SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1966 Supreme(Pat) 43

PATNA HIGH COURT
R.L.Narasimham and G.N.Prasad JJ.
Muslim Anjuman-e-taleem
Versus
Bihar University
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1178 of 1965 ;
Decided On : MARCH 11, 1966

The right conferred by Article 30(1) of the Constitution is a real right for the protection of minorities in the matter of setting up educational institutions of their own choice and should not be whittled down by regulatory measures.

Headnote:

Fundamental Right - Minority Educational Institution - The court held that the amendments made by Bihar Act XVI of 1965 and the framing of new statutes were valid, but the Act and statutes do not apply to the institution in question in view of Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the right conferred by Article 30(1) is a real right and should not be whittled down by regulatory measures.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, members of the Muslim minority community, claimed the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 30(1) of the Constitution due to the establishment of an educational institution with the objective of imparting modern education to Muslim students.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the educational institution was established by Muslims and they were entitled to administer it. It held that the amendments made by Bihar Act XVI of 1965 and the framing of new statutes were valid, but they do not apply to the institution in question in view of Article 30(1) of the Constitution.

Issues: The main issue was the contravention of the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 30(1) of the Constitution due to the conflict between the Act and the right to administer the educational institution by the local Muslims.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the right conferred by Article 30(1) is a real right and should not be whittled down by regulatory measures. It clarified that regulations affecting the educational character of the institution must be directed to making the institution an effective vehicle of education for the minority community.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed to a limited extent, and a writ was issued to restrain the opposite party from interfering with the management of the institution under the provisions of Bihar Act XVI of 1965 and the statutes made thereunder. The validity of regulations made in the true interests of efficiency of instruction, discipline, health, sanitation, morality, public order, and the like was upheld.

Judgment

Narasimham, J.

1. Most of the legal questions involved in this application are the same as those raised in C. W. J. C. No. 62 of 1966 in which judgment has been delivered today holding that the amendments made by Bihar Act XVI of 1965 and the framing of new statutes in pursuance of the said amendment are valid.

2. But in this application a new point has been raised regarding contravention of the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 30(1) of the Constitution. It was urged that the petitioners being members of the Muslim minority community were entitled to the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 30 (1) of the Constitution because admittedly the institute in question was started with the object of "imparting" modern education to Muslim students in A manner that will conserve their distinct language, culture and religion". Necessary papers dealing with the memorandum of association of Muslim Anjuman-e-Taleem, Darbhanga, which is in charge of the educational institution in question have been filed alone with a copy of the proceedings of the meeting of the Organising Committee of the said educational institution held on 29-4-19G2. These allegations have not been controverted by the other side. I must, therefore, hold that the educational institution in question, namely, Millat College, Laheriasarai, was established by Muslims of the place and that they are entitled to administer the same.

Bihar Act XVI of 1965 confers full power on the University authorities to lay down the constitution of the governing bodies of educational institutions admitted as colleges and to suspend or dissolve the governing bodies and to appoint ad hoc committees also. Such a power is wholly repugnant to the power of the local Muslims to manage this institution as provided in the said memorandum of association. There is thus a clear conflict between the Act and Article 30 (1) of the Constitution. The true scope of Article 30 (1) of the Constitution has been explained in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Rev. Sidhrajbhai Sabbai V/s. State of Gujarat AIR 1963 SC 540, I may quote paragraph 15 :-

- "The right established by Article 30 (1) is a fundamental right declared in terms absolute. Unlike the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Article 19 it is not subject to reasonable restrictions. It is intended to be a real right for the protection of the minorities in the matter of setting up of educational institutions of their own choice. The right is intended to be effective and is not to be whittled down by so-called regulative measures conceived in the interest not of the minority educational institution, but of the public or the nation as a whole. If every order which while maintaining the formal character of a minority institution destroys the power of administration is held justifiable because it is in the public or national interest, though not In its interest as an educational institution, the right guaranteed by Article 30 (1) will be but leasing illusion, a promise, of unreality. Regulations which may lawfully be imposed either by legislative or executive action as a condition of receiving grant or of recognition must be directed to making the institution while retaining its character as a minority institution effcctve as an educational institution. 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 conducive to making the institution an effective vehicle of education for the minority community or other persons who resort to it".

Their Lordships have made it clear that the right conferred by Article 30 (1) is a real right and that in the guise of regulatory measures the character of the institution as a minority institution should not be taken away. If the governing body as required by the statutes is imposed on this educational institution, its character as an institution for imparting modern education to Muslim students will dis



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top