Supreme Court of India
DAYANAND ANGLO VEDIC (DAV) COLLEGE TRUST AND MANAGEMENT SOCIETYversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
- Citation
- 2013 INSC 194
- Decided
- 22 March 2013
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- S S NIJJAR
Holding
An educational institution can claim linguistic minority status under Article 30 only if it is both established and administered by persons who are a linguistic minority in that state.
Summary
The Dayanand Anglo Vedic (DAV) College Trust and Management Society, a Hindi‑speaking institution, sought recognition as a linguistic minority educational institution in Maharashtra. Although initially granted, the state withdrew the status on the ground that most trustees resided outside Maharashtra and therefore were not a linguistic minority in that state. The Society appealed, raising the question whether a person who is a linguistic non‑minority in one state can establish a trust in another state and claim minority status there. The Supreme Court held that under Article 30, both the establishment and administration of a minority institution must be by persons who are a minority in the concerned state; a non‑minority cannot claim such status. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the withdrawal of minority status upheld.
Issues considered
- Whether a linguistic minority status can be claimed by an institution whose trustees are not members of the linguistic minority in the state where the institution operates.
- Interpretation of the terms 'establish' and 'administer' under Article 30 of the Constitution.
- Whether the State can withdraw previously granted minority status on the basis of trustees' residence.
- Whether the Maharashtra Government Resolution requiring two‑thirds of trustees to belong to the minority community is a mandatory condition.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Article 30linguistic minorityminority statusestablishmentadministrationeducational institutionMaharashtratrust lawstate regulationminority certification
Judgment
[2013] 4 S.C.R. 821
DAYANAND ANGLO VEDIC (DAV) COLLEGE TRUST A
AND MANAGEMENT SOCIETY
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 2678 of 2013)
B
MARCH 22, 2013
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.]
Constitution of India 1950 - Article 30 - Linguistic
educational institution - Establishment and administration of C
- In a State - By a member of linguistic non-minority in another
State - Held: In order to claim linguistic status for an institution
in any State, the institution should have been established and
should be administered by the persons who are minority in
suchJ3tate - A non-minority in another State cannot establish, D
administer and run such institution.
Words and Phrases: 'Establish' and 'Administer' -
Meaning of, in the context of Article 30 of the Constitution of
India, 1950.
E
Appellant-Society filed writ petition before High Court
challenging the order of respondent No.2 withdrawing
the linguistic minority status of the appellant-institution
on the ground that since majority of the trustees were not
residents of the State of Maharashtra, they could not be F
called linguistic minority. High Court dismissed the
petition.
In appeal to this Court, the question for
consideration was whether a member of linguistic non- G
minority in one State can establish a Trust or Society in
another State and claim minority status in that State.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
821 H
822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 4 S.C.R.
A HELD: 1. The view taken by the High Court that the
State Government had a right to correct the n:iistake if any
certificate granting minority linguistic status is granted
contrary to law; and that as admittedly the trustees of the
appellant do not reside in the State of Maharashtra, where
B Hindi speaking people are linguistic minority, the
appellant-Trust/Society cannot claim to be a minority
institution, is justified. The rights conferred by Article 30
of the Constitution to the minority are in two parts. The
first part is the right to establish the institution of
c minority's choice and the second part relates to the right
to administration of such institution. [Paras 24 and 25]
[844-F-H; 845-A]
2. Though Article 30 itself does not lay down any
limitation upon the right of a minority to administer its
D educational institution but this right is not absolute. This
is subject to reasonable regulations for the benefit of the
institution. The State Government and Universities can
issue directions from time to time for the maintenance of
the standard and excellence of such institution which is
E necessary in the national interest. The Government
Resolution dated 4.7.2008 prescribes a procedure for
granting minority status. The Resolution, inter alia,
permits the persons of the State of Maharashtra whose
mother tongue is Indian language other than Marathi will
F be eligible to submit an application for recognition of their
linguistic minority educational institution. The only rider
put is that the minimum 2/3rd trustees of the Management
Committee of the Society/Institution should be from the
concerned minority community. [Paras 29 and 30] [849-
G A-D]
3. In order to claim minority/linguistic status for an
institution in any State, the authorities must be satisfied
firstly that the institution has been established by the
persons who are minority in such State; and, secondly,
H the right of administration of the said minority linguistic
DAYANANDANGLO VEDIC (DAV) COLLEGE TR. AND MANG 823
SOC. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
institution is also vested in those persons who are A
minority in such State. The right conferred by Article 30
of the Constitution cannot be interpreted as if irrespective
of the persons who established the institution in the State
for the benefit of persons who are minority, any person,
be it non-minority in other place, can administer .and run B
such institution. [Para 31) [849-E-G]
State of Kera/a Etc. vs. Mother Provincial Etc. AIR 1970
SC 2079: 1971 (1) SCR 734; S.P. Mittal Etc. vs. Union of
India and Ors. AIR 1983 SC 1: 1983 (1) SCR 729; A.P.
Christians Medical Educational Society vs. Government of C
Andhra Pradesh and Anr. AIR 1986 SC 1490: 1986 (2) SCR
749; S. Azeez Basha and Anr. Etc. vs. The Union of India Etc.
AIR 1968 SC 662: 1968 SCR 833 ·relied on.
T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka D
and Ors. (2002) 8 sec 481: 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 P.A.
lnamdar and Ors. vs. State of aharashtra and Ors. (2005) 6
SCC 537: 2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 603; Kera/a Educational Bill,
1957, In re. 1959 SCR 995 • referred to.
E
D.A. V. College Etc. Etc. vs. State of Punjab and Ors.
(1971) 2 SCC 269; Kanya Junior High School, Bal Vidya
Mandir, Etah, U.P. vs. U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad,
Allahabad, U.P. and Ors. (2006) 11 SCC 92: 2006 (4) Suppl.
SCR 813 • cited.
F
Case Law Reference:
(1971) 2 sec 209 cited Para 8
2006 (4) Suppl. SCR 813 cited Para 8
G
2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 referred to Para 13
2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 603 referred to Para 14
1959 SCR 995 referred to Para 15
H
824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 4 S.C.R.
