e., educational institutions maintained by the State or those belonging to private persons but getting grants-in-aid from the State, Git) Article 15(1) protects all citizens against discrimin: while Article 29(2) is a protection wrongs, namely, denial of admissi aided or maintained by the Stato, Article 15(1) is more general 29(2). It would apply and co: applicable. For ex, é ‘ation generally, against particular speci ion to education: (iv) RIGHT OF MINORITIES TO Eg7, EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS tna Article 80(1) provides : "Ail minoriti 0] language, shall have the right eee institutions of their choig, right to establish" and "the right ta linguistic ang admin, i 76. AIR 1951 SC 226, inister" educa: FA Bae em eel Acie ee ees5 en eT e ac & bo J]ps26201 CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL iGHTs qoice’. The right contained in Arti ‘i anit ohether based on religion o Fag ehe OO{TH a. availabe ety to m! icle 30 is held to be more in the nature of protecti ‘sis not immuned from rola tone Tes tordantee eee eta @ Hy and not intended to place them in a he mais ae ty.!* oi arene mee vis malty ow in Article 30(1) indicates that a minority gana, may either be Zing on religious nat ert feioe ame satictin a0 far as Article 3O(1) is concerned, religious and ti etic minorities have been put at par. secs Object of Article 30(1) ret or gd. should be read alongwith other, Fundamental Rights jcularly, those secured by Articles 25, 36 and 29. So read, it may be Parties Article 30 provides the means by which the rights secured by these Articles might be effectively exercised. The object of Article 30(1), the Supreme Court in A.P. Christian Medical Educational Society v- Government of Andhra Pradesh” observed was = “to give the minorities ‘a sense of security and a feeling of confidence not merely guaranteeing the right to profess, practise and propagate religion to religious minorities and the right to conserve their language, script and culture to linguistic minorities... The institutions, established in the exercise of the right conferred by Article 30(1) the Supreme Court said, may be intended to give the children of the minorities the best general and professional education, to make them complete men and women of the Pountry and to enable them to go out into the World fully prepared and equipped. These institutions m: __where special pro’ ay be those— ions made to the advantage and for the may expect th religion would and steeped in the faith, where the parents expe’ i atmosphere which is in harmony with their re} pursuit of it. Tt may, thus, be stated that the object of Arti to profess, practise and propast religious minorities: p by Article 95(1) as also to ‘the linguistic minorities to language, script and culture. TE PA. Inamdar ¥. Stal Ta. Matanharo Byriay collie4 438 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA cha ii ituti eld to constitute a se; 2 educational institutions are held 0 Pi The minority edthas further been said that Articles 29 and 20 a class by themselves. ft reserve the differences between tho different ie i ise ond rguages and difforent beliefs, Tt is said to bo 5 ne of Secularism in India.” Seen minority’ is not defined in the Constitution. Literally, it meang ant group. It is a relative term and is relerred to, to represent the smaller of two numbers, sections or groups. me me the Kerala Education Bill,” the Supreme Court observed that while it was easy to gay that the minority meant a community which was numerically less than 50%, the important question was : 50%, of what—the entire population of India or of a State or of a part thereof ? Without deciding the matter definitely, the Supreme Court observed that minority was to be determined only in relation to the particular legislation which was being challenged. If it was a State law, a minority would be determined in relation to the population of the State. Where a law passed by the State Legislature extends to the whole of the State, minority for the purpose of A’ 29 and 30 would be determined by reference to the entire population of that State. Accordingly, it was held in re Kerala Education Bill, that Christians, Muslims and Anglo Indians would be minorities in the State of Kerala. Subsequent to the Kerala Education Bill” case, the Apex Court has consistently held that with regard to a State law, the unit to determine a religious or linguistic minority, can only be the State.® M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of K natal oo Cee Bench of eleven learned Judges arnatake,/" 2S aoe a of pe ieee Court considered the oe ssue again. It has been held that since th i tel States te Ti z paver Bel e reorganisation dia has been on linguistic lines, for the purpose eee the ", the unit will be the Si s the State and not the w 7 expen, Patil. Union of India” a threo- Judge B nee Indi xplained that "minority" as unders| ench of the Apex Court an identifiable ‘utional scheme a non-domine ra AIR 2003 $¢' 55," © $00 1 4 Foundation AIR s908' se untion . Staie $1. The Court traced to and at the time 9p a2! 