Art 29-30

19-10-2023
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS

(ARTICLES 29 AND 30)
ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS
• 29. Protection of interests of minorities.—

• (1) 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.
• (2) 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.
1
19-10-2023
ARTICLE 29: PROTECTION OF INTERESTS OF

MINORITIES: CLAUSE(1)
• Clause (1) gives the right to every section of the citizens which has a
distinct language, script or culture to conserve the same.
• If such sections of citizens desire to preserve their language, script or
culture the state would not stand in their way.
• Minority communities can effectively conserve their language script or
culture by and through educational institutions and therefore
• Right to establish and maintain educational institutions of its choice is a
necessary concomitant to the right to conserve its distinct language script
or culture, and that is what article 30(1) confers on all minorities.
THE CONSTITUTION (FIRST AMENDMENT) ACT 1951

• To overcome courts interpretation in validating a special provision for admission

to a weaker sections of the society ( State of Madras v. Champakam
Dorairajan, AIR 1951 SC 226).
• The Constitution (First Amendment) Act 1951 added clause 4 to Article 15 to the
effect that nothing in articles 15 and 29(2) shall prevent the state from making
any special provision for the advancement of any SEBCs of citizens or for the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• Accordingly, the state is now empowered to reserve seats in state colleges for
any SEBC of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• To overcome similar interpretation the Constitution (93rd Amendment) has
introduced clause 5 in Article 15 which however has no reference to article
29(2).
2
19-10-2023
ARTICLE 29(1), NEITHER CONTROLS THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE 30 NOR IS

CONTROLLED BY THAT ARTICLE. THE SCOPE OF THE TWO IS DIFFERENT
Article 29 Article 30
1. extends to all sections of citizens having a 1. is confined to religious and linguistic

distinct language, script or culture minorities
2. confined to those minorities which have a 2. extends to all religious and linguistic
distinct language, script or culture minorities.
3. gives a very general right to conserve the 3. gives only the right to establish and
language, script or culture administer educational institutions of a
minority's choice
4. the right may be exercised without
establishing educational institutions 4. the right need not be exercised for
conserving language script or culture.
JAGDEV SINGH SIDDHANTI V. PRATAP SINGH DAULTA,

AIR 1965 SC 183
• The Appellant, who was declared elected to the House of the People was alleged to
have used corrupt practices to promote communal anonymity between the Hindu and
the Sikh communities, which is prohibited by section 123(3), Representation of People
Act 1951.
• the High Court accepted the contention of the respondent and set aside the election of
the appellant.
• But the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the judgement of the Punjab
High Court.
• “right to conserve the language of the citizens includes the right to agitate for the protection of
the language.
• Political agitation for conservation of the language of a section of citizens cannot, therefore,
be regarded as a corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123 sub clause 3 of the
Representation of the People Act…
• unlike article 19 (1) article 29 (1) is not subject to any reasonable restrictions.”,
3
19-10-2023
CLAUSE (2)
relates to admission into educational institutions which are maintained or aided by State funds.
Article 15 also prohibits discrimination against citizens on grounds of religion etc.

But the scope of the two articles is different
ARTICLE 15(1) ARTICLE 29(2)

1. protects citizens only against the state 1. protects citizens against the state or anybody
who denies the right conferred by it.
2. protects citizens against discrimination
generally 2. protects only against a particular species of
discrimination, namely denial of admission into
3. specific Grounds on which educational institutions maintained or created
discrimination is prohibited are not the by the state.
same in the two articles: “language” is 3. “ Place of birth” and “sex” do not occur in the
not mentioned in the Article Article
STATE OF BAMBAY V. BOMBAY EDUCATION SOCIETY,

AIR 1954 SC 561
• The State cannot direct minority educational institutions to restrict admission to

the members of their own community only.
• A Bombay government circular order directing the school with English medium
to admit only anglo-Indians and citizens of non-Asiatic decent in the classes
taught in English language was held ultra vires, because
• the order denied to all pupils whose mother tongue was not English, admission
into any school where the medium of instruction was English.
• The order would not be valid even if the object for making it is the promotion or
advancement of the national language.
• The court said: The effect of the order involves infringement of a fundamental
right under Article 29, and that effect is brought about by denying admission only
on the ground of language.
4
19-10-2023
ST. STEPHEN'S COLLEGE V. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI,

AIR 1992 SC 1630.

