Holding

Sections 3 and 18 of the Bihar Non‑Government Secondary Schools (Taking over of Management and Control) Act, 1981 do not violate Article 30(1) and are valid regulatory measures.

Summary

The All Bihar Christian Schools Association, a religious minority society, challenged the Bihar Non‑Government Secondary Schools (Taking over of Management and Control) Act, 1981, alleging that sections 3 and 18 interfered with its Article 30(1) right to establish and administer minority schools. The Court examined whether the Act’s provisions amounted to compulsory acquisition or impermissible regulation of minority schools. It held that the Act only imposes reasonable regulatory measures—such as teacher qualifications, service rules, fee limits and inspection—to ensure educational standards and does not divest the minority of its right to manage its institutions. The Court further observed that Section 3(2) allows takeover only on an unconditional offer by the school, not by compulsion, and that the clauses in Section 18(3) are regulatory, not a blanket veto over management. Consequently, the Act was held constitutionally valid and the writ petitions were dismissed.

Issues considered

The constitutionality of Section 3 of the Bihar Act with respect to Article 30(1)
The constitutionality of Section 18(3) clauses (a)‑(k) of the Bihar Act with respect to Article 30(1) and Article 14
Whether the Act amounts to compulsory acquisition of minority schools
Whether the regulatory provisions imposed on minority schools constitute an impermissible restriction on the right to administer

Legislation cited

Bihar Non‑Government Secondary Schools (Taking over of Management and Control) Act, 1981s. 18, s. 3
Bihar Secondary Education Board Act, 1976
Constitution of Indias. Article 13, s. Article 14, s. Article 29, s. Article 30
Societies Registration Act, 1862

Subjects

Article 30minority educational institutionsregulatory provisionstaking over of schoolsconstitutional validityBihar Act 1981management and controleducational standards

Judgment

)
ALL BIHAR CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION A
AND ANOTHER.
v.
STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS.

NOVEMBER 26, 1987
B
[RANGANATH MISRA AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.]

Bihar Non-Government. Secondary (taking over of Management
\

and Control) Act, 1981-Constitutional validity of.

These petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India C
challenge the constitutional va1idity of the Bihar Non-Government
Secondary Schools (taking over of Management and Control) Act,
1981 (Bihar Act No. 33 of 1982) as violative of Article 30 of the
Constitution.

The petitioner No. 1, the All Bihar Christian Schools' Associa· D
tion, is a religious minority registered society, and the petitioner
No. 2, the Secretary-cum-Treasurer of the petitioner No. 1. The
petitioner-association had set up a number of secondary schools in
Bihar, which were managed by the Christian dioceases societies and
these institutions were recogni.sed by the Education Department
Development of the State of Bihar. E

In Bihar, a number of private se~ondary schools were estab-
lished and managed by private individuals or societies. The State
Government considered it necessary to take over the management and
Control of the Non-Government Secondary Schools for better organi-
sation and development of the Secondary Education in the State, and F
it enacted the Bihar Non·Government Secondary Schools (Taking over
of Management and Control) Act, 1981. The Act provides for the
taking over of the management and control of the Non-Government
Secondary Schools by the State Government for improvement, better
organisation and development of the secondary education in Bihar.
The scheme of the Act shows that after the take·over of the non- G
government secondary Schools by the State Government, the manage-
ment and control of such schools would be carried on in accordance
with the provisions of the Act.

While the impugned Act provides for taking over the manage..
ment and control of the Non-Government Secondary Schools, the H
49
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R.

A management and control of the remaining categories of schools have
not been taken over. Although the Act contained provisions for the
taking over of other secondary schools, yet so far as the minority
secondary schools are concerned, the Act does not provide for any
compulsory acquisition or taking over of the management and control
of such schools.
B
The petitioners contended that (i) ·the provisions of the Act
directly interfere with the management and control 'of the Christian
minority schools, (ii) section 3(2) of the Act which provides for the
taking over of minority secondary schools by the Government inter-
feres with the petitioners' fundamental right under Article 30(i) of the
C Constitution, (iii) the provisions of section 18(2) are violative of
Articles 30 and 14 of the Constitution of India and (iv) the clauses (a)
to (k) of section 18(3) of the Act interfere with the management of the
minority secondary schools in violation of Article 30(i) of the Consti-
tution.

0 The respondent urged inter alia that the Government has no
~
intention to interfere with fundamental rights of the minority commu- I

nity to establish schools of its choice; the provisions of the impugned
Act are directed to ensure academic excellence and good management;
the management of the minority institutions had been given free hand
in managing their institutions, but in order to maintain education
E excellence and discipline, regulatory provisions have been made in
section 18 of the Act, the purpose of which is to ensure that the
minority schools are managed by the properly constituted managing
committees; security of the services of the staff is ensured, and in the
matter of taking disciplinary action, the managing committees should
conform to the principles of natural justice, etc.
F -y
Dismissing the writ petitions, the Court,

HELD: By the various decisions of this Court, it is now wen-
settled that the minorities based on religion or language, have funda-
mental freedom to establish and manage educational institutions of
G their own choice, but the State bas the right to provide regulatory
provisions for ensuring educational excellence, conditions of employ-
ment of the teachers, ensuring health, hygiene and discipline and
allied matters. Such regulatory provisions do not interfere with the
minorities' fundamental right of administering their educational insti·
tutions; instead, they seek to ensure that such institutions are
H administered efficiently and that students who come out of the
ALL BIHAR CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS ASSCN. v. STA1E OF BIHAR 51

minority institutions after completion of their studies are well A
equipped with knowledge and training so as to stand at par in their
avocation in life without any handicap. If the regulatm·y provisions
indirectly impinge upon minorities' right of administration of their
institutions, it would not amount to interference with the fundamental
freedom of the minorities as the regulatory provisions are in the
interest of the minority institutions themselves. If the minority insti· B
tution seeks affiliation or recognition from the State or the Education
Board, the State has the right to prescribe syllabi and terms and
conditions for giving such affiliation or recognition or extending the
I
I
grants-in·aid. On the one hand, the State is under an obligation to
ensure that educational standards in the recognised institutions must
be according to the need of the society and according to the standards C
which ensure the development of' personality of the students turning
out to be civilised, useful members of the society and to ensure that the
public funds disbursed to the minority institutions are properly
utilised for the given purpose. On the other hand, the State has to
respect and honour minority rights under Article 30(1) of the
Constitution in the matter of establishing and carrying the adminis- D
~
I tration of institution of their choice. In order to reconcile these two
conflicting, the State has to strike a balance; the statutory provisions
should serve both the objects and such statutory provisions have to
withstand the test of Article 30(1) of the Constitution. These princi-
ples have to be borne in mind in considering the question of the
validity of the statutory provisions relating to the minority educational E
institutions. [630-G; 64E-G]

The petitioners challenged tbe constitutional validity of sections
3 and 18 of the Act on the ground of interfering with their funda-
mental rights guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
Section 3 provides inter alia for the compulsory taking over of the F
management and control of the recognised non-government secondary
schools. After elaborately going through the provisions of the said two
sections, dealing with the various aspects of the management, adminis-
tration and working of a minority institution; the conclusion was that
the two sections were not violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution
and do not encroach upon the fundamental rights of a minority institu- G
tion guaranteed under Article 30(i) of the Constitution. (53D; 68E; 69G1

Guarantee of freedom to a minority institution under Article
30(1) of the Constitution does not permit the minority institution to act
contrary to law and order, law of contract, industrial laws or other
general laws enacted for the welfare of the society. If the minorities' H
52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R.
1
A claim for immunity from the law of the land is upheld, that would be
unreasonable and against the interest of the minority institutions
themselves. [79D-E1

The impugned Act does not violate the petitioners' rights guaran-
teed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. [SOG]
B
In Re. The Kerala Education Bill, 1957 (t959) SCR 995; Rev.
Sidhajbhai Sabhai and others v. State of Bombay, [1963] 3 SCR 837;
State of Kerala v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial, [1971] 1 SCR 734;
The Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society & Anr. ·etc. v. State of
Gujarat & Anr., [1975] 1 SCR 173; Lilly Kurian ·v. Sr. Lewine &
C Ors., [1979] 1 SCR 820; Frank Anthony Public School Employees'
Association case, [1986] 4 SCC 707; Mrs. Y. Theclamma's Case,
[1987] 2 SCC 516 and All Saints High School, Hyderabad v. Govern-
ment ofAndhra Pradesh & Ors., [1980) 2 SCR 924, referred to.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil)
D Nos. 4588-89 of 1983.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).

F.S. Nariman, Jose P. Vergheese and U.S. Prasad for the
Petitioners. -~
E
Jai Narain and Pramod Swarup for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SINGH, J. These petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution
f of India challenge the constitutional validity of the Bihar Non-
Government Secondary Schools (taking over of Management and
Control) Act, 1981 (Bihar Act No. 33 of 1982) on the ground that the
provisions of the Act are violative of Article 30 of the Constitution.

All Bihar Christian Schools' Association, petitioner No. 1, is a
G religious minority society registered under the Societies Registration
Act. Petitioner No. 2, Sister Marianne S.C.N. is the Secretary-cum-
Treasurer of petitioner No. 1. The aims and objects of the All Bihar
Christian Schools' Association are to promote education including
science, literature, fine arts and libraries according to Christian ideals
in the interest of national development; to foster moral and spiritual
H values in education; to assist and strengthen the work of Christian
ALLBIHARCHRISTIANSCHOOLSASSCN. v. STATE OF BIHAR ISINGH,J.) 53
~
schools in Bihar; to promote the welfare of teachers and other staff of A
the member-institutions. The petitioner association has set up a
-4 number of secondary schools in the State of Bihar which are managed
and administered by the Christian dioceses/societies and these insu-
tutions are recognised by the Education Department of the State of
Bihar. The petitioners aver that they have fundamental right under
Article 30 of the Constitution to administer the institutions estab- B
Iished by them, according to their choice and no interference in the
administration of the educational institution is permissible under the
Constitution. The petitioners alleged that the provisions of the Bihar
Non-Government Secondary Schools (taking over of Management
~- and Control) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) make
~
serious inroad on the petitioners' right to establish and administer c
educational institutions of theirchoice. They have challenged consti-
~
tutional validity of the provisions of the Act and particularly the
provisions contained in Section 3 and Section 18 of the Act which
according to them interfere with their fundamental right guaranteed
by Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
D
""' In the State of Bihar a number of private secondary schools
were established and managed by private individuals or societies. The
State Government considered it necessary to take over the manage-
ment and control of the Non-Government Secondary Schools for
y- better organisation and development of secondary education of the
State. It promulgated an Ordinance on 11.8.1980, as the Bihar Non- E
Government Secondary Schools (Taking Over of Management and
Control) First Ordinance. This Ordinance was later on replaced by
.I another Bihar Ordinance No. 74 of 1981 on 22.4.1981. The State
\ legislature converted the Ordinance into the Bihar Non-Government
Secondary Schools (Taking Over of Management and Control) Act,
1981. The Act a~ indicated by the preamble is to provide for the F
y
taking over or managment and control of the Non-Government
Secondary Schools by the State Government, for improvement,
better organisation and development of Secondary Education in the
State of Bihar. ''Non-Government Secondary School" ·as defined by
Section 2 means a secondary school recognised as such by the Bihar
~
Secondary Education Board Act, 1976 and the Bihar Secondary G
Board (Second amendment) Ordinance, 1980. "Secondary School"
~. means a secondary school whose management and control has been
taken over- by the State Government under Section 3 of the Act.
"Minority Secondary School" as defined by Section 2 (c) means a
secondary school established by a minority community based either
on religion or language, and managed by the minority community H
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1988] 2 S.C.R.