A 1971 (1) SCR 734 relied on Para 25
1983 (1) SCR 729 relied on Para 26
1986 (2) SCR 749 relied on Para 27
1968 SCR 833 relied on Para 28
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
2678 of 2013.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.02.2010 of the
c High Court of Bombay in W.P. No. 1053 of 2010.
Ranjit Kumar, S.S. Ray, Rakhi Ray, Nikunj Dayal, Vaibhav
Gulia, Paya! Dayal, Pramod Dayal for the Appellant.
Shankar Chillarge, Asha Gopalan Nair for the
D Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M.Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Leave granted.
E 2. The appellant - Dayanand Anglo Vedic (DAV) College
Trust and Management Society has challenged the order dated
24.2.2010 passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High
Court in Writ Petition No.1053 of 2010. By the said order, the
Division Bench dismissed the writ petition and refused to
F interfere with the order dated 26.10.2009 passed by respondent
No.2 {The Principal Secretary and Competent Authority, Minority
Development Department, Government of Maharashtra)
withdrawing the linguistic minority status of the appellant
institution which was earlier granted by order dated 11.7.2008.
G 3. The withdrawal of the recommendation for the appellant-
Society as linguistic minority institution was on the ground that
the earlier order granting recommendation was under the
mistake that the trustees of the appellant were residing in the
State of Maharashtra.
H
DAYANANDANGLO VEDIC (DAV) COLLEGE TR. AND MANG 825
SOC. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [M.Y EQBAL, J.]
4. The brief facts leading to this appeal are thus: The A
appellant-Society was formed in the year 1885; and it was
originally got registered under the Societies' Registration Act,
1860 at Lahore & subsequently in the year 1948 in the State
of Punjab. Since then, the appellant is said to have established
a large number of schools and colleges all over India and is B
running such institutions all over the country. The aims and
objects of the appellqnt-Society as stated are to establish
educational institutions to encourage the study of Hindi,
classical Sanskrit and Vedas and also to provide instructions
in English and other languages, Arts, science including c
Medicine, Engineering etc. The appellant's further case is that
the Society started educational institutions at Solapur in the
State of Maharashtra in 1940 and is having other schools and
colleges at different places in the State of Maharashtra. The
persons speaking Hindi language and the followers of Arya D
Samaj in the State of Maharashtra constituted less than 50%
of its total population. Therefore, being formed by the persons
belonging to Arya Samaj and speaking Hindi language, the
appellant-Society claimed to be a linguistic minority within the
meaning and purview of Article 30 of the Constitution of India.
On these facts, the appellant-Society stated that it was earlier E
granted linguistic minority status in the State of Maharashtra by
the Higher and Technical Educational Department of the
respondents for the academic years 2004-05 and 2005-06. The
said recognition was granted after full appreciation of the
documents and hearing of the appellant. For the year 2006-07 F
also, the appellant-Society was declared a linguistic minority
after appreciation of documents. However, in the year 2008,
the Government of Maharashtra issued a new Resolution dated
04.07.2008 laying down the procedure for granting status of
religious/linguistic minority to educational institutions run by the G
minorities in the State of Maharashtra. On the basis of said
Resolution, the respondents issued a Certificate on 11.7.2008
recognizing the appellant-Society at Solapur as a linguistic
minority institution for the academic year 2008-09 also.
H
826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 4 S.C.R.
A 5. The problem started after the appellant-Society made
an application on 15. 7.2008 requesting respondent No. 1 to
issue certificate of recognition in the name of appellant New
Delhi instead of Solapur. Instead of correcting the alleged
mistake in the Certificate, respondent No.2 passed an order
B dated 2.8.2008 cancelling the Certificate dated 11.7.2008
issued to the appellant. The respondents by the aforesaid order
cancelled the recognition of the appellant as a minority linguistic
educational institution for the years 2004-05 and 2006-07 also.
The main ground for cancellation of recognition of the linguistic
c minority status of the appellant was that though the appellant-
Trust was registered under the Bombc:y Public Trust Act by the
Charity Commissioner, Mumbai, a majority of the trustees were
not residents of the State of Maharashtra and, therefore they
cannot be called a linguistic minority.
D 6. Challenging the aforesaid order of the respondents
cancelling the recognition, the appellant-Society moved the
Bombay High Court by filing Writ Petition No.284 of 2009,
which was finally disposed of with a direction to the respondents
to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing and
E considering all the documents of the appellant. In compliance
of that order, the appellant filed a fresh application on
20.08.2009 together with all the necessary documents
requesting respondent No. 2 to restore the linguistic minority
status of the appellant. The said respondent, after hearing the
F appellant-Society, finally rejected the application in terms of
order dated 26.10.2009 refusing to restore the earlier
recognition of linguistic minority status granted to the appellant.
The appellant-Society then challenged the order dated
26.10.2009 by filing a writ petition being Writ Petition No.1053
G of 2010 before the Bombay High Court. The said writ petition
was finally heard and dismissed by the Division Bench of the
Bombay High Court by impugned order dated 24.2.2010. For
better appreciation, the aforesaid order dated 24.2.2010 is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
H
DAYANAND ANGLO VEDIC (DAV) COLLEGE TR. AND IMNG 827
SOC. v. STATE OF IMHARASHTRA [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
"The Petitioner-institution was given initially A
recommendation as minority institution. But because that
recommendation was given under a mistake that the
trustees of the Petitioner reside in the State of
Maharashtra. The trustees of the Petitioner are claiming
to be belonging to linguistic minority because they are s
Hindi speaking people. But all the trustees of the Petitioner
are residing in the area where majority language is Hindi.
The authorities, therefore, have said that the Petitioner-
trust cannot claim to be an institution belonging to linguistic
minority in the State of Maharashtra. The learned counsel c
appearing for the Petitioner submitted that as a certificate
was granted on 11.6.2008 (sic. 11.7.2008) it could not
have been withdrawn by the impugned order.
The submission is not well founded. Because it is the
case of the Government that certificate was issued under D
a mistake. In our opinion, therefore, the State Government
had a right to correct that mistake. What is further pertinent
to note is that the .Petitioner itself returned the certificate
which had been granted to the Petitioner.
