1961 (10) TMI 96 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to invoke the protection guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution.
2. Whether the Brahmo Samaj is a minority community based on religion.
3. Whether the Balika Vidyalaya was established and administered by the Brahmo Samaj.
4. Whether the resolutions of the State Government dated 28th September 1954 and 7th May 1956, and the order of the Board of Secondary Education dated 11th April 1960, are unconstitutional and ultra vires.
5. Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued against private individuals in this context.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Protection under Article 30 of the Constitution:

The main question presented for determination is whether the petitioner is entitled to invoke the protection guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution. Article 30(1) states that all minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. Article 30(2) adds that the State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority. The court concluded that the Brahmo Samaj, being a religious minority, has a fundamental right to administer and manage the Balika Vidyalaya as guaranteed under Article 30. The resolutions of the State Government and the order of the Board of Secondary Education infringe this right, making them unconstitutional, void, and inoperative.

2. Minority Community Status of Brahmo Samaj:

It is asserted on behalf of the petitioner that the Brahmo Samaj is a minority community based on religion and has a distinct culture of its own. The Brahmo religion is distinctly separate from Hindu religion and has its own doctrines, tenets, and rites. There is no counter-affidavit from the respondents challenging this assertion. Consequently, the court accepted the argument that the Brahmo Samaj is a religious minority within the meaning of Article 30 of the Constitution and is entitled to protection under that Article.

3. Establishment and Administration of Balika Vidyalaya by Brahmo Samaj:

The petitioner claimed that the Samaj established the Balika Vidyalaya in 1930 and has been administering it since. This assertion is supported by historical records and resolutions from the Samaj. The respondents did not provide any evidence to dispute this claim. The court found sufficient material on record to support the contention that the Balika Vidyalaya was founded and administered by the Samaj from 1930 to 1959.

4. Constitutionality of State Government Resolutions and Board of Secondary Education Order:

The court examined the resolutions of the State Government dated 28th September 1954 and 7th May 1956, which laid down rules for the management of non-Government high schools. These resolutions were found to infringe the right of the Samaj to administer the Vidyalaya. The order of the Board of Secondary Education dated 11th April 1960, which stated that the Brahmo Samaj had no authority to constitute the Managing Committee, was also deemed unconstitutional and ultra vires. The court held that these resolutions and the order invade the sphere of intellect and spirit, which Articles 29 and 30 aim to protect.

5. Issuance of Writ of Mandamus Against Private Individuals:

The court addressed the contention that a writ of mandamus is not normally issued against private individuals. It was noted that the main issue relates to the constitutional validity of the order of the Board of Secondary Education, a statutory body, and the resolutions of the State Government. The question of the right of respondents to manage the school is incidental to the principal question. The court referred to legal precedents and concluded that a writ of mandamus could be issued in this context to make the writ effective and consequential. Therefore, the court issued a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to relinquish charge of the school and make it over to the Managing Committee appointed by the Samaj.

Conclusion:

The court allowed the application, granting a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the order of the Board of Secondary Education and to withdraw recognition of the existing Managing Committee. The court also directed the respondents to relinquish charge of the school to the Managing Committee appointed by the Samaj and to desist from interfering with the management of the school by the Samaj. No order as to costs was made.