Minority Rights in Education - eledu.net

More documents

Recommendations

Info

nation. This need was felt in the context of the heightenedminority-majority awareness in the British period. The divide andrule policy of the British had alienated minorities. In addition,the identification of the Congress with the Hindu upper castesby a dominant stratum of the minority furthered the fear ofsubjugation in post-independence India among the same. In thesecircumstances, constitutional guarantee of rights was consideredan effective means to dispel the fear and to convince the minoritiesof protection of their interests in the independent India.However, Partition and the assassination of Mahatma Gandhiwere two moving forces that resulted in confining the rights ofthe minorities, especially the religious minorities, to socio-culturalfields like education and language.As has been mentioned earlier, the rights promised in the Constitutionare binding on the state and even the legislative assemblycannot modify these rights. Further, intrusion of any nature onthese rights can be challenged in the court. However, the wordingof Article 30 were kept vague, leaving much to the interpretationof the judiciary, giving space to accommodate changes in thepolitical and value structures. To quote Yaqin (1986:45),While Article 23 of the Draft Constitution, corresponding to thepresent Article 30, was being debated, doubts were indeed expressedin the Constituent Assembly over the advisability ofleaving vague justifiable rights to undefined minorities. The assemblychose to avoid any further elaboration and left it to the wisdomof the courts to supply this omission.A look at the court cases reveals regular and frequent interpretationof these rights in both, the high court and the SupremeCourt. A few relevant interpretations defining implications ofthe Article 30, are discussed in the following sections of the paper.Concept of Minority‘Minority’ as a concept has not been adequately defined inthe Indian Constitution. Although mentioning the culturalattributes of religion and language, the Constitution does notprovide details on the geographical and numerical specificationof the concept. Even the specifics of language and religion arenot mentioned. In the constituent assembly debate on Article 23,B R Ambedkar (Constituent Assembly Debates, 1948-49:922-923) said,It will be noted that the term minority was used therein not inthe technical sense of the word ‘minority’ as we have beenaccustomed to use it for the purposes of certain political safeguards,such as representation in the Legislature, representation in theServices and so on. The word is used not merely to indicate theminority in the technical sense of the word, it is also used to coverminorities which are not minorities in the technical sense, butwhich are nonetheless minorities in the cultural and linguisticsense. For instance, for the purposes of this Article 23, if a certainnumber of people from Madras came and settled in Bombay forcertain purposes, they would be, although not a minority in thetechnical sense, cultural minorities.... The article intends to giveprotection in the matter of culture, language and script not onlyto a minority technically, but also to a minority in the wider senseof the terms as I have explained just now.As early as 1958, in ‘In Re the Kerala Education Bill, 1957’(AIR 1958 SC 956) the Supreme Court suggested the techniqueof arithmetical tabulation of less than 50 per cent of populationfor identifying a minority. This population was to be determinedin accordance to the applicability of the law in question. If anAct is applicable nationwide then the minority group would bedecided on the national figures and in the case of the Act beingapplicable in a state, the minority group would be decided onthe state figures. However, the recent case of T M A Pai Foundationand Ors vs State of Karnataka and Ors (October 2002;now onwards Pai case) has specified the geographical entity ofstate for consideration of the status of minority for Article 30.To quote from the judgment (Judgments Today, 2002(9) SC 2)Since reorganisation of the states in India has been on linguisticlines, therefore, for the purpose of determining the minority, theunit will be the state and not the whole of India. Thus, religiousand linguistic minorities, who have been put at par in Article 30,have to be considered statewise.One fails to understand how organisation of states on linguisticbasis provides a base for consideration of the states as the basicunit for arithmetical calculation for determining religious minorities.Further, it is important to mention that the condition ofhaving less than 50 per cent of the population in a state, distinguishableon religious or linguistic terms, does not entitle oneto the rights