DAV College Trust and Management Society V State of Maharashtra AIR 2013 SC 1420

CASE BRIEF

Decided On: 22.03.2013

Appellants: Dayanand Anglo Vedic (DAV) College Trust and Management Society

V

Respondent: State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Judges : S.S. Nijjar and M.Y. Eqbal, JJ.

Statues referred : Constitution Of India – Article 14, Article 19, Article 19(1)(g), Article 29, Article 29(2), Article 30, Article 30(1)

Facts:

• The Appellant-Society was formed in the year 1885. The Appellant is said to have established a large number of schools and colleges all over India and is running such institutions all over the country, with the aim and objective to establish educational institutions to encourage the study of Hindi, classical Sanskrit and Vedas and also to provide instructions in English and other languages, Arts, science including Medicine, Engineering etc.
• The Society started educational institutions at Solapur in the State of Maharashtra in 1940 and is having other schools and colleges at different places in the State of Maharashtra.
• The persons speaking Hindi language and the followers of Arya Samaj in the State of Maharashtra constituted less than 50% of its total population. Therefore, being formed by the persons belonging to Arya Samaj and speaking Hindi language, the Appellant-Society claimed to be a linguistic minority within the meaning and purview of Article 30 of the Constitution of India.
• The Appellant-Society stated that it was earlier granted linguistic minority status in the State of Maharashtra by the Higher and Technical Educational Department of the Respondents for the academic years 2004-05 and 2005-06 and 2006-07. The said recognition was granted after full appreciation of the documents and hearing of the Appellant.
• In the year 2008, the Government of Maharashtra issued a new Resolution dated 04.07.2008 laying down the procedure for granting status of religious/linguistic minority to educational institutions run by the minorities in the State of Maharashtra. On the basis of the Resolution mentioned above, the Respondents issued a Certificate on 11.7.2008 recognizing the Appellant-Society at Solapur as a linguistic minority institution for the academic year 2008-09 also.
• The issue raised after the Appellant-Society made an application on 15.7.2008 requesting Respondent to issue certificate of recognition in the name of Appellant New Delhi instead of Solapur.
• Instead of correcting the alleged mistake in the Certificate, Respondent passed an order dated 2.8.2008 cancelling the Certificate dated 11.7.2008 issued to the Appellant. The Respondents by the aforesaid order cancelled the recognition of the Appellant as a minority linguistic educational institution for the years 2004-05 and 2006-07 also.
• The main ground for cancellation of recognition of the linguistic minority status of the Appellant was that though the Appellant-Trust was registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act by the Charity Commissioner, Mumbai, a majority of the trustees were not residents of the State of Maharashtra and, therefore they cannot be called a linguistic minority.
• Challenging the aforesaid order of the Respondents cancelling the recognition, the Appellant-Society moved the Bombay High Court by filing Writ Petition in 2009, which was finally disposed of with a direction to the Respondents to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing and considering all the documents of the Appellant. In compliance of that order, the Appellant filed a fresh application on 20.08.2009 together with all the necessary documents requesting Respondent to restore the linguistic minority status of the Appellant.
• The Respondent finally rejected the application in terms of order dated 26.10.2009 refusing to restore the earlier recognition of linguistic minority status granted to the Appellant.
• The Appellant-Society then challenged the order dated 26.10.2009 by filing a writ petition in 2010 before the Bombay High Court. The said writ petition was finally heard and dismissed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by impugned order dated 24.2.2010.
• By filing the instant appeal by special leave, the Appellant-Society has challenged the aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench refusing to interfere with the order dated 26.10.2009 passed by the Respondents, thereby withdrawing the linguistic minority status of the Appellant, which was earlier recognized by Respondent by order dated 11.7.2008.

Issues:

• Whether a member of a linguistic non-minority in one State can establish a Trust or Society in another State and claim minority status in that State.
• Whether the member of a linguistic non-minority in one State can establish a trust or society in another State and claim minority status in that State

