A RESEARCH ASSIGNMENT ON

“Right of Recognition and Affiliation under the Establishment and

Administration of Educational Institution in India”

SUBMITTED TO:
(Mr. VISHAL BERA)

(ASSISTANT PROFESSOR)

(FACULTY OF “LAW OF EDUCATION & RELIGON”)

SUBMITTED BY:

NAME: ASHISH RANJAN GARG

ROLL NO.-

16FLICDDN01022
BATCH (2016-2021)

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 31/03/2020

ICFAI LAW SCHOOL,

ICFAI UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN

1|Page
 DECLARATION

I,Ashish Ranjan Garg, student of BBA-LLB(Hons) 4TH year, hereby declare that the project
work entitled “Right of Recognition and Affiliation under the Establishment and
Administration of Educational Institution in India” submitted to the ICFAI Law School,
ICFAI University, Dehradun is a record of an original work done by me under the guidance
of Mr. Vishal Bera, teacher in subject, ICFAI Law School, ICFAI University, Dehradun.

Date: 31/03/2020 Name: Ashish Ranjan GArg

Roll No. 16FLICDDN01022

Batch: 2016-21

2|Page
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project report entitled “Right of Recognition and Affiliation
under the Establishment and Administration of Educational Institution in India”
submitted by name in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the award of degree of
“Batch” to ICFAI Law School, ICFAI University, Dehradun is a record of the candidate’s
own work carried out by him under my supervision. The matter embodied in this project is
original and has not been submitted for the award of any other degree.

DATE: 31/03/2020 (Mr. Vishal Bera)

Teacher in subject

3|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would specially like to thank my guide, mentor, Mr. Vishal Bera without whose constant
support and guidance this project would have been a distant reality.

This work is an outcome of an unparalleled infrastructural support that I have received from
ICFAI Law School, ICFAI University, Dehradun.
I owe my deepest gratitude to the library staff of the college.

It would never have been possible to complete this study without an untiring support from my
family, specially my parents.

This study bears testimony to the active encouragement and guidance of a host of friends and
well-wishers.

Name: Ashish Ranjan GArg

Roll no: 16FLICDDN01022

Batch:2016-21

4|Page
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

Cri. LJ Criminal Law Journal

HINDU L.R. Hindu Law Reporter

SCC Supreme Court Cases

5|Page
 TABLE OF CASES

1. T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka

2. Unni Krishnan J.P. v. State of A.P. [1993]

3. Mohini Jain

4. A.M Patroni v. Asst Educational Officer, AIR 1974

5. Socio Literati Advancement Society Bangalore v. State of Karnataka,

AIR 1974

6. S.P Mittal v. Union of India

7. D.A.V College v. State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC1737

8. W. Proost v. State of Bihar, AIR 1969 SC 465

9. St Xavier’s College v. State of Gujarat

10. Sheetanu Srivastava v Principal, Allahabad Agricultural Institute, AIR

1989 all 123

11. St. Stephen’s College v University of Delhi

12. Sidhrajbhai v. State of Gujarat

6|Page
 CONTENTS

TOPIC PAGE NO.

 DECLARATION 2

 CERTIFICATE 3

 ACKNOWLEDGMENT 4

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 5

 TABLE OF CASES 6

INTERODUCTION 8

Right to establish Educational Institution 9

Right to administer educational 10

institution
The right to administer may be said to 11
consist of the following rights
Education of Their Choice 12

Reservation of seats in favour of students 13

of minority community
Reservation by government in aided 14
minority educational institutions violates
article 30(1)
Right to recognition and affiliation 15

AICTE guidelines on Minority and Non- 17

minority educational institution,
Handbook 2018-19
Conclusion 18

7|Page
Bibliography 20

8|Page
Introduction

India is a mosaic of diversity as it is a multi-cultural and pluralistic society. We take pride in

our heritage, in our myriad religions, languages and ethnicities. At the time of independence,
our aim was to achieve unity in diversity-to preserve these individual identities and yet to
remain a united, secular nation. Keeping these lofty ideals in mind, the framers of our
constitution set about drafting the supreme law of land, in the hope that it would be in
consonance with these utopian ideals. Our founding fathers enshrined in the Constitution
ideals that sought to ensure for all citizens of India the equal opportunity to develop, by
securing for them social, economic and political justice; liberty of thought, expression, belief,
faith and worship; and equality of status and opportunity. 1 These important principles form
the bedrock of India’s pluralistic and democratic society. They are essential for establishing a
society wherein people have the opportunity to enjoy the whole gamut of human rights within
a cohesive and stable framework.’