automatically. In the words of Ambedkar (ConstituentAssembly Debates, 1948-49: 923),I think another thing which has to be borne in mind in readingarticle 23 is that it does not impose any obligation or burden uponthe State. It does not say that, when for instance the Madras peoplecome to Bombay, the Bombay government shall be required bylaw to finance any project of giving education either in Tamillanguage or in Andhra language or any other language...The onlylimitation that is imposed by article 23 is that if there is a culturalminority which wants to preserve its language, its script and itsculture, the State shall not by law impose upon it any other culturewhich may be either local or otherwise. Therefore this article reallyis to be read in a much wider sense and does not apply only towhat I call the technical minorities as we use it in our Constitution.Succinctly, it is left to the minority to establish its minoritystatus in order to avail the benefits of the Article 30. The taskis difficult especially because the concepts of ‘religion’ and‘language’ have not been adequately defined in the article or theconstituent assembly debates. Does the concept of language referto the languages having adequately developed grammar and scriptor only script is sufficient to claim the status or is spoken languagea condition enough to acquire the status of minority?As far as language is concerned, the case of D A V College,Jullunder vs State of Punjab (AIR 1971 SC 1737) is consideredimportant. In this case, the Court observed,A linguistic minority for the purpose of Article 30(1) is one whichmust at least have a separate spoken language. It is not necessarythat that language should also have a distinct script for those whospeak it.As far as the concept of religion is concerned, can a sect claimthe status of minority? Does the Article accept only major wellrecognised religions or emerging religions can also avail of thebenefits? In the latter case, how can it be established that thereligion is new and is not merely a sect?A study of court cases reveals a continuous struggle betweenthe State and minorities on these issues. For instance, Patna HighCourt announced Arya Samaj [Arya Pratinidhi Sabha vs Stateof Bihar (AIR 1958, Patna 359)], a minority distinct from theHindus. However, in 1976, Delhi High Court decided againstproviding benefits of Article 30 to denominations and sects. Toquote Desai (1996:34)The most significant case on this issue was decided by the DelhiHigh Court in 1976…It lays down the correct position in law namelyEconomic and Political Weekly June 11, 2005 2431
that ‘minorities based on religion’ in Article 30(1) mean only whatwe call in common parlance the various religious communitieslike Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians, Jains, etc, andcannot be meant to include religious denominations or sects.One gets uncomfortable on such verdicts. Acceptance of onlyascriptive and well-recognised units as religious units does nottake into account new religious movements and claims of newemergent religious groups for minority rights. In 1962, BrahmoSamaj of Bihar made this claim, which was accepted by the HighCourt [Dipendra Nath Sarkar vs State of Bihar (AIR 1962 Patna101)]. The court, however, did not accept such a claim in thecases of Chaudhari Janki Prasad (AIR 1974 PAT 187) andS P Mittal (AIR 1983 SC 1).The ambiguous definition of religion has potential for controversy.Unfortunately, the bench comprising 11 judges in thePai case did not deliberate upon this important issue; hence,leaving space for continued confusion at the levels of both, thestate and the minorities.Conditions for Establishingand Administering an InstitutionArticle 30(1) gives linguistic and religious minorities a fundamentalright to establish and administer educational institutionsof their choice. In the case of St Stephan’s College (AIR1992 SC 1630) it was stated,…the words “establish” and “administer” used in Article 30(1)are to be read conjunctively. The right claimed by a minoritycommunity to administer the educational institution depends uponthe proof of establishment of the institution. The proof of establishmentof the institution, is thus a condition precedent forclaiming the right to administer the institution.One gets surprised at this condition. Why does a minority haveto establish an institution in order to administer it? Transfer ofmanagement in the private educational institutions is not a rarephenomenon in India. According to Desai, (1996:79)The logic behind this is rather incomprehensible. The only reasongiven for this interpretation is that the word ‘and’ and not the word‘or’ is used between the words ‘establish’ and ‘administer’.To quote Desai again (1996:80)In my submission the word ‘and’ used in Article 30(1) of