Point of Law: Educational institutions - Protects right of minorities - Discrimination on basis of religion, caste, sex etc - It is clear that framers of Constitution intended that State shall not deny to any person equality before law or equal protection of laws within territory of India.

JUDGMENT :

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

This is a Public Interest Litigation filed by a registered Organisation registered under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 at the office of the District Registrar, Ernakulam. According to the petitioner, the aims and objects of the petitioner Organisation include fight against discrimination on the basis of religion, caste, sex etc. and for maintaining equality among the citizens and peace and tranquility in all fields of life and to uphold the principles of secularism.

2. The grievance highlighted by the petitioner is in regard to the minority status continued to the Muslim and Christian communities in the State of Kerala, since according to the petitioner, the members of such communities have grown up to such a level in the fields of socioeconomic and education, and therefore, their status is to be redetermined. It is also submitted that the report of the Committee appointed by the State Government, namely Paloli Muhammed kutty Committee, is a falsely created one suppressing the facts and figures so as to give undue advantage to the Muslim Communities and as such, it cannot be acted upon.

3. It was the predominant submission that the original inhabitants of India were termed as Hindus, and later with the advent of the Arabs and Christian Missionaries, several citizens of this country got converted to Islam and Christianity. It is also the case that the British regime, as part of their strategy to perpetuate their rule, divided the inhabitants as Hindus, Muslims and Christians etc. According to the petitioner, neither the Constitution nor any other enactments have defined the term 'minority'. But, the Government of India introduced an enactment by name National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992 and even in the said Act, instead of defining minority, certain religious communities were included in the list of minorities.

4. The petitioner has also pointed out various facets of the Act, 1992 and also rely upon the judgments of the Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka [2002 (8) SCC 481] and Bal Patil and another v. Union of India and others [AIR 2005 SCC 3172] to contend that minority rights are not defined anywhere in the Constitution. The petitioner has also raised a contention with respect to the political advantage secured by the members of the Muslim and Christian communities in the State of Kerala, and has further pointed out the names of the Chief Ministers of the State belonging to the minority communities to contend that the members of the Muslims and Christians in Kerala had enough representation in the Ministry and the assembly from 1957 onwards.

5. That apart, it is stated that the data provided by the petitioner shows that the Ministers and members of the Legislative assembly belonging to the aforesaid communities were in the integral part of the decision making process and were holding powerful, valuable, and substantial portfolios and were in the forefront of developmental activities. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention of the petitioner is that it is crystal clear that at no point of time, they were subjected to any sort of discrimination and there is no chance of any apprehension on their part that the majority communities will dominate them. According to the petitioner, the minority communities have dominated the majority communities from the very inception of elected Governments in Kerala. That apart, it was submitted that in the field of education, the Muslims and Christians communities are much more advanced than the communities in the Hindu folder, and as an attempt to substantiate the same, petitioner has set out the details of various self financing and other colleges and educational institutions in the State of Kerala owned and managed by the minority communities.

6. In the writ petition, the petitioner has also pointed out other facts and figures in the matter of representation of minority communities in various important walks of life, presumably wi