Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 53 (0.34 seconds)Article 29 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 26 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 25 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 28 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bennett Coleman & Co. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 October, 1972
We have tried to reconcile the 69 Others Vs. Union Of India And Others claim of a community which has started educational institutions for the advancement of its own children either in education or in cultural matters, to permit to give religious instruction in such institutions, notwithstanding the fact that it receives certain aid from the State. The Sate. of course, is free to give aid. is free not to give aid; the only limitation we have placed is this. that the State shall not debar the institution from claiming aid under its grant-in-aid code merely on the ground that it is run and maintained by a community and not maintained by a public body. We have there provided also a "further qualification, tint while it is free to give religious instruction in the institution and the grant made by the State shall not be a bar to the giving of such instruction, it shall not give instruction to, or make it compulsory upon, the children belonging to other communities unless and until they obtain the consent of the parents of those children. That, I think, is a 'salutary provision. It performs two functions . . . Shri H. V. Kamath : On a point of clarification, what about institutions and schools run by a community or a minority for its own pupils not a school where all communities are mixed but a school run by the community for its own pupils ? The Hon'ble Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : If my friend Mr. Kamath will read the other article he will see that once an institution, whether maintained by the community of not, gets a grant, the condition is that it shall keep the school open to all communities. That provision he has not read." (VII. C.A.D. 884) He reaffirmed the complete freedom of the State to give or not to give aid to these schools when directly referring to draft article 23 which is the precursor of the present articles 29 and 30 as follows :- "I think another thing which has to be borne in mind in reading article 23 is that it does not impose any obligation or burden upon the State. It does not say that, when for instance the Madras people come to Bombay, the Bombay Government shall be required by law to finance any project of giving education either in Tamil "language or in Andhra language or any other language". There is no burden cast upon the State. The only limitation that is imposed by article 23 is that if there is a cultural minority which wants to preserve its language, its script and its culture, the State shall not by law impose upon it any other culture which may be either local or otherwise."
Rev. Sidhajbhai Sabhai And Others V vs State Of Bombay And Another on 30 August, 1962
(13) Secondly, the decision in Sidhajbhai Sabhai v. State of Bombay, , is based on the assumption that the religious minority institution was free to choose its students provided that they had the minimum qualifications prescribed by the State or the university. The State Government did not have any legal right in that case to nominate arbitrarily 80 per cent of the students to the school run by a religious minority. The decision is not an authority for the proposition that irrespective of the minimum qualifications a religious minority school can choose its own students, the preference being based on religion and/or language. Such a view would have been contrary to Article 29(2).