Cultural and Educational Rights

Sanjana Dayal
Jun 8, 2020
7 min read

Updated: Mar 29

Introduction

India is a country of vast cultural diversity, and people from different religions reside in different parts of the nation. Their diversity is so broad that it is difficult to name them in correspondence to their areas. Most of these cultures are recognized by the Constitution of India or by the Government itself. However, there are cultures in existence, which are not known by people or known by a few. Therefore, in a society full of diversity, it is essential to protect their interest, identity, culture, language etc.

Cultural and educational rights are provided to the citizens of our nation to safeguard their culture, script, language etc.

Provisions in the Constitution

ARTICLE 29: Protection of interests of minority.

ARTICLE 30: Rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.

Detailed Discussion

The image of Indian society in everyone’s mind is of a society full of diversity and it is believed that diversity is our strength. One of the fundamental rights are the rights of minority to save their culture in order to preserve the diversity of the country. However, the term minority is not defined anywhere in the constitution of India. All minorities have a right to preserve and develop their own culture. The protection of language, culture, and religion is essential so that the minorities do not feel neglected or undermined under the rule of majority. Cultural and educational rights of the society are envisaged under Article 29 and 30 of the Indian Constitution. Both are aimed at the rights of the minorities although the meaning of minority varies.

Article 29 of the Constitution of India talks about the protection of interests of minority. However, the term “minority” is used nowhere in the body of the provision. “Section of the citizens” is used instead of the term “minority” to enable a wider interpretation of the provision. In the case of Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society V. State of Gujarat, it was held that even majorities could claim protection under Article 29 of the Indian Constitution. The first provision protects the rights of a group whereas the second provision protects the rights of the citizens as an individual. Article 29(1) provides all the groups residing in India having a distinct language, script or culture of its own, the right to conserve the same. It is an absolute right of citizens to preserve its language, culture and script and cannot be subjected to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public. On the other hand, Article 29(2) clearly says that any educational institute which is governed by the state or receiving aid out of state funds cannot deny admission to the institute on the ground of religion, race, caste, language or any of them. In the case of State of Madras V. Champakam Dorairajan, the application of Article 29(2) was challenged for the first time. In this case, the apex court held that any classification made for admission in an educational institute based on religion; race and caste are inconsistent with Article 29(2) of the Indian Constitution. It is worth noting that Article 29(2) and Article 15(1) are similar in the fact that they both prevent discrimination based on caste, race, sex, etc. However, there is a big difference between them. Article 15(1) provides protection to all the citizens against all kinds of discrimination based on caste, race, sex etc. and thus, having a wider ambit of application. On the other hand, Article 29(2) provides protection only when a citizen is denied admission into a state-run educational institute solely based on their religion, caste, race, sex etc.

Article 30 of the Constitution of India provides that all minority communities have a right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. Further in its second clause it says that the state shall not discriminate on granting aid to any educational institute on the grounds of religion or language. Article 30 deals with the rights of linguistic and religious minorities only. As held in the re Kerala Education Bill Case, the minorities are given protection under Article 30 so that they do not feel neglected. Article 30(1) gives the linguistic or religious minorities two rights. First is the right to establish and second is the right to administer educational institute of their choice. The apex court in the case of Azeez Basha V. Union of India held that the terms “establish” and “administer” have to be read in coordination. Thus, a minority can claim right to administer an educational institute only if it has been established by it. Further, in Sidhrajbhai V. State of Gujarat, it was held that fundamental right declared under Article 30(1) is absolute and is not subject to reasonable restrictions. In the case of S.P. Mittal V. Union of India, Supreme Court held that in order to claim protection under Article 30(1), it is necessary to show that it is a religious or linguistic minority and the institution was established by it. However, these institutions must not be established solely for the benefit of its community only (St. Stephen’s College V. University of Delhi). In T.M.A Pai Foundation V. State of Karnataka, the court opined thatthe right under Article 30(1) could not be such that it overrides the national interest or prevents the Government from framing regulations for such educational institutes. Article 30(2) mandates that the state in granting aid, shall not discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a linguistic or religious minority. Under Article 30 (2), minority cannot claim state aid as a matter of right. Minority institutions are not to be treated differently while granting any financial aid. The state is bound to maintain equality of treatment among the educational institutions run by the majority or minority.

Relation between Article 29 And 30

Article 29 and Article 30 both facilitate the right to establish and manage one’s own educational institutes. However, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the rights enabled under Article 30 are not confined to the purpose specified under Article 29. The right to establish and administer an educational institute under Article 30(1) is not limited to the purpose of Article 29(1). Under Article 29(1), the educational institutes may serve as a means to conserve the script, language and culture of the people while Article 30(1) enables the religious or linguistic minorities to establish an educational institute, which may or may not have any concern regarding their script, culture or language. It is important to note that Article 29 applies to “any section of the citizen” which means not only minority but majority could also claim this right whereas the right under Article 30 exclusively protects only “religious or linguistic minority”. The apex court in the case of St. Xavier’s College V. State of Gujarat, opined that the Article 29 and Article 30 of the Indian Constitution are not mutually exclusive and Article 30 must be treated as an extension of Article 29. In re Kerala Education Bill case, the court held that there is no limitation mentioned in Article 30(1) that the minority institutions could not admit students from other community. Moreover, it is not reasonable to believe that the purpose of Article 29(2) was to deprive minority educational institutes of the aid received from the state. The real import of Article 29(2) and 30(1) seems to be that they clearly kick around the minority institutions with a little bit of outsiders in the form of majority into it. Admitting a non-minority member into a minority institution would not shed its character. It was observed in St. Stephen’s College V. University of Delhithat even if Article 29(2) applies to minorities as well as non-minorities, it does not intend to nullify the special right guaranteed to minorities under Article 30(1).

Conclusion

Our Constitution believes in unity in diversity and treats unity as our strength. It tries that no group or community shall be left unrecognized. Therefore, the protection of cultural and educational rights is prescribed under Article 29 and Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Both the Articles are aimed at minority groups of the society. However, the term “minority” is left undefined. Minority is relative term and is mainly ascertained with reference to the population of a region. But several questions such as “whether a group of people shall be classified as minority by the reference to the population of a particular region, district, state or union” is left unanswered. It is very unsatisfactory to hold a minority in a particular region because there would always be vagueness in the demarcation of the region. The interpretation of the term minority has kept changing from case to case. For instance, in the re Kerala Education Bill case, it was held that “any linguistic or religious community which is less than 50% of the total population shall be considered as minority.” In another case of D.A.V College V. State of Punjab, it was observed, “a community may constitute a minority based on language, not necessarily having a separate script.” In some cases, the courts have also relied upon several others factors such as economic welfare to decide whether a community is minority or not. Therefore, we can say that the unclear meaning of minority can create absurdity in the interpretation of the articles. The unclear meaning of minority may reduce the scope of the articles as well. We can thus conclude that the term “minority” shall be defined so that the rights granted to the minorities should not be put to the tests of judicial interpretations.