Back
High Court Of Calcutta
U.C.Banerjee, J.
Maheswari Balika V1dyalaya
Vs.
State Of West Bengal
C. R. No. 6875 (W) of 1984
Decided On : Apr 22, 1988
MINORITY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS - RIGHT TO ESTABLISH AND ADMINISTER - SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS - REASONABLE REGULATORY MEASURES PERMISSIBLE - APPEAL COMMITTEE'S JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN APPEALS FROM MINORITY INSTITUTIONS - VALIDITY OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - Vires of the Statute - Not Challenged - No Interference by Court.
Fact of the Case:
Maheswari Sabha, a registered society, established and administered Maheswari Balika Vidyalaya and Maheswari Vidyalaya. The petitioners contended that the Maheswari community is a distinct sect of Vaishnavism and a minority community within the meaning of Articles 26, 29, and 30 of the Constitution. The respondents, however, contended that Vaishnavism is a reformed sect of Hinduism and cannot be termed a separate religion for the purpose of Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The issue arose as to whether the expression "shall have the right" in Article 30(1) implies an absolute and unfettered right or whether some restraint is necessary to avoid arbitrary administration.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the right to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 30(1) is not absolute and is subject to reasonable regulatory measures by the State. The State has the authority to issue directives for the proper conduct and efficient administration of minority institutions, including hearing objections or grievances of teachers. However, such measures should not interfere with the administration and management of the school.
Issues: 1. Whether the right to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution is absolute and unfettered or subject to reasonable regulatory measures by the State? 2. Whether the State can interfere with the administration of minority institutions by hearing objections or grievances of teachers? 3. Whether the Appeal Committee has jurisdiction to entertain appeals from minority institutions?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the right to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 30(1) is not absolute and is subject to reasonable regulatory measures by the State. The State has the authority to issue directives for the proper conduct and efficient administration of minority institutions, including hearing objections or grievances of teachers. However, such measures should not interfere with the administration and management of the school. 2. The Court held that the State can interfere with the administration of minority institutions by hearing objections or grievances of teachers, provided that such interference is reasonable and does not violate the fundamental rights of the minority institution. 3. The Court held that the Appeal Committee has jurisdiction to entertain appeals from minority institutions, but only if it is conclusively established that the school is an institution run by a minority community.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the impugned order of the Appeal Committee was not illegal or arbitrary and did not warrant intervention by the Court.
1. FOR the purpose of conservation of language and culture by way of establishment of educational institutions for the minority community, the farmers of our Constitution thought it fit to incorporate Article 30 (1) since establishment of such an institution will effectively serve the needs of the community and to provide opportunities for scholars and other eminent persons to propagate a useful career - either as an educationist or otherwise for the benefit of the minority community. Language of Article 30 (1) of our Constitution as used by the farmers is significant. Article 30 (1) provides:
"all minorities whether based on religion or language shall have their right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. "
2. THE expression "minorities'' has a very wide import by reason of the user of the expressions "religion" or "language". Anyone of those two criteria would be able to bring home the right to establish and administer educational institution. The expression "choice" also is of very wide import since the educational institution established and administered by minority need not be of any particular class nor is it necessary that admission should be confined to members of the minority community. It may have a purely general secular character. The three decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Rev. Father v. State of Bihar (AIR 1969 SC 465), St. Xaviers college v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1974 SC 1389) and In re : Kerala Education bill (59 SCR 995) lend support to the view expressed above.
Once a minority community establish such a state of affairs on the basis of religion or language, the right to establish an educational institution ripens and there cannot be any curbing of the same. The Constitution recognises such a right. But the issues arises as to whether the expressions "shall have the right" mean and imply an absolute right; and unfettered right or some restraint somewhere ought to be exercised so as to avoid any ipsidixit. Can it be said that the right to establish and administer educational institutions mean and imply administer in any manner whatsoever as the person in control of administration deem fit? Would it be a subjective satisfaction all the time irrespective of any legitimate State control or can it be contrary to any law as is prevalent in the country? - the questions are interesting as well as important.
3. BUT before adverting into the contentions in regard thereto, a brief reference to the factual aspect ought to be made at this juncture.
4. THE petitioner no. 1 Maheswari Balika Vidyalaya and Maheswari vidyalaya said to have been established by Maheswari Sabha consisting of members of the Maheswari Community. The Maheswari Sabha is a registered society under the Societies' Registration Act 1860. The petitioners contended that Maheswari community is a distinct sect of Vaishnab community having its faith in Vaishnabism. The members of the Maheswari community belonged to a particular sect of Vaishnavism having faith in the teaching of Guru vallava Charia. The petitioners further contended that Guru Vallavacharia was a pioneer of Vaishnavism which is a reformist movement in Hindu religion and which has rejected manifold absurdities found in Smriti. Guru vallavacharia preached for service to humanity. He never believed in castism and the Vaishnab followers of Guru Vallavacharia formed a distinct religious community and are minorities within the meaning of Article 26, 29 and 30 of the Constitution. The respondents on the other hand however, contended that the word "religion" in Article 30 (1) is confined to the well-defined religion of India-such as Hinduism, Islam, Sikh ism, Christianity, Jainism, etc. It was contended that assuming that Vaishuavism is a reformed sect of Hinduism which has revolutionised the Hindu way of thinking it is a part of Hinduism and cannot be termed to be a separate religion for the purpose of Article 30 (1) of the Constitution. As regard Guru
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