In order to achieve unity and integrity of the country and to allay any fears of the minority
communities, Articles 29 and Article 30 were provided as protection against cultural
hegemony of the dominant groups. Article 29(1) of the Constitution provides that any section
of the citizens, residing in the territory of India or any part thereof, having a distinct
language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same.” Article 29(2)
lays down that “no citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution
maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race,
caste, language or any of them.” Article 30(1) enjoins that “all minorities, whether based on
religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions
of their choice”, while Article 30(2) lays down that “the State shall not, in granting aid to
educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it
is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language.” 2
Furthermore, Article 350-A establishes that “it shall be the endeavour of every State and of
every local authority within the State to provide adequate facilities for instruction in the
mother-tongue at the primary stage of education, to children belonging to linguistic minority
groups.”

The basic aim of these articles is not only to provide a better structure of education for the
minorities, but also to help us achieve secularism in the true sense. Keeping in mind the
1
The Preamble to the Constitution of India.
2
Bakshi P. M., “The Constitution of India”, (Delhi, Universal Law Publishing Company, 2005), at pp. 6670.

8|Page
socio-political and historical context, it would indeed be a grave error to term such
affirmative provisions as being biased against the majority (as certain detractors and right-
wing political ideologues do); rather they should be viewed in the light of the original intent
of the founding fathers as being an impetus or encouragement given to the minorities to raise
their level.

The right to education has been articulated as a fundamental guarantee by the Supreme Court
in the case of Mohini Jain. The Articles in question, when read in conjunction with this right
(as articulated by the Supreme Court), widen their own import considerably, as against when
read in isolation. And as has already been stated earlier, that it was the intent of the framers to
afford to the minorities added impetus for availing opportunities in the field of education, so
that they may level up to the majority, both economically and socially. Furthermore, this in
turn would also supplement in the way of achieving an egalitarian society as envisaged by the
Constitution. It was also realized, that in terms of the means to be employed for the
attainment of the aforementioned purposes, laying down provisions in the fundamental law of
superior obligation itself, would be most apt.

Right to establish Educational Institution

Article 30(1) guarantees to all minorities based on religion or language the right to establish
and administer educational institution of their own choice. The word “establish” means to
bring into existence. It does not necessarily connote construction of the institution by the
minority. In A.M Patroni v. Asst. Educational Officer where a school previously run by some
other organization, was taken over by the church, which reorganized and managed it to cater
to and in conformity with the school as established by Roman Catholics. The school was held
to have been established by the Roman Catholics for the purpose of article 30(1).1

The right to establish under article 30(1) means the right to establish real institution
which will effectively serve the need of their community and the scholars who resort to
them.2 The minority is not required to seek prior permission for the establishment of an
educational institution.3 Article 30(1) does not require that the whole community must have
been involved in the establishment of the educational institution. It might be established even
by a philanthropic individual with his own means in the interest of the minority community, it
would be entitled to the protection of article 30(1). However, the mere fact that the school
1
A.M Patroni v. Asst Educational Officer, AIR 1974 ker.197
2
Re Kerela education bill, AIR 1958 SC956
3
Socio Literati Advancement Society Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 Karn.217

9|Page
was founded by a person belonging to particular religion did not make it a minority
institution. Again, where funds, were obtained from abroad for assisting in setting up and
developing a school, which was established by a minority in India, or that the management as
is carried on at times by some persons who are not born in India, cannot be a ground to deny
to the school the protection of article 30(1).1 Likewise, the fact that the school was
successively having a non-Christian headmaster does not lead to conclusion that it was not
established by the Christians.

Right to administer educational institution

The word “administers” and “establish” for the purpose of article 30(1) have to be read
conjunctively. Therefore, a minority can claim a right to administer an educational institution
only if it has been established by it not otherwise. Article 30(1) postulate that the religious
community will have the right to establish and administer educational institution of their own
choice meaning thereby that where a religious minority establishes an educational institution,
it will have the right to administer that. The right to administer has been given to the
minority, so that it can mould the institution as it thinks fit, and in accordance with its ideas
of how the interest of the community in general, and institution in particular, will be served
best. For the purpose of article.30 (1) even a single philanthropic individual from the
community concerned can found the institution with its own means.

