1. Challenge to the abolition of a State Minority Commission by the State Government. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 234
1997(2) Supreme 423
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
Misbah Alam Shaikh -Appellant
verus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 796 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9362 of 1996)
Decided on 10-2-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : M.N. Shroff, Advocate.
For the Respondents : K.N. Bhat, Additional Solicitor General, and S.K. Dholakia, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Niranjana Singh, Ms. Sushma Suri, A.K. Srivastava, S.M. Jadhav and D.M. Nargolkar, Advocates.
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
State Government cannot be directed to constitute a "Minority Commission" or to reconstitute the Commission which was abolished by it.
State Government cannot be directed to constitute a "Minority Commission" or to reconstitute the Commission which was abolished by it.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Minority Rights
Act Referred
Headnote
National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992-Sections 3 and 9-Writ challenging abolition of the Minority Commission set up by the State Government of Maharashtra-No statutory compulsion on part of State Government to constitute a Commission in the State-It is duty of Central Government to constitute a National Commission-It is duty and responsibility of the National Commission to ensure compliance of principles and programmes of the Act-State Govt. cannot be directed to constitute a Commission or to reconstitute the Commission which was abolished-May be perception of new political party which came to power and abolish the Commission may not be correct-Decision cannot be characterised as mala fide. (Paras 3 & 5)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the State Government is statutorily compelled to maintain a Minority Commission and whether its abolition was mala fide. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. The National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992 does not mandate State Commissions; political policy changes do not necessarily constitute mala fides. (Para 3 , 5 )
4. Mandamus cannot be issued to compel the constitution or reconstitution of a commission in the absence of a statutory requirement. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal disposed of; the decision to abolish the Minority Commission was upheld. (Para 6 )
6. Is a State Government statutorily required to constitute a Minority Commission under the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992?
No. The Act mandates the Central Government to constitute a National Commission to monitor minority safeguards across the Union and States, but it does not impose a statutory compulsion on State Governments to establish their own Minority Commissions. (Para 3 )
7. Can a writ of mandamus be used to compel the State Government to reconstitute a commission it has abolished?
No. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to direct the State Government to constitute or reconstitute a commission if there is no statutory compulsion requiring such a body to exist. (Para 3 )
8. Does the abolition of a commission by a successor government based on differing political perceptions constitute a mala fide decision?
No. A decision by a successor government to abolish a commission based on differing political perceptions or policy views cannot be characterized as mala fide, regardless of whether the decision is considered right or wrong. (Para 5 )
ORDER
Leave granted. We have heard the counsel on both sides.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 30.10.95 made in W.P. No. 1349/95 dismissing the writ petition. The appellant has challenged the abolition of the Minority Commission set up by the State Government. When the matter had come up earlier, we had issued notice as to why the National Commission should not take up the issue of protecting the interest of the minorities in the State of Maharashtra as under :
"To show cause why the National Commission for minorities should not undertake the responsibility under the statute for the protection and safeguarding the interest of the minorities in the State of Maharashtra."
3. Pursuant thereto, the National Commission as well as the Central Government have filed their counter affidavits. The State of Maharashtra has independently filed its counter. Section 3 of the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992, for short the Act, provides that the Central Government shall constitute a body to be known as "the National Commission" for Minorities to exercise the powers conferred on, and to perform the functions assigned to it under the Act. Section 9 of the Act in Chapter III envisages the functions of the Commission. The Commission shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely, (a) to evaluate the progress of the development of minorities under the Union and States; (b) to monitor the working of the safeguards provided in the Constitution and in laws enacted by Parliament and the State Legislatures; (c) make recommendations for the effective implementation of safeguards for the protection of the interests of minorities by the Central Government or the State Governments........" Sub-section (2) postulates that the Central Government shall cause the recommendations referred to in clause (c) of sub-section (1) to be laid before each House of Parliament along with a memorandum explaining the action taken or proposed to be taken on the recommendations relating to the Union and the reasons for non-acceptance, if any, of any of such recommendations. Thus, it could be seen that under the statute, as rightly conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant, there is no statutory compulsion, on the part of the State Government, to constitute a Commission called "the Minority Commission" in the State. On the other hand, by operation of Section 3 read with Section 9, it is the duty of the Central Government to constitute a National Commission and it shall be the duty and the responsibility of the National Commission to ensure compliance of the principles and programmes evaluated in Section 9 of the Act protecting the interest of the minorities for their development and working of the safeguards provided to them in the Constitution and the laws enacted by the Parliament as well as the State Legislatures. The object, thereby, is to integrate them in the national main stream in the united and integrated Bharat providing facilities and opportunities to improve their economic and social status and empowerment. The State Government cannot be directed, by a mandamus, to constitute a Commission or to reconstitute the Commission which was abolished by it, due to want of statutory compulsion.
4. It is not in dispute that the State Commission for Minorities was constituted by the earlier Government of Maharashtra and it came to be abolished by the successor political party in power. It is contended by Shri M.N. Shroff, learned counsel for the appellant that the decision taken by the State Government is mala fide. We find no force in the contention.
5. It may be that perception of political parties differ from one another. But when the Government found, after the political party was voted to power and the decision taken by the Cabinet to abolish the minority Commission, it cannot be characterised a mala fide decision. May be the perception may not be correct in the view of another political pa
