Articles 29 and 30 of our Constitution have granted a very important and valuable right, known as educational and cultural right. The object of inserting such a right in the Constitution is to safeguard the interests of minorities.

As S L Sikri observes,“Our constitution, makes special provision for protecting the interests of the minorities as regards their language, script and culture.” In a multi-lingual country like India, such a fundamental right is eminently necessary, because the majority community has an inherent tendency to impose its own language, script and culture upon the rest of the society.

Dr M V Pylee has aptly remarked that these provisions are “unique in their thoroughness”. If these provisions are carefully read along with other fundamental rights as enshrined in Chapter III of the Constitution it will be crystal clear that the Founding Fathers intended to create a society based upon liberty, equality and justice. In fact, these two provisions are closely related to the religious right as guaranteed by Articles 25, 26, 27 and 28.

Significantly, the term “minority” has been given a special meaning. As Dr B R Ambedkar, the chief architect of the Constitution, observed, it is used not merely to indicate the minority in the technical sense of the word, it is also used to cover minorities which are not minorities in the technical sense but which are nonetheless minorities in cultural and linguistic sense. For instance, if a group of people come from Tamil Nadu and settle in West Bengal for certain purposes, they may not be minority in the technical sense, but they are a cultural and linguistic minority in West Bengal. Articles 29 and 30 legally seek to protect their inherent interests in a pluralistic country.

Of course, some members of the Constituent Assembly pointed out that such a right should be very carefully worded. In their view, the Muslims in West Bengal did not differ from the Hindus in language and script, but they had a different culture of their own. So they argued that the Constitution must safeguard their linguistic and cultural existence.

They cited another example as well. The Andhras of Orissa had their own language and script, but they shared a common culture with the majority-community. In such case, they argued, the Constitution must deal with the problem with due care and consideration. So Dr Ambedkar substituted the words “script or culture” for “script and culture”. It was surely an improvement upon the original draft-provision.

It is also to be noted that the Advisory Committee had initially used the term “minority” in Article 29. But it was finally deleted at the initiative of Sardar Patel. In its place, the words “any section of citizens”, were inserted. The change thus absolutely fitted in with the actual intention of the makers.

In fact, at the behest of Thakurdas Bhargava, the phrase “any section of the citizens” was inserted in the Constitutional provision. Thus, Article 29 (i) emphasises that any section of citizens residing in India with a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same. In this way, such minorities have the legal right to preserve these precious things in their own way.

Clause (2) of this Article has also mentioned that no citizen shall be denied admission into an 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. But Article 30 (i) has expressly inserted the word “minorities” in it. It has declared that all minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their own choice. And Article 30 (2) has enjoined that the state shall not in granting aid, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management or control of a minority, whether based upon religion or language.

According to the Bombay High Court, these two Articles have sufficiently guaranteed two privileges. An individual has a right to choose any educational institution for admission and moreover, the guardian has the due opportunity to control the education of his children — (D V College v. Punjab, 1971). Moreover, the Apex Court ruled that everybody with requisite qualification shall have the right to be admitted into any educational institution and that he could not be denied such opportunity for his religion or language.

So, Articles 29 and 30 are closely related to each other. In other words, they are two sides of the same coin. Any religious denomination can establish and administer its educational institution and this right is very wide — (Sidradbhai v. Gujarat, 1963). Unless there is a gross mismanagement or chaos in the administration of such institution, no governmental interference is consequently possible. Moreover, the state can by no means discriminate against such an institution in granting aid on the ground that it is under the control or management of a particular minority, based upon religion or language. It is also held by our Apex Court that such right cannot by any means be taken away by a University — (St Xavier’s College v. Gujarat, 1974, Provost v. Bihar, 1969).

However, the critics have found some loopholes in the arrangement. According to them, words like “culture” and “language” mentioned in Article 29 (i) have not been defined. In fact, they are kept delightfully vague, as argued by Dr. H H Das. Secondly, it is alleged that such provision may create a sense of separation which may go against the idea of national integrity and oneness. Thirdly, Dr M M Singh thinks that such right may in effect, be the unending palladium of special privilege.

Then, it has also been argued that such right is not available to all. As it is meant for some groups of people, it is not at all consistent with a Constitution which has pledged to establish equality to all. Fifthly, it may grossly prevent the formulation of a national educational policy for the citizens of India. Above all, as the word “minority” has not been defined, some groups within the majority-community, may unduly claim to be minority in order to secure a special treatment.

Yet it can be emphatically claimed that in a pluralistic society like ours, the cultural and linguistic minorities badly require such a right. According to D D Basu, the purpose of these Articles is to safeguard the basic interests of these people and, in that sense, they have immense value. From that point of view, the makers of the Constitution have rendered a signal service to the nation by recognising these privilege. In the view of G N Joshi, such recognition is “unparalled in the Constitutions of the world”.

Due to the existence of Articles 29 and 30 the Supreme Court found a proper reason to set aside clause (5) of the Kerala Education Bill in 1959 which seriously affected such rights in an unprecedented way.

The writer is a Griffith Prizeman and former Reader, New Alipore College.