What does it say :
- Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.
- If an institution is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language, grant of aid to that educational institution cannot be discriminated against, if other educational institutions are entitled to receive aid
What is in news : The right of an institution, whether run by a majority or minority community, to get government aid is not a fundamental right. Both have to equally follow the rules and conditions of the aid, the Supreme Court held in a judgment.
Supreme Court Verdicts on ARTICLE 30
Sidhraj Bhai’s Case:
- SC held that under Article 30(1) fundamental right declared is in term absolute and is not subject to reasonable restrictions.
- It is intended to be a real right for the protection of minorities in the matter of setting up of educational institutions of their choice.
- The right is intended to be effective and not to be whittled down by so-called regulatory measures conceived in the interest not of the minority educational institution, but of the public or the nation as a whole.
- V. College Jullundur v State of Punjab:
- The Court held that a linguistic minority for the purpose of Article 30(1) is one which has separate spoken language.
- It is not necessary that language should also have separate script.
- India has number of languages which do not have script of its own but nonetheless, people speaking such a language will constitute a linguistic minority to claim protection of Article 30(1).
Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College v State of Gujarat:
- Well, the Supreme Court has pointed out that the spirit behind the Article 30(1) is the conscience of the nation that the minorities, religious as well as the linguistic, are not prohibited from the establishment and the administrating educational institutions of their choice for the purpose of giving their children the best general education to make them a complete men and women of the country. the action of Article 30(1)
T.M.A Pai Foundation v State of Karnataka:
- SC overruled the proposition that no regulation can be cast in the interest of the nation if it does not serve the interest of minority as well.
- The Justice Kirpal C. J. had ruled, that any of the regulation which is framed in the national interest must necessarily apply to all the educational institutions, whether run by majority or by a minority. Moreover, such a limitation must necessarily be read into Article 30.
- The right under Article 30(1) cannot be such as to override the national interest or to prevent the Government from framing regulations in that behalf.
- The court was of the view that no right can be absolute. Whether a minority or a nonminority, no community can claim its interest to be above national interest.