E
Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, as
admittedly the trustees of the petitioner do not reside in
the State of Maharashtra, where Hindi speaking people
are a linguistic minority, the petitioner trust cannot claim
to be a minority institution. Petition is, therefore, rejected." F
7. By filing the instant appeal by special leave, the
appellant-Society has challenged the aforesaid order passed
by the Division Bench refusing to interfere with the order dated
26.10.2009 passed by the respondents, thereby withdrawing
the linguistic minority status of the appellant, which was earlier G
recognized by respondent No.2 by order dated 11.7.2008.
8. Assailing the impugned orders, Mr. Ranjit Kumar,
learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-Society
firstly submitted that the High Court failed to appreciate that the H
828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 4 S.C.R.
A order impugned dated 26.10.2009 passed by the respondents
adopted a mechanical procedure and in an arbitrary manner
withdrew the recognition. According to the learned senior
counsel, the order of withdrawal of recognition passed by the
respondents is absolutely unconstitutional and illegal, inasmuch
B as the appellant is an institution established in the State of
Maharashtra by the citizens speaking Hindi language and as
such it is a linguistic minority institution in the State of
Maharashtra. He submitted that the appellant is a linguistic
minority in the State of Maharashtra as Marathi is the language
c spoken by majority of the people; and the place of residence
of the trustees of appellant-Society is irrelevant and immaterial
qua the establishment and administration of the educational
institution by the appellant-Society in the State of Maharashtra.
Learned counsel submitted that the order of withdrawal is
erroneous and contrary to the provisions of Government
0
Resolution dated 4.7.2008 which prescribes the procedure for
granting a minority status and recognition certificate. He
submitted that the Resolution nowhere prescribes that any
institution or trust claiming the linguistic minority status should
have such trustees who are residents of the said State. Learned
E senior counsel, however, submitted that the pre-condition for
grant of minority status to an educational institution should be
only that the institution is of the persons whose mother-tongue
is any Indian language other than Marathi; and further, minimum
2/3rd trustees of the Managing Committee of the Society/
F institution should be from the concerned minority community.
According to the learned counsel, the appellant-Society fulfilled
all the conditions specified in the Government Resolution dated
4. 7.2008 and as such the appellant is eligible and qualified for
grant of recognition as linguistic minority. Learned senior
G counsel put heavy reliance on the decisions of this Court in
D.A. V. College Etc. Etc. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (1971) 2
SCC 269, T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. vs. State of
Kamataka & Ors. (2002) 8 SCC 481 and Kanya Junior High
School, Bal Vidya Mandir, Etah, U.P. vs. U.P. Basic Shiksha
H Parishad, Allahabad, U.P. & Ors. (2006) 11 SCC 92.
DAYANAND ANGLO VEDIC (DAV) COLLEGE TR. AND MANG 829
SOC. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [M.Y EQBAL, J.]
9. Finally, learned counsel submitted that the object of A
running the institution is important and not the persons running
the institution. Article 30 of the Constitution protects the right
of the minority to establish and administer the minority/linguistic
institution in order to preserve the culture and language of the
minorities. B
10. The stand of the respondents as stated in the counter
affidavit is that the appellant-Trust does not fulfill the required
criteria for granting linguistic minority status in the State of
Maharashtra. The respondents' case is that the appellant's
institution was established in the State of Maharashtra by C
citizens residing outside the State of Maharashtra and speaking
Hindi language and as such they are not a linguistic minority in
the State of Maharashtra. The respondents' case is that in order
to claim the protection by virtue of being a minority community
as guaranteed by the Constitution, the obvious requirement D
should be that one must be a minority. It is stated that there is
no bar or restriction for running educational institution in the
State by the trusts which are registered outside the State of
Maharashtra, but these institutions are not treated as minorities
and they will definitely be subject to the Rules and Regulations E
of the State which are applicable to non-minority institutions.
11. Lastly, it is stated by the respondents that the
constitutional protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of
India is available only to those who are actually and physically F
in minority in the State. The appellant is an institution
established in the· State of Maharashtra by citizens residing
putside the Stafe -of Maharashtra and speaking Hindi language
and as such they are not linguistic minority in the State of
Maharashtra. Hence, the status earlier granted by the G
respondents to·the appellant-Society has been rightly withdrawn,
especially when the appellant wanted such recognition in the
name of the. Trust registered in New Delhi consisting of the
trustees residing in Delhi.
12. As noticed above, Mr. Ranjit Kumar has put heavy H
830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 4 S.C.R.
A reliance on T.M.A. Pai Foundation case (supra) in support of
his contentions. In that case, the 11-Judge Bench of this Court
has settled many issues related to Articles 29 and 30 of the
Constitution of India. Their Lordships held that Article 30(1)
makes it clear that religious and linguistic minorities have been
B put on par, insofar as that Article is concerned. Therefore,
whatever be the unit - whether a State or the whole of India -
for determining a linguistic minority, it would be the same in
relation to a religious minority. India is divided into different
linguistic States. The States have been carved out on the basis
c of the language of the majority of persons of that region. For
example, Andhra Pradesh was established on the basis of the
language of that region viz. Telugu. "Linguistic minority" can,
therefore, logically only be in relation to a particular State. If the
determination of "linguistic minority" for the purpose of Article
30 is to be in relation to the whole of India, then within the State
0
of Andhra P1adesh, Telugu speaking people will have to be
regarded as a "linguistic minority". This will clearly be contrary
to the concept of linguistic States. Their Lordships further held
that Article 30 gives the right to a linguistic or religious minority
of a State to establish and administer educational institutions
E of their choice. It was observed that as a result of the insertion
of Entry 25 in List Ill, Parliament can now legislate in relation to
education, which was only a State subject previously. The
jurisdiction of Parliament is to make laws for the whole or a part
of India. It is well recognized that geographical classification is
F not violative of Article 14. It would, therefore, be possible that,
with respect to a particular State or group of States, Parliament
may legislate in relation to education. However, Article 30 gives
the right to a linguistic or religious minority of a State to
establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
G The minority for the purpose of Article 30 cannot have different
meanings depending upon as to who is legislating. Language
being the basis for the establishment of different States, for the
purpose of Article 30 a "linguistic minority" will have to be
determined in relation to the State in which the educational
H institution is sought to be established. The position with regard
DAYANAND ANGLO VEDIC (DAV) COLLEGE TR. AND MANG 831
SOC. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [MY EQBAL, J.]
to the religious minority is similar, since both religious and A
linguistic minorities have been put on par in Article 30.