• Article 29 (2) is a special Article and is a controlling provision in respect of admission to
colleges.
• The right to admission into an educational institution is a right that an individual citizen
has as a citizen and not as a member of any community or class of citizens.
• Hence a school run by a minority if it is aided by State funds cannot refuse admission to
children belonging to other communities.
• The court held that a minority community may reserve up to 50% seats for the members
of its own community in an educational institution established and administered by it
even if the institution is getting aid from the state.
T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION V. STATE OF KARNATAKA,

AIR 2003 SC355,

11 JUDGE BENCH
• while agreeing with St. Stephen's College case, the Court has relaxed the 50 % limit and
has held that a reasonable percentage may be fixed by the state in which the minority
institution is situated.
• In the words of chief Justice Kripal
• “ the best possible way is to hold that as long as the minority educational institution
permits the admission of citizens belonging to the non-minority class to a reasonable
extent based upon merit, it will not be an infraction of Article 29(2), even though the
institution admits students of the minority group of its own choice for whom the institution
was meant.”
10
5
19-10-2023
UNAIDED INSTITUTIONS
• While ordinarily, educational institutions established in pursuance of

articles 29 (1) or 30(1) are subject to article 29(2), they are not so if they
do not receive any aid from the state.
• Therefore, in the matter of admission, they are free from the constraints
of Article 29(2).
• The unaided majority Institutions, however, do not stand in the same
position as the unaided minority institution.
• The latter are free to admit students exclusively from the minority
community subject to the requirement of merit inter se.
• In contrast, the former may be subjected to any other reasonable
restrictions in the public interest.
11
P.A. INAMDAR V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, (2005)

6 SCC 537, (R. C. LAHOTI, Y. K. SABHARWAL, D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, ARUN KUMAR, G. P. MATHUR, TARUN
CHATTERJEE, P. K. BALASUBRAMANYAN , JJ)
• the court held that:

“Neither the policy of reservation can be enforced by the state nor any quota for a
percentage of admissions can be carved out to be appropriated by the state in a
minority or non-minority unaided educational institution.
• Minority Institutions are free to admit students of their own choice, including
students of non-minority communities and 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.”
• Later, article 15(5) abrogated the above statement insofar as it
applies to non-minority Institutions. ,
12
6
19-10-2023
SOCIETY FOR UNAIDED PRIVATE SCHOOLS OF

RAJASTHAN V. UNION OF INDIA,
AIR 2012 SC 3445 (3 JUDGE BENCH)
• The court upheld the obligation of aided minority

institutions to admit 25% of students from the
economically weaker sections of society in the age
group of 6 to 14 years
• As required by the Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act 2009.
13
PRAMATI EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST V. UNION OF INDIA,

AIR 2014 SC 2114 (5 Judge Bench)
• Article 29 (1) confers on any section of the citizens a right to conserve its own language,
script or culture by and through educational institutions and makes it obvious that a
minority could conserve its language, script or culture and, therefore, the right to
establish institutions of its choice is a necessary concomitant to the right to conserve its
distinctive language, script or culture and that right is conferred on all minorities by
Article 30(1).
• The Court overruled Society for unaided private schools of Rajasthan v. Union of
India case by holding that the 2009 Act in so far it is made applicable to aided minority
schools is ultra vires the Constitution.
----------
14
7
19-10-2023
30. RIGHT OF MINORITIES TO ESTABLISH AND

