Activities of HRDI HRDI News India Indian Diaspora Judgments Kashmir News

Bali Patil & Anr. versus Union of India & Ors.

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil)  4730 of 1999

PETITIONER:

Bal Patil & Anr.

versus

RESPONDENT:

Union of India & Ors.

 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/08/2005

 

BENCH:

Chief Justice of India,D. M. Dharmadhikari & P. K. Balasubramanyan

 

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

 

Dharmadhikari J.

 

The appellant is an organization representing a section of Jain

community. It approached by writ petition the High Court of Bombay

seeking issuance of a mandamus/direction to the Central Government

to notify ‘Jains’ as a ‘minority’ community under section 2(c) of the

National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992 (shortly referred to as

the Act).

 

 

Section 2(c) of the Act defines minority thus :-

“Minority, for the purposes of this Act, means a community notified

as such by the Central Government;”

 

The High Court of Bombay by the impugned order simply

disposed off the petition on the ground that the claim of varous

communities to the status of ‘minority’ for purpose of seeking

constitutional protections is one of the main issues pending before a

bench of eleven judges of this court in the case of TMA Pai Foundation

[2002 (8) SCC 481].

 

This appeal stood adjourned on several dates awaiting the

judgment in the TMA Pai Foundation case. In the counter affidavit filed

the Central Government stated that they would abide by the judgment

of the eleven judges’ Bench in TMA Pai Foundation case and thereafter

consider the claim of Jains to the status of minority community under

the Act.

 

During the pendency of this appeal, the eleven judges’ Bench

decision in TMA Pai was delivered and the decision is reported in 2002

(8) SCC 481.

 

Amongst several questions which were formulated for answer by

the eleven judges Bench the most important question included was as

under:-

 

“What is the meaning and content of the expression “minority” in

Article 30 of the Constitution of India?”

 

The answer in the opinion of majority in the Bench of eleven

judges speaking through Kirpal, CJ (as he then was) is the

following :-

 

Ans: Linguistic and religious minorities are covered by the expression

“minority” under Article 30 of the Constitution. Since reorganization

of the States in India has been on linguistic lines, therefore, for the

purpose of determining the minority, the unit will be the State and

not the whole of India. Thus, religious and linguistic minorities, who

have been put on a par in Article 30, have to be considered

statewise.

 

[Emphasis added]

 

After the decision of the eleven judges’ Bench case (supra),

additional affidavit by the Central Government through its Joint

Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment has been filed.

The stand now taken by the Central Government in this appeal before

this court is that in accordance with the law laid down by the majority

opinion in the TMA Pai case (supra), it is “for the State Government to

decide as to whether the Jain community should be treated as a

minority community in their respective states after taking into account

their circumstances/conditions in that state”. It is also informed that

the State Governments of Chhatisgarh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh,

Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal have already notified Jains as ‘minority’

in accordance with the provisions of the respective State Minority

Commissions Act.

 

Learned Counsel U.U. Lalit, in the light of law declared in the

decision of the eleven judges’ Bench (supra) and the consequent stand

taken by the Central Government, strenuously urged that for the

purpose of notifying a community as ‘minority’ at the national level,

the Central Government, which is empowered to consider the claim of

a particular community for being notified as such under section 2(c),

cannot shirk its statutory responsibility. It is argued that the legal

position explained by the majority view in the eleven judges Bench

case that State Governments can determine the minority status of a

community in states formed on linguistic basis under States

Reorganisation Act, 1956 does not render the power of Central

Government under section 2(c) of the Act redundant.

 

Learned counsel representing the claim of the members of the

Jain community before this court further submitted that in accordance

with section 2(c) of the Act, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists,

Zoroastrians (Parsees) have already been notified as minority

communities for the purpose of the Act and the Jains having

substantiated their claim of being a religious minority, the refusal to

notify them as such under the Act is unjustified and abdication of

statutory powers of the Central Government.

