Case: Rt. Rev. Bishop S. K. Patro &amp; Ors Vs. State Of Bihar &amp; Ors

acquired by local Christians and in buildings erected from funds collected by them. The institution along with the land on which it was built and the balance of money from the local fund were handed over to the Church Missionary Society in 1856. It is also true that substantial assistance was obtained from the Church Missionary Society, London. But on that account it cannot be said that the School was not established by the local Christians with their own efforts and was not an educational institution established by a minority.19. The Church Missionary Society Higher Secondary School is an educational institution administered by a minority; that was so found by the High Court and is not now in controversy.20. The High Court held that the primary school started in the year 1854 was started by the Church Missionary Society,London, and such a Society cannot be said to be a citizen of India and that in any event the persons who constituted the Society were aliens and on that account it cannot be said that the Church Missionary Society Higher Secondary School is an educational institution established by a minority. It is unnecessary to dilate upon these matters at length, for, in our judgement, the conclusion that the School was established not by the local Christians of Bhagalpur, but by the Church Missionary Society, London, is not justified on the evidence. The extracts from the Record Book clearly show that the local residents of Bhagalpur had taken a leading role in establishing and maintaining the school. Assistance was undoubtedly obtained from other bodies including the Church Missionary Society, London. But the School was set up by the Christian Missionaries and the local residents of Bhagalpur with the aid of funds part of which was contributed by them.21. It is unnecessary to enter upon an enquiry whether all the persons who took part in establishing the School in 1854 were "Indian Citizens". Prior to the enactment of the Constitution there was no settled concept of Indian citizenship; and it cannot be said that Christian Missionaries who had settled in India and the local Christian residents of Bhagalpur did not form a minority community. It is true that the minority competent to claim the protection of Article 30 (1) and on that account the privilege of establishing and maintaining educational institutions of its choice must be a minority of persons residing in India. It does not confer upon foreigners not resident in India the right to set up educational institutions of their choice. Persons setting up educational institutions must be resident in India and they must form a well-defined religious or linguistic minority. It is not however predicated that protection of the right guaranteed under Article 30 may be availed of only in respect of an institution established before the Constitution by persons born and resident in British India.22. It is necessary to bear in mind the difference in the phraseology used in Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution. By Article 29 (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, and Cl. (2) guarantees 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.The protection of the rights under Article 29 may be claimed only be Indian citizens. Art. 30 guarantees the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions: the article does not expressly refer to citizenship as a qualification for the members of the minorities.23. In Rev. Father W. Proost v. State of Bihar, W. P. No. 1 of 1968, D/- 13-9-1968 = (AIR 1969 SC 465 ), this Court observed:"In our opinion the width of Article 30 (1) cannot be cut down by introducing in it considerations on which Article 29 (1) is based. The latter article is a general protection which is given to minorities to conserve their language, script or culture. * * * The two articles created two separate rights, although it is possible that they may meet in a given case."The Court then observed, after referring to the judgment in Rev. Sidhajbhai Sabhai v. State of Bombay, (1963) 3 SCR 837 = (AIR 1963 SC 540 ) that:"............. the language of Article 30 (1) is wide and must receive full meaning. We are dealing with protection of minorities and attempts to whittle down the protection cannot be allowed. We need not enlarge the protection but we may not reduce a protection naturally flowing from the words. Here the protection clearly flows from the words and there is nothing on the basis of which aid can be sought from Article 29 (1)."The fact that funds were obtained from the United Kingdom for assisting in setting up and developing the School or that the management of the institution was carried on by some persons who may not have been born in India is not a ground for denying the protection of Art. 30 (1).24. We are also unable to agree with the High Court that before any protection can be claimed under Article 30 (1) in respect of the Church Missionary Society Higher Secondary School it was required to be proved that all persons or a majority of them who established the institution were "Indian citizens" in the year 1854. There being no Indian citizenship in the year 1854 independently of the citizenship of the British Empire, to incorporate in the interpretation of Article 30 in respect of an institution established by a minority the condition that it must in addition be proved to have been established by persons who would, if the institution had been set up after the Constitution, have claimed Indian citizenship, is to whittle down the protection of Article 30 in a manner not warranted by the provisions of the Constitution.25. The

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]It appears from this correspondence and the resolutions and the discussions at the meetings that a permanent home for the Boys School was set up in 1854 on property acquired by local Christians and in buildings erected from funds collected by them. The institution along with the land on which it was built and the balance of money from the local fund were handed over to the Church Missionary Society in 1856. It is also true that substantial assistance was obtained from the Church Missionary Society, London. But on that account it cannot be said that the School was not established by the local Christians with their own efforts and was not an educational institution established by a minority.The Church Missionary Society Higher Secondary School is an educational institution administered by a minority; that was so found by the High Court and is not now in controversy.The High Court held that the primary school started in the year 1854 was started by the Church Missionary Society,London, and such a Society cannot be said to be a citizen of India and that in any event the persons who constituted the Society were aliens and on that account it cannot be said that the Church Missionary Society Higher Secondary School is an educational institution established by a minority. It is unnecessary to dilate upon these matters at length, for, in our judgement, the conclusion that the School was established not by the local Christians of Bhagalpur, but by the Church Missionary Society, London, is not justified on the evidence. The extracts from the Record Book clearly show that the local residents of Bhagalpur had taken a leading role in establishing and maintaining the school. Assistance was undoubtedly obtained from other bodies including the Church Missionary Society, London. But the School was set up by the Christian Missionaries and the local residents of Bhagalpur with the aid of funds part of which was contributed by them.It is unnecessary to enter upon an enquiry whether all the persons who took part in establishing the School in 1854 were "Indian Citizens". Prior to the enactment of the Constitution there was no settled concept of Indian citizenship; and it cannot be said that Christian Missionaries who had settled in India and the local Christian residents of Bhagalpur did not form a minority community. It is true that the minority competent to claim the protection of Article 30 (1) and on that account the privilege of establishing and maintaining educational institutions of its choice must be a minority of persons residing in India. It does not confer upon foreigners not resident in India the right to set up educational institutions of their choice. Persons setting up educational institutions must be resident in India and they must form a well-defined religious or linguistic minority. It is not however predicated that protection of the right guaranteed under Article 30 may be availed of only in respect of an institution established before the Constitution by persons born and resident in British India.It is necessary to bear in mind the difference in the phraseology used in Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution. By Article 29 (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, and Cl. (2) guarantees 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.The protection of the rights under Article 29 may be claimed only be Indian citizens. Art. 30 guarantees the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions: the article does not expressly refer to citizenship as a qualification for the members of theare also unable to agree with the High Court that before any protection can be claimed under Article 30 (1) in respect of the Church Missionary Society Higher Secondary School it was required to be proved that all persons or a majority of them who established the institution were "Indian citizens" in the year 1854. There being no Indian citizenship in the year 1854 independently of the citizenship of the British Empire, to incorporate in the interpretation of Article 30 in respect of an institution established by a minority the condition that it must in addition be proved to have been established by persons who would, if the institution had been set up after the Constitution, have claimed Indian citizenship, is to whittle down the protection of Article 30 in a manner not warranted by the provisions of the Constitution.