20-10-2022

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.—

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

• (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.

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

1
 20-10-2022

ARTICLE 29: PROTECTION OF INTERESTS OF

MINORITIES: CLAUSE(1)
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

• 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.

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

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

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

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
language, script or culture
4. the right may be exercised without
establishing educational institutions
3. gives only the right to establish and
administer educational institutions of a
minority's choice
4. the right need not be exercised for
conserving language script or culture.

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

2
 20-10-2022

JAGDEV SINGH SIDDHANTI V. PRATAP SINGH DAULTA,

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

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.
• Two instances were given by the respondent, a defeated sitting member, in support of his allegations:
• (1). that the appellant by taking the help of the Hindi agitation propagated that the respondent was an enemy
of the Arya Samaj and Hindi language and
• (2). that the appellant used a religious symbol- flag called “OM DHWAJ” -In his meetings.
• 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
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.”

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

CLAUSE (2)
relates to admission into educational institutions which are maintained or aided by State funds.
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

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

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

3
 20-10-2022

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

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

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.

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

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

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

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.”

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

4
 20-10-2022

STATE OF BAMBAY V. BOMBAY EDUCATION SOCIETY,

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

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.”

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

THE CONSTITUTION (FIRST AMENDMENT)

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

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).

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

10

5
 20-10-2022

UNAIDED INSTITUTIONS
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

• 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 public Interest.

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

11

P.A. INAMDAR V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

(2005) 6 SCC 537,

• the court held that:

•
“Neither the policy of reservation can be enforced by the state nor any quota for
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 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.”
• Later, article 15(5) has abrogated the above statement insofar as it
applies to non-minority Institutions.

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

12

6
 20-10-2022

SOCIETY FOR UNAIDED PRIVATE SCHOOLS OF

RAJASTHAN V. UNION OF INDIA,
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

AIR 2012 SC 3445 (3 JUDGE BENCH)

• The court upheld the obligation of unaided non-minority

educational institutions and also 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.

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

13

PRAMATI EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST V. UNION OF INDIA,

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

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 partially 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.
----------

ATUL KUMAR TIWARI’S CLASS

14