Contentions by party

1. Appellant’s arguments
   • The first contention raised by the appellant’s learned counsel was that the High Court failed to appreciate that the order impugned dated 26.10.2009 passed by the Respondents adopted a mechanical procedure and in an arbitrary manner withdrew the recognition.
   • The counsel for appellants put forward that the order of withdrawal of recognition passed by the Respondents is absolutely unconstitutional and illegal, inasmuch as the Appellant is an institution established in the State of Maharashtra by the citizens speaking Hindi language and as such it is a linguistic minority institution in the State of Maharashtra.
   • The next contention raised was that the Appellant is a linguistic minority in the State of Maharashtra as Marathi is the language spoken by majority of the people; and the place of residence of the trustees of Appellant-Society is irrelevant and immaterial qua the establishment and administration of the educational institution by the Appellant-Society in the State of Maharashtra.
   • The learned counsel contended that the order of withdrawal is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of Government Resolution dated 4.7.2008 which prescribes the procedure for granting a minority status and recognition certificate.
   • It was contended by the appellants that the Resolution nowhere prescribes that any institution or trust claiming the linguistic minority status should have such trustees who are residents of the said State.
   • The next contention raised was that the pre-condition for grant of minority status “to an educational institution should be only that the institution is of the persons whose mother-tongue is any Indian language other than Marathi; and further, minimum2/3rd trustees of the Managing Committee of the Society/institution should be from the concerned minority community.
   • The learned counsel for appellants contended that the Appellant-Society fulfilled all the conditions specified in the Government Resolution dated4.7.2008 and as such the Appellant is eligible and qualified for grant of recognition as linguistic minority.
   • Learned senior Counsel for the appellants put heavy reliance on the decisions of this Court in D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab. (1971), T .M.A. Pai Foundation. v. State of Karnataka (2002) and Kanya Junior High School. v. U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad (2006)
   • The appellant submitted that the object of running the institution is important and not the persons running the institution. Article 30 of the Constitution protects the right of the minority to establish and administer the minority/linguistic institution in order to preserve the culture and language of the minorities.
2. Respondent’s arguments
   • The first contention raised by the respondent is that the Appellant-Trust does not fulfil the required criteria for granting linguistic minority status in Maharashtra.
   • Respondent further contended that the Appellant’s institution was established in Maharashtra by citizens residing outside Maharashtra and speaking Hindi language, and as such they are not a linguistic minority in the State of Maharashtra.
   • The learned counsel for respondent argued that in order to claim the protection by virtue of being a minority community as guaranteed by the Constitution, the obvious requirement should be that one must be a minority. It is stated that there is no bar or restriction for running educational institution in the State by the trusts which are registered outside the State of Maharashtra, but these institutions are not treated as minorities and they will definitely be subject to the Rules and Regulations of the State which are applicable to non-minority institutions.
   • The learned counsel lastly contended that the constitutional protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India is available only to those who are actually and physically in minority in the State. The Appellant is an institution established in the State of Maharashtra by citizens residing outside the State of Maharashtra and speaking Hindi language and as such they are not linguistic minority in the State of Maharashtra. Hence, the status earlier granted by the Respondents to the Appellant-Society is rightly withdrawn, especially when the Appellant wanted such recognition in the name of the Trust registered in New Delhi consisting of the trustees residing in Delhi.

High court judgment

While deciding the case, the judges took notice of the fact that though the Appellant claimed linguistic minority status, but all the trustees of the Appellant-Society were residing in the area where majority language is Hindi. In addition to that, Petitioner itself returned the certificate which had been granted to the Petitioner.

High court held that the state government had the right to rectify their mistake if any certificate granting minority linguistic status is granted contrary to law.

It further held that the appellant trust/society cannot claim to be a minority institution as the trustees of the appellant do not reside in the state of Maharashtra, where Hindi speaking people are considered linguistic minority.

Supreme court Judgement

• Minorities in India have a right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice and the State Government or the Universities cannot interfere with the day-to-day management of such institutions by the members of minority community.
• Though Article 30 itself does not lay down any limitation upon the right of a minority to administer its educational institution but this right is not absolute. This is subject to reasonable Regulations for the benefit of the institution.
• The State Government and Universities can issue directions from time to time for the maintenance of the standard and excellence of such institution which is necessary in the national interest.
• Regarding the Government Resolution dated 4.7.2008 is concerned, it prescribes a procedure for granting minority status. The Resolution permits the persons of the State of Maharashtra whose mother tongue is other Indian language than Marathi will be eligible to submit an application for recognition of their linguistic minority educational institution. The only rider put is that the minimum 2/3rd trustees of the Management Committee of the Society/Institution should be from the concerned minority community.
• In order to claim minority/linguistic status for an institution in any State, the authorities must be satisfied firstly that the institution has been established by the persons who are minority in such State; secondly the right of administration of the said minority linguistic institution is also vested in those persons who are minority in such State. 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.
• The order passed by the Respondent-Authority and the impugned order passed by the Division Bench need no interference by this Court, court did not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.

Cases Referred:

• D.A.V. College Etc. Etc. v. State of Punjab and Ors. (1971) 2 SCC 269;
• T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2002) 8 SCC 481;
• Kanya Junior High School, Bal Vidya Mandir, Etah, v. U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad, and Ors. (2006) 11 SCC 92;
• P.A. Inamdar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 537;
• St Stephen’s Case (1992) 1 SCC 558;
• State of Kerala Etc. v. Mother Provincial Etc AIR 1970 SC 2079;
• S.P. Mittal Etc. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1983 SC 1;
• A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. AIR 1986 SC 1490;
• S. Azeez Basha and Anr. Etc. v. The Union of India Etc AIR 1968 SC 662;
• In Re: The Kerala Education Bill, AIR 1950 SC 956

Conclusion

In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court scrutinises mainly article 30 of the Indian constitution which says protects rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.

The Apex court laid down that to claim the status of a linguistic minority, the respective authorities must be satisfied first. The court didn’t defer from the divisional bench, and hence the appeal was dismissed subsequently.