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)
133. Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution together constitute the ‘Cultural and Educational Rights’. The text of both provisions is reproduced below:
“29. Protection of interests of minorities.-(1) Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same.
(2) No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them.
30. Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.-(1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
(1-A) In making any law providing for the compulsory acquisition of any property of an educational institution established and administered by a minority, referred to in clause (1), the State shall ensure that the amount fixed by or determined under such law for the acquisition of such property is such as would not restrict or abrogate the right guaranteed under that clause.]
(2) The State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language.”
134. Clause (1) of Article 29 guarantees that any section of citizens having a distinct language, script, or culture has the right to conserve the same. Clause (2) adds a vital equality dimension, prohibiting denial of admission into educational institutions maintained by the State or receiving aid from State funds on grounds of religion, race, caste, language, or any of them.
135. Article 30(1) of the Constitution guarantees minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. However, this right is not absolute, nor does it imply blanket immunity from all regulatory frameworks. This Court, in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra), has held that 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.
136. The purpose of Article 30(1) is to preserve the linguistic and cultural identity of minority communities through education, not to create parallel systems that are insulated from universally applicable norms. Basic requirements related to infrastructure, teacher qualifications, and inclusive access, especially at the elementary level under Article 21A, do not interfere with a school’s minority character. On the contrary, these norms ensure that the right to administer does not become a license to exclude or operate without accountability. Interpreting Article 30(1) as a blanket shield erodes the balance between autonomy and public interest, and undermines the constitutional vision of inclusive, equitable education for all.
137. A brief reference to the Constituent Assembly Debates may be apt at this stage. The original text of Article 29(2) [Article 23(2) in the Draft Constitution of India, 1948] read thus:
“(2) No minority whether based on religion, community or language shall be discriminated against in regard to the admission of any person belonging to such minority into any educational institution maintained by the State.”
138. This language was met with concern by the assembly members. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava proposed three important changes: (i) replacing “no minority” with “no citizen” to universalise the protection, (ii) extending the provision to include not only State-maintained institutions but also those receiving aid from the State, and (iii) broadening the grounds of protection from just “religion, community or language” to include “religion, race, caste, language or any of them”(71). He stated:
[(71) Constituent Assembly of India Debates (Volume 7, 08.12.1948), 7.69.35 & 7.69.36 (Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava)]
“Now, Sir, it so happens that the words ‘no minority’ seek to differentiate the minority from the majority, whereas you would be pleased to see that in the Chapter the words of the heading are ‘cultural and educational rights’, so that the minority rights as such should not find any place under this section. Now if we read Clause (2) it would appear as if the minority had been given certain definite rights in this clause, whereas the national interests require that no majority also should be discriminated against in this matter. Unfortunately, there is in some matters a tendency that the minorities as such possess and are given certain special rights which are denied to the majority. It was the habit of our English masters that they wanted to create discriminations of this sort between the minority and the majority. Sometimes the minority said they were discriminated against and on other occasions the majority felt the same thing. This amendment brings the majority and the minority on an equal status.
In educational matters, I cannot understand, from the national point of view, how any discrimination can be justified in favour of a minority or a majority. Therefore, what this amendment seeks to do is that the majority and the minority are brought on the same level. There will be no discrimination between any member of the minority or majority in so far as admission to educational institutions are concerned. So I should say that this is a charter of the liberties for the student-world of the minority and the majority communities equally.”
(emphasis ours)
139. Shri. Bhargava’s proposed amendments were ultimately accepted, and what we now have as Article 29(2) reflects the deliberate and inclusive vision of the Constituent Assembly. It affirms that in matters of admission to educational institutions funded by the State, no citizen-minority or majority-should face discrimination on specified grounds. The framers thus sought to establish a level playing field in education, rooted in the principles of equality and non-discrimination.
140. Is the right conferred by Article 30(1) absolute, or does it imply blanket immunity from all regulatory frameworks? A seven-Judge Bench of this Court, upon reference by the President, held in In Re: Kerala Education Bill, 1957, 1959 SCR 995:
“20. Articles 29 and 30 are set out in Part III of our Constitution which guarantees our fundamental rights. They are grouped together under the sub-head ‘Cultural and Educational Rights’. The text and the marginal notes of both the articles show that their purpose is to confer those fundamental rights on certain sections of the community which constitute minority communities. Under clause (1) of Article 29 any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own has the right to conserve the same. It is obvious that a minority community can effectively conserve its language, script or culture by and through educational institutions and, therefore, the right to establish and maintain educational institutions of its choice is a necessary concomitant to the right to conserve its distinctive language, script or culture and that is what is conferred on all minorities by Article 30(1) which has hereinbefore been quoted in full. This right, however, is subject to clause 2 of Article 29 which provides that no citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them.
22. … The real import of Article 29(2) and Article 30(1) seems to us to be that they clearly contemplate a minority institution with a sprinkling of outsiders admitted into it. By admitting a non-member into it the minority institution does not shed its character and cease to be a minority institution. Indeed the object of conservation of the distinct language, script and culture of a minority may be better served by propagating the same amongst non-members of the particular minority community. In our opinion, it is not possible to read this condition into Article 30(1) of the Constitution.”
(emphasis ours)
141. As evident from the above, Article 30(1), in the context of aided minority institutions, is subject to the mandate of Article 29(2), which expressly prohibits denial of admission to any citizen in institutions maintained by the State or receiving State aid, on grounds of religion, race, caste, language, or any of them. A plain reading of Article 29(2) makes the position clear that an educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds cannot deny admission on, inter alia, grounds of religion. Significantly, Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust (supra) does not discuss Article 29(2) in the context of the answer to the second issue, though raised by the Additional Solicitor General as recorded in paragraph 47, while Article 29(2) is merely quoted in the discussion while answering the first issue at paragraph 32. To our mind, consideration of Article 29(2) in the proper perspective could have brought about a different outcome insofar as applicability of Section 12(1)(b) of the RTE Act to schools specified in sub-clause (ii) of clause (n) of Section 2 thereof.
142. With respect to unaided minority institutions, the interpretation of Article 30 must be guided by its underlying purpose, i.e., to preserve the cultural, linguistic, and educational identity of minority communities and promote their welfare. As clarified in In Re: The Kerala Education Bill (supra), the mere admission of a “sprinkling of outsiders” neither defeats the purpose of Article 30 nor does it dilute or alter the minority character of such institutions.
143. It is clear on a reading of the authorities in the relevant field that Article 30(1) has never been construed as conferring blanket immunity on minority institutions from all forms of regulation. Even at a time when the promise to provide free and compulsory elementary education was merely a directive principle under Article 45 and not yet elevated to a fundamental right, this Court in In Re: The Kerala Education Bill (supra) recognised the need to harmonise the rights under Article 30(1) with the broader constitutional duty of the State to promote free and compulsory education. This Court observed that apparent tensions between these provisions must be resolved through reconciliation by giving effect to both and achieving a constitutional synthesis. It held that the right of minorities to administer educational institutions of their choice does not preclude the State from prescribing reasonable conditions for the grant of aid, including those intended to uphold educational standards and promote inclusivity. With respect to unaided minority institutions, the interpretation of Article 30 must be guided by its underlying purpose of preserving the cultural, linguistic, and educational identity of minority communities and promoting their welfare. As clarified in In Re: The Kerala Education Bill (supra), the mere admission of a “sprinkling of outsiders” neither defeats the purpose of Article 30 nor does it dilute or alter the minority character of such institutions.