2005 Supreme(SC) 1006

2005(5) Supreme 669
Supreme Court of India
(From Bombay High Court)
R.C. Lahoti, CJI, D.M. Dharmadhikari & P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
Bal Patil & Anr. —Appellants
versus
Union of India & Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4730 of 1999
Decided on 8-8-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : U.U. Lalit, Sr. Advocate, Prasenjit Keswani, Nitin Sangra, Amol Chitale and Prashant Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondents : B. Datta, Additional Solicitor General, Mrs. Rekha Pandey and Hemant Sharma, Advocates.

Important point
Minorities Commissions set up at the Central or State levels have to direct their activities to maintain integrity and unity of India by gradually eliminating the minority and majority classes.

Headnote:(i) National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992—Sections 2(c) and 9—Constitution of India—Articles 25 to 30—Claim to notify ‘Jains’ as a ‘minority’ community—Maintainability—After the verdict of eleven Judges Bench in TMA Pai Foundation case, unit for determining status of both linguistic and religious minorities would be ‘state’—Before the Central Government takes decision on claims of Jains as a ‘minority’ under Section 2(c) of the Act, identification has to be done on a state basis—Statistical data produced to show that a community is numerically a minority cannot be the sole criterion.

       Held : The expression ‘minority’ has been used in Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution but it has nowhere been defined. The Preamble of the Constitution proclaims to guarantee every citizen ‘liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith & worship’. Group of Articles 25 to 30 guarantee protection of religious, cultural and educational rights to both majority and minority communities. It appears that keeping in view the consti­tutional guarantees for protection of cultural, educational and religious rights of all citizens, it was not felt necessary to define ‘minority’. Minority as understood from constitutional scheme signifies an identifiable group of people or community who were seen as deserving protection from likely deprivation of their religious, cultural and educational rights by other communities who happen to be in majority and likely to gain political power in a democratic form of Government based on election.­ (Para 11)

       In the background of constitutional scheme, the provisions of the Act therefore instead of giving definition of ‘minority’ only provide for notifying certain communities as ‘minorities’ who might require special treatment and protection of their religious, cultural and educational rights. The definition of ‘minority’ given under the Act in section 2(c) is in fact not a definition as such but only a provision enabling the Central Government to identify a community as a ‘minority’ which in the considered opinion of the Central Government deserves to be notified for the purpose of protecting and monitoring its progress and development through the Commission. (Para 12)

       The Commission set up under the Act has several functions to perform, which are provided, in section 9. The functions entrusted are for ensuring progress and development of minorities and protecting their religious, cultural and educational rights. There is no specific function conferred under section 9 on the Commission to identify any community as a ‘minority’ and recommended to the Central Government that it be so notified under section 2(c) of the Act. (Para 14)

       On considering the general functions of the Commission enumerated under section 9 which are only illustrative and not exhaustive, the Commission cannot be said to have transgressed its authority in entertaining representation, demands and counter-demands of members of Jain community for the status of ‘minority’. Keeping in view the provisions of the Act, the recommendation made by the Commission in favour of the Jains is in the nature of advice and can have no binding ­effect. The power under section 2(c) of the Act vests in the Central Government which alone, on its own assessment, has to accept or reject the claim of status of minority by a community. After the verdict in the eleven judges’ Bench in TMA Pai Foundation case (supra), the legal position stands clarified that henceforth the unit for determining status of both linguistic and religious minorities would be ‘state’. (Paras 15 and 16)

       Henceforth, before the Central Government takes decision on claims of Jains as a ‘minority’ under section 2(c) of the Act, the identification has to be done on a state basis. The power of Central Government has to be exercised not merely on the advice and recommendation of the Commission but on consideration of the social, cultural and religious conditions of the Jain community in each state. Statistical data produced to show that a community is numerically a minority cannot be the sole criterion. If it is found that a majority of the members of the community belong to the affluent class of industrialists, businessmen, professionals and propertied class, it may not be necessary to notify them under the Act as such and extend any special treatment or protection to them as minority. The provisions contained in the group of Articles 25 to 30 is a protective umbrella against the possible deprivations of fundamental right of religious freedoms of religious and linguistic minorities. (Para 17)

       It is not for this court to issue any direction or mandate on the basis of the claim of some members of the Jain community, which is opposed to by another section of the same community. (Para 19)

       (ii) National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992—Sections 2(c) and 9—Scope and nature of functions of ­National and State Commissions for ­Minorities—Commissions set up for ­minorities have to direct their activities to maintain integrity and unity of India by gradually eliminating the ­minority and majority classes.

       Held : The constitutional ideal, which can be gathered from the group of articles in the Constitution under Chapters of Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties, is to create social conditions where there remains no necessity to shield or protect rights of minority or majority. The above mentioned constitutional goal has to be kept in view by the Minorities Commissions set up at the Central or State levels. Commissions set up for minorities have to direct their activities to maintain integrity and unity of India by ­gradually eliminating the minority and majority classes. If, only on the basis of a different religious thought or less numerical strength or lack of health, wealth, education, power or social rights, a claim of a section of Indian society to the status of ‘minority’ is considered and conceded, there would be no end to such claims in a society as multi-religious and multi-linguistic as India is. A claim by one group of citizens would lead to a similar claim by another group of citizens and conflict and strife would ensue. As such, the Hindu society being based on caste, is itself divided into various minority groups. Each caste claims to be separate from the other. In a caste-ridden Indian society, no section or distinct group of people can claim to be in majority. All are minorities amongst Hindus. Many of them claim such status because of their small number and expect protection from the State on the ground that they are backward. If each minority group feels afraid of the other group, an atmosphere of mutual fear and distrust would be created posing serious threat to the integrity of our Nation. That would sow seeds of multi-nationalism in India. It is, therefore, necessary that Minority Commission should act in a manner so as to prevent generating feelings of multinationalism in various sections of people of Bharat. The Com­mission instead of encouraging claims from different communities for being added to a list of notified minorities under the Act, should suggest ways and means to help create social conditions where the list of notified minorities is gradually reduced and done away with altogether. (Paras 34, 35 and 36)

       The country has already been re­organized in the year 1956 under the States Reorganization Act on the basis of language. Differential treatments to linguistic minorities based on language within the state is understandable but if the same concept for minorities on the basis of religion is encouraged, the whole country, which is already under class and social conflicts due to various divisive forces, will further face division on the basis of religious diversities. Such claims to minority status based on religion would increase in the fond hope of various sections of people getting special protections, privileges and treatment as part of constitutional guarantee. Encouragement to such fissiparous tendencies would be a serious jolt to the secular structure of constitutional democracy.­ We should guard against making our country akin to a theocratic state based on multi-nationalism. Our concept of secularism, to put it in a nut shell, is that ‘state’ will have no religion. The states will treat all religions and religious groups equally and with equal respect without in any manner interfering with their individual rights of religion, faith and worship. Let the Commission gear its activities to keep them in right direction with the above constitutional perspective, principles and ideals in its view. (Paras 37 and 38)