The Supreme Court observed in Azzez Basha v. Union of India “that the minority will have
the right to administer educational institutions of their own choice provided they have
established them, but not otherwise.2 Article 30 cannot be read to mean that even if the
educational institution has been established by somebody else, any religious minority would
have right to administer it because, for some reason or for, it might have been administering it
before the constitution came into force.

In S.P Mittal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court has stated: “In order to claim benefit of
article 30(1), the community must show :( a) that it is religious/linguistic minority. (b) That
institution was established by it. Without satisfying these two conditions it cannot claim the
guaranteed right to administer it. In Andhra Pradesh Christian Medical Association v.
Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court has asserted that the government, the
university and ultimately the court can go behind the claim that the institution in question is a
minority institution and “to investigate and satisfy itself whether the claim is well founded or
1
Bishop S.K Patro v. State of Bihar, AIR1970SC 259
2
Azeez Basha V. Union of India, AIR 1968 SC 662

10 | P a g e
ill-founded”, the government, the university and ultimately the court “have the undoubted
right to pierce the minority veil” and “discover whether there is lurking behind it no minority
at all and in any case no minority institution”.1

The right to administer may be said to consist of the following rights:

i. To choose its managing or governing body;

ii. To choose its teachers; and headmaster/principal:
iii. Not to be compelled to refuse admission to students;
iv. To use its properties and assets for the benefit of the institution;
v. To select its own medium of instruction; hence, a legislation which would
penalize by disaffiliation from the university any institution which uses a language
as the medium of instruction other than the one prescribed by it, offends against
article 30(1).2

Limits of the Right to Administer

Though article 30 itself does not put any limitation upon the right of a minority to administer
its educational institution, this right is not absolute but must be subject to reasonable
regulation for the benefit of the institution as the vehicle of education for the minority
community, consistent with the national interest such as-

i. To maintain the educational character and standard of such institution, e.g., to lay
down qualifications or conditions of service to secure appointment of good
teachers, to ensure interests of students; to maintain a fair standard of teaching;
ii. To ensure orderly, efficient and sound administration and to prevent
maladministration, and to secure its proper functioning as an educational
institution; to ensure that its funds are spent for the betterment of education and
not for extraneous purposes.
iii. To prevent anti-national activity;
iv. To enforce the general laws of land, applicable to all persons, e.g., taxation,
sanitation, social welfare, economic regulations, public order, morality.
v. To prescribe syllabus, curriculum of study and regulate the appointment of
teachers. vi. To ensure efficiency and discipline of the institution.

Education of Their Choice

1
AIR 1986 SC 1490
2
D.A.V College v. State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC1737

11 | P a g e
The right of the minority institution under article 30(1) is not confined to teaching a particular
religion or language in the institution established by them. Preservation of culture, as such, is
not necessary condition either for acquiring the status of minority or for claiming rights under
article 30. In re Kerela education bill case chief justice SR Das stated the key to the
understanding of the true meaning and implication of the article 30are the words “of their
own choice”. It is said that the dominant word is “choice” and the content of that article is
wide as the choice of particular minority community may make it. Further he said that there
is no limitation placed on the subjects to be taught in such minority institutions. The
minorities will ordinarily desire that their children should be brought up properly and
efficiently and be eligible for higher university education and go out in the world fully
equipped with such intellectual attainments as well make them fit for entering public service ;
educational institutions of their own choice will necessarily include imparting of the secular
education also. The Supreme Court has further explained in W. Proost v State of Bihar 1 that
the width of article 30(1) cannot be cut down by introducing in it consideration on which
article 29(1) is based. The latter article is general protection which is given to the minorities
to conserve their language, script and culture. The former is a special right to the minorities to
establish educational institution of their own choice and these educational institutions need
not be up with the sole objective to conserve language, script or culture of the minority
community. The minority community can establish and manage educational institution of
their own choice which may impart secular education. This view is confirmed in the case of
St Xavier’s College v. State of Gujarat. However, in the All Saints high school, the court laid
down broad principle for determining syllabus. it states “where a minority institution is
affiliated to a university the fact that it is enjoined to adopt the courses of study or the syllabi
or the nature of books prescribed and the holding of examination to test the ability of the
students of the institution concerned does not violate the freedom contained in the article 30
of the constitution.2

Minorities have also given a right to select medium of instruction for their educational
institution for their educational institution. The right of a minority to establish and administer
educational institution of its choice also carries with it the right to impart instruction in its
institution to its children in its own language and the state cannot force thee minority
institution to adopt the language prescribed by them as a medium of instruction. In D.A.V.

1
W. Proost v. State of Bihar, AIR 1969 SC 465
2
St. Xavier‟s College V. State of Gujarat, AIR 1974 SC 1389

12 | P a g e
College v. State of Punjab1 Supreme Court made it clear, neither the university nor the state
can provide for imparting education in a medium of instruction in a language and script
which stifles the language and script of any section of any citizens. Such a course will
trespass on the rights of those sections of citizen which have distinct language and script and
which they have right to conserve through educational institution of their own. However, the
state can provide for the study of the state language as a compulsory second language.

Reservation of seats in favour of students of minority community

Does the right to establish and administer a minority institution of their own choice extend to
or includes the right to reserve seats for the students of minority community in a state funded
or aided institution? The matter first came before the Supreme Court in the case of Sheetansu
Srivastava v Principal, Allahabad Agriculture Institute, 2 where the institute denied admission
to the general student even though they secured high percentage of marks in the competitive
admission test held by the institute due to admission policy of reservation of 50 per cent of
seats for the church sponsored students from Uttar Pradesh and all over the country and the
reservation of the sets was challenged. The court held that such denial of admission to the
students who were higher in merit in the competitive test held for admission on the basis of
the admission policy of the institution ids liable to be quashed being violative of article 29(2)
of the constitution. The court reasoned that a minority may have religious right to impart
education so as to maintain its identity and culture but no religion preaches separatism. There
can be no reason in the claim that the government aided institutions should be permitted to
confines its educational activities to the student of their own community. Therefore, both on
general approach and constitutional prohibition under article 29(2) the reservation policy of
the institution cannot stand.

In St. Stephen’s College v University of Delhi, the Supreme Court had held that even a
minority institution receiving aid from state funds was entitled to accord preference to or
reserve seats for candidates belonging to its own community on the basis of religion or
language. However, the court allowed such institutions to admit students of its own
community to the extent of 50 per cent of the annual intake and insisted that such differential
treatment must be in conformity with the university’s standards. The court held that
differential treatment of students in the admission process did not violate Article 29(2) or
Article 14 (equality before law) and it was essential to maintain the minority character of the
1
D.A.V college v State of Punjab AIR 1971 SC 1731
2
Sheetanu Srivastava v Principal, Allahabad Agricultural Institute, AIR 1989 all 123

13 | P a g e
institution. The Supreme Court further explained in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of
Kerela, that while the minority educational institution were permitted to draw students
belonging to that minority to the extent of 50 percent seats even by going down the merit list,
the minority community students, must be admitted on the basis of inter se merit determined
on the basis of common entrance test as is adopted for selecting students belonging to general
categories.

Reservation by government in aided minority educational institutions violates article

30(1)

Art. 30 is simply a special group right, which cannot be subjected to the rigors of the State’s
welfare measures for other sections of society that have no relation with enhancing the
concerned Minority Educational Institutions educational standards or efficiency or the
minority’s educational needs. Any reservation mandated by any external agency in any
Minority educational institute for non-minority students, is impermissible, as it cannot be
justified as a regulation promoting the Minority educational institutes educational standards
or efficiency. The voluntary receipt of aid by a Minority’ Educational Institution does not
deprive it of its minority status and character. In Sidhrajbhai v. State of Gujarat, the
petitioners were the management of the Mary memorial training college at Ahmedabad,
established by Christian minority. The Gujarat government issued an order reserving 80
percent seats in the training colleges for the nominees of the government. The order further
provided that refusal to admit the candidates nominated by the government would result in
withholding recognition and the stoppage of grants-in-aid to such institution. The Supreme
Court held the order violative of the fundamental right of the minority guaranteed under
article 30(1). The court said that state regulation should be reasonable. These, in order to be
valid, must be regulative of educational character and conducive in making the institution an
effective vehicle of education for minority community. In the case of Sheetansu Srivastava
the court held that neither the government could direct a minority institution to admit
particular students nor a minority institution could deny admission to students on the basis of
their not belonging to the minority community.

The Supreme Court delivered an unanimous judgment in the case of P.A. Inamdar v. State of
Maharashtra declaring that neither the policy of reservation can be enforced by the state nor
any quota or percentage of admission can be carved out to be appropriated by the state in a
minority or non-minority unaided educational institution.

14 | P a g e
Minority institutions are free to admit students of their own choice including students of non-
minority community as also members of their own community from other States, both to a
limited extent only and not in a manner and to such an extent that their minority educational
institution status is lost.

Right to recognition and affiliation

Art. 30(1) includes within its scope the right to claim affiliation for and/or recognition of
Minority educational institutions. The Supreme Court in re Kerala education bill held that
true import of article 30(1) would mean the right to establish effective educational institution
which may serve the real need of the minorities and the scholars who resort to them. Article
30(1) will have its complete effect when the institution established by the minorities are given
recognition and affiliation without which the institution cannot play their effective role and
the right conferred on the minorities under the said article would be denude of much of its
efficacy. Thus, the recognition of the institution established by minority is as important as
any other institution. The Supreme Court later observed in the case of Managing Board
M.T.M v State of Bihar that there is no fundamental right to recognition by the state but to
deny recognition to the educational institutions except upon terms tantamount to the
surrender of their constitutional right of administration of educational institute of their choice
in its truth and in effect to deprive the minority of their right under article 30(1) of the
constitution. To have an institution recognized as minority institution the sponsor must
establish that the institution in question has been established by minority community and
such institution is not just a commercial venture but a minority institution in form and spirit.

In the case of St Xavier’s College v State of Gujarat Supreme Court has stated that “the
establishment of a minority institution is not only ineffective but also unreal unless such
institution is affiliated to a university for purpose of conferment of degrees on students. In the
absence of recognition, Minority educational institutions cannot effectively achieve their
chosen object of imparting general secular education, which, under Art.30 (1), they are
entitled to do.” The establishment of a minority institution is not only ineffective but also
unreal unless such institution is affiliated to a university for purpose of conferment of degrees
on students”. However, any law which provides for affiliation on terms which will involve
abridgement of the right of linguistic and religious minorities to administer and establish
educational institution of their own choice will offend article 30(1). The Supreme Court has
held that compulsory affiliation of Minority educational institutions to a University is

15 | P a g e
violative of Art. 30(1) and it was observed that these Minority educational institutions were
free to get themselves affiliated to another University, which presupposes that there is a right
to recognition or affiliation. In fact, it has been held that Art. 30 by its very nature imply that
where affiliation is asked for, the university concerned cannot refuse the same without
sufficient reason. Finally, in T.M.A Pai, Quadri, J. held the right to receive recognition to be
a necessary concomitant to the right of minorities under Art. 30(1). Thus, it is clear that the
right to establish Minority educational institutions „of their choice‟ must, therefore, mean the
right to establish institutions which effectively serves the needs of their community, and thus
include the fundamental right to affiliation.

Minority educational institutions have right to government recognition and even affiliation to
any university. According to Justice Das “to deny recognition to educational institutions
except upon terms tantamount to the surrender of their constitutional right of administration
of the educational of their own choice is in truth and in effect to deprive them of their rights
under article 30(1).” Without recognition the educational institutions established or to be
established cannot fulfil the real objects of their choice and the rights under article 30(1)
cannot be effectively exercised. However, in granting affiliation, it is open to a university to
impose reasonable conditions upon a minority institution for maintaining the requisite
educational standard and efficiency, e.g., as to-

i. Qualification of teachers to be appointed in the institution;

ii. Conditions of service, e.g., the age of superannuation of teachers;

iii. Qualification for entry of students;

iv. Courses of study;

v. Hygiene and physical training of students.

But such terms and conditions will be violative of article 30(1) if they are likely to oblige the
minority to surrender its right to establish and administer educational institution of their own
choice, or to render it unreal or ineffective. Thus, the power to affiliate cannot be used by the
university -

i. To Interfere with the day-to-day administration of the institution; or the right of

management belonging to the minority community;

16 | P a g e
ii. To Interfere with aims, ideals and objects to be achieved by the institution;

iii. To Require that all appointments or dismissal by the governing body must be subject to
the approval of the university; or subject to the undefined and unlimited power of appeal of
the vice-chancellor;

iv. To constitute or reconstitute or suspend the governing body; or to require its approval for
constitution of that body.

v. To prescribe that the teaching in the institution shall be conducted by the university itself
and that the affiliated shall be part and parcel of the university;

vi. To place the administration in a body in the selection of which the founders have no say;

vii. To displace the domestic jurisdiction of the governing body in settling disputes between
members of the teaching staff and refer it to tribunal;

viii. To provide for compulsory affiliation, so as to impose on a minority institution a script

or medium of instruction other than its own.

