& Anr Vs. Union of India & Ors  Insc 399
(8 August 2005)
Justice of India, D. M. Dharmadhikari & P. K. Balasubramanyan
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).
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].
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.
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.
several questions which were formulated for answer by the eleven judges Bench
the most important question included was as under:-
is the meaning and content of the expression "minority" in Article 30
of the Constitution of India?"
answer in the opinion of majority in the Bench of eleven judges speaking
through Kirpal, CJ (as he then was) is the following :-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
has, therefore, been decided to give statutory status to the Minorities
Commission by the proposed legislation.
National Commission for Minorities will consist of a Chairperson and six
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
so-called minority communities like Sikhs and Jains were not treated as
national minorities at the time of framing the Constitution.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
literal meaning of the word 'Jain' is one who has attained 'victory'.
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.
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.
'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.
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].
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.
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.
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.
above mentioned constitutional goal has to be kept in view by the Minorities
Commissions set up at the Central or State levels.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
the Commission gear its activities to keep them in right direction with the
above constitutional perspective, principles and ideals in its view.
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.