 

We have heard Learned Additional Solicitor General Shri B.

Dutta, appearing for the Central Government who merely reiterated

the stand taken in the affidavit filed on behalf of the government that

in view of the judgment in TMA Pai case (supra), the Central

Government henceforth will have no role to play. It is for the

respective State Governments to take decision on the claim of Jains

depending upon their social condition in the respective states.

 

The expression ‘minority’ has been used in Articles 29 and 30 of

the Constitution but it has nowhere been defined. The Preamble of the

Constitution proclaims to guarantee every citizen ‘liberty of thought,

expression, belief, faith & worship’. Group of Articles 25 to 30

guarantee protection of religious, cultural and educational rights to

both majority and minority communities. It appears that keeping in

view the constitutional guarantees for protection of cultural,

educational and religious rights of all citizens, it was not felt necessary

to define ‘minority’. Minority as understood from constitutional scheme

signifies an identifiable group of people or community who were seen

as deserving protection from likely deprivation of their religious,

cultural and educational rights by other communities who happen to

be in majority and likely to gain political power in a democratic form of

Government based on election.

 

In the background of constitutional scheme, the provisions of the

Act therefore instead of giving definition of ‘minority’ only provide for

notifying certain communities as ‘minorities’ who might require special

treatment and protection of their religious, cultural and educational

rights. The definition of ‘minority’ given under the Act in section 2(c) is

in fact not a definition as such but only a provision enabling the

Central Government to identify a community as a ‘minority’ which in

the considered opinion of the Central Government deserves to be

notified for the purpose of protecting and monitoring its progress and

development through the Commission.

 

The Statement of Objects and Reasons for the enactment reads

thus:-

“The Minorities Commission was set up on January, 1978 for providing

an institutional arrangement for evaluating the safeguards provided in

the Constitution for protection of the minorities and to make

recommendations for ensuring implementation of the safeguards and

the laws.

The Minorities Commission with statutory status would infuse

confidence among the minorities about the working and the

effectiveness of the Commission. It would also carry more weight

with the State Governments/ Union Territory Administrations and

the Ministries/ Departments and the other Organizations of the

Central Government.

 

It has, therefore, been decided to give statutory status to the

Minorities Commission by the proposed legislation.

 

The National Commission for Minorities will consist of a Chairperson

and six members.

 

The main task of the Commission shall be to evaluate the progress of

the development of minorities, monitor the working of the safeguards

provided in the Constitution for the protection of the interests of

minorities and in laws enacted by the Central Government or State

Governments, besides looking into the specific complaints regarding

deprivation of rights and safeguards of the minorities. It shall also

cause studies, research and analysis to be undertaken on the issues

relating to socio-economic and educational development of the

minorities and make recommendations for the effective

implementation of the safeguards for the protection and interests of

minorities by the Central Government or State Governments. It may

also suggest appropriate measures in respect of any minority to be

undertaken by the Central Government or State Government.”

 

The Commission set up under the Act has several functions to

perform, which are provided, in section 9. The functions entrusted are

for ensuring progress and development of minorities and protecting

their religious, cultural and educational rights. There is no specific

function conferred under section 9 on the Commission to identify any

community as a ‘minority’ and recommend to the Central Government

that it be so notified under section 2(c) of the Act.

 

On considering the general functions of the Commission

enumerated under section 9 which are only illustrative and not

exhaustive, the Commission cannot be said to have transgressed its

authority in entertaining representation, demands and counter-

demands of members of Jain community for the status of ‘minority’.

Keeping in view the provisions of the Act, the recommendation made

by the Commission in favour of the Jains is in the nature of advice and

can have no binding effect. The power under section 2(c) of the Act

vests in the Central Government which alone, on its own assessment,

has to accept or reject the claim of status of minority by a community.