92 TMA. Pai Foundayrate sang, sent, rala say 50% ndia rved rity law rity e to mala | be rurt t to tion n of ving ourt fied ving y to as.3t oe lone te of i ¥ " i 30, wei Bova oy Seen rts EUULATIONAL RIGHTS basis. The power of the Central a9 on 8 Moly on the advice and momenta crnment has to be exer pat mernties, but on consideration of the sof the National Commated ja Mite of the community in each State, } cultural and religious odie insertion of, new Entry 25% relating to ‘Education’ j ine seventh Schedule by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) wot Wot Me ing Parliament to legislate in relation to “education” hinge ea at India or group of States or even with respect to a particular Steve be Court ruled, has not, in any way, changed the pautin ol ine An for the purpose of Article 90, the Court has ruled, could not have rent meanings depending upon who was legislating. i a ‘The Court referred to the Draft Articles, the Debates in the Constituent assembly, the subsequent amendments made to the Constitution ie, jeicles 350A, 950B,* which in unambiguous terms, the Court said, show that minority status of a group of persons had to be determined, on the basis ff population of a State or Union Territory.%° Cine both the religious and linguistic minorities have been put at par in Article 30, the Court ruled that the position with regard to the religious minorities was similar. Tt has thus, been held that for the purpose of determining the minority, whether linguistic or religious, the unit will be the State and not the whole of India. Linguistic Minority "A linguistic minority for the purpose of Article 30(1) is one which must have a separate spoken language and ‘that language need not haye a distinct script, In India, a number of languages are spoken having no script of their own, And, people speaking such a language having no script of its own, constitute a linguistic minority for the purposes of Article 30(1).%* A linguistic minority is to be determined with reference to the language spoken by the community and not with reference to any other language which the community wants its children to study vA amamunity whose language is one of the official languages of the State, can, as yet, be a minority community. Thus, only because English is one of the official languages of the State of West Bengal, the same does not mean that the Anglo-Indian community whose langut is be termed to be a minority community.” Religious Minority ‘A minority based on religion means that the o the minority must be adherence to one of the many or part of the religion. ‘A minority based on religion should be restri minorities, for example, Muslims, Christians, Jai Fa Enty 26 relates to “Education”, at all adi or’ Justice -ViNe Bhare, 426. While, Article S504 facilities for instructions in mother tongue at the pri BeO.B provides. for the appointment by the Pres iinguistic minorities. State of Karnataka, AIR State of Punjab,440 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (Chap, 43 majority, namely, the Hindus i iglenaly eee td to be a religious mich hve ay err Sl os a 4 i fro} ee mn sine it possesses faith diferent or es. base oon ‘cligion within te and Sikhs ‘have je 30(1) in the Union Territory of Delhi aaa a oie Court in Bramichar! Sidheswar Shai v. State of Meat Bengal held that Ramakrishna religion wos not distinct ond Fe fm Hindu religion and not minority religion: Therefore, te are tho followers of Ramakrishna religion could Hot EM cin minority based on religion and as such were not e! dament right under Article 30(1). van bald to bo acither sata The "Theosophical Society" has b r ‘ u a linguistic minority and a school established by the Society, therefore, way ticle 30(1). t held entitled to the protection of Article 30(1 ’ i a vAithough. Article 3011) does not speak of citizens of India, however, it has been held that the minority to claim the protection of this Article must be a minority of persons residing in the territory of India. Therefore, the foreigners, not residents in India, cannot claim the right to set up educational institutions of their choice." In St. Stephen’s College v, University of Delhi, the Supreme Court has ruled that minority under Article 30(1) would necessarily mean those who formed a distinct and identifiable group of citizens of India. ate from the Right to Claim Minority Status It is well-settled that in order to claim minority status for an institution in any State, the authorities must be satisfied firstly, that the institution has been established by the persons who are minority in such State, and, secondly, the right to administration of the said institution is also vested in those persons who are minority in such Stave-® So said, the Apex Court in D.A.V. Maharashtra,“ Anevamasis or Lingayat ree Jain Swetamber Vid, tyalaya ASE. Trust v, Director, Biweation, ped AIR 1995 sc 2089, ets Janki Pa, y, §; ¥. AIR 2018 $0 1439)" ZEARS OSAis: 1430) CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS 457 ority before a teacher, employed in any private instituti ae ied: removed or redueed in rank. Secon %9Ne) required ea a er should be placed under suspension except when an inquiry into the «s misconduct of such teacher was contemplated, Section 3(3\b) provid d that no such suspension was to remain in force for more than a periodion two months or the teacher concerned would be deemed to have been reinstated. Section 4 entitled a teacher to prefer an appeal to the prescribed puthority against whom any of the actions mentioned above were taken or his conditions of service were altered, Section 5 empowered the competent authority to hear appeal in certain past disciplinary cases. Section 6 required the prior approval of the competent authority in cases any retrenchment was effected. Section 7 made provision for payment of pay and allowances of a teacher by the prescribed authority or officer. The majority of the Supreme Court upheld Sections 3(8) & (b) and 3(4), 6 & 7 as valid but struck down Sections 4 and 5 as not applicable to the minority institutions. Sections 3(3)(a) & (b) and 3 (4), the Court said were regulatory in character since they did not deny to the management the right to proceed against the erring teacher, but only regulated that right by directing that a teacher should not be suspended unless an