Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
D.N. Patel, C. Hari Shankar, JJ.
Surjan Singh Risal Singh Memorial Education Society - Appellant
Versus
Human Resource Development Ministry - Respondent
W.P.(C) 602 of 2018
Decided On : 26-11-2019
The Central Government has the authority to define minority communities under the Act, and non-inclusion of certain groups does not violate constitutional rights.
Headnote:(A) National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 - Section 2(f) - Constitution of India - Articles 14, 29, and 30 - Public Interest Litigation challenging the notification of minority communities - Non-inclusion of linguistic minorities in the minority list is not violative of the Act, as defined by the Central Government. The Court held that the determination of minority status lies within the Government's purview and the petitioner's claim infringes on legislative authority. The notification listed five communities and was deemed valid, with the court dismissing the petition for lack of merit. (Paras 2, 6, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to quash the notification declaring five communities as minorities under the Act, claiming exclusion of linguistic minorities violated constitutional rights.
Findings of Court:
The petition lacked merit; the power to define minority rests with the Central Government and there exists no legal basis for the claims of non-inclusion of linguistic minorities.
Issues: Whether the non-inclusion of linguistic minorities in the minority communities list violates constitutional and statutory provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The Central Government has the discretion to define minority communities consistent with the Act's purposes, and the court cannot mandate inclusion of additional communities.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the public interest litigation and minority communities listed. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's contention on violation of constitutional articles. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments related to eligibility for commission membership. (Para 5 , 14) |
| 4. reference to bal patil case and its relevance. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. definition and enabling provisions of minority status. (Para 8 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. dismissal of the writ petition based on legal reasoning. (Para 13 , 17) |
| 7. implications of adding communities to minority list. (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT
D.N. Patel, Chief Justice (Oral)--This Public Interest Litigation has been preferred for the following prayers:
"(a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari for quashing of Notification No.F.7-5/2005-MC(P), dated January 18, 2005.
(b) Pass any other order/order (s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit."
2. The Government of India pursuant to the powers conferred under Section 2 (f) of National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act, 2004') issued Notification No.F.7-5/2005-MC(P) dated 18th January, 2005 (Annexure P-1 to the memo of this writ petition) whereby the following five entities have been notified as the minority communities for the purpose of the Act--
(1) Muslims,
(2) Christians,
(3) Sikhs,
(4) Buddhists and
(5) Zoroastrians (Parsis).
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that looking to the statement of objects and reasons and also looking to the provisions of the Act, 2004, the aforesaid notification is violative of Article 14, 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India and is also violative of the Act, 2004 mainly for the reason that linguistic minority within the National Capital Territory of Delhi should also have been declared as minority communities for the purpose of the Act, 2004.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has made no submission as to the legality of the aforesaid five minority communities or as to whether they are rightly or wrongly added in the aforesaid notification. The main contention put forth by the counsel for the petitioner is that the non-inclusion of linguistic minority in the list of minority communities within the State of Delhi is against the purpose of the aforesaid Act and thus, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
5. The Petitioner in the writ avers that Section 4 lays down the qualification and requirements for appointment to the post of the Chairperson or Members. Section 4 read with Section 2(f) makes a person belonging to any other religious community ineligible to become a part of the Commission.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguments, has placed reliance on Bal Patil & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 690.
7. We, however, fail to see how this judgment supports his case. The petitioner in Bal Patil (Supra) challenged the notification issued by virtue of the power conferred under Section 2(c) of the National Commission for Minority Act, 1992 whereby the Central Government notified certain communities as `minorities' vis-a-vis exclusion of a certain community, thus being violative of Articles 14, 25 to 30 of the Constitution of India.
8. Paragraph 11 and 12 of Bala Patil (supra) bear significance and hence are reproduced hereinbelow:
"11. The expression "minority" has been used in Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution but it has nowhere been defined. The Preamble of the Constitution proclaims to guarantee every citizen "liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith & worship". Group of Articles 25 to 30 guarantee protection of religious, cultural and educational rights to both majority and minority communities. It appears that keeping in view the constitutional guarantees for protection of cultural, educational and religious rights of all citizens, it was not felt necessary to define 'minority'. Minority as understood from constitutional scheme signifies an identifiable group of pe