13. In the instant appeal, the sole question that arises for
consideration is as to whether a member of a linguistic non-
minority in one State can establish a Trust or Society in another
B
State and claim minority status in that State. In T.M.A. Pai
Foundation case, 11 questions were framed for being
answered. One of those questions being Question No.7 was
the same as that in the instant case, namely, whether the
member of a linguistic non-minority in one State can establish C
a trust or society in another State and claim minority status in
that State. Their Lordships held that this question need not be
answered by that Bench and it would be dealt with by a regular
Bench.
14. In the case of P.A. lnamdar and Ors. vs. State of D
Maharashtra & Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 537, a 7-Judge Bench of
this Court has elaborately discussed T.M.A. Pai Foundation
case and has clarified the issues further. For better
appreciation, some of the relevant paragraphs are quoted
herein under: E
"91. The right to establish an educational institution, for
chc:rity or for profit, being an occupation, is protected by
Article 19(1 )(g). Notwithstanding the fact that the right of a
minority to establish and administer an educational
F
institution would be protected by Article 19(1 )(g) yet the
founding fathers of the Constitution felt the need of enacting
Article 30. The reasons are too obvious to require
elaboration. Article 30(1) is intended to instil confidence
in minorities against any executive or legislative
encroachment on their right to establish and administer G
educational institution of their choice. Article 30(1) though
styled as a right, is more in the nature of protection for
minorities. But for Article 30, an educational institution,
even though based on religion or language, could have
been controlled or regulated by law enacted under clause H
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 4 S. C.R.
A (6) of Article 19, and so, Article 30 was enacted as a
guarantee to the minorities that so far as the religious or
linguistic minorities are concerned, educational institutions
of their choice will enjoy protection from such legislation.
However, such institutions cannot be discriminated against
8 by the State solely on account of their being minority
institutions. The minorities being numerically less qua non-
minorities, may not be able to protect their religion or
language and such cultural values and their educational
institutions will be protected under Article 30, at the stage
c of law-making. However, merely because Article 30(1) has
been enacted, minority educational institutions do not
become immune from the operation of regulatory
measures because the right to administer does not include
the right to maladminister. To what extent the State
regulation can go, is the issue. The real purpose sought
D
to be achieved by Article 30 is to give minorities some
additional protection. Once aided, the autonomy conferred
by the protection of Article 30(1) on the minority
educational institution is diluted as provisions of Article
29(2) will be attracted. Certain conditions in the nature of
E regulations can legitimately accompany the State aid."
"95. The term "minority" is not defined in the Constitution.
Chief Justice Kirpal, speaking for the majority in Pai
Foundation took a clue from the provisions of the States
F Reorganisation Act and held that in view of India having
been divided into different linguistic States, carved out on
the basis of the language of the majority of persons of that
region, it is the State, and not the whole of India, that shall
have to be taken as the unit for determining a linguistic
G minority vis-a-vis Article 30. Inasmuch as Article 30(1)
places on par religions and languages, he held that the
minority status, whether by reference to language or by
reference to religion, shall have to be determined by
treating the State as a unit. The principle would remain the
same whether it is a Central legislation or a State
H
DAYANAND ANGLO VEDIC (DAV) COLLEGE TR. AND MANG 833
SOC. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [M.Y EQBAL, J.]
legislation dealing with a linguistic or religious minority. A
Khare,J. ( as His Lordship then was), Quadri, J. and
Variava and Bhan, JJ. in their separate concurring
opinions agreed with Kirpal, C.J. According to Khare, J.,
take the population of any State as a unit, find out its
demography and calculate if the persons speaking a B
particular language or following a particular religion are
less than 50% of the population, then give them the status
of linguistic or religious minority. The population of the
entire country is irrelevant for the purpose of determining
such status. Quadri, J. opined that the word "minority" c
literally means "a non-dominant" group. Ruma Pal, J.
defined the word "minority" to mean "numerically less".
However, she refused to take the State as a unit for the
purpose of determining minority status as, in her opinion,
the question of minority status must be determined with D
reference to the country as a whole. She assigned reasons
for the purpose. Needless to say, her opinion is a lone
voice. Thus, with the dictum of Pai Foundation it cannot
be doubted that a minority, whether linguistic or religious,
is determinable only by reference to the demography of a
E
State and not by taking into consideration the population
of the country as a whole.
96. Such definition of minority resolves one issue but gives
rise to many a questions when it comes to defining
"minority educational institution". Whether a minority F
educational institution, though established by a minority,
can cater to the needs of that minority only? Can there be
an enquiry to identify the person or persons who have really
established the institution? Can a minority institution
provide cross-border or inter-State educational facilities G
and yet retain the character of minority educational
institution?"
15. Their Lordships further observed referring the decision
of this Court in Kerala Educational Bill, 1957, In re., 1959 SCR
995, as under: H
834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 4 S.C.R.
A "97. In Kera/a Education Bill the scope and ambit of the
right conferred by Article 30(1) came up for consideration.
Article 30(1) does not require that minorities based on
religion should establish educational institutions for
teaching religion only or that a linguistic minority should
B establish educational institution for teaching its language
only. The object underlying Article 30(1) is to see the
desire of minorities being fulfilled that their children should
be brought up properly and efficiently and acquire eligibility
for higher university education and go out in the world fully
c equipped with such intellectual attainments as will make
them fit for entering public services, educational institutions
imparting higher instructions including general secular
education. Thus, the twin objects sought to be achieved
by Article 30(1) in the interest of minorities are: (i) to enable
such minority to conserve its religion and language, and
D
(ii) to give a thorough, good, general education to children
belonging to such minority. So long as the institution
retains its minority character by achieving and continuing
to achieve the above-said two objectives, the institution
would remain a minority institution.