 

After the verdict in the eleven judges’ Bench in  TMA Pai

Foundation case (supra), the legal position stands clarified that

henceforth the unit for determining status of both linguistic and

religious minorities would be ‘state’. This position is doubly clear not

only from the answer given in conclusion to question no. 1 quoted

above but also the observations contained in paras 76 and 81 of the

majority judgment quoted hereinafter.

 

“76. If, therefore, the State has to be regarded as the unit for

determining “linguistic minority” vis-`-vis Article 30, then with

“religious minority” being on the same footing, it is the State in

relation to which the majority or minority status will have to be

determined.

 

  1. As a result of the insertion of Entry 25 into List III, Parliament

can now legislate in relation to education, which was only a State

subject previously. The jurisdiction of Parliament is to make laws for

the whole or a part of India. It is well recognized that geographical

classification is not violative of Article 14. It would, therefore, be

possible that, with respect to a particular State or group of States,

Parliament may legislate in relation to education. However, Article 30

gives the right to a linguistic or religious minority of a State to

establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The

minority for the purpose of Article 30 cannot have different

meanings depending upon who is legislating. Language being the basis

for the establishment of different States for the purposes of

Article 30, a “linguistic minority” will have to be determined in

relation to the State in which the educational institution is sought

to be established. The position with regard to the religious

minority is similar, since both religious and linguistic minorities

have been put on a par in Article 30.”

 

[Emphasis added]

 

 

Henceforth, before the Central Government takes decision on

claims of Jains as a ‘minority’ under section 2(c) of the Act, the

identification has to be done on a state basis. The power of Central

Government has to be exercised not merely on the advice and

recommendation of the Commission but on consideration of the social,

cultural and religious conditions of the Jain community in each state.

Statistical data produced to show that a community is numerically a

minority cannot be the sole criterion. If it is found that a majority of

the members of the community belong to the affluent class of

industrialists, businessmen, professionals and propertied class, it may

not be necessary to notify them under the Act as such and extend any

special treatment or protection to them as minority. The provisions

contained in the group of Articles 25 to 30 is a protective umbrella

against the possible deprivations of fundamental right of religious

freedoms of religious and linguistic minorities.

 

The recommendation in favour of Jains by the National Minority

Commission was made before the Eleven Judges’ Bench of this Court

in TMA Pai case (supra) had clarified the concept of ‘minority’ for the

purpose of extending constitutional protection.

 

It is not for this court to issue any direction or mandate on the

basis of the claim of some members of the Jain community, which is

opposed to by another section of the same community.

 

 

Before parting with this case, this Court cannot resist from

making some observations which are considered necessary in order to

remind the National and State Commissions for Minorities, the scope

and nature of their functions under the provisions of the Act and the

role they have to play in constitutional perspective.

 

The history of the struggle for independence of India bears

ample testimony of the fact that the concept of ‘minorities’ and the

demands for special care and protection of their religious and cultural

rights arose after bitter experience of religious conflicts which

intermittently arose in about 150 years of British Rule.  The demand of

partition gained momentum at the time the Britishers decided to leave

by handing over self-rule to Indians. The Britishers always treated

Hindus and Muslims as two different groups of citizens requiring

different treatment. To those groups were added Anglo-Indians and

Christians as a result of large scale inter-marriages and conversions of

several sections of communities in India to Christianity. Prior to

passing of the Independence Act of India to hand over self-rule to

Indians, Britishers in the course of gradually conceding some

democratic rights to Indians, contemplated formation of separate

constituencies on reservations of certain seats in legislature in

proportion to the population of Hindus and Muslims. That attempt was

strongly resisted by both prominent Hindu and Muslim national leaders

who had jointly and actively participated in the struggle for

independence of India.

 

The attempt of the Britishers to form separate electorates and

make reservations of seats on the basis of population of Hindus and

Muslims, however, ultimately led to revival of demand for reservations

of constituencies and seats in the first elected government to be

formed in free India.  Resistance to such demands by Hindu and some

Muslim leaders ultimately led to partition of India and formation of

separate Muslim State presently known as Pakistan.