inquiry was contemplated. As regards Section 6, the Court held that it was difficult to share the view that retrenchment of teachers was a purely domestic affair of minority institution and the decision of the management was beyond the statutory interference. It was aimed at affording a minimum security of service to the teachers by eschewing the passing of mala fide orders in the garb of retrenchment, It thus conferred a guided and limited power on the competent authority to find out whether a retrenchment had in fact, become necessary, It being regulatory in nature, did not interfere with the right of the minority. Section 7 was also upheld as being regulatory in character. In T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka," the Apex Court has impressed that the conditions that are laid down for granting recognition and affiliation, should not be such as may lead to go ental/uni control of the administration of the private education . (x) No right to oppress or exploit the tea In Frank Anthony Public School Employe of India“? the Supreme Court gave a new dynamic right of the mi ini u Article 30(1). In this case the Delhi better organisation and development of sch to 11 of the Act dealt with the terms and condi ion of recognised private schools. Section 10 provided i allowances, ete. of the employees of recognised priva less than those of the employees of the Government of the Act made these provisions inapplicable to "un ‘The Supreme Court held Section 12 of the Ac ‘hence violative of Article 14, The Court while holCONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA C Chap. 3 458 ol Education Act, 1973 as regulatory in character 8 to 11 of the Delhi Schoo! Fev not violative of the right of the minorities declared that these provisi enshrined in Article 30D), ‘The Court further sai could not be permitted, under the guise 30(1), to oppress or exploit tts employees. d, he teaching staff, the Court declared, > i ; aisle? nae deterioration of the standard of instruction imparted in the st affecting adversely the object of making the institution. an institution, ile of education for the minority community or other persons who resorted to it, e vipa Likewise, in Christian Medical College Hospital Employees’ Union v. Christian Medical College,** the Supreme Court held that Sections 9A, 10, 11A, 12 and 38 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, were applicable to the minority educational institutions. The Act, being a general law, for prevention and settlement of industrial disputes, it was held, could not be said to interfere with the right of the minorities under Article 30(1). ‘The observations made by the Court in Christian Medical College, Hospital Employees’ Case, were relied upon in All Bihar Christian Schools Association v. State of Bihar. In this case the Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking over of Management and. Control) Act, 1982, provided for the taking over the management and control by the Government of all the non-Government Secondary Schools, for better organisation and development of Secondary Education in the State. However, it ae the minority schools which could be taken over only when the concerned managing committees voluntarily madi i hand over the school. Section 18 of the ‘Act laid care come ee for granting recognition to a minority school, It required every minority en by-laws. The d that the management of a minority institution guise of the right guaranteed by Article Such oppression or exploitation of was bound to lead, inevitably to © oth ore & eee The Supreme Court were regulatory in nature efficiency in management | Act did not in any manner institution. Again, in St. John’ Nadu, the Scene standard along with ensuring held that the hers Traini ‘ainin, mphasised aa SECUPIY “of ae; 43, AIR 1968 SC 37—AL 32: Iso see P. 4, AIR 1988 SC 305, 46. AIR 1994 SC 43,OF Oo Se SS a ree ae ae ee SE a Ee _eee — “wee Q eis case, the appellant claimed to be a minosi concerning, : eligibility criteria ications, as also, employees (bo L maniteag ine) to _ oppression of employees; prescribing syllabus and 1930) CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS “= while dealing with the guarantee contained in Article 4 459 iele 30(1). vas refused recognition by the State Goverment sana itt jJiance of the conditions fe iti tat mplians tions for recognition ontained minors ae inary Schools Recognition and Payment of Graal Re , 1977, a iui by the Order of 1991. In addition to mini ualificati Ne el a ae Ee eh ; ° ect assrooms, cost of library with 10,000 books, numberof bath rooms, adeq! eames, p ce, ‘The Madras High Court upheld the action taken by the Government in Court made an analysis of the earlier pronouncements of the Courts in regard to the right guaranteed by Article 30(1) and culled out the following principles for determining the scope and ambit of the right. The principles so enunciated ty the High Court were approved by the Supreme Court in appeal. These are as follows : sof cafurniture, laboratory equipments, teaching applian ‘sand music equipments and equipment and ee refusing to recognise the appellant institution. The High (2) The fundamental right declared by Article 30(4) of the Constitution ig absolute in terms, but subject to regulatory measures, (2) There is no fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to establish or administer an educational institution, if recognition is sought therefor. (3) The institutions must be educational institutions of the minorities in truth and reality and not mere masked phantoms; (4) There is no fundamental right to recognition and any institution: seeking recognition should abide by the regulations prescribed