ADMINISTER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.—

• (1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and
administer educational institutions of their choice.
• [(1A) In making any law providing for the compulsory acquisition of any property of an
educational institution established and administered by a minority, referred to in clause (1), the
State shall ensure that the amount fixed by or determined under such law for the acquisition of
such property is such as would not restrict or abrogate the right guaranteed under that clause.] Ins.
by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, s. 4 (w.e.f. 20-6-1979).
• (2) 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.
15
CLAUSE (1)
Clause (1) gives all minorities, whether based on religion or language, the right
1.To establish and
2.to administer educational institutions of their choice.
Articles 29 and 30 are grouped together, it will be wrong to restrict the right of
minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice under
Article 30(1) only to educational institutions concerned with the conservation of
the language, script or culture of the minorities.
16
8
19-10-2023
17
SCOPE OF ARTICLE 30
• The scope of article 30 rests on the fact that the right to

establish and administer educational institutions of their choice
is guaranteed only to linguistic or religious minorities and no
other section of citizen has such a right.
• Further Article 30(1) gives the right to linguistic minorities
irrespective of their religion. It is, therefore, not at all possible
to exclude secular education from Article 30.
18
9
19-10-2023
MINORITIES
• The expression “minorities” in Article 30 is not defined in the Constitution.

• The Supreme Court has, however, observed and decided cases on the basis that it
refers to any community which is numerically less than 50% of the population of a
particular state as a whole when a law about which the question of minority is to be
determined is a State Law (Kerala Education Bill, 1957,re, AIR 1958 SC 956).
• A community, which is a minority in a specific area of the state though a majority in the
state as a whole, would not be treated as a minority for the purpose of this Article.
• A minority could be determined in relation to the entire population of the country only if
the law applies to the entire country such as the Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act 2009 (Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan
v. Union of India, AIR 2012 SC 3445).
19
…MINORITIES
• If the law in question is a state law, the minorities must be determined in relation to the
population of that state( D A V College v. State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 1731).
• But the fact that the expression “minorities” in article 30(1) is used as distinct from any
sections of citizens in article 29 (1) lends support to the view that article 30(1) deals with
national minorities or minorities recognised in the context of the entire nation.
• In that case however, Article 30(1) would become inapplicable to the national majority
even if it is a minority in any particular state, for example Hindus in Punjab or in Jammu
and Kashmir.
20
10
19-10-2023
T.M.A PAI FOUNDATION V. STATE OF

KARNATAKA, AIR 2003 SC 355

• an 11 judge bench of the court in the case has held that in view of the past precedents
as well as the fact that states have been organised on linguistic lines, minority status
shall be determined on the basis of state and not the whole of India.
• This applies both to linguistic as well as religious minorities.
• Transfer of education from state to concurrent legislative subject may make a difference
in this regard because those religious or linguistic groups which could avail of Article
30(1) when a law applied only to a state could not make that claim when the law has all
India application.
• In that case linguistically every section of the society becomes minority because no
language is the mother tongue of 50% or more people on all India basis. (The
percentage of Indian population with Hindi as their mother tongue: 43.63%, as 2011
census data).
21
…MINORITIES
• The approach of the court in defining minorities appears to be persuasive and practical in our context,
but it is likely to break down in those States where no religious or linguistic community constitutes more
than 50% of the total population of that state unless we invoke the definition of Hindu given in
explanation 2 of article 25 (2),
• it is also likely to break down in case of traditional religion of India such as joiner for Buddhist if they
claimed minority status under article 30.
• it is also unlikely that article 30 was intended to protect a educational Entrepreneur who constitutes
majority in his own state but crosses over to a neighbouring or any other state with a view to take
advantage of that article.
• such instances are fast growing with education having become of profitable industry. in view of such
questions numerical strength cannot be the sole guide in determining minorities for the purpose of
article 30.
22
11
19-10-2023
DAYANAND ANGLO VEDIC (D.A.V.) COLLEGE TRUST AND MANAGEMENT

SOCIETY V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (2013) 4 SCC 14)
• vulnerability of a religion or a language must be an essential element in

determination of minority under that article. realising this anomaly the court has
finally clarified:
“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 such Institution”.
23
A MINORITY OF PERSONS RESIDING IN INDIA