 

Many other revelations concerning competing claims for

reservation of seats on religious basis can be gathered from the

personal diary of prominent national leader late Abdul Kalam Azad.

The diary was made public, in accordance with his last wish only after

25 years of independence. The publication of Azad’s diary made it

necessary for constitutional expert H. M. Seervai to re-write his

chapter under caption ‘Partition of India Legend and Reality’ in his

book on ‘Constitutional Law of India’. Many apprehensions and fears

were expressed and disturbed the minds of the Muslims. They thought

in  democracy to be set up in India,  the Hindus being in majority

would always dominate and retain political power on the basis of their

voting strength. There were also apprehensions expressed by many

prominent Muslim leaders that there might be interference with and

discouragement to their cultural, religious and educational rights.

Abdul Kalam Azad acted as mediator in negotiations between the

national leaders of the times namely late Nehru and Patel on one side

and late Jinnah and Liaqat Ali on the other. Nehru and Patel insisted

that in the new Constitution, there would be one united India

belonging to people of various religious faiths and cultures with all

having full freedom of their social, cultural, religious and other

constitutional rights. They advocated one single citizenship to every

Indian regardless of his language or religion. The opposing group of

Muslim leaders, in the interest of members of their community,

insisted on providing to them participation in democratic processes

proportionate to their ratio of population and thus counter-balance the

likely domination of Hindu majority. They also insisted that separate

electoral constituencies based on their population be formed and seats

be reserved for them in different parts of India. Late Abdul Kalam Azad

tried his utmost to find a midway and thus break the stalemate

between the two opposing groups but Nehru and Patel remained

resolute and rejected the proposal of Jinnah and Liaqat Ali. The tragic

result was that provinces with the highest Muslim population in the

erstwhile States of Sindh, Punjab and Baluchistan had to be ceded to

form a separate theocratic nation – Pakistan. See the following

paragraph 1.314 at pg. 153 of ‘Constitutional Law of India’ by H.M.

Seervai, Fourth Edition, Vol.I :-

 

“1.314. Azad passionately believed in Hindu-Muslim unity, but he found

that from the mid-twenties Gandhi had lost interest in Hindu-Muslim

unity and took no steps to secure it. Further, Azad had played a

leading part in providing a framework for the Constitution of a free

and united India on which the Cabinet Mission Plan was largely based,

a Plan which offered India her last chance to remain united. However,

Gandhi, Nehru and Patel destroyed the Plan, and accepted partition

instead. Azad did his utmost to prevent the partition of India, but he

failed to persuade Nehru and Gandhi not to accept partition.”

 

It is against this background of partition that at the time of

giving final shape to the Constitution of India, it was felt necessary to

allay the apprehensions and fears in the minds of Muslims and other

religious communities by providing to them special guarantee and

protection of their religious, cultural and educational rights. Such

protection was found necessary to maintain unity and integrity of free

India because even after partition of India, communities like Muslims

and Christians in greater numbers living in different parts of India

opted to continue to live in India as children of its soil.

 

It is with the above aim in view that the framers of the

Constitution engrafted group of Articles 25 to 30 in the Constitution of

India. The minorities initially recognized were based on religion and on

national level e.g.  Muslims, Christians, Anglo-Indian and Parsis.

Muslims constituted the largest religious minority because Mughal

period of rule in India was longest followed by British rule during which

many Indians had adopted Muslim and Christian religions.

 

Parsis constituted a numerically smaller minority. They had

migrated from their native State Iran and settled on the shores of

Gujarat adopting the Gujarati language, customs and rituals thus

assimilating themselves into the Indian population.

 

The so-called minority communities like Sikhs and Jains were not

treated as national minorities at the time of framing the Constitution.

Sikhs and Jains, in fact, have throughout been treated as part of the

wider Hindu community which has different sects, sub-sects, faiths,

modes of worship and religious philosophies. In various codified

customary laws like Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu Succession Act, Hindu

Adoption and Maintenance Act and other laws of pre and post-

Constitution period, definition of ‘Hindu’ included all sects, sub-sects of

Hindu religions including Sikhs and Jains.