E
98. The learned Judges in Kerala Education Bill were
posed with the issue projected by Article 29(2). What will
happen if the institution was receiving aid out of State
funds? The apparent conflict was resolved by the Judges
F employing a beautiful expression. They said, Articles 29(2)
and 30(1 ), read together, clearly contemplate a minority
institution with a "sprinkling of outsiders" admitted in it. By
admitting a member of non-minority into the minority
institution, it does not shed its character and cease to be
G a minority institution. The learned Judges went on to
observe that such "sprinkling" would enable the distinct
language, script and culture of a minority being propagated
amongst non-members of a particular minority community
and that would indeed better serve the object of conserving
H the language, religion and culture of that minority."
DAYANAND ANGLO VEDIC (DAV) COLLEGE TR. AND MANG 835
SOC. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [M.Y EQBAL, J.]
Paras 101 and 102 are also worth to be quoted here which A
are as under:
"In this background arises the complex question of
trans-border operation of Article 30(1 ). Pai Foundation has
clearly ruled in favour of the State (or a province) being the B
unit for ihe purpose of deciding minority. By this
declaration of law, certain consequences follow. First,
every community in India becomes a minority because in
one or the other State of the country it will be in minority -
linguistic or religious. What would happen if a minority C
belonging to a particular State establishes an educational
institution in that State and administers it but for the benefit
of members belonging to that minority domiciled in the
neighbouring State where the community is in majority?
Would it not be a fraud on the Constitution? In St.
Stephen's, (1992) 1 SCC 558, Their Lordships had ruled D
that Article 30(1) is a protective measure only for the
benefit of religious and linguistic minorities and "no ill-fit
or camouflaged institution should get away with the
constitutional protection" (SCC p.587 para 28). The
question need not detain us for long as it stands answered E
in no uncertain terms in Pai Foundation. Emphasising the
need for preserving its minority character so as to enjoy
the privilege of protection under Article 30(1 ), it is
necessary that the objective of establishing the institution
was not defeated. F
" If so, such an institution is under an obligation
to admit the bulk of the students fitting into the
description of the minority community. Therefore,
the students of that group residing in the State in G
which the institution is located have to be
necessarily admitted in a large measure because
they constitute the linguistic minority group as far as
that State is concerned. In other words, the
predominance of linguistic minority students hailing H
836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 4 S.C.R.
A from the State in which the minority educational
institution is established should be present. The
management bodies of such institution cannot
resort to the device of admitting the linguistic
students of the adjoining State in which they are in
B a majority, under the fa98de of the protection given
under Article 30(1 )". (SCC p.585, para 153.)
The same principle applies to religious minority. If
any other view was to be taken, the very objective of
conferring the preferential right of admission by
c harmoniously constructing Articles 30(1) and 29(2), may
be distorted.
It necessarily follows from the law laid down in Pai
Foundation that to establish a minority institution the
D institution must primarily cater to the requirements of that
minority of that State else its character of minority institution
is lost. However, to borrow the words of Chief Justice S.R.
Das in Kerala Education Bill a "sprinkling" of that minority
from the other State on the same footing as a sprinkling
E of non-minority students, would be permissible and would
not deprive the institution of its essential character of being
a minority institution determined by reference to that State
as a unit."
F 16. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned counsel submitted that in
P.A. lnamdar case (supra), the question that arose for
consideration before the 7-Judge Bench has been left
untouched observing that the said questions have been dealt
with by the regular Bench.
G 17. The main grievance of the appellant-Society is that the
impugned order of withdrawal of recognition made by the State
authorities is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of
Government Resolution dated 4.7.2008 which prescribes the
procedure for granting minority status. The appellant-Society
H alleged to have fulfilled all the conditions specified in the said
DAYANANDANGLO VEDIC (DAV) COLLEGE TR. AND MANG 837
SOC. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [M.Y EQBAL, J.]
Resolution dated 4.7.2008 and thereby made itself eligible and A
qualified for grant of recognition as linguistic minority. As
noticed above, the resolution dated 4.7.2008 issued by the
Minority Development Department of the State of Maharashtra
lays down the conditions and procedure for the grant of
certificate of minority linguistic character of the institution. The B
relevant portion of the Resolution reads as under:
"RESOLUTION: The issue of making existing procedure
easy for granting the recognition as cadre as religious/
linguistic minority societies which are being conducted by C
the minorities was under the consideration of the State
Government for some time. Accordingly, after consulting
with the experts in this field interested persons and taking
into consideration directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in this connection from time to time after superseding
the Central Administration Department, Resolution No.MS- D
2006/634/CR-63/2006/35, dt. 11.6.2007, the Government
of Maharashtra is prescribing terms and conditions and
procedure for providing recognition of religious/societies
conducted/managed by the State as detailed hereunder:-
E
(1) The Competent Authority for providing recognition
of minority cadre:
For providing recognition of religious linguistic
minority cadre to the educational societies
F
managed by minorities of the State, State
Government has declared by the Principal
Secretary/Secretary Minority Development
Department, Government of Maharashtra as
Competent Authority as per Government
Notification No. MES-2008/CR-149/08/E-1: dt. G
4.7.2008.
(2) Touchstones for the eligibility of the recognition for
religious linguistic minority:
H
838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 4 S.C.R.
A (1) Those educational societies to whom
recognition has been granted prior to
11.6.2007 as per specific order or letter or
in accordance with General Administration
Department, Government Resolution
B No.ME S-2006/634/C R-63/2006/35 dated
11.6.2007 as minority educational
institutions/societies; such educational
societies/institutions are not required to
submit application again for the recognition
c of the minority cadre. However, conditions
prescribed at para-5 hereunder will be
applicable to all such societies.
(2) It is necessary that applicant minority
institution/society shou Id have been
D
registered under Societies Registration Act,
1860 or Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 or
other concerned statute. The concerned
minority society of the institution should have
mentioned in its bye-laws of rules of which
E the religious/linguistic minority communities
that society belong, it has been established
to protect that the interest that minority
community.
