DAYANAND ANGLO VEDIC (DAV) COLLEGE TRUST AND MANAGEMENT SOCIETY versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

Citation: [2013] 4 S.C.R. 821 · Decided: 22-03-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S. NIJJAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 4 S.C.R. 821 
DAYANAND ANGLO VEDIC (DAV) COLLEGE TRUST 
AND MANAGEMENT SOCIETY 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2678 of 2013) 
MARCH 22, 2013 
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Constitution of India 1950 - Article 30 - Linguistic 
educational institution - Establishment and administration of C 
- In a State - By a member of linguistic non-minority in another 
State - Held: In order to claim linguistic status for an institution 
in any State, the institution should have been established and 
should be administered by the persons who are minority in 
suchJ3tate - A non-minority in another State cannot establish, 
D 
administer and run such institution. 
Words and Phrases: 'Establish' and 'Administer' -
Meaning of, in the context of Article 30 of the Constitution of 
India, 1950. 
Appellant-Society filed writ petition before High Court 
challenging the order of respondent No.2 withdrawing 
the linguistic minority status of the appellant-institution 
on the ground that since majority of the trustees were not 
residents of the State of Maharashtra, they could not be 
called linguistic minority. High Court dismissed the 
petition. 
E 
F 
In appeal to this Court, the question for 
consideration was whether a member of linguistic non-
G 
minority in one State can establish a Trust or Society in 
another State and claim minority status in that State. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
821 
H 
822 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2013] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1. The view taken by the High Court that the 
State Government had a right to correct the n:iistake if any 
certificate granting minority linguistic status is granted 
contrary to law; and that as admittedly the trustees of the 
appellant do not reside in the State of Maharashtra, where 
B Hindi speaking people are linguistic minority, the 
appellant-Trust/Society cannot claim to be a minority 
institution, is justified. The rights conferred by Article 30 
of the Constitution to the minority are in two parts. The 
first part is the right to establish the institution of 
c minority's choice and the second part relates to the right 
to administration of such institution. [Paras 24 and 25] 
[844-F-H; 845-A] 
2. Though Article 30 itself does not lay down any 
limitation upon the right of a minority to administer its 
D 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 
E necessary in the national interest. The Government 
Resolution dated 4.7.2008 prescribes a procedure for 
granting minority status. The Resolution, inter alia, 
permits the persons of the State of Maharashtra whose 
mother tongue is Indian language other than Marathi will 
F 
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. [Paras 29 and 30] [849-
G A-D] 
3. 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; and, secondly, 
H the right of administration of the said minority linguistic 
DAYANANDANGLO VEDIC (DAV) COLLEGE TR. AND MANG 823 
SOC. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
institution is also vested in those persons who are 
A 
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 
B 
such institution. [Para 31) [849-E-G] 
State of Kera/a Etc. vs. Mother Provincial Etc. AIR 1970 
SC 2079: 1971 (1) SCR 734; S.P. Mittal Etc. vs. Union of 
India and Ors. AIR 1983 SC 1: 1983 (1) SCR 729; A.P. 
Christians Medical Educational Society vs. Government of C 
Andhra Pradesh and Anr. AIR 1986 SC 1490: 1986 (2) SCR 
749; S. Azeez Basha and Anr. Etc. vs. The Union of India Etc. 
AIR 1968 SC 662: 1968 SCR 833 ·relied on. 
T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka 
D 
and Ors. (2002) 8 sec 481: 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 P.A. 
lnamdar an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.