• Although article 30(1) does not speak of citizens, the minority competent to claim the protection of
that Article must be a minority of persons residing in India.
• In S.K. Patro v. State of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 259, with reference to an educational institution
established in 1854, when there was no independent Indian citizenship apart from the citizenship
of the British Empire,
• the court observed that Article 30 does not expressly refer to citizenship as a qualification for the
members of minority.
• But it clarified that it does not confer upon foreigners not resident in India the right to set up
educational institutions of their choice.
• This position has been further clarified in St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi, AIR 1992
SC 1630,
• where the court observed that the minority under Article 30 must necessarily mean those who form
a distinct and identifiable group of citizens of India.
24
12
19-10-2023
CHOICE
• The right conferred on minorities is to establish educational institutions of

their choice.
• It does not say that minorities based on religion should establish
educational institutions for teaching religion or that linguistic minorities
should have the right to establish educational institutions for teaching
their own language only.
• The article leaves it to their choice to establish such educational
institutions as will serve both the purposes, namely the purpose of
conserving their religion, language or culture, and
• also the purpose of giving of thorough general education to their children.
25
ESTABLISH AND ADMINISTER

• The world “ establish” and “ administer” in Article 30 must be read conjunctively so that
minorities will have the right to administer educational institutions of their choice
provided they have established it.
• The world “ establish” means to “bring into existence”.
• In S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India, AIR 1968 SC 662, It was held that as the Aligarh
Muslim University was established by the central legislature under an Act of 1920, the
Muslim minority could not claim to administer it.
• It is not necessary that the whole community must be involved in the establishment of an
educational institution.
• it may be established even by a single philanthropic individual with his own means in the
interest of the minority community.
26
13
19-10-2023
RECOGNITION AND AFFILIATION

• Article 30 (1) Does not speak of recognition and affiliation, and the court has
also consistently taken the view that there is no fundamental right to recognition
or affiliation
• yet affiliation and recognition cannot be denied or subjected to conditions that
would rob the minorities’ right under article 30 (1) of its substance, i.e. on
conditions that would describe the minorities to establish and administer
educational institutions of their choice.
• But in the matter of recognition and affiliation, the authorities concerned are
always competent to check whether the recognition for affiliation is being sought
for educational purposes or some other ulterior reason, such as making money
in the name of education.
• Also, they may require the minority institution to observe the same educational
standards as required from other institutions.
27
RECEIVING AID FROM THE STATE

• An institution established by a minority and receiving aid from the State would
not lose its minority character by admitting members of any other community.
• Indeed, the right conferred under Article 30(1) is to be reconciled with the right in
article 29 (2)
• which provides 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.
• St. Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi, AIR 1992 SC1630, the court held
that the minority community may reserve up to 50% of the seats in its
educational institutions for the members of its community.
28
14
19-10-2023
T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION V. STATE OF KARNATAKA,

AIR 2003 SC355,
• The Supreme Court clarified that the right percentage cannot be stipulated.
• It has to be left to communities to prescribe a reasonable percentage having regard to the
type of Institution, population and educational needs of minorities.
• the dissenting judges, however, seriously doubted whether Article 29(2) could so curtail the
rights of admission of minorities in their educational institutions.
• In the Pai Foundation case, the court also drew the distinction between
• (1) admissions at school and undergraduate levels where merit does not play much role, and
• (2) admissions at Higher Education and professional levels where merit plays an important role.
• while no or very little state regulation is needed in the former, it is definitely needed in the
latter.
• Unlike other Institutions, minority Schools cannot be compelled to admit a certain percentage
of EWS, OBC, SC and ST students.
29
REGULATION
• The right conferred on religious and linguistic minorities to administer educational

institutions of their choice though couched in absolute terms is not free from
regulation.
• For the application of this right minority, Institutions are divided into three classes
(1) an institution that neither seek aid nor recognition from the state
(2) institutions that seek aid from the state and
(3) institutions which seek recognition but not aid
• While the Institutions of class (1) cannot be subjected to any regulations except
those emanating from the general laws of the land such as labour, contract or tax
laws,
• the institutions in classes (2) and (3) can be subjected to regulations about the
academic standards and to the better administration of the institution in the interest
of that institution itself.
30
15
19-10-2023
SIDHRAJBHAI SABBAI V. STATE OF GUJARAT,

AIR 1963 SC 540

• The Supreme Court held that only such regulations might lawfully be imposed which are
directed to making the institution while retaining its character as a minority institution,
effective as an educational institution.
• Thus, regulations, as are in the interest of efficiency of instructions or discipline, health,
sanitation, morality, public order and the like, may undoubtedly be applied but not others.
• The court observed:
• “ If every order which while maintaining the formal character of a minority institution destroys
the power of administration is held justifiable because it is in the public or national interest,
though not in its interest as an educational institution, the right guaranteed by article 30(1)
will be a teasing illusion, a promise of unreality.”
31
D. A. V. COLLEGE V. STATE OF PUNJAB,

AIR 1971 SC 1731
• The petitioners, Arya Samajis, claiming themselves as a minority community, questioned the compulsory
affiliation and its conditions to the Guru Nanak University of Institutions managed and administered by them.
• The University made provisions which prescribed certain conditions required for colleges seeking affiliation.
• A college should have a regularly constituted governing body consisting of not more than 20 persons
approved by the Senate and including, among others, two representatives of the University and the
Principal of the college ex-officio.
• the staff initially as well as subsequently appointed would be approved by the vice-chancellor.
• The Supreme Court held that this provision interfered with the rights of management of the Institutions run by
minorities and, therefore, violated articles 29 (1) and 30 (1).
• A University cannot appoint its own nominees to the governing body of a private college since that would
directly interfere with the minority's right to Management.
• So also is the case with the appointment of teachers in a private college.
32
16
19-10-2023
AHMEDABAD ST. XAVIER’S COLLEGE SOCIETY V. STATE OF GUJARAT,

AIR 1974 SC 1389 (NINE-JUDGE BENCH)
• The Society of Jesus, the petitioners, was running St. Xavier’s College at Ahmedabad with the
object of providing higher education to Christian students.
• However, children of all classes and creeds were admitted to the college.
• The college was an affiliated college under the Gujarat University Act 1949.
• The petitioners challenged provisions of the Gujarat University (Amendment) Act 1972, which
provided for
• university nominees in the governing and selection bodies of all colleges,
• conversion of affiliated colleges to constituent colleges,
• approval of the vice chancellor for disciplinary action against members of teaching staff, and
• reference of disputes between the staff and management to arbitration in which their Umpire had to be
the vice chancellor's nominee.
33
…AHMEDABAD ST. XAVIER’S COLLEGE SOCIETY

• The Court held that these provisions could not be applied to minority colleges.
• The Court also emphasised that the right conferred on religious and linguistic minorities
to administer educational institutions of their choice is not absolute.
• This right is not free from regulation.
• Autonomy in administration means the right to administer effectively and to manage and
conduct the institution’s affairs.
• The choice in the personnel of management, the appointment of teachers, the admission
of students and the use of properties and assets for the benefit of the institution are parts
of the administration.
• Restriction on the right of the administration imposed in the interest of the general
public alone and not in the interests of and for the benefit of minority institutions
concerned will affect the autonomy of the administration.
34
17
19-10-2023
ALL SAINTS HIGH SCHOOL V. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH,

AIR 1980 SC 1042,
• Justice Fazal Ali summarised three important tests which would determine whether or not the
action of the government amounts to interference with the management of the Institution:
1. in order that the management of the institution is free from outside control, the founders must be
permitted to mould the institution as they think fit
2. no part of the management could be taken away by the government and vested in another body without
an encroachment upon the guaranteed right enshrined in Article 30(1) of the constitution and
3. there is, however, an exception to this general rule which is that the government or the University can
adopt regulatory measures in order to improve the educational standards which concern the body
politic and are dictated by considerations of the advancement of the country and its people, so that the
minority institution may not under the guise of autonomy for the exclusive right of management be allowed
to fall below the standard of excellence that is required of educational institutions.
35
FRANK ANTHONY PUBLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION V. UNION OF INDIA