F (3) Institution/society of all religions which have
been notified by the Central Government/
Maharashtra Government will be eligible to
submit the application for obtaining the
recognition for their educational institutions
G as religious minority educational institution.
(4) Educational institution of such persons
whose mother tongue is other Indian
language than Marathi will be eligible to
submit the application for the recognition of
H minority educational society of education.
DAYANAND ANGLO VEDIC (DAV) COLLEGE TR. AND MANG 839
SOC. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
(5) It is necessary that minimum 2/3rd trustees A
of the Management Committee of the
Applicant Society/institution should be from
concerned minority community."
(emphasis given)
B
18. From a perusal of the relevant provisions of the
Resolution quoted hereinabove, it is manifest that one of the
conditions, inter alia, is that the educational institutions of such
persons whose mother tongue is other Indian language than
Marathi will be eligible to submit their application for C
recognition and that minimum 2/3rd trustees of the Management
Committee of the Society or institution should be from
concerned minority community. In other words, as per the
Resolution, 2/3rd of the trustees of the Management Committee
of the Society should be from minority community. D
19. On a perusal of the documents contained in the
paperbook, the following facts emerged:
(i) By communication dated 28.06.2006 issued by the
Urban Secretary, Higher and Technical Education E
Department, Government of Maharashtra, the Director,
Higher Education, Maharashtra State, Pune, was informed
that on the basis of the representation submitted by
Dayanand Institutions at Solapur for providing minority
cadre (Hindi linguistic), the Government has granted F
minority cadre (Hindi linguistic) to the higher colleges
(degree colleges) managed by the Dayanand Institutions,
Solapur for two educational years i.e. 2006-07 and 2007-
2008.
G
(ii) In the application dated 6.7.2007 submitted by the
appellant for obtaining sanction of religious/ linguistic
minority, although in column No.1 of the form of application,
name of the Society has been shown as Dayanand Anglo
Vedic (DAV) College Trust and Management Society, New H
840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 4 S.C.R.
A Delhi, but other required information has been given in the
manner hereinunder:-
Whether minimum 2/3rd All Trustees/Members of the
persons or trustees/ Board of Directors of the
members of Board of Society who are looking after
B
Directors who are looking the business of the society are
after the business of the from Arya Community and their
society are from minority/ mother tongue is Hindi
linguistic group, if yes,
their numbers.
c
20. It is, therefore, clear that the appellant has not correctly
furnished the required information, inasmuch as it was not said
that the Trustees/Members of the Board of Directors, who are
looking after the business of the Society, are non-minority.
D Obviously, the reason is that the persons or trustees, who are
managing the business of the Society are non-minority i.e.
residing in New Delhi and not in the State of Maharashtra.
21. The Certificate of Recognition was granted for the year
E from 2004-2008 in the name of appellant's institution i.e.
Educational Trust and Management Society, Solapur. For
better appreciation, the last Certificate granted on 11.7.2008
for the academic year 2008-09 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA
F Competent Authority and Principal Secretary Minority
Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032.
No.MES-2007/264/CR-145/2007/35/D-1 Date:11.7.2008
CERTIFICATE FOR THE RECOGNITION OF MINORITY
G CADRE
Educational Trust and Management Society, Solapur had
submitted the Application on 9.7.2007 for obtaining
certificate for the reorganization of their society in the cadre
H as Linguistic Minority Educational Institute. During the
DAYANAND ANGLO VEDIC (DAV) COLLEGE TR. AND MANG 841
SOC. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [M.Y EQBAL, J.]
hearing which was conducted of the said Institute before A
me on 11.7.2008, on the basis of submissions made by
the Officials of the Institute, I have satisfied that, the said
Institute is being established and conducted through
persons from Linguistic (Hindi) Minority or Group of
persons, declared by State Government as per touchstone B
prescribed under Minority Development Department,
Government Resolution No.MES-2008/CR133/2008/D-1
dated 4.7.2008. as a result it is being declared that the
said Institute is Linguistic (Hindi) Minority Educational
Institute. c
This certificate will be valid only for the State of
Maharashtra. The Linguistic Minority Cadre which has
been granted to the said society will be applicable to all
educational benches conducted by the Institution.
D
The Linguistic Minority Cadre which has been granted to
the above mentioned Educational Institution will be legally
valid from the academic year 2008-2009. it will be binding
to comply with the touchstones and conditions constantly
and specifically which have been prescribed as per
Government Resolution No. MES-2008/CR-133/2008/D- E
1 dated 4.7.2008.
Sd/-
(TF. Thekkekara)
Competent Authority Principal Secretary F
Minority Development Department
Mantralaya,, Mumbai-400032."
22. It was for the first time that the appellant by letter/
representation dated 15.7.2008 addressed to the Competent
Authority, Minority Development Department, Mumbai, stated G
that the recognition certificate for linguistic minority has been
issued in the name of "Dayanand Anglo Vedic (DAV) College
Trust and Management Society, Solapur''. Therefore, a request
was made in the said representation that since the appellant-
Society is based at New Delhi, Certificate of Recognition may H
842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 4 S.C.R.
A be issued in the name of "Dayanand Anglo Vedic (DAV)
College Trust and Management Society, New Delhi" instead of
Solapur. The said representation was rejected by the
respondents mainly on the ground that only those Hindi
speaking persons who are residing in Maharashtra, will be
B treated as minority in Maharashtra. Admittedly, in the instant
case, the appellant-TrusVSociety is registered at New Delhi and
majority of the trustees reside at New Delhi and, therefore, these
persons cannot be treated as minority in the State of
Maharashtra and they cannot claim the protection of linguistic
c minority in the State of Maharashtra. The aforesaid order was
impugned in the writ petition which ultimately resulted in a
direction to the respondents to pass a fresh order after giving
opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
23. In compliance of the said direction, the respondents
D passed the impugned order dated 26.10.2009. The Authority,
while rejecting the application for the grant of minority status,
recorded the following reasons:
A) On scrutiny of papers, it was seen that although the
E covering application cited the name of the institution as
"Dayanand Institutions Solapur", the trust deed was
registered in the name of "Dayanand Anglo Vedic College
Trust and Management Society" and the majority of the
trustees resided at New Delhi.
