Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 67
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J.
Gnyana Mandir Trust - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 16410, 16411, 13109, 13110, 17298, 17299, 23948 of 2018, 32825 of 2017
Decided On : 07-01-2019
Basavaraj S, Adv., Pramodhini Kishan, Adv., Shashikantha, Adv., Omkar Kambi, Adv., Pramodhini Kissan, Adv., Promodini Kishan, Adv., C. Shashikantha, Adv., Promodhini Kishan, Adv., S.M. Chandrashekar, Adv., K.S. Anusuya Devi, Adv., C. Shashikanta, Adv., B.S. Pramod, Adv., Dhanalakshmi K, Adv.
The main legal point established is the significance of identifying linguistic minorities for claiming minority status and exemption under the RTE Act, in accordance with the protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Article 30 - Linguistic Minorities - RTE Act, 2009 - Section 2(c) of NCM Act, 1992, Section 2(f) of NCMEI Act, 2004 - The court discussed the protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India for linguistic minorities and the provisions of the RTE Act, 2009. It highlighted the importance of identifying linguistic minorities for claiming minority status and exemption under the RTE Act. The court directed the State Government to identify linguistic minorities and the Central Government to issue a notification for the grant of linguistic minority status within three months.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner institutions claimed protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India as linguistic minorities and sought relief from coercive action under the RTE Act, 2009.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the identification of linguistic minorities is crucial for claiming minority status and exemption under the RTE Act. It directed the State Government to identify linguistic minorities and the Central Government to issue a notification for the grant of linguistic minority status within three months.
Issues: The issues revolved around the protection of linguistic minorities under Article 30, the identification of linguistic minorities, and the grant of minority status for exemption under the RTE Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the identification of linguistic minorities is essential for claiming minority status and exemption under the RTE Act, emphasizing the importance of protecting the fundamental rights of linguistic minorities.
Final Decision: The court directed the State Government to press the Central Government for the issuance of a notification identifying linguistic minorities and the Central Government to process the claim for the issuance of such a notification within three months.
KRISHNA S.DIXIT, J.
1. The petitioner institutions and their Managements are before this Court claiming that these institutions are established by the linguistic minorities and therefore, they have protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. In effect, they seek a relief from the coercive action taken by the official respondents under the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereafter 'RTE Act, 2009'), the plurality of prayers made in the petition, notwithstanding.
2. After service of notice, the respondent-State has entered appearance through the learned AGA, Smt. Pramodhini Kishan; the respondent National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (hereafter, 'the Commission') is represented by the Additional Solicitor General of India, Sri. C. Shashikantha; the other respondent the Union of India is represented by the Additional Central Government Counsel, Smt. K.S. Anusuya Devi. The respondent children who have been allotted seats under the RTE Quota are represented by their counsel, Smt. Dhanalakshmi K, who has not made any submission. At their request, all these cases are clubbed together and heard as common questions of facts and law have arisen, notwithstanding the varying prayers made in the Writ Petitions.
3. The State Government has filed its Statement of Objections resisting the writ petition. The respondent-Central Government has filed a memo dated 19.03.2018, paras 3 and 4 whereof read as under:
"3. Thus, it is observed that the problems of linguistic minorities are to be resolved by the State Government. It is not the domain of Central Government to declare linguistic minorities in a particular State. The Central Government has notified six religious minority communities under Section 2(c) of NCM Act, 1992. These communities are Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Parsi, Bhuddhist and Jain. As per the Section 2(f) of NCMEI Act, 2004 minority means a community notified as such by the Central Government. It is worth mentioning that this Act is governed by Ministry of HRD and they can amend their provisions to include any community as minority. The religious minorities notified under the NCM Act, 1992 have been adopted for use by the M/o HRD to the purpose of the NCMEI Act, 2004 and this Ministry has nothing to say in this regard.
4. In view of the position clarified above, it is informed that the Ministry of Minority Affairs is not concerned with the issue for declaring/notifying any community as linguistic minority and also that the subject matter falls in the purview of the State Government concerned. It is not out of place to point out the State Government of Maharashtra has declared Jews as minority community in the State while jews are not covered under the NCM Act, 1992.
Wherefore, the 7th Respondent prays this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to consider the above facts and direct the State Government to take necessary action in this regard, in the interest of justice and equity."
4. Acting on the said Memo filed by the Central Government, this Court vide order dated 21.08.2018 had directed the respondent State Government to take steps for identifying the linguistic minorities in the State of Karnataka. Paragraph No.7 of the said order reads as under:
"7. Learned AGA submits that so long as the institution is not recognized as a minority institution, it cannot claim the status as minority institution and cannot be kept outside the purview of RTE Act. The said submission would have force only if the State identifies the linguistic minorities in the first instance. Without identifying the linguistic minorities in the State, it is not possible for any institution to claim the status of a linguistic minority institution. Identification of the linguistic minority is a cardinal aspect in order to have protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. It is not that any educational institution can claim the status of a minority institution, it is only religious o