by the State as conditions therefor, (5) The minority institutions must be fully equipped with ‘educational ‘excellence to keep in step with other institutions in the State; (6) The regulations framed by the State cannot abridge the fundamental right of the minorities and they should be in the interest of the minority institutions themselves and not based on State necessity or general society necessities; (7) The regulations should be with a view to prome educational standards and ensuring security. of snd other employees of the institutions and i of efficiency of institutions, discipline, health, s¢ public order and the like; (8) Even unaided institutions are not immuned fre general laws of the land such as Contract, Economie Laws, Social Welfare Legislations, Laws and similar other laws which are intend of the Society. It may, thus, be concluded that regulations ing, generally. the welfare of students andLAW OF INDIA U Chap, 4, ate ONSTITUTIONA\ 1 460 a vever, the question as to wh jot snority institutions. Hower an intricate Question, ; . apply, equally, to miner power properly. No TE ea ip cue ciuee Anthony School case,» i to be determined by «sion in Fran! v. St. P; , ishing the decision in Satimbla Sharma y. ‘aus P vie Bane of the Supreme Court in Sa te unaided minority schoole 40 Division Bench of tl 48 held that priva’ 7 1 Senior Secondary School," he ligation to ensure "equal pay for equa oft not being "Stato" were under n0 0 ‘such schools wore held not entitle ot work At a result, the employees of Such sot ie or Govt, offal claim pay parity with employees 0 a xe schools, ancl of Govt. Schools were paid out imp ‘The Court explained thet au ae of private imate ehootay co cid sats sat of the fos and other resources ofthe private schools. Besides, Cou the Ra ‘and allowances of teachers of a private unaided school is & matter 300 of contract between the parties and therefore the matter is not within the be « domain of public law. So said, the Court held that no mandamus could be issued against unaided private school to ensure pay parity, when there was givi no statutory provision or executive instructions which cast obligation on ee school to ensure pay parity. ie z ae id. Acquisition of property of Minority Educational Institution oe [Article 30 (1-A)] oe Prior to the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, omitted Article 31 which guaranteed the fundamental right to property and led for compulsory a it also provid icquisition of i speed fr exopulery property by the State for public le 30 stated be a law that specifi i ion, the giminory into employ ga rouetion, h Ee id for he eau ition ae sun e revisions thi ion of eropong 50: The prosien ge 7 Were Not adequate for eee senerals as Banas \ id Pulsory acquisi (ig (2008) 7 $00. 630, cl PeSar ae Cee ee | —_e 2600 ee SUBTUIRALAND EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS suri oer the Court held, “ jscrimination in granting aid ¢ Neale 30(2)1 © educational Institution Clause (2) of Article 30 provides : "The State shall not, j , in tional. institutions, discriminate agai: In granting ai wo educennd that it is under the management of « neineae rn institution on religion. or language " ity, whether based The object of Clause (2) is to make the right secured b; ight. But, the nt of ail y Clause (1) as pe B grant of aid has not been held to be a constitutional In T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, court has ruled that the absence of aid does not make heneh ae 30.1) illusory. Article 30(2) only means that a minority institution shall he be discriminated against when aid to educational institutions is granted. Further, it has been held that the State may impose conditions while giving aid to a minority institution. But, the conditions have to be uniformly applied, whether it is a majority run institution or a minority run institution. Also, that the conditions must have relevance to the proper utilisation of the aid The implication of Article 30(2), the Court said, "is that it recognises that the minority nature of the institution should continue, notwithstanding, the grant of aid." It has been said that Article 30(2) is an additional right conferred on minorities under Article 30(1). But, it would depend on the financial stability and resources, as well as, discretion of the State Government, exercised upon subjective satisfaction. It is held to be an economic concept. It has, however, recently been held that the purpose of grant-in-aid could not be so construed as to destroy, impair or even dilute the very character of the linguistic minority institutions.* Article 30(1) and Article 26(a)—Compared It may be noted that both Articles 30(1) and 2 establish educational institutions. To this extent, differ in the following respects” :— Firstly, while Article 26(a) secures institutions to the majority as well as ming 30(1) secures that right to the minorities, re Secondly, while Article 26(a) refers only Article 30(1) contains the right of religi minorities. Thirdly, while Article 26(a) says of denomination to maintain the institution EL TMA. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, AIR 52. AIR 2003 SC 356. 08. M.S. Catholic College \CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA Chap, 30(1) secures the right to a minority, to administer their instit ; hs eal, while the right secured by Article 26(a) is oe F Reese ee a raeet ‘and health, Article 30(1) does not specific aa a ee under Article 30(1) is subjected to any such Te has, however, been eld thatthe right under Article 30(1) ir th Spe ata lh. , thus, cannot be disputed that ayy? subject to the general laws and the laws made in nett Arti, ie Nationa) interest.**