Article 30: Competence and National Importance Explored in Debate Over Minority Character of Educational Institutions

Last Updated on January 31, 2024 by News Desk

The court ruled that Article 30 cannot be read without considering the issue of competence, as every statute and list will be subject to Articles 19, 21, 26, etc. The court concluded that there must be some degree of uniformity in the legislative structure for institutions of national importance, and exclusive jurisdiction is conferred upon the Parliament under Article 245.

Dhavan argued that there is no antagonism between an institution being of national importance and yet having a minority character. He stated that these lists are actually on the question of competence, and if the competence rest on national character/aspect, then quite clearly what they are trying to say is that will be declared, it doesn’t go further than say it is of national character across states.

The court also discussed the use of the term “national character” in the constitution, suggesting that national importance is in contrast to denominational. Dhavan argued that the opposite of national importance/character is that these institutions were of super excellence. He listed out non-determinative factors such as incorporation by or under the statute, recognition of degrees, receiving grants in aid from outside, regulations for promoting excellence, provision of secular education and admission of non-minorities, recognition of the institution of national importance, and presence of non-minorities in day-to-day administration.

The court divided the factors into two parts: factors indicative of determining the minority character and factors not determinative of minority character of an educational institution. The determination factors are the founders should be from the minority, and the community must be numerically less than 50% of the total population of the state.

Dhavan relied on historical antecedents that determined the character of the minority. He mentioned a book on Napolean and Petel Bale, which suggests that we can go into history as an argument without end. However, he argued that the background factors are more relevant than the speeches of the minister, select committees, and parliamentary debates.

Dhavan mentioned the transfer of students under MAO college to be the responsibility of AMU, an important example of continuity.

Written by: Srijan Raj, @procrastinate_human