Open Access Research Article
RIGHTS OF MINORITIES TO ESTABLISH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN INDIA BY: HARIKA CHERUKURI
Published Paper
Article Details
AUTHORED BY: HARIKA CHERUKURI
(B.B.A., LL.B)
MAHINDRA UNIVERSITY
Abstract
The majority of the post-colonial nation States have incorporated minority rights into their constitutions as well as the canons of
international human rights law. Religious, linguistic, and ethnic minorities all over the world have
been constitutionally recognised as groups in need of specific safeguards and protection from majoritarian attitudes
or policies that discriminate against their legitimate interests.The
Indian Constitution made provisions for minorities to give them the benefit of establishing and
governing their own educational institution (Article 30) where they can assist the student from their community to give
some privilege and support their education.
This was done in consideration of the factor of education and its need. Article
30 of the Indian Constitution explains
the right of minorities to establish and run educational institutions. Article 30 grants any ethnic, linguistic, or
religious minorities the right to found and operate educational institutions, selecting the requirements for both teachers
and students. Additionally, it forbids the state from acting unfairly
when providing funding
to minority institutions. Articles 29 and 30 address
the cultural and educational rights of Indian citizens.The purpose of this study is to present a
systematic review of the available evidence based literature concerning the research question. The research question
being investigated on is as follows, What are the rights available to
minorities to set up a minority educational institution in India. The major flaw in this paper is that the
word "minority" is not defined. Despite these issues, the paper makes the case that Article 30 gives minorities a significant amount of freedom
to customise their educational
environment in accordance with their preferences and should be supported because it aids the State in
addressing the cultural elements that contribute to their educational underachievement.
Table of contents
|
Serial Number
|
Details
|
|
1
|
Abstract
|
|
2
|
List of
cases
|
|
3
|
List of
keywords
|
|
4
|
Introduction
|
|
5
|
Literature review
|
|
6
|
Discussion
|
|
7
|
Conclusion
|
|
8
|
Bibliography
|
List of cases
|
Serial Number
|
Case law
|
|
1
|
Society for Unaided Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India
|
|
2
|
D.A.V. College v. State
of Punjab
|
|
3
|
S.K Patro v. State
of Bihar
|
|
4
|
T.M.A Pai
Foundation v. State
of Karnataka
|
|
5
|
St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi
|
|
6
|
Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri
Shrirur Mutt
|
|
7
|
Bramchari Sidheswar Bhai v. State of West Bengal
|
|
8
|
SP Mittal v. Union
of India
|
List of Keywords
|
Serial Number
|
Word
|
|
1
|
Minorities
|
|
2
|
Ethnic Minorities
|
|
3
|
Religious Minorities
|
|
4
|
Lingustic Minorties
|
|
5
|
Educational Institutions
|
|
6
|
Educational Rights
|
|
7
|
Cultural Rights
|
|
8
|
Educational Underachievement
|
Purpose of Research
This particular Paper is a qualitative investigation on minorities' constitutional rights to form
educational institutions and to find out the various provisions
available for minorities.
Research
Objective
The study's objectives
are to examine the numerous
minority rights protections provided by the Constitution
and to discuss the many rulings on minority rights that have been issued over
time.
Research
Methodology
This work depends on secondary
data for its analysis of the literature
and research. The work is written in a descriptive and inquisitive manner.
Introduction
"Minority" as it is used in the
constitution, most specifically in Article 30 has no clear definition of the term. However, the Indian judiciary
has acted proactively by taking the Kerala Education Bill, 1957[1] into consideration. However, the Supreme
Court remarked and ruled on the basis that any
community that constitutes numerically less than 50% of the total population of
a particular state shall be referred
to as a state for the purposes of any statute established to address minority rights. In addition, the court has stated
that a group would not be recognised as a minority for the purposes of Article 30 of the Indian constitution if it is a majority
throughout the state but may be a minority in a particular locality.[2]
In the case of Society for Unaided Schools of Rajasthan v.
Union of India[3], the court used a different strategy. According to the court, a minority could be
decided in relation to the entire population of the country,
just like general
laws that apply to the entire country,
such as the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act of 2009.
Similar to this, the court ruled
in the case of D.A.V. College v. State of
Punjab[4], that if the statute at issue is a state law, the status of minorities must be
determined in relation to that state's population.
In the case of S.K Patro v. State of Bihar[5], the court said that a minority
requesting benefits under
Article 30 must be a minority of Indian citizens. Article 30 does not
apply to non-natives who do not
reside in India. As a result, people who make up India's
"well-characterized linguistic and religious
minorities" are no longer covered by the protection provided by Article
30.
In the case of T.M.A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka[6], an eleven judge bench made it plain that states were divided along linguistic
lines, and that decisions on minority status may affect specific states rather than all of India. This statement applies
to both linguistic and religious minorities.
But in the case of St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi[7], more precise explanation was provided. The court noted that those who
make up a specific, distinct, and recognisable group of Indian citizens must be considered the minority under Article 30
of the Indian constitution.
