In Bombay Education Society's case (supra), the issue involved
related to a circular issued by the State of Bombay which provided that
subject to the exceptions provided therein, no primary or secondary
school shall from the date of the order admit to a class where English is
used as a medium of instruction, any pupil other than a pupil belonging to
33
a section of citizens, the language of which was English namely, Anglo-
Indians and citizens of non-Asiatic descent. This circular issued by the
Government of Maharashtra was challenged by a school run by Anglo-
Indian minority educational institution on the ground that it violated
Article 29(2) of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court after a
detailed evaluation of the provisions and the law involved held that in so
far as Article 337 proviso (2) imposes an obligation on the Anglo-Indian
schools to make available at least 40% of the annual admission to non-
Anglo-Indian students as a condition precedent for their receiving grant
from the Government the impugned order was unconstitutional as it
prevented such schools from performing their constitutional obligation
and exposes them to the risk of forfeiting their constitutional right to the
special grant. Supreme Court affirmed that the Right under Article 29(1)
was a protection given to any section of citizens having a distinct
language, script or culture by guaranteeing their right to conserve the
same.
Though the method of conferring
such benefit was different in Sunanda Reddy's case (supra) by providing
additional marks to such candidates and in the present case by restricting
the applications to only candidates who have studied local language up to
Xth, basically both gave additional advantage to such candidates over
other meritorious candidates.