REV. SIDHAJBHAI SABHAI AND OTHERS versus STATE OF BOMBAY AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1963] 3 S.C.R. 837 · Decided: 30-08-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 21 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

a s·.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
837 
REV. SIDHAJBHAI SABHA! AND OTHERS 
v, 
STATE OF BOMBAY AND ANOTHER 
(B. P. SrNHA., C. J., S. J,. IMAM, K. SuBBA RAo, 
K. N. W .A.NCHoo, 
J. C. SHAH and 
N. RuAGOPA.LA AYY.A.NGAR, JJ.) 
Fundamental Rights, Infringement of-Right of minorities 
to establish educational institution1-I nterference with the right 
oj bare management of an educational institution, if an infringe-
ment of the right to property-Nature of Fundamental right unrier 
.A.rt. 30-0onetitution of lnriia, Arts. 30(1), 26(a), (b), (c), (a), 
19(1)(!). 
The petitioners who profess the Christian faith and 
belong to the United Church of Northern India are members 
of a society which maintain educational institutions primarily 
for the benefit of the Christian Community. The society con· 
ducts forty-two primary schools and a Training College for 
teachers. The teachers trained in the college are absorbed in 
the primary schools conducted by the society and those not 
so absorbed are employed by other Christian Mission Schools 
conducted by the United Church of Northern India. The 
cost of maintaining the training college and the primary 
schools is met out of donations received from the Irish Presby-
terian Mission, fee from scholars and grant-in-aid from 
the State Government. On May 28, 1955, the Government of 
Bombay issued an order that from the academic year 1955-56, 
80% of the seats in the training college> for teachers in non· 
Governm~nt training colleges shall be reserved for teachers 
nominated by the Government, and the Educational Inspector 
on June 13, 1955, ordered the Principal of the Training College 
of the Society, not to admit without specific permission of the 
Education department private students in excess of20% of the 
total strength in each class. The Pripcipal of the college ex pr· 
essed his inability to comply with the order. On December 
27, 1955,the Educational Inspector informed the management 
that their action in refusing admission to Government nomi· 
nated teachers was irregular and against the Government Policy 
and he severely warned the society that for disregardino- the 
orders no gfant would be paid to the college for the cu
0rrent 
year. On March 29, 1956, the Educational Inspector called 
upon the Principal not to admit private candidates to the !st 
year class without obtaining specific permission, failin~ whic4 
/~62 
.. ,iugu•t ifO. 
1962 
17cv. Sidhaj'til_tai 
SabhfJi 
v. 
State of Bomba)' 
838 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] 
severe disciplinary action, such as withdrawal of recognition 
of the institution, would be taken. The society was again 
informed by letter dated May 9,1956, that havmg failed to 
abide by the conditions set out earlier, the college will not be 
paid the education grant. The petitioners moved the Supreme 
Court for a writ in the nature of mandamus or other writ 
directing the State of Bombay :fnd the Director of Education 
not to compel the Society and the petitioners to reserve 80o/0 
or any seats in the training college for the 
''Government 
. nominated teachers", nor to compel the society and the peti-
tioners to comply with the p·ovisions of rr.5\2),11, 12 and 14 
and net to withdraw recognition of the college or withhold 
grant~in-aid under r. 14 01herwise. The petitioners claimed 
that their fundamental rights guaranteed by Arts. 30(1),26.a). 
(b),(c) and (d) and 19(l)(f) and (g) were violated by letters 
dated May 28,1955, December 27,1955, and March 29,1956, 
threatening to withhold the grant in aid and to withdraw 
recognition of the college. 
, 
Bela, that by the impugned rules and orders no right to 
acquire, hold or dispose of property was violated. Interference 
with the right of bare management of an educational institution 
does not amount to infringement of the right to property under 
Art. 19 (1) (f). 
No attempt was made 
by 
the 
order 
of the State to deprive the petitioners of their rights to pro· 
perty and the fundamental freedom guaratn<e<l by Art.19(l)(f) 
was, therefore, not violated; nor was the right of the petitio-
~ -, 
ners to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, 
trade or business guarenteed by Art. 19(l)(g) of the Constitu-
tion infringed by the impugned rules and directions, 
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras 
v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirlha Swnmiar of Sri Shiru Mutt, [1954] 
S.C.R. 1005 and Sri Dwarka Nath Tewari v. State of Bihar, 
A.LR; (1959) S. C. 249, distinguished. 
Held. fur

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.