Although the Indian Constitution
has several phrasings buried beneath it, it has sadly failed to define any of them, including the phrase
"Minority Educational Institution" (hereafter, MEI). According to Section 2(g) of the National
Commission for Minority Educational Institution Act of 2004[8], the aforementioned phrase is really mentioned. According
to the aforementioned section,
a MEI is a university or other educational institution that was founded and is
run by a minority group.
To put it plainly, minorities run and
control everything.
It is frequently argued that because
the equality clause and other fundamental rights in a democracy
apply equally to the majority and minority communities, there is no need for
specific protection for minority rights.
The Supreme Court of India's response to these claims
is as follows: “the minority do not
stand to gain much more from the general Bill of Fundamental Rights which is available only to the
individuals. The minorities require positive safeguard to preserve their minority interests which
are also termed as group rights. The safeguards and group right
have been part of our
constitution making”[9] Additionally, the Honourable Courts have periodically emphasised that the equality
provision only applies to equals and not to those who are unequal.
Further, This essay examines
minorities' constitutionally protected freedoms to form and run educational institutions. The paper examines the discussions around
Article 30 of the Indian Constitution in the constituent
assembly. Further, paper looks into the various Supreme Court decisions on the subject in order to
better understand the jurisprudence of this fundamental right.
Literature Review
India's enormous diversity makes it in some
ways a microcosm of the entire planet. India could serve as a great example of a multicultural society since it is
the arrival of several dialects and other
religions. The Indian government identified six distinct religious minorities:
Zoroastrians (0.006%), Jains (0.41%),
Sikhs (2%), Buddhists (0.77%), and Muslims (11%), who make up the majority of the country's population.
Hindus make up the majority (82%). Hindus make up the majority of the population in terms of numbers, whereas
the other religious
groups are considered to be "religious
minorities”.
The Indian Constitution's
Articles 29[10] and 30[11] provide forth minorities' rights to
cultural and educational freedom.
These organisations were founded to safeguard and promote the unique customs and cultures of India's minority
populations. A significant portion of the population is made up of minorities.
The
following are the main goals of the protection of minority rights:
1. To integrate
minorities into the national life of the state, which is characterised by the ethos and fascinated by the greater
portion,
2. To give them a sense of belonging so that they will never be overpowered by the majority, and to inspire confidence in
them.
Discussion
Article 30(1) of the constitution mentions the protection given to minority
educational institutions.
The following rights for minorities, whether religious or linguistic, are guaranteed by Article 30:[12]
1. All
minorities must explicitly be allowed to create, establish, and control the
educational institutions of their
choosing.
2. The
state-set compensation amount for the required security of any property owned
by minority educational institutions
is not intended to limit or cancel the rights guaranteed to those institutions.
3. The state is prohibited from discriminating against
educational institutions run or overseen by minorities while providing
help.
The application of Article 30 is
based on the fact that no other group, other than linguistic or religious minorities, is guaranteed the
freedom to establish and control educational institutions of their choice. Prior to that, Article
30(1) grants linguistic minority the right regardless of their religion[13].As a result,
the court stated in Hindu Religious
Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shrirur Mutt[14] that it is inconceivable to forbid secular
education under the purview of
Article 30. A minority's right to provide education to its/their children in
its/their dialect or language is also
included in the right under Article 30.
There are primarily
three different types of educational institutions:
1. An organisation that seeks state
recognition and assistance, sometimes in the form of funding.
2. An
organisation that seeks recognition/acknowledgement solely—not assistance from
the government.
3. A group or organisation that doesn't seek government support
or attention (It is independent or free to conduct its own
affairs, but is nonetheless bound by national laws including those governing contracts, taxes, and labour).
Political minorities that are
determined by their numerical quality or amount are not protected by Article 30. Instead, it provides
protection to isolated groups within society whose votes may have an impact on legislative matters but are
not infallible or unambiguous in and of themselves.
In the case of, Bramchari
Sidheswar Bhai v. State of West Bengal[15], the court held that Ramakrishna's mission is not a minority because it is a part of
Hindu religion and therefore is not eligible
for protections under Article 30 of the Indian constitution.
In the case of, SP Mittal v. Union of India[16], the Supreme Court stated that any group
wishing to claim benefits under
Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution must demonstrate that they have built it and are administering it, or that
they are a minority in terms of religion or language.
The establishment of educational institutions of one's choosing is a privilege
granted to minorities. It does not state that
minority based on language or religion should have the right to establish educational institutions for the
purpose of, as it were, educating their own languages. The article discusses their decision to establish educational
institutions that will serve both the purpose
of providing their children with an intensive standard education as outlined in
the Kerala Education Bill of
1957[17] and the purpose of conserving the religion,
dialect, or culture.
The court notably ruled in TMA Pai Foundation v. The State of Karnataka[18], that minorities have the right and authority to create
educational institutions of any kind, including technical and professional institutions as well as
schools and colleges.
More explanations, however, were provided in
the case of St. Stephen's College v.