A and declared and recognised as minority school by the State Govern-
ment. Section 3 provides for taking over of the management and
control of recognised Non-Government secondary schools by the
State Government. Sub-section ( 1) lays down that all recognised non-
government secondary schools other than the minority secondary
schools based on religion or language, shall be deemed to have been
_a taken over by the State Government with effect from October 2,
1980. Sub-section (2) provides that the State Government may by
notification in the official gazette from a specified date, take over the
management and control of a recognised minority secondary school if
the managing committee of the secondary school voluntarily makes
an unconditional offer to hand over the school with all moveable or
c immovable assets and properties owned or possessed by the school.
Section 4 provides for the consequences which ensue on the taking
over of management and control of non-government secondary
schools by the Government. It provides that on the taking over of the
management and control of the non-government secondary schools
by the Government all the movable and immovable assets and
D properties owned and possessed by secondary schools including land,
building, documents, books and registeres, shall stand transferred to
the State Government and deemed to have come into its possession
and ownership. The services of every Headmaster, teacher or other
employees of the school taken over by the State Government shall be
deemed to have been transferred to the State Government with effect --y
E ·from the date of taking over the school and they become employees
of the State Government. The age of superannuation of Headmas-
ters, teachers and other employees of the schools taken over by the
State Government shall be 58 years. However, other terms and \
conditions of their services shall continue to be the same as they )
existed prior to taking over of the management and control of the
F school until alteration is made by the State Government. Section 5
provides that the management and control of the nationalised schools
shall be under the Director and his subordinate officers in the manner
as prescribed by the State Government. The management of every
secondar; school shall be under a committee constituted in accor-
dance with the provisions of Section 6 of th.e Act. Section 7 enume-
G rates powers and functions of the Managing Committee. Section 8 •
prescribed duties of the Headmaster. Section 9 provides that the
service conditions of the Headmaster, teachers and non-teaching .)
staffs of the nationalised secondary schools shall be determined by
the State Government. Section 10 provides for the establishment of a
School Service Board, a corporate body having perpetual succession
t-1 and common seal. Its Chairman and the members shall be appointed
ALL BIHAR CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS ASSCN. v. STATE OF BIHAR !SINGH, J.] 55

by the State Government. The Board is empowered to make recom- A
mendations for appointment or ptomotion of Headmasters and
teachers of nationalised secondary schools to the Director of
Education. Section 11 creates a District Secondary Education Fund
Section l2 provides that the fund shall be used for payment of salary
and allowances to the Headmaster, teachers and other employees of
schools including the minority secondary schools and grants for other B
expenditure of schools. Section 14 provides for the constitution of a
Secondary Education Committee for making recommendation to the
State Government on the questions relating to the taking over of
management of the secondary schools, their improvement and upgra-
dation. Section 15 confers power on the State Government to make
rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Every rule made under
this provision is required to be laid before both the Houses of the
c
State Legislature. Section 17 provides for interim arrangement before
taking over management and control of Non-Government Secondary
Schools. Section 18 provides for the recognition of minority secon-
dary schools. Under this provision, a minority secondary school
already declared a minority school under the provisions of Bihar D
Secondary Education Board Actt 1976 shall be deemed to have been
recognised under the provisions of the Act. It further provides that
the State Government inay by notification recognise a minority
secondary school, if the same has been established by a minority
community on the basis of religion or language for the purposes of
meeting the educational requirement and ·for the protection of E
culture of their section, provided it fulfils conditions prescribed for
recognition. A minority secondary school shall be accorded recogni-
tion if it is managed and controlled in accordance with the provisions
set out in Clauses (a) to (k) of Section 18(3). It requires every
minority secondary school to have a managing committee and writ-
ten bye laws. The managing committee is required to appoint teachers F
with the concurrence of the School Service Board. The managing
committee shall prescribe rules regarding the service condition of
teachers based on natural justice and prevailing law and it shall have
powers to remove, dismiss, terminate or discharge a teacher from
service with the approval of School Service Board. The managing
• committee shall charge only such fees from the students as are G
prescribed by the State Government. No higher fees shall be charged
unless prior approval of the State Government is obtained.

The scheme of the Act as analysed shows that the State
Government has taken over non··Government secondary schools.
After the take over the management and control of the secondary H
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R.

