High Court Of Delhi
ARYA SAMAJ EDUCATION TRUST,DELHI - Appellant
Versus
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,DELHI ADMN. - Respondent
Civil Writ 334 of 1974
Decided On : 11/17/1975
MINORITIES BASED ON RELIGION - ARTICLE 30(1) - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - INTERPRETATION - MEANING OF MINORITIES - RELIGIOUS MINORITIES - SIKHS, JAINS, ARYA SAMAJ - WHETHER MINORITIES BASED ON RELIGION - HELD, NO.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Arya Samaj, Jains, and Sikhs, challenged the validity of certain provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, and the Rules framed thereunder, as well as certain circulars issued and administrative acts done in pursuance of them, to the extent of their repugnancy to the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The respondents, the Union of India, the Delhi Administration, and the Directorate of Education, Delhi, resisted the writ petitions, contending that the petitioners were not "minorities based on religion" and were, therefore, not entitled to the protection of Article 30(1).
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners, namely, Arya Samaj, Jains, and Sikhs, were not "minorities based on religion" within the meaning of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India and were, therefore, not entitled to the protection of the said Article. The court interpreted the expression "minorities based on religion" in Article 30(1) to mean only those religious minorities which had claimed political rights separate from those of the Hindus prior to the Constitution, such as the Muslims and the Sikhs. The court further held that the Constitution recognized Sikhism, Jainism, and Buddhism as separate religions from Hinduism and that the Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists were not merely sects or parts of the Hindu religion.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners, Arya Samaj, Jains, and Sikhs, were "minorities based on religion" within the meaning of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to the protection of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the expression "minorities based on religion" in Article 30(1) to mean only those religious minorities which had claimed political rights separate from those of the Hindus prior to the Constitution, such as the Muslims and the Sikhs. 2. The court held that the Constitution recognized Sikhism, Jainism, and Buddhism as separate religions from Hinduism and that the Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists were not merely sects or parts of the Hindu religion. 3. The court held that the petitioners, Arya Samaj, Jains, and Sikhs, were not "minorities based on religion" within the meaning of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India and were, therefore, not entitled to the protection of the said Article.
Final Decision: The writ petitions filed by the petitioners, Arya Samaj, Jains, and Sikhs, were dismissed.
( 1 ) WHO are the "minorities based on religion" under Articles 30 (1) of the Constitution qualitatively and not merely numerically ? To consider this question, not covered by authority, it is useful to read Article 30 (1) which is as follows :
"all minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. "
( 2 ) THE Arya Samaj in this and in Civil Writ 1110 of 1974 on the one hand and the Jains in Civil Writ 96 of 1975 and the Sikhs in Civil Writ 660 of 1974 on the other hand have claimed to be "minorities based on religions" within the meaning of Article 30 (1 ). If the claim is proved, they would have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. They contend that certain provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the Rules framed thereunder as also of certain circulars issued and administrative acts done in pursuance of them are invalid to the extent of their repugnancy to the fundamental rights guaranteed by I Article 30 (1 ). The Union of India, the Delhi Administration and the Directorate of Education, Delhi, on the one hand, and certain teachers employed in some of the schools of the petitioners on the other hand resist these writ petitions. The preliminary ground raised by the respondents is that the petitioners are not "minorities based on religion" and are not, therefore, entitled to the protection of Article 30 (1 ). Arguments on this preliminary issue alone joined between the parties have been heard. The common stand of the respondents against the Arya Samaj, the Jains and the Sikhs is that they are all parts of Hindu religion. As the Hindus form the majority in the Union Territory of Delhi, none of the petitioners can be called to be a "minority based on religion" in Delhi. Before considering the individual contentions of the petitioners, the meaning of the expression "minorities based on religion" may be considered. To attract these words three elements are necessary, namely, (1) existence of a minoirty, (2) it being based on religion, and (3) the basis being "religion" in the sense in which the word is used in Article 30 (1 ). Meaning of "minority" in Article 30 (1) :
( 3 ) ORIGINALLY the draft of the Fundamental Rights was submitted along with the Report of the Sub Committee on Fundamental Rights on 16th April, 1947 to the Constituent Assembly. It did not contain any provision corresponding to Article 30 (1 ). (B. Shiva Rao II, The Framing of India s Constitution, 169 to 176 ). K. M. Munshi, however, submitted a letter (Ibid. , 202) in which the right now contained in Article 30 (1) (along with some other rights) was proposed to be conferred on "national minorities. . . . . . . . based on religion. " Munshi explained the genesis of his proposal as being from the minorities rights embodied in the Polise Treaty of 28th June 1919 which became a part of the Polish Constitution (Ibid. , 278 ). It is well known that the problem of national minorities bedevilled Europe and was tried to be settled by the Treaty of Versailles after the First World War, the Polish Treaty being a part of the settlement. The political element in the use of the word "minority" is signified by the adjective "national" to qualify the word "minority" both in the Polish Treaty and in Munshi s draft. Munshi s proposal was accepted by the Sub-Committee on Minorities and was embodied as an annexure to their interim report (Ibid. , 209 ). Later, para 18 of the draft Fundamental Rights contained the provisions corresponding to the present Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution, In this draft both these rights were conferred on "minorities". The Drafting Committee, however, distinguished between the right of any section of citizens to conserve their language script or culture (later embodied in Article 29) and the right of all minorities based on religion or language to establish and administer educatio
Management Shahdara Delhi Saharanpur Light Railway Co Ltd v. S S Railway Workers Union
Rt Rev Bishop S K Patro v. State of Bihar
Sastri Yagnapurushadji v. Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya
Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Patna v. State of Bihar
Dipendra Nath Sarkar v. State of Bihar
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.