Back
1998 Supreme(Mad) 1136
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SIDICKK
Christian Education Health and Development Society, Ambilikkai through its Secretary Office at Ambilikkai
Versus
The Director of School Education having its Office at Madurai & Others
S.A. No. 64 of 1985
Decided On :Decided on : 27-08-1998
For the Appellant:A. Immanvel, Advocate.
For the Respondents:B. Mani, Govt. Advocate for Additional Govt. Pleader (CS).
The right to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution is not absolute and is subject to regulation. Regulatory measures are necessary for ensuring orderly, efficient, and sound administration of educational institutions.
Headnote:
MINORITY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS - PROTECTION UNDER ARTICLE 30 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION - TAMIL NADU RECOGNISED PRIVATE SCHOOLS (REGULATION) ACT OF 1973 - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - RIGHT TO ESTABLISH AND ADMINISTER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS - SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS - REGULATORY MEASURES FOR AFFILIATION AND ADMINISTRATION - BALANCE BETWEEN AUTONOMY AND REGULATION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Christian Educational Society, filed a suit seeking a declaration that its institutions are minority institutions protected under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution and a permanent injunction restraining the respondents, government officials, from interfering in their administration. The trial court granted the reliefs sought, but the first appellate court reversed the decision, holding that the institutions were not minority institutions. The appellant challenged this decision in a second appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the institutions run by the appellant society were minority institutions entitled to protection under Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution. It found that the society was formed by Christian individuals with the object of establishing and maintaining educational and charitable institutions in the spirit of Christ and faith in Christ. The court also held that the lower appellate court erred in concluding that the institutions were not minority institutions merely because they admitted students from different communities.
Issues: 1. Whether the institutions run by the appellant society are minority institutions protected under Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution? 2. Whether the respondents can be restrained by permanent injunction from passing any orders affecting the administration of the appellant's institutions under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act of 1973?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the institutions run by the appellant society were minority institutions entitled to protection under Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution. It relied on the following factors: - The society was formed by Christian individuals with the object of establishing and maintaining educational and charitable institutions in the spirit of Christ and faith in Christ. - The institutions were administered by an association belonging to a minority community. - There was a proper mix of students from different communities in all the institutions. 2. The court held that the appellant was not entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from passing any orders affecting the administration of the institutions under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act of 1973. It relied on the following principles: - The right to administer educational institutions under Article 30(1) is not absolute and is subject to regulation. - Regulatory measures are necessary for ensuring orderly, efficient, and sound administration of educational institutions. - The government and the Director of School Education can frame rules and regulations governing the conditions of service of teachers and other matters related to the administration of the institutions.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the second appeal in part. It modified the judgment and decree of the first appellate court and decreed the suit partly for the relief of declaration only. The relief of permanent injunction was negatived. The appellant was directed to pay the costs of the respondents throughout and to bear its own costs in all the courts.
1. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants before the trial Court.
2. The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 1115/79 on the file of Principal District Munsifs Court at Madurai for declaration that the institutions of the appellant/plaintiff are minority institutions protected under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from passing any order affecting the administration of the institutions of the appellant/plaintiff invoking Sections 3, 8, 10 to 18, 21 to 26, 31, 34, 39 to 47, 51 and 56 (2)(f) of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act of 1973 (Tamil Nadu Act
29 of 1974) and the Rules 9, 12, 13. 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Rules, 1974.
3. It is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that the plaintiffs society was duly registered under the Societies Registration Act of 1860 originally in the name of “Christian English School Society” and later the name of the Plaintiffs society was altered as “Christian Education Health and Development Society,” and the plaintiffs society was founded with the object of “Establishment, maintenance and development of educational, health, technical and other charitable institutions and preparation, implementation and follow up of other projects of similar developmental nature in and around Oddanchatram, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District in Tamil Nadu and for providing education and medical care ot the highest quality in the spirit of “Christ with emphasis on moral and spiritual values”, and in pursuance of the above object the plaintiffs society established (a) Christian English High School at Oddanchatram, (b) Shantiniketan Higher Secondary School at Ambilikkai, (c) Elementary School at Soraikkai Pattim and (d) Elementary School at Siruvattukkadu, and the plaintiffs society is administering the above mentioned institutions as a member of the minority community of Protestant Christians and they are entitled to the protection guaranteed in Article 30
(1) of Indian Constitution, and the respondent/defendants having knowledge about the character of the minority institutions run by the appellant/plaintiff refused to accept the status of the minority institutions run by the appellant/plaintiff and they are trying to interfere in the administration of plaintiffs institutions, and hence the present suit is filed.
4. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by the defendants 1, 3, and 4 raising the following contentions:— The momorandum of Articles of the Plaintiffs association and the by-laws of the plaintiffs society will have to be scrutinised for the purpose of finding out the objects for which the plaintiffs association was formed. Merely because one of the objects of the plaintiffs association was to run certain schools, it cannot automatically mean that the institutions are being run i n the interest of the minority community viz, Protestant Christians. The Management of the Schools run by the Plaintiffs society, even assuming it to be true, will not show that the schools are being administered for the promotion of Christian religion only. Merely because more than 65 per cent of teachers are Christians will not confer upon the schools run by the plaintiff the status of minority institutions. It is not admitted by the defendants that the plaintiffs society is being subsidised by West Germany Christian Organisations, that the schools established and administered by the plaintiffs society are in the interest of Christian Community alone. The plaintiffs society are not maintaining the schools for the purpose referred to in para 8 of the plaint. The allegations in paras 9 and 10 of the plaint that the plaintiffs institutions are minority institutions protected under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution and as such exempted from the various provisions of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regul