F B) The certificate of registration submitted by the
Dayanand Institutions Solapur in the name of 'Dayanand
Anglo Vedic College Trust and Management Society'
issued by the Charity Commissioner Mumbai and their
application dated 6.7.07 on the letterhead styled
G 'Dayanand Institutions Solapur' led the Competent
Authority to believe that the trustees were located in
Maharashtra, when in fact they were not residents of
Maharashtra. It was on the basis of these documents that
the certificate of recognition as a minority institution had
H been issued on the 11th July, 2008. the application of the
DAYANAND ANGLO VEDIC (DAV) COLLEGE TR. AND MANG 843
SOC. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [M.Y EQBAL, J.]
so-called · Dayanand Institutions Solapur' by its letter dated A
15.07.08 for a certificate of recognition of linguistic minority
status to the 'Dayanand Anglo Vedic College Trust and
Management Society, New Delhi' was rejected in the light
of the above facts.
C) It was noticed from the documents submitted by the B
organization, that although the trust had produced a deed
of registration in the name and style 'Dayanand Anglo
Vedic College Trust and Management Society', registered
at Mumbai by the Charity Commissioner, Greater Mumbai,
the organization was also registered under the name and C
style · Dayanand Anglo Vedic College Trust and
Management Society' under the Societies Registration
Act, 1860 at Lahore on 30.6.1948. it is seen from the copy
of the Schedule 1 of the list of trustees, issued by the
Charity Commissioner Mumbai on 7.3.08, that of the 34 D
trustees of the 'Dc:yanand Anglo Vedic College Trust and
Management Society' recorded with the Charity
Commissioner Greater Mumbai, 25 of the trustees reside
in New Delhi, 4 in Haryana, 4 in Punjab and one at Ranchi.
It is not denied by the applicant trust that in the case of both E
trusts viz. registered in 2003 under the Mumbai Public
Trust Act, 1950 and uner the Societies Registration Act
1860 at Lahore in 30.6.1948, the majority of the trustees
reside in New Delhi and that the majority of them reside
outside Maharashtra. F
D) There is no separate trust or society registered in the
name of the · Dayanand Institutions Solapur'. This entity
appears to exist only on the letterhead by which an
application seeking minority status was submitted to the
Government on 6th July, 2007. G
E) The representative of the Dayanand Anglo Vedic
College Trust And Management Society also stated that
the Dayanand Institutions Solapur were working in
Maharashtra for the poor students in Maharashtra in the
best traditions of an academic institution wedded to the H
844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 4 S.C.R.
A cause of excellence in education. They also stated that they
could not recruit teachers with an excellent academic
qualification in order to make the institution an excellent
institution, as they were hampered by the requirement of
the reservation of ST and other reservations. There were
B no qualified excellent teachers available with an ST
background. Hence they desired to avoid this requirement
of reservations in recruitment of teachers by having a
minority status.
F) In regard to the other contentions of the trust, it is clear
C that this application for a minority status is being made by
the ·Dayan and Anglo Vedic College Trust and
Management Society' of Arya Samaj members only to
avoid the implementation of the reservations in favour of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other
D backward communities, while recruiting teachers and staff
in the school. This is against the constitutional provisions
for the welfare and development of SCs and STs and
cannot be accepted.
24. As noticed above, the aforesaid order of the
E respondents dated 26.10.2009 was challenged before the
Bombay High Court in W.P. No.1053 of 2010. Dismissing the
said writ petition, the High Court noticed the fact that though
the appellant claimed linguistic minority status, but all the
trustees of the appellant-Society are residing in the area where
F majority language is Hindi. The High Court took the view that
the State Government had a right to correct the mistake if any
certificate granting minority linguistic status is granted contrary
to law. The High Court was further of the view that as admittedly
the trustees of the appellant do not reside in the State of
G Maharashtra, where Hindi speaking people are linguistic
minority, the appellant-Trust/Society cannot claim to be a
minority institution.
25. We have no doubt that the view taken by the High Court
is justified. The rights conferred by Article 30 of the Constitution
H to the minority are in two parts. The first part is the right to
DAYANAND ANGLO VEDIC (DAV) COLLEGE TR. AND MANG 845
SOC. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
establish the institution of minority's choice and the second part A
relates to the right to administration of such institution. The word
establishment herein means bringing into being. of an institution
and ii must be by minority community. The administration
means management of the affairs of the institution. Reference
may be made to be the decision of this Court in the case of B
State of Kera/a Etc. vs. Mother Provincial Etc. AIR 1970 SC
2079.
26. Similarly, in the case of S.P. Mittal Etc. vs. Union of
India and Otners, AIR 1983 SC 1, this Court held that in order
to claim the benefit of Article 30, the community must firstly C
show and prove that it is a religious or linguistic minority; and
secondly, that the institution has been established by such
linguistic minority.
27. In the case of A.P. Christians Medical Educational
Society vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. AIR 1986 D
SC 1490 (para 8), this Court elaborately discussed the rights
guaranteed under Article 30 and held as under:-
"It was seriously contended before us that any minority,
even a single individual belonging to a minority, could E
found a minority institution and had the right so to do under
the Constitution and neither the Government nor the
University could deny the society's right to establish a
minority institution, at the very threshold as it were,
howsoever they may impose regulatory measures in the
F
interests of uniformity, efficiency and excellence of
education. The fallacy of the argument in so far as the
instant case is concerned lies in thinking that neither the
Government nor the University has the right to go behind
the claim that the institution is a minority institution and to
investigate and satisfy itself whether the claim is well G
founded or ill-founded. The Government, the University and
ultimately the court have the undoubted right to pierce the
'minority veil' with due apologies to the Corporate Lawyers
and discover whether there is lurking behind it no minority
at all and in any case, no minority institution. The object of H
846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 4 S.C.R.
