minority rights

The following Supreme Court's observations in the  judgment in Usha Mehta & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others reported in 2004 (5) Scale 800, 2004 (6) SCC 264; 2004 (2) KLT 696 (SC) may throw some light to your query:


""This Court in several cases elaborately considered the limit of MINORITY RIGHTS under Article 30. Though Article 30 is couched in unrestricted terms, this Court pointed out the limits of reasonable regulations that could be imposed by the State. In Rev. Sidharjbhai Sabhai vs. State of Bombay (1963) 3 SCR 837, while interpreting Article 30, it was observed that:

"".... regulation made in the true interests of efficiency of instruction, discipline, health, sanitation, morality, public order and like may undoubtedly be imposed. Such regulations are not restrictions on the substance of the right which is guaranteed..""

6. Pertaining to the regulations that could be imposed under Article 30, it was further observed therein:

""... such regulation must satisfy a dual test - the test of reasonableness, and the test that it is regulative of the educational character of the institution and is conductive to making the institution an effective vehicle of education for the minority community or other persons who resort to it..""

7. In St. Stephan's College vs. University of Delhi (1992) 1 SCC 558 it was held that:

"".... so long as the basic right of minorities to manage educational institution is not taken away, the state is competent to make regulatory legislation. Regulations, however, shall not have the effect of depriving the rights of minorities to educate their children in their own institution. That is a privilege which is implied in the right conferred by Article 30(1)..."".

8. Quoting Rev. Sidhajbhai Sabhai with approval, this Court later in TMA Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481 held:

"".. the right under Article 30(1) is not so absolute as to prevent the Government from making any regulation whatsoever. As already noted hereinabove, in Sidhajbhai Sabhai case it was laid down that regulation made in the true interests of efficiency of instruction, discipline, health, sanitation, morality and public order could be imposed. If this is so, it is difficult to appreciate how the Government can be prevented from framing regulations that are in the national interest, as it seems to be indicated in the passage quoted hereinabove. Any regulation framed in the national interest must necessarily apply to all educational institutions, whether run by majority or the minority. Such limitation must necessarily be read into Article 30. The right under Article 30(1) cannot be such as to override the national interest or to prevent the Government from framing regulations in that behalf. It is, of course, true that the government regulations cannot destroy the minority character of institution or make the right to establish and administer a mere illusion; but the right under Article 30 is not so absolute as to be above law..""

""... regulations made by the authority should not impinge upon the minority character of the institution. Therefore, a balance has to be kept between two objectives - that of ensuring the standard of excellence of the institution, and that of preserving the rights of the minorities to establish and administer their educational institutions. Regulations that embraced and reconciled the two objectives could be considered to be reasonable. This in our view, is the correct approach to the problem..""

9. In TMA Pai, this Court concluded the position regarding the MINORITY RIGHTS under Article 30 as under:

"".. The right under Article 30(1), has, therefore, not been held to be absolute or above other provisions of law, and we reiterate the same. By the same analogy, there is no reason why regulations or conditions concerning, generally the welfare of students and teachers should not be made applicable in order to provide a proper academic atmosphere, as such provisions do not in any way interfere with the right of administration or management under Article 30(1)...""

""... In other words, the essence of Article 30(1) is to ensure equal treatment between the majority and the minority institutions. No one type or category of institution should be disfavored or, for that matter, receive more favorable treatment than another. Laws of the land, including rules and regulations, must apply equally to the majority institutions as well as to the minority institutions. The minority institutions must be allowed to do what the non-minority institutions are permitted to do..""

10. In the light of the above-discussed cases, it is clear that the State can impose reasonable regulations on the institutions covering Article 30 for protecting the larger interest of the State and the nation. The 'choice' that could be exercised by the minority community or group is subject to such reasonable regulations imposed by the State. While imposing regulations, the State shall be cautious not to destroy the minority character of institutions. It is not the case of Petitioners herein that the Respondents prevented them from teaching Gujarati language. On the other hand they are only challenging the compulsory imposition of Marathi language for students and asking for a right 'not to learn' Marathi language while living in the State of Maharashtra. The regulation in this case imposed by the State of Maharashtra upon the linguistic minority right is to make Marathi language a compulsory course in SCHOOL syllabi. The issue for resolution here is to find whether this action is reasonable or not. The impugned policy decision was taken by keeping the larger interest of the State, because the official and common business is carried on in that State in Marathi language. A proper understanding of Marathi language is necessary for easily carrying out the day-to-day affairs of the people living in the State of Maharashtra and also for proper carrying out of daily administration. Hence the regulation imposed by the State of Maharashtra upon the linguistic minorities to teach its regional language is only a reasonable one. This Court ruled that the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of 'their choice' under Article 30(1) read with Article 29(1) would include the right to have choice of medium instruction. (See generally the Constitution Bench decisions in DAV College, Bhatinda vs. State of Punjab (1971 (2) SCC 261 and DAV College vs. State of Punjab 1971(2) SCC 269). But this exercise of 'choice' of instructive language in SCHOOLs by the linguistic minorities is subject to the reasonable regulation imposed by the concerned State. A particular State can validly take a policy decision to compulsorily teach its regional language. (See also English Medium Students' Parents Association case - Cited supra). In our opinion, the impugned decision taken by the Government of Maharashtra is within the regulatory ambit of Article 30. It is a reasonable one, which is conducive to the needs and larger interest of State.""

i agree with mr. y prakash