A schools shall be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the
Act by a managing committee constituted in accordance with the
provisions of the Act. All employees including teachers working in
the non·Government secondary schools have become employees of
the State Government. Future appointment in the secondary schools
shall be made on the recommendation made by the School Service
B Board. Prior to the take over under this Act, it appears that there
were five classes of secondary schools functioning in the State of
Bihar; they were; (i) non-Government secondary schools maintained
and established and administered by private individuals and societies,
(ii) secondary schools established and managed by minorities
community and recognised as minority schools by the State Govem-
C ment, (iii) proprietary secondary schools established and maintained
entirely by trusts, associations or a corporate bodies declared as
proprietary schools by the State Government; (iv) centrally spon-
sored secondary schools established or managed by Government of
India or an undertaking owned or controlled by Government of India
D or by any department of State Government and recognised by the
Education Department of the State Government, and (v) autono-
mous secondary schools, residential schools recognised by the State
Government imparting education in accordance with curriculum
prescribed for secondary schools and under the Rules approved by
the State Government. All these five categories of secondary schools
had been imparting education to students in the State of Bihar. While
E the impugned Act provides for taking over the management and
control of the non-government secondary schools, the management
and control of the remaining categories of schools have not been
taken over. Although the Act contains provisions for taking over of ~
other secondary schools if and when circumstances as contemplated J
by the Act are found to exist, but so far as minority secondary
F schools are concerned, the Act does not provide for any compulsory -y
acquisition or taking over of the management and control of such
schools. The management and control of non-government secondary
schools taken over by the State under Section 3 of the Act are
required to be carried on in accordance with the provisions contained
in Section 5 to 17 of the Act. So far as minority secondary schools are ,.
G concerned under section 18 contained special provisions for their
recognition and management.

Learned counsel for the petitioners r.ontended that the provi-
sions of the Act directly interfere with the management and control
H of the Christian minority schools. He urged that Section 3(2) of the
Act which provides for the taking over of minority secondary schools
ALL BIHAR CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS ASSCN. v. STA1E OF BlliAR [SINGti, J.] 57
A
I
by the Government intederes with the petitioners' fundamental right A
under Article 30( 1) of the Constitution. The learned counsel further
submitted that provisions of Section 18(2) are violative of Articles 30
and 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel further
urged that clauses (a) to (k) of Section 18(3) of the Act interfere with
the management of the minority secondary schools in violation of
Article 30 ( 1) of the Constitution. On behalf of the State of Bihar it B
was urged that the State Government has no intention to interfere
with the fundamental rights of the minority community to establish
schools of its choice. The provisions of the impugned Act are directed
to ensure academic excellence and good management. The manage-
~-- ments of th~ minority institutions have been given free hand in
managing their institutions but in order to maintain educational C
excellence and discipline in their institutions, regulatory provisions
have been made in Section 18 of the Act and the purpose of regula-
tory provisions is to ensure that the minority schools are managed by
properly constituted managing committees, that the members of the
staff of the minority institutions are pfiid proper salaries, their
security of service is ensured, and in the matter of taking disciplinary D
action the managing committees should conform to the principles of
natural justice. It was further urged that these provisions have been
made with a view to safeguard the interest of the minority institutions
themselves.
r
Before we advert to the submissions raised by the parties we E
think it necessary to consider the ambit and scope of Article 30 of the
Constitution. It reads as under:

"30. Right of minorities t{) establish and administer
educational institutions-(1), All minorities, whether
based on religion or language, shall have the right to F
establish and administer educational institutions of their
choice.

( lA) In making any law providing for the compul-
sory acquisition of any property of an educational insti-
tution established and administered by a min~rity, refer- G
red 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.

(2) The State shall not, in granting aid to educational H
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f 1988] 2 S.C.R.
A
institutions, discriminate against any educational institu-
A
tion on the ground that it is under the management of a
minority, whether based on religion or language."
..
In plain terms Article 30( 1) protect the right of the minorities
whether based on religion or language to establish and administer
B educational institutions of their choice. The Article confers a funda-
mental right on the minorities to protect their interest. Clause ( lA)
provides that the Legislature while making law for compulsory acqui-
-r-
sition of property of any minority educational institution shall ensure

~
that the amount of compensation paid for the acquisition of property
is such as would not restrict or abrogate the right guaranteed under
Clause ( 1) of Article 30. Clause (2) of Article 30 enjoins the State not ,..
c to discriminate a minority institution in granting aid to educational I
/.-A..
institutions on the ground of it being a minority institution whether
based on religion or language. The content and scope of Article 30( 1)
of the Constitution has been considered by this Court in detail in a
number of cases. In Re. The Kerala Education, Bill, 1957, [1959]
D SCR 995 this Court construed Article 30( 1) of the Constitution of
India and held as under:- r

