The rights of minorities to establish educational institutions under Article 30 are not absolute and can be overridden by compelling public interests, particularly regarding essential services like electricity.

JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The petitioner no. 1 is a company registered under Section 25 of the COMPANIES ACT , with the declared object of promoting the educational opportunities in the countries, particularly for the Christian Minorities and students of weaker sections of society.

2. The first petitioner is the absolute owner of the plot-in-question. The second petitioner is a technical campus established by the first petitioner on the said land to serve educational interest of minority communities and weaker sections in eastern India and is approved by several Universities and educational institutions.

3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent no. 1- Transmission Company is installing High-Tension overhead line over the said property, thereby virtually rendering it impossible for the petitioners to set up and run the educational institution proposed for the religious minorities and weaker sections of society. It is argued that Article 30 of the Constitution confers rights on minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. Clause (1A) thereof stipulates that in making any law providing for compulsory acquisition of any property of an educational institution established and administered by minorities, the State shall ensure that the amount fixed by or determined under such law for acquisition of such property is such as would not restrict or abrogate the right guaranteed under that Clause.

4. Learned counsel places reliance on the said provision and argues that WBSETCL (West Bengal Electricity Transmission Company Limited) is attempting to violate such constitutionally-guaranteed right of the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel places reliance on the West Bengal Government's Policy and Guidelines for setting up private universities dated January 31, 2013, which was notified in the Official Gazette on February 1, 2013. As per the requirement of the same, in order to set up a university, the land on which the same is set up has to be unencumbered, which provision would not be met if the High Tension (HT) line is continued to be installed over the said property.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of Rev. Sidhajbhai Sabhai and others v. State of Bombay and another, where the purpose of Article 31(1) was discussed. The Supreme Court observed, inter alia, that the right established under the said provision is a fundamental right declared in terms absolute. Unlike the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Article 19, it is not subject to reasonable restrictions, but 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 Supreme Court further observed that 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. Otherwise, the right guaranteed under Article 30(1) will be but a “teasing illusion”, a promise of unreality.

7. Learned counsel next cites The Society of St. Josep