The article is an excerpt from the judgment Anjuman Ishaat E. Taleem Trust v. The State of Maharashtra and ors. (2025 SCC Online SC 1912)
144. This Court in its numerous decisions has affirmed that the right to establish and administer educational institutions, whether for profit or not, is protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. For instance, the lead judgment authored by Hon’ble B.N. Kirpal, CJI.in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) held thus:
“18. With regard to the establishment of educational institutions, three articles of the Constitution come into play. Article 19(1)(g) gives the right to all the citizens to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business; this right is subject to restrictions that may be placed under Article 19(6). Article 26 gives the right to every religious denomination to establish and maintain an institution for religious purposes, which would include an educational institution. Article 19(1)(g) and Article 26, therefore, confer rights on all citizens and religious denominations to establish and maintain educational institutions.”
145. Undoubtedly so. However, Article 19(6) carves out a clear exception to Article 19 including 19(1)(g), permitting the State to impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public. The RTE Act, enacted to give effect to Article 21A, ought to be viewed as one such “reasonable restriction” falling within the contours of Article 19(6), aimed at advancing a constitutionally recognised public good, i.e., universal elementary education for children aged 6-14 years. The objective behind the RTE Act, one has to realize and remember, is not to curtail legitimate exercise of rights under Articles 19(1)(g), 26 and 30, but to ensure that the foundational rights of children are not sacrificed at the altar of unregulated commercialisation.
146. In a constitutional framework that is animated by the values of justice, equality, fraternity and dignity, commercial freedoms under Article 19(1)(g) must yield where they conflict with the fulfilment of Fundamental Rights particularly those of children. We should not forget that the RTE Act is the legislative expression of a fundamental right under Article 21A. Its regulatory mandate, therefore, acquires constitutional legitimacy through Article 21A, and by extension, Article 21. When tested against the standard of reasonableness under Article 19(6), the regulatory measures imposed by the RTE Act are not only not arbitrary, they are necessary, imperative and proportionate, and in furtherance of the larger constitutional goal and vision of Article 21A.
147. A six-Judge Bench of this Court in Rev. Sidhrajbhai Sabhai v. State of Gujarat, (1963) 3 SCR 837 had held that:
“15. The right established by Article 30(1) is a fundamental right declared in terms absolute. Unlike the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Article 19 it is not subject to reasonable restrictions. It is intended to be a real right for the protection of the minorities in the matter of setting up of educational institutions of their own choice. The right is intended to be effective and is not to be whittled down by so-called regulative measures conceived in the interest not of the minority educational institution, but of the public or the nation as a whole. If every order which while maintaining the formal character of a minority institution destroys the power of administration is held justifiable because it is in the public or national interest, though not in its interest as an educational institution the right guaranteed by Article 30(1) will be but a ‘teasing illusion’ a promise of unreality. Regulations which may lawfully be imposed either by legislative or executive action as a condition of receiving grant or of recognition must be directed to making the institution while retaining its character as a minority institution effective as an educational institution. Such regulation must satisfy a dual test-the test of reasonableness, and the test that it is regulative of the educational character of the institution and is conducive to making the institution an effective vehicle of education for the minority community or other persons who resort to it.”
148. However, the decision in Rev. Sidhrajbhai Sabhai (supra) stands overruled by the majority in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra). While so overruling, it was held that the right under Article 30(1) cannot be stretched to override the national interest or to prevent the Government from framing regulations in that regard. The relevant extracts are reproduced hereunder:
“107. The aforesaid decision does indicate that the right under Article 30(1) is not so absolute as to prevent the Government from making any regulation whatsoever. As already noted hereinabove, in Sidhajbhai Sabhai case [(1963) 3 SCR 837 : AIR 1963 SC 540] it was laid down that regulations made in the true interests of efficiency of instruction, discipline, health, sanitation, morality and public order could be imposed. If this is so, it is difficult to appreciate how the Government can be prevented from framing regulations that are in the national interest, as it seems to be indicated in the passage quoted hereinabove. Any regulation framed in the national interest must necessarily apply to all educational institutions, whether run by the majority or the minority. Such a limitation must necessarily be read into Article 30. The right under Article 30(1) cannot be such as to override the national interest or to prevent the Government from framing regulations in that behalf. It is, of course, true that government regulations cannot destroy the minority character of the institution or make the right to establish and administer a mere illusion; but the right under Article 30 is not so absolute as to be above the law. It will further be seen that in Sidhajbhai Sabhai case [(1963) 3 SCR 837 : AIR 1963 SC 540] no reference was made to Article 29(2) of the Constitution. This decision, therefore, cannot be an authority for the proposition canvassed before us.”
149. While the autonomy of minority institutions must be protected, it is not beyond the reach of reasonable regulation in the interest of maintaining educational standards and achieving constitutional goals.
150. Even before T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra), a nine-Judge Bench of this Court in Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society (supra) held that:
“20. The right conferred on the religious and linguistic minorities to administer educational institutions of their choice is not an absolute right. This right is not free from regulation. Just as regulatory measures are necessary for maintaining the educational character and content of minority institutions similarly regulatory measures are necessary for ensuring orderly, efficient and sound administration. Das, C.J., in the Kerala Education Bill case summed up in one sentence the true meaning of the right to administer by saying that the right to administer is not the right to mal-administer.”
(emphasis ours)
151. The aforesaid discussion tends to support our opinion that rights under Article 30(1), not being absolute, cannot be claimed to the complete exclusion of Article 21A. The former cannot be construed as overriding the mandate of the latter. Article 30(1), which guarantees minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice, is undoubtedly a vital part of the constitutional promise to preserve linguistic and religious diversity. However, this right, like all others under Part III, is not absolute. It must be read in harmony with other Fundamental Rights and constitutional goals. When minority institutions engage in the act of imparting education, particularly elementary education, they necessarily operate within a shared constitutional ecosystem. To argue that Article 30(1) grants the minority institutions immunity from all statutory frameworks aimed at securing the right to education under Article 21A or that there can be no restrictions imposed under Article 19(6) would be to prioritize one right over another, thereby undermining the right to education under Article 21A