theConstitution should have been interpreted in a disjunctive andnot in a conjunctive sense. There is need to adopt ‘purposive’rather than ‘literal’ interpretation of the Constitution…Therationale behind Article 30(1) is to give protection to minoritiesto run educational institution of their choice. Why should itmatter that the educational institution presently run by the minorityfor the benefit of the minority was established, may be a centuryback, by persons not belonging to a minority community?... Theintent of the Article seems to be that not only does a minorityhave the right to run an existing institution but also to establisheducational institutions and vice versa. This appears to be theonly logic consistent with the historical background of minorityrights. Be that as it may, the settled position in law is that a minoritycannot administer an institution which it has not established.At least in the case of A M Patroni (AIR 1974 KER 197) thecourt is in agreement with Desai,…even if an institution previously run by some other organisationis subsequently taken over by a minority community and runby it, it must be held that it was established by that minoritycommunity.One wonders why this facilitating and liberal approach has notbeen popular with the court. The conjunctive approach has putmany institutions for the minorities in the general category thusdepriving them to avail of the benefits of the Article. Examplecan be given of Aligarh Muslim University. Further, the word‘establish’ in relation to the Article 30(1) has been interpretedas, ‘to bring into existence’ (AIR 1968 SC 663). But what exactlydoes this mean? Does this mean that the minority communityshould take initiative to start the institution? Or, that the nameand the management should reflect the minority orientation? Or,that the institution should be established for benefit of theminority community only? In State of Kerala vs Mother Provincial(AIR 1970 SC 2082), Supreme Court made the followinginterpretation,The first right is the initial right to establish institutions of theminority’s choice. Establishment here means the bringing into beingof an institution and it must be by a minority community. It mattersnot if a single philanthropic individual with his own means, foundsthe institution or the community at large contributes the funds.However, mere establishment by a person from a minoritycommunity does not entitle the institute to the minority status.To quote from the case of Rajershi Memorial Basic TrainingSchool (AIR 1973 Kerala 88),The mere fact that the school was founded by a person belongingto a particular religious persuasion is not at all conclusive on thismatter. The institution must be shown to be one established…byor on behalf of the particular minority community.In the case of Fr Mathew Munthiri Chinthyil Vicar, St Mary’sChurch Anikkampoil vs State of Kerala, the court held that thegovernmental master plan, which prescribes permissible numberof schools in a locality, has to be followed while selecting alocation for establishing a minority educational institution. TheHigh Court of Kerala (AIR 1978 KER 227) rejected petition forestablishing a new school on the same ground. It stated,An extreme position entitling the minority to ask, and to be given,the educational institutions, wherever it wants to establish, at anymoment when the cry is raised, is not the scope and the contentof Art 30. Regulation of the right in time as well as in space, mustbe permissible.Desai states (1996:87-88),The Court rejected the Petition but held that in weighing the needsof the locality, the authority was bound to consider the requirementsof the minority communities in establishing educationalinstitutions of their choice.In this context, it is interesting to note that in the cases of SocioLegal Advancement Society vs State of Karnataka (AIR 1989KER 217) and Mark Netto vs Government of Kerala (AIR 1979SC 83) courts took a different view. In these cases it was statedthat a minority community could not be stopped from establishingan educational institution.Education of Their ChoicePreservation of culture, as such, is not a necessary conditioneither for acquiring the status of minority or for claiming rightsunder Article 30. In Re the Kerala Education Bill 1957 (AIR1958 SC 959) chief justice S R Das stated,The key to the understanding of the true meaning and implicationof the article under consideration are the words “of their ownchoice”. It is said that the dominant word is “choice” and the2432Economic and Political Weekly June 11, 2005
Page 1: Minority Rights in EducationReflect
Page 5 and 6: institution, discipline, health, sa
Page 7 and 8: does not cease to be so the moment

Minority Rights in Education - eledu.net

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?