 

The word ‘Hindu’ conveys the image of diverse groups of

communities living in India. If you search for a person by name Hindu,

he is unidentifiable. He can be identified only on the basis of his caste

as upper caste Brahmin, Kshatriya or Vaish or of lower caste described

in ancient India as Shudras. Those who fall in the Hindu class of

‘Shudras’ are now included in the Constitution in the category of

Scheduled Castes with special privileges and treatment for their

upliftment. This was found necessary to bring them at par with upper

castes in Hindu society. The aboriginals, who have no caste were

considered as distinct from four castes or Varnas of Hindu society.

They have been treated favourably in the Constitution as Scheduled

Tribes. For them also there are provisions for special treatment and

grant of special privileges to bring them on level with the other castes

from the main advanced streams of Indian society.

 

There is a very serious debate and difference of opinion between

religious philosophers and historians as to whether Jains are of Hindu

stock and whether their religion is more ancient than the vedic religion

of Hindus. Spiritual philosophy of Hindus and Jains in many respect is

different but the quintessence of the spiritual thought of both the

religions seems to be the same. The influence of Hindu vedic religion is

quite apparent in the custom, style of living, belief and faith of Jains.

Jains do not worship images or idols of Gods but worship their

Tirathankars meaning their ideal personalities who have attained

human perfection and excellence by a process of self-improvement.

The literal meaning of the word ‘Jain’ is one who has attained ‘victory’.

It signifies a person who has attained victory over himself by the

process of self-purification. ‘Jain’ is a religious devout who is

continuously striving to gain control over his desires, senses and

organs to ultimately become master of his own self.

 

This philosophy is to some extent similar to the vedic philosophy

explained by Lord Krishna in ‘Bhagwat Geeta’, where Lord Krishna

describes qualities of a perfect human as ‘Stithpragya’. Geeta has used

the example of Tortoise to describe a balanced human-being as one

who has gained full control over his organs like a Tortoise does which

whenever needed, opens its limbs of body and when not needed,

closes them.

 

Thus, ‘Hinduism’ can be called a general religion and common

faith of India whereas ‘Jainism’ is a special religion formed on the basis

of quintessence of Hindu religion. Jainism places greater emphasis on

non-violence (‘Ahimsa’) and compassion (‘Karuna’). Their only

difference from Hindus is that Jains do not believe in any creator like

God but worship only the perfect human-being whom they called

Tirathankar. Lord Mahavir was one in the generation of Thirthankars.

The Tirathankars are embodiments of perfect human-beings who have

achieved human excellence at mental and physical levels. In

philosophical sense, Jainism is a reformist movement amongst Hindus

like Brahamsamajis, Aryasamajis and Lingayats. The three main

principles of Jainism are Ahimsa, Anekantvad and Aparigrah. [See :1)

Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics Vol. 7 pg. 465; 2) History of Jains by A. K. Roy

pgs. 5 to 23; and Vinoba Sahitya Vol. 7 pg. 271 to 284].

 

It is not necessary to go into greater details of philosophical and

ideological beliefs and conduct of Jains. They have been dealt with in

necessary detail in the recommendations of the National Commission

for Minorities.

 