AIR 1987 SC 311
• .Section 12 of Delhi School Education Act 1973 exempted unaided minority Institutions from those
provisions of the Act which provided for the code of conduct for the employees of the schools, the
procedure for disciplinary proceedings and the penalties to be imposed on Delhi delinquent employees,
scales of pay and allowances, etc., and constitution of Tribunal to hear appeals against disciplinary
actions.
• The petitioners, employees of the Frank Anthony Public School- an unaided minority school, who were
demanding from the management of the school parity of pay scales and allowances, etc. with their
counterparts in the state-aided schools and some of whom had been suspended for the expression of
such demand, approached the supreme court to invalidate Section 12 under article 14.
• Rejecting the defence of the Union of India and the school management that the application of those
provisions from which section 12 exempts the unaided minority schools shall be violative of the rights of
minorities under article 30(1), Justice Chinnappa Reddy declared that section 12 violated article
14.
• Consequently, the provisions of the Act became applicable to unaided minority schools also.
36
18
19-10-2023
PRAMATI EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST V. UNION OF INDIA

AIR 2014 SC 2114

R. M. LODHA, A. K. PATNAIK, S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA, DIPAK MISRA, F. M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA , JJ
HELD:
• Clause (5) of Art. 15 of the Constitution enables the State to make a special provision, by law, for the
advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes.
• The minority character of the minority educational institutions referred to in Cl. (1) of Art. 30 of the
Constitution, whether aided or unaided, may be affected by admissions of socially and educationally
backward classes of citizens or the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and
• it is for this reason that minority institutions, aided or unaided, are kept outside the enabling power of the
State under Cl. (5) of Art. 15 with a view to protect the minority institutions from a law made by the majority.
• The minority educational institutions, by themselves, are a separate class and their rights are
protected under Art. 30 of the Constitution, and, therefore, the exclusion of minority educational
institutions from Art. 15(5) is not violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.
------------
37
19

Art 29-30

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Art 29-30

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Art 29-30

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

19-10-2023

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

• 29. Protection of interests of minorities.—

• (1) Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

ARTICLE 29: PROTECTION OF INTERESTS OF

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

THE CONSTITUTION (FIRST AMENDMENT) ACT 1951

• To overcome courts interpretation in validating a special provision for admission

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

ARTICLE 29(1), NEITHER CONTROLS THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE 30 NOR IS

CONTROLLED BY THAT ARTICLE. THE SCOPE OF THE TWO IS DIFFERENT

1. extends to all sections of citizens having a 1. is confined to religious and linguistic

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

JAGDEV SINGH SIDDHANTI V. PRATAP SINGH DAULTA,

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

Article 15 also prohibits discrimination against citizens on grounds of religion etc.

ARTICLE 15(1) ARTICLE 29(2)

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

STATE OF BAMBAY V. BOMBAY EDUCATION SOCIETY,

AIR 1954 SC 561

• The State cannot direct minority educational institutions to restrict admission to

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

ST. STEPHEN'S COLLEGE V. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI,

AIR 1992 SC 1630.

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION V. STATE OF KARNATAKA,

AIR 2003 SC355,

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

• While ordinarily, educational institutions established in pursuance of

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

P.A. INAMDAR V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, (2005)

CHATTERJEE, P. K. BALASUBRAMANYAN , JJ)

• the court held that:

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

SOCIETY FOR UNAIDED PRIVATE SCHOOLS OF

AIR 2012 SC 3445 (3 JUDGE BENCH)

• The court upheld the obligation of aided minority

PRAMATI EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST V. UNION OF INDIA,

AIR 2014 SC 2114 (5 Judge Bench)

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

30. RIGHT OF MINORITIES TO ESTABLISH AND

ADMINISTER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.—

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

• The scope of article 30 rests on the fact that the right to

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

• The expression “minorities” in Article 30 is not defined in the Constitution.

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

T.M.A PAI FOUNDATION V. STATE OF

KARNATAKA, AIR 2003 SC 355

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

DAYANAND ANGLO VEDIC (D.A.V.) COLLEGE TRUST AND MANAGEMENT