RT. REV. BISHOP S. K. PATRO & ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [1970] 1 S.C.R. 172 · Decided: 02-04-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

172 
RT. REV. BISHOPS. K. PATRO & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF BDIAR Ii: ORS. 
April 2, 1969 
(M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.1., 1. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI, 
G. K. MITTER AND A. N. GROVER, 11.] 
Constitution of India, Arts. 29 and 30-Educatlonal institution fou11dtd 
at Bhagalpur by Christians in 1854 
with htlp of funds rect/ved from 
London ,Missionary Soci•ty-lnstltution claiming bt~tfit of Art. 30 wlitn 
mktd by State Educational Atllhorlties to constitUlt its managing com-
mitttt according to thtir directions-For claiming btne/it of Article w/ze. 
ther an institution founded before adoplion of Constitution has to pro1·e 
that it was established by members of n1inority who were residc11.·s <Jr ri1j. 
:•ns of lndia--DiOertnce bttwten Arts. 29 and 30. 
The Government of the State of Bibar framed certain rules under the 
Bihar Hish School (Control and Regulation of Administration) Act 13 of 
1960. Rule 41 provided that the said rules will not apply to schools esta· 
blished and administered by minorities whether based on religion or lan· 
guaae. 
A school founded in 1854 at Bbagalpur and managed bv 
the 
National Christian Council of India was asked by the Bihar Government 
Educational authorities to con<;titute ibl manaaing committee accordir.~ to 
the directions given in the order of tee Secretary to th• Government dated 
May 22, 1967 
This order was challenged before the Hiah Court in a 
~t petition. 
The High Court dism~ the writ petition holding that 
tbOu1f1 the institution was administered by the Christian minority in India 
it had been established by the Church Missionary Society of London, and 
therefore not having been established by members of a minority ''·ho were 
raidcnts of India or citizens of India it could not claim the benefit of Art. 
30. Against he High Court's judgment appeals were filtd in this C-Ourt and 
petitions under Art. 32 were also filed by persons interested. 
HELD: (i) There was ample evidence on record, which showed that 
although assistance was undoubtedly obtained from other bodies iucluding 
· the Clmrch Missionary Society London, the school was set up by the 
Otristian Missionaries and the local resideni. of Bhagalpur with the aid of 
funds part of which were contributed by them. (178 F] 
(ii) The Oiristian Misslonariea who had settled in India alld the local 
Chrishan reaidents of Bhagalpur formed a minority community. It is true 
that the minority compcllcnt to claim the protection of Art. 30(!) and 
on that account the privilege of establishing and maintaining educational 
institutions of ii. choice must be a minority of person• residinR in India. 
It does not confer on foreigners not residing in. India the right to 51et up 
educational institutions of their choic.e. 
Persons setting up educational 
imtitutions must he resident in India and they must form a well defined 
reliJiom and linguistic minority. It is however not predicated that pro-
tection of the right guaranteed under Art. 30 may be availed of only, in 
respect elf an institution established 
before the Constitution, by persons 
born and resident in British India. [I 79 DJ 
Therefore the fact that the funds were obtained from the 
United 
Kinadom for usistin~ in settin& up and developing the School or that the 
manaaement of the Ulstitution was carried on by some pernms who may 
not have been horn in India was not a ground for denying the pro~tion of 
Art. 30(1). (180 CD] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
B 
llBV. BISHOP S. K. PATR.O v. BIHAR. (Shah, J.) 
17-3' 
(iii) The High Coun was also wrong in holding that for c~ 
the 
beDefit of Art. 30(1) all persons or a majority of them who established 
the institution should have been "Indian Citizens" in the year 1854. There 
being no Indian ·citizenship in the year 1854 independently of the citizen-
ship of the British Empire, to incorporate in the interpretatio.n of Art. 30 
in respect of an institution established by a minority the condition that it 
must in addition be proved to have been established by persons who would 
if the institution had been set up after the Constitution have 
claimed 
Indian citizenship, is to whittle down the protection of Art. 30 in a manner 
not warranted by the provisions of the Constitution. (180 B-F] 
The J>fOtection of the righ\S under Art. 29 may be claimed only by 
Indian citizens. Article 30 guarantees the right <if minorities to establish 
and administer educational institutions : the article does not expressly refer 
to citizenship as a q

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