We have traced the history of India and its struggle for

independence to show how the concept of minority developed prior to

and at the time of framing of Constitution and later in the course of its

working. History tells us that there were certain religious communities

in India who were required to be given full assurance of protection of

their religious and cultural rights. India is a country of people with the

largest number of religions and languages living together and forming

a Nation. Such diversity of religions, culture and way of life is not to be

found in any part of the world. John Stuart Mill described India as “a

world placed at closed quarters”. India is a world in miniature. The

group of Articles 25 to 30 of the Constitution, as the historical

background of partition of India shows, was only to give a guarantee

of security to the identified minorities and thus to maintain integrity of

the country. It was not in contemplation of the framers of the

Constitution to add to the list of religious minorities. The Constitution

through all its organs is committed to protect religious, cultural and

educational rights of all. Articles 25 to 30 guarantee cultural and

religious freedoms to both majority and minority groups. Ideal of a

democratic society, which has adopted right of equality as its

fundamental creed, should be elimination of majority and minority and

so called forward and backward classes. Constitution has accepted one

common citizenship for every Indian regardless of his religion,

language, culture or faith. The only qualification for citizenship is a

person’s birth in India. We have to develop such enlightened

citizenship where each citizen of whatever religion or language is more

concerned about his duties and responsibilities to protect rights of the

other group than asserting his own rights. The constitutional goal is to

develop citizenship in which everyone enjoys full fundamental

freedoms of religion, faith and worship and no one is apprehensive of

encroachment of his rights by others in minority or majority.

 

The constitutional ideal, which can be gathered from the group

of articles in the Constitution under Chapters of Fundamental Rights

and Fundamental Duties, is to create social conditions where there

remains no necessity to shield or protect rights of minority or majority.

 

The above mentioned constitutional goal has to be kept in view

by the Minorities Commissions set up at the Central or State levels.

Commissions set up for minorities have to direct their activities to

maintain integrity and unity of India by gradually eliminating the

minority and majority classes. If, only on the basis of a different

religious thought or less numerical strength or lack of health, wealth,

education, power or social rights, a claim of a section of Indian society

to the status of ‘minority’ is considered and conceded, there would be

no end to such claims in a society as multi-religious and multi-

linguistic as India is. A claim by one group of citizens would lead to a

similar claim by another group of citizens and  conflict and strife would

ensue. As such, the  Hindu society being based on caste, is itself

divided into various minority groups. Each caste claims to be separate

from the other. In a caste-ridden Indian society, no section or distinct

group of people can claim to be in majority. All are minorities amongst

Hindus. Many of them claim such status because of their small number

and expect protection from the State on the ground that they are

backward. If each minority group feels afraid of the other group, an

atmosphere of mutual fear and distrust would be created posing

serious threat to the integrity of our Nation. That would sow seeds of

multi-nationalism in India. It is, therefore, necessary that Minority

Commission should act in a manner so as to prevent generating

feelings of multinationalism in various sections of people of Bharat.

 

The Commission instead of encouraging claims from different

communities for being added to a list of notified minorities under the

Act, should suggest ways and means to help create social conditions

where the list of notified minorities is gradually reduced and done

away with altogether.

 

These concluding observations were required after the eleven

judges Bench in TMA Pai Foundation Case (supra) held that claims of

minorities on both linguistic and religious basis would be each State as

a unit. The country has already been reorganized in the year 1956

under the States Reorganization Act on the basis of language.

Differential treatments to linguistic minorities based on language

within the state is understandable but if the same concept for

minorities on the basis of religion is encouraged, the whole country,

which is already under class and social conflicts due to various divisive

forces, will further face division on the basis of religious diversities.

Such claims to minority status based on religion would increase in the

fond hope of various sections of people getting special protections,

privileges and treatment as part of constitutional guarantee.

Encouragement to such fissiparous tendencies would be a serious jolt

to the secular structure of constitutional democracy. We should guard

against making our country akin to a theocratic state based on multi-

nationalism. Our concept of secularism, to put it in a nut shell, is that

‘state’ will have no religion. The states will treat all religions and

religious groups equally and with equal respect without in any manner

interfering with their individual rights of religion, faith and worship.

 

Let the Commission gear its activities to keep them in right

direction with the above constitutional perspective, principles and

ideals in its view.

 

With these observations and concluding remarks, this appeal

stands disposed of as we do not find that any case is made out for

grant of any relief to the appellants in exercise of writ jurisdiction of

the High Court and hence, the appellate jurisdiction of this Court.

 

 

 

Leave a Reply