Rev. Father W. Proost v. State of Bihar
Supreme Court of India · 13 September 1968 · 5 judges · 1969 AIR 465; 1969 SCR (2) 73
The right of a religious minority under Article 30(1) to establish and administer educational institutions of its choice is not limited by Article 29(1); St. Xavier's College, Ranchi had that protection and was exempt under Section 48-B.
Facts
St. Xavier's College, Ranchi was established by the Jesuits of Ranchi and affiliated to Patna University in 1944. Section 48-A of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1960, in force from 1 March 1962, required appointments, dismissals and disciplinary action against teachers of affiliated colleges to be made on the recommendation or finding of a University Service Commission. After disputes over appointments, the University decided to withdraw the college's affiliation. The Principal, the Rector and two parents petitioned under Article 32 challenging Section 48-A under Articles 29 and 30. While the petition was pending, an Ordinance inserted Section 48-B, exempting colleges established by a religious or linguistic minority with the right to administer them. The Attorney General conceded that the Jesuits were a religious minority but argued that Article 30(1) protects only institutions founded to conserve language, script or culture.
Questions before the Court
- Can a minority claim the protection of Article 30(1), and of Section 48-B, only if its institution furthers the rights in Article 29(1) to conserve a distinct language, script or culture?
- Does admitting students of other communities take a minority institution outside Article 30(1)?
What the Court held
- The width of Article 30(1) cannot be cut down by importing the considerations on which Article 29(1) is based. Article 29(1) is a general protection to conserve language, script or culture; Article 30(1) is a special right of minorities to establish educational institutions of their choice. The two create separate rights, though they may meet in a given case.
- The choice under Article 30(1) is not limited to institutions seeking to conserve language, script or culture, and it is not lost because the institution also admits members of other communities.
- The language of Article 30(1) is wide and must receive full meaning; attempts to whittle down the protection of minorities cannot be allowed.
- St. Xavier's College was founded by a Catholic minority community based on religion, had the protection of Article 30(1), and for the same reason was exempt under Section 48-B. The petition was allowed with this declaration, without costs.
Why it matters
The Court separated Article 30(1) from Article 29(1), holding that a religious or linguistic minority's right to establish and administer educational institutions of its choice does not depend on the institution being founded to conserve language, script or culture, and survives admission of students from other communities. It read the observations in the Kerala Education Bill reference and Rev. Sidhajbhai Sabhai as consistent with this wider reading.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“In our opinion, the width of Art. 30(1) cannot be out down by introducing in it considerations on which Art. 29 (1 ) is based. The latter article is a general protection which is given to minorities to conserve their language,, script or culture. The former is a special right to minorities to establish educational institutions of their choice. This choice is not limited to institution seeking to conserve language, script or culture and the choice is not taken away if the minority community having established an educational institution of its choice also admits members of other communities.”
“In our judgment the language of Art. 30(1 ) is wide and must receive full meaning. We are dealing with protection of minorities and attempts to whittle down the protection cannot be allowed. We need not enlarge the protection but we may not reduce a protection naturally flowing from the words. Here the protection clearly flows from the words and there is nothing on the basis of which aid can be sought from Art. 29 (1 ).”
“The emphasis here was rightly placed not upon the needs of the community exclusively but .upon the educational needs of the citizens or sections thereof. In other words, the suggestion that Art. 30( 1 ) is limited to the needs of a single community or that only its own culture, language or script need to be provided for is not the right approach.”
Provisions interpreted
- Article 30(1), Constitution
- Article 29(1), Constitution
- Sections 48-A and 48-B, Bihar State Universities (University of Bihar, Bhagalpur and Ranchi) Act, 1960
Related judgments
- Explains Rev. Sidhajbhai Sabhai v. State of Bombay (1962)“the point decided was different but the observation does make Art. 30 (1 ) much wider than the learned Attorney General would have us hold” (page 9)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Rev. Father W. Proost v. The State of Bihar
- Case
- Writ Petition No. 1 of 1968 (Original Jurisdiction)
- Decided
- 13 September 1968
- Bench
- Hidayatullah, M. (CJ), Shah, J.C., Ramaswami, V., Mitter, G.K., Grover, A.N.
- Opinions
- Unanimous. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah, C.J.
Questions on this case
1 question in live Law Maker papers mentions this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.