A Art. 30(1) is not to allow bogies to be raised by pretenders
but to give the minorities ·a sense of security and a feeling
of confidence' not merely by guaranteeing the right to
profess, practise and propagate religion to religious
minorities and the right to conserve their language, script
B and culture to linguistic minorities, but also to enable all
minorities, religious or linguistic, to establish and
administer educational institutions of their choice. These
institutions must be educational institutions of the
minorities in truth and reanty and not mere masked
c phantoms. They may be institutions intended to give the
children of the minorities the best general and professional
education, to make them complete men and women of the
country and to enable them to go out into the world fully
prepared and equipped. They may be institutions where
special provision is made to the advantage and for the
D
advancement of the minority children. They may be
institutions where the parents of the children of the minority
community may expect that education in accordance with
the basic tenets of their religion would be imparted by or
under the guidance of teachers, learned and steeped in
E the faith. They may be institutions where the parents expect
their children to grow in a pervasive atmosphere which is
in harmony with their religion or conducive to the pursuit
of it. What is important and what is imperative· is that there
must exist some real positive index to enable the institution
F to be identified as an educational institution of the
minorities. We have already said that in the present case
apart from the half a dozen words ·as a Christian
minorities institution' occurring in one of the objects recited
in the memorandum of association, there is nothing
G whatever, in the memorandum or the articles of association
or in the actions of the society to indicate that the institution
was intended to be a minority educational institution. As
already found by us these half a dozen words were
introduced merely to found a claim on Art. 30(1 ). They
H were a smoke-screen."
DAYANAND ANGLO VEDIC (DAV) COLLEGE TR. AND MANG 84 7
SOC. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
28. In the case of S. Azeez Basha & Anr. Etc. vs. The A
Union of India Etc. AIR 1968 SC 662 (para 19), this Court
considered the constitutional provisions and held as under:
"Under Article 30(1 ), "all minorities whether based on
religion or language shall have the right to establish and
administer educational institutions of their choice". We B
shall proceed on the assumption in the present petitions
that Muslims are a minority based on religion. What then
is the scope of Article 30(1) and what exactly is the right
conferred therein on the religious minorities? It is to our
mind quite clear that Article 30(1) postulates that the C
religious community will have the right to establish and
administer educational institutions of their choice meaning
thereby that where a religious minority establishes an
educational institution, it will have the right to administer
that. An argument has been raised to the effect that even D
though the religious minority may not have established the
educational institution, it will have the right to administer
it, if by some process it had been administering the same
before the Constitution came into force. We are not
prepared to accept this argument. The Article in our opinion E
clearly shows that the minority will have the right to
administer educational institutions of their choice provided
they have established them, but not otherwise. The Article
cannot be read to mean that even if the educational
institution has been established by somebody else, any
F
religious minority would have the right to administer it
because, for some reason or other, it might have been
administering it before the Constitution came into force.
The words "establish and administer" in the Article must
be read conjunctively and so read it gives the right to the
minority to administer an educational institution provided G
it has been established by it. In this connection our attention
was drawn to In re: The Kerala Education Bill, 1957, 1959
SCR 995: (AIR 1950 SC 956) where, it is argued, this
Court had held that the minority can administer an
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 4 S.C.R.
848
A educational institution even though it might not have
established it. In that case an argument was raised that
under Article 30( 1) protection was given only to educational
institutions established after the Constitution came into
force. That argument was turned down by this Court for the
obvious reason that if that interpretation was given to
B
Article 30(1) it would be robbed of much of its content. But
that case in our opinion did not lay down that the words
"establish and administer" in Article 30(1) should be read
disjunctively, so that though a minority might not have
established an educational institution it had the right to
c administer it. It is true that at p. 1062 of SCR; (at p. 992
of AIR) the Court spoke of Article 30(1) giving two rights
to a minority i.e. (i) to establish and (ii) to administer. But
that was said only in the context of meeting the argument
that educational institutions established by minorities
D before the Constitution came into force did not have the
protection of Article 30(1 ). We are of opinion that nothing
in that case justifies the contention raised on behalf of the
petitioners that the minorities would have the right to
administer an educational institution even though the
E institution may not have been established by them. The two
words in Article 30(1) must be read together and so read
the Article gives the right to the minority to administer
institutions established by it. If the educational institution
has not been established by a minority it cannot claim the
F right to administer it under Article 30(1 ). We have therefore
to consider whether the Aligarh University was established
by the Muslim minority; and if it was so established, the
minority would certainly have the right to administer it".
(emphasis supplied)
G
29. In view of the opinion expressed by this Court in a
catena of decisions, there cannot be any controversy that
minorities in India have a right to establish and administer
educational institutions of their choice and the State
H Government or the Universities cannot interfere with the day-
DAYANAND ANGLO VEDIC (DAV) COLLEGE TR AND MANG 849
SOC. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [M.Y EQBAL, J.]
to-day management of such institutions by the members of A
minority community. At the same time, this Court pointed out
that though Article 30 itself does not lay down any limitation
upon the right of a minority to administer its educational
institution but this right is not absolute. This is subject to
reasonable regulations for the benefit of the institution. The B
State Government and Universities can issue directions from
time to time for the maintenance of the standard and excellence
of such institution which is necessary in the national interest.
30. So far as the Government Resolution dated 4.7.2008
is concerned, it prescribes a procedure for granting minority C
status. The Resolution, inter alia, permits the persons of the
State of Maharashtra whose mother tongue is other Indian
language than Marathi will be eligible to submit an application
for recognition of their linguistic minority educational institution.
The only rider put is that the minimum 2/3rd trustees of the D
Management Committee of the Society/Institution should be
from the concerned minority community.
31. After giving our anxious consideration in the matter and
in the light of the law settled by this Court, we have no hesitation
in holding that in order to claim minority/linguistic status for an E
institution in any State, the authorities must be satisfied firstly
that the institution has been established by the persons who are
minority in such State; and, secondly, the right of administration
of the said minority linguistic institution is also vested in those
persons who are minority in such State. The right conferred by F
Article 30 of the Constitution cannot be interpreted as if
irrespective of the persons who established the institution in the
State for the benefit of persons who are minority, any person,
be it non-minority in other place, can administer and run such
institution. In our considered opinion, therefore, the order G
passed by the respondent-Authority and the impugned order
passed by the Division Bench need no interference by this
Court. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal which
is accordingly dismissed.
K.K.T. Appeal dismissed. H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Article 30"Sign in to search