AICTE guidelines on Minority and Non-minority educational institution, Handbook

2018-19:

There are certain guidelines which are provided by the AICTE. These guidelines are
mandatory for all the colleges which come under AICTE whether it is Minority or Non-
minority colleges. All the colleges which are under AICTE should follow certain guidelines
which are given by AICTE for its college.

List of Minority Educational Institutions affiliated by AICTE

There are some 37-minority educational institution which comes under the AICTE.

CONCLUSION

The educational right given to religious and linguistic minorities under article 30 of the
constitution is not well defined. For a concept to be operative it entails an attempt at
definition. One can speculate that by merely stating the term “minority” in the constitution

17 | P a g e
the framers expected it conception to be sort of self-explanatory. But with the passage of
time, the changing social milieu and the varied contexts requiring its application have
rendered a semblance of constancy in its conception imperative. The constitutional ambiguity
in this regard has given leeway for judicial vacillation, which has further confused the general
populace with regards its cognition. The constitutions silence in this respect is ironical for
definition has to be the condition priori for a conception to be beneficial in practice.

The Supreme Court of India on the other hand attempted to define the word “minority” as a
“community, which is numerically less than 50 percent” of the total population. The court
further said that a minority has to be determined in relation to the particular legislation which
is sought to be implemented. If it is a state law, the minorities have to be determined in
relation to state the population. The debates in the constituent assembly imply a tolerant
approach of the state towards the minorities. This explains the stand of the constitution-
makers not to provide the promised fundamental rights automatically but to make minorities
assert their demands. Even the wording of the article was kept vague in order to facilitate
regular interpretation by the courts, taking into account the historical and spatial requirements
of the nation and equation between the minority and majority-a responsibility, which the
courts are fulfilling at regular interval. Although this would justify non-definition in the
constitution, one has to remember that the judiciary’s role generally follows the
implementation or execution process and therefore a constitutional exposition of the concept
would better serve practical purposes. And it would also limit judicial tinkering thereby
according the concept a much-needed consonance in principle and practice. Status quo on the
other hand would encourage what has come to be known as „judicial populism‟.

As far as interpretation of article 30 by the courts is concerned three trends can be noticed.
Firstly, the judgment is contextual, hence, many times are different, reflecting the personal
convictions of the judges. This makes the interpretation of the article vague and subject to
constant struggle between the minorities and state. Secondly these judgments are more liberal
with the linguistic minorities than with religious ones and, thirdly, they reflect a trend
towards gradually reducing the scope of article, giving space to the governmental regulation
and control. Example can be given of conjunctive use of the term “establish” with
“administration”. Such an approach has deprived many minority communities the benefit of
the rights due to them. Yet another example can be given of the use of concepts like
“maladministration” and “excellence”. As can be seen in both, the Stephen and the Pai cases,
judges are influenced by “melting pot” theory working towards building uniformity in the

18 | P a g e
practice and laws. Further putting together article 29(2) and 30(1) reduces the benefits
promised to the minorities through article30. It is true that article 29(1) and article 30(1)
overlap, but the former cannot limit the width of the latter. The scope of article 30 rest on the
fact that right to establish and administer educational institution of their own choice is
guaranteed only to linguistic or religious minorities, and no other section of citizens has such
a right.

We can thus conclude that it is appropriate time for the parliament to define the term
“minority” and the scope of article 30 so that time and again the right granted to minorities
under article 30 to establish and administer educational should not be put to the tests of
judicial interpretations.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

19 | P a g e
1. Bakshi P.M, The Constitution of India, (Delhi, Published by Universal Publication
Edition 2002)

2. Shukla, Constituent Assembly Debate

3. Kumar, Professor Narendera, Constitutional Law of India (Delhi, Published by

Pioneer Publications, Edition, 1997)

4. Basu Durga Das, Shorter Constitution of India, (New Delhi, Published by Wadhwa
and Company, Edition 13th)

5. Jain M.P, Indian Constitutional Law, (Nagpur, Published by Wadhwa and Company,
Edition 2003)

6. D.E D. J, The Constitution of India, (Hyderabad , Published by Asia Law House,

Edition 2002, vol.1)

7. Shukla V.N, Constitution of India (Lucknow, Published by Eastern Book Company,

Edition 2001)

JOURNALS

1. Economic and Political weekly June 11,2005

2. Supreme Court Journal 2002 vol.1

WEBSITES

http://ncmei.gov.in/default.aspx

https://blog.ipleaders.in/minority-educational-institution-constitution/amp/

*********

20 | P a g e