Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.36 seconds)Article 30 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 29 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Telangana Intermediate Education Act, 1971
The Societies Registration Act, 1860
Section 16 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
T.M.A.Pai Foundation & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 31 October, 2002
61. This Court may add a note that merely because financial aid is provided by the State to the institution the same cannot be made a ground for interference in the administration of a minority institution. The issue in that regard stands decided by the Apex Court in the case of TMA Pai Foundation (supra), wherein it has been held that the grant of aid to the institution cannot in any way dilute the rights of the minority under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, held that the State cannot, in the name of providing aid to the institution, take away the minority character thereof.
State Of Kerala, Etc vs Very Rev. Mother Provincial, Etc on 10 August, 1970
In State of Kerala v. Mother Provincial (supra) it was held that the management of a minority institution must be free of control so that the founders can mould the institution as they think fit and in accordance with the ideals of how the interest of the community can be best fulfilled No part of the management can be taken away and vested in any other body without encroachment upon the right. No part of the management can be taken away and vested in any other body without encroachment upon the right It follows from this pronouncement of the law that if the founders of a minority institution believe that the interest of the community can be better sub-served by having a management consisting of members c the minority community alone they may so provide. A minority institution can therefore have a scheme of administration containing a provision creating a monopoly in favour of the members of the minority community in the managing body of the institution. It also appears that if the founders are of the view that holding of periodical elections to the management would not be in the interest of the minority community they may provide for any other manner of constituting the management. The minority may provide in the scheme that the post of Manager be filled up by nomination. If therefore the provision of Schedule III prohibiting a monopoly in favour of any creed or of periodical election is held to be applicable to a minority institution the provision would be ultra vies Article 30. To save these provisions from invalidation they have to be read down as not being applicable to a minority institution. It may be noted that under the scheme of administration approved in 1984 the nomination of a Committee of Management after even 5 years by the District Magistrate, Basti in the facts of the case is a sufficient safeguard in the scheme against creation of a monopoly of any person or group of persons in the management.
St. Stephen'S College vs University Of Delhi on 6 December, 1991
23. The Hon'ble Single Judge under its judgment and order dated 08.04.1997 inter alia recorded that the institution in question has been established by a minority community and that its actually administered by the said minority. With reference to the aforesaid basic finding the Hon'ble Single Judge has held that the right to manage the institution does not include the right to mismanage and that reasonable restriction can be placed upon such right of management, which may be in form of regulations. Reliance in that regard has been placed upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi ; in re The Kerala Education Bill 1957 AIR 1958 S.C. 956 and Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujrat .