JUDGMENT

FAZAL ALI, J. (For himself and on behalf of A. Varadarajan, J.) :- The most difficult and delicate task of our founding fathers while framing the Constitution of the largest democracy in the world was to protect, preserve and safeguard the interests of the minorities and the backward classes in order to retain the secular nature of our Constitution. Perhaps they feared that a time may come when the overwhelming majority may overshadow or dominate, devour or destroy the educational, cultural and social rights of the minorities and wreck their individuality and personality. It was this central theme that runs through the entire Constitution which has provided sufficient safeguards to protect and preserve the minority educational institutions which is the most important and vocal medium through which this section of the society can speak and seek to redress its grievances.

2. In this appeal we are merely concerned with the rights and obligations of the State for the protection of minority institutions and for this avowed purpose Art. 30 was enshrined in our Constitution so that they may not suffer from a sense of inferiority complex and are able to throw themselves into the main stream of the economic and political life of the country so its to march forward with the temper of the times and the needs of the nation. Although Art. 30 is not included in Part III of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees certain fundamental rights, yet this Court starting from the Kerala Education Bills case 1959 SCR 995, which is the locus classicus on the point in issue, right up to the case of Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society v. State of Gujarat, (1975) 1 SCR 173 and ending with All Saints High School, Hyderabad v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, (1980) 2 SCC 478 has clearly reconised that running of minority institutions is also as fundamental and important as the rights conferred on the other citizens of the country. Perhaps the only difference is that the rights contained in Art. 30 have in independent sphere of their own. A close scrutiny and study or the various decisions of this Court reveal that the freedoms guaranteed by Art. 30 are also elevated to the status of a full-fledged fundamental right within the field in which they operate. In other words, any State action which in any way destroys, curbs or interferes with such rights would be violative of Art. 30.

3. In the instant case we are mainly concerned with the rights, privileges and status or minority institutions. In dwelling on these matters four important aspects or facets have been considered by this Court, viz., :-

1) right of the minority institutions to get aid from the Government.

2) right to get affiliation from the Universities,

3) nature and extent of the autonomy which such institutions enjoy in their internal discipline and administration, and

4) right to be protected from undue or repeated interference in the independence of the institutions in the garb of achieving excellence in the standards of education.

4. The first question to be determined is whether the minority insitutions have a fundamental right to get aid from the Government or affiliation from the Universities as a matter of course. In other words, the question posed is whether the right to affiliation or to obtain aid from the Government is a fundamental right or not so as to violate Art. 30. Technically speaking the answer to this question is in the negative but it must be stressed that the refusal to give aid or affiliation by the statutory authorities without just and sufficient grounds amounts to violation of the fundamental freedoms enshrined in Art. 30 of the Constitution. If the Government withholds giving aid or a university refuses to grant affiliation, the direct consequence would be to destroy the very existence of the Institution itself because there may be a number of minority institutions which may not exist without the Government aid and a large number of students admitted to these institu