While framing the Indian Constitution it was made sure that no group based on any rational pillar is left behind in the society, and every individual and units of society are given equal opportunities to gain knowledge and conserve their educational, religious and cultural rights. Article 30 of the Indian Constitution gives the fundamental right to linguistic and religious minorities to establish and administer their educational institutions. In the case, Arya Samaj Education Trust, Delhi and others v. The Director of Education, Delhi Administration, J. V.S. Deshpande observed that the word “minority” means a non-dominant group collectively distinguishable from the majority of the population by the objective factors of religion or language or a combination of both.
Article 30(1) guarantees linguistic and religious minorities to establish and administer such institutions that will serve two purposes, i.e. the purpose of educating about their religion, language and culture as well as giving general knowledge to the forthcoming generation. In D.A.V. College, Bhatinda v. State of Punjab, the court held that the right given to the minorities to administer and establish their institutions also include the right to choose in which medium they would perform i.e. in which language they will operate. And the court also said that article 30(1) is obtainable to both pre-constitution and post-constitution institutions. The word “Establish” refers to set up or bring an institution into existence, while “Administer” means to imply and execute the affairs of the institution. In the case, T.M.A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka the court held that the minorities have the right to only administer institutions that they have established. In a landmark case, State of Kerela v. Mother Provincial, the court held that the minority institutions are free to admit minority as well as non-minority students in the institutions, but till the extent that there minority status is maintained. If they fail to maintain their minority status they will lose the protection of article 30(1). Article 30(1A) says that “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.”, it means that the state shall not discriminate any minority institution based on the fact that it is administered by a minority, or based on a particular religion or linguistic culture.
Clause (2) of Article 30 restricts the state in making any discrimination in the matter of granting aids to the minority constitution on the grounds that it is administered by a religious or linguistic minority. If the state does any discrimination in providing grants to the institutional that act will be held unconstitutional by the court and stuck down on the grounds of violating article 30(2) of the constitution. In the case, State of Bihar v. Syed Asad Raza, it was held that for appointment of a post in a minority institution the prior approval of the vice-chancellor is not needed. Clause 2 of the article gives the provision that the state shall not discriminate any institution in providing financial aids on the grounds that it is run by a religious or linguistic minority, and also under this article the institution need not to take any prior approval of the state government to appoint a teacher.
Article 30 of the constitution of India is protected under article 13 which prohibits violation of fundamental rights, and proclaims that any law in breach of the fundamental rights would be void to the extent of such violation.