University of Delhi[19]. The court pointed out that until they had
no support or recognition from the State, these minority institutions could not benefit from these rights under
Article 30.
According to the ruling in TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka[20], minorities have the right to construct their own educational institution and have the
authority to run it.
When any other community or
sector is admitted, a facility founded by minorities and supported by the state will retain its minority identity.
As stated in the Kerala Education Bill, 1957[21], Article
30 must be harmonised with Article 29(2)[22], which guarantees that no person will be denied entrance to any educational
institution.
In the case of St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi[23], the court held that the educational institution's minority management could
reserve 50% of the seats for its community. Although the situation was later rejected in the TMA Pai Foundation case,
the court noted that the "right percentage
could not be stipulated" and held that it should be left to the
authorities to decide on the basis of
population, institution type, and the educational needs of minorities.
Current scenario of the establishment of minority institutions
Recently, the supreme court ruled that the
state has the power to enact a regulatory framework or administrative administration to provide minority educational
institutions with highly educated teachers
in order to achieve excellence in education. This decision falls under the
umbrella of national interest.
According to the Supreme Court, the new regulatory framework must ensure a balance between excellence in education
and the establishment and administration of minorities' rights.
The Supreme Court further split
education in the aforementioned case into two groups, namely:
1. Secular
education is a universal right, (or)
2. Education aims to conserve,
defend, and preserve the history,
culture, etc., of a particular religion or language group.
The Supreme Court endorsed
the dictum "Maximum latitude" when discussing minority education, therefore
management or administration shall be given the authority
to pick instructors or teachers.
Additionally, the Indian central
government submitted a unique case to the Supreme Court in 2016 asking for the revocation of the minority
status of central
universities. The National
Commission for Minority Education Institution (NCMEI) status of Jamia Millia
Islamia has thus been suggested to be
revoked by the law ministry (in 2011). The Aligarh Muslim University's status as a minority institution was
terminated even in 2006.
Therefore, these institutions or
universities must be given more autonomy, and the Supreme Court must consider exempting all minority
institutions from the RTE Act. All administrative irregularities must also be eliminated.
Conclusion
In India, minority
institutions are crucial to achieving both the state's and minorities'
goals. Minority institutions,
regrettably, fall severely short of expectations. However, it is the right time or opportunity for minority institutions
to review and analyse the RTE Act and its Amendments in order to be informed and up to date. Additionally, it will
serve the state's goal of providing minorities
with high-quality instruction and education.
The rights guaranteed to the
minority under Article 30 are meant to assure equality with those of the majority; they are not meant to put
the minority in a better or more advantageous position than the majority.
Bibliography
1. Kerala
Education Bill, 1957, No.6, Acts of parliament, 1957 (India).
2. INDIA CONST.
Art. 30
3. Society for Unaided Schools
of Rajasthan v. Union of India, A.I.R
2012 S.C. 95 (India).
4. D.A.V. College
v. State of Punjab, A.I.R.
1971 S.C 1737 (India)
5. S.K Patro v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1970 S.C 259 (India).
6. T.M.A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, A.I.R.
2002 S.C 317 (India).
7. St. Stephen's
College v. University of Delhi, A.I.R.
1992 S.C 1630 (India).
8. The
National Commission for Minority Educational Institution Act, 2004, No. 2, Acts
of parliament, 2004 (India).
9.
supra note
7.
10. INDIA CONST.
Art. 29.
11.
supra note
2.
12.
supra note
2.
13. INDIA CONST.
Art. 29, cl. 1.
14. Hindu Religious
Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha
Swamiar of Sri Shrirur Mutt,
A.I.R. 1954 S.C 282 (India).
15. Bramchari Sidheswar Bhai v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R.
1995 S.C 2089 (India).
16. SP Mittal
v. Union of India, A.I.R.
1982 S.C 729 (India).
17.
supra note
1.
18.
supra note
6.
19.
supra note
7.
20.
supra note
6
21.
supra note
1.
22. INDIA CONST.
Art. 29, cl. 2.
23.
supra note
7.
[3] Society for Unaided Schools
of Rajasthan v. Union of India, A.I.R 2012 S.C. 95 (India).
[4] D.A.V. College
v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1971 S.C 1737 (India).
[5] S.K Patro v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1970 S.C 259 (India).
[8] The National
Commission for Minority
Educational Institution Act, 2004, No. 2, Acts of parliament, 2004 (India).
[9] supra note 7.
[10] INDIA CONST.
Art. 29.
[11] supra note 2.
[14] Hindu Religious
Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha
Swamiar of Sri Shrirur Mutt, A.I.R. 1954 S.C 282 (India).
[15] Bramchari Sidheswar Bhai v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R.
1995 S.C 2089 (India).
[16] SP Mittal v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1982 S.C 729 (India).
[18] supra note 6.
[23] supra note 7.
Article Information
RIGHTS OF MINORITIES TO ESTABLISH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN INDIA BY: HARIKA CHERUKURI
Authors: HARIKA CHERUKURI
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/06/05
- Volume 2
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.