"The first point to note is that the Article gives certai.u
rights not only to religious minorities but also to linguistic
minorities. In the next place, the right conferred on such ....,.'
minorities is to establish educational institutions of their
E
choice. It does not say that minorities based on religion
should establish educational institutions for teaching reli-
gion only, or that linguistic minorities should have the
right to establish educational institutions for teaching their
language only. What the Article says and means is that the
_)·
religious and the linguistic minorities should have the right
F to establish educational institutions of their choice. (Pages -r
1052-1053) .............. The next thing to note is that
the Article, in terms, gives all minorities, whether based
on religion or language, two rights, namely, the right to
establish and the right to administer educational institu-
tions of their choice. tJ
G (page 1053) ......... "
Considering the extent of State's power to regulate educational
standards, service conditions and discipline in the minority institu-
•
tions the Court observed:

H "We have already observed that Article 30(1) gives two
ALL BIHAR CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS ASSCN. v. STATE OF BlHAR [SINGH, J.] 59

rights to the minorities, (i) to establish and (ii) to adminis- A
ter, educational institutions of their choice. The right to
administer cannot obviously include the right to mal-
administration. The minority cannot surely ask for aid or
recognition for an educational institution run by them in
unhealthy surroundings, without any competent teachers,
possessing any semblance of qualification, and which does B
not maintain even a fair standard of teaching or which
teaches matters sub-versive of the welfare of the scholars.
It stands to reason, then, that the constitutional right to
administer an educational institution of their choice does
not necessarily militate against the claim of the State to
insist that in order to grant aid the State may prescribe c
reasonable regulations to ensure the excellence of the
institutions to be aided ............ "

In Rev. Sidhajbhai Sabhai and others v. State of Bombay, [1963] 3
SCR 837 a Constitution Bench of this Court observed:
D
"All minorities, linguistic or religious have by Article
30( 1) an absolute right to establish and administer educa-
tional institutions of their choice; and any law' or execu-
tive direction which seeks to infringe the substance o,f
..,- that right under Article 30( 1) would to that extent be
vpid. This, however, is not to say that it is not open to . E
the State to impose regulations upon the exercise of this
right. The fundamental freedom is to establish and to
administer educational i~1stitutions: it is a right to estab-
lish and administer what are in truth educational institu-
tions, institutions which cater to the educational needs of
the citizens, or sections thereof. Regulation made in the P
true interests of efficiency of instruction, discipline, health,
sanitation, morality, public order and the like may un-
doubtedly be imposed. Such regulations are not restric-
tions on the substance of the right which is guaranteed:
they secure the proper functioning of the institution, zn
matters educational. '' G

(Underlining by us)

In State of Kerala v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial, [1971] 1 SCR 734 a
Constitution Bench of this Court again considered the extent of the
minorities' right with regard to the management of the affairs of the H
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R.

A institution. The Bench held that the management must be free of
control so that the founders or their nominees can mould the insti-
tution as they think fit, and in accordance with their ideas as to how
the interests of the community in general and the institution in
particular will be best served. The right of management cannot be
taken away and vested in another body as that would be encroach-
a ment upon the guaranteed right. This right is, however, not an
absolute right. It is open to the State to regulate the syllabus of the
examination and discipline in the institution and allied matters.
Hidayatullah, C.J. speaking for the Court observed:

"There is, however, an exception to this and it is that the
standards of education are not a part of management as
c such. These standards concern the body politic and are
dictated by considerations of the advancement of the
country and its people. Therefore, if universities establish
syllabi for examinations they must be followed, subject
however to special subjects which the institutions may seek
D to teach, and to a certain extent the State may also regulate
the conditions of employment of teac;hers and the health
and hygiene of students. Such regulations do not bear
directly upon management as such although they may
indirectly affect it. Yet the right of the State to regulate
education, educational standards and allied matters cannot
E be denied. The minority institutions cannot be allowed to
fall below the standards of excellence expected of educa-
tional institutions, or under the guise of exclusive right of
management, to decline to follow the general pattern. While
the management must be left to them, they may be compel-
led to keep in step with others. These propositions have
F been firmly established in State of Bombay v. Bombay
Education Society, The State of Madras v. S.C.
Dorairajan, In re the Kerala Education a Bill, 1957,
Sidharajbahi v. State of Gujarat; Katra Education Society
v. State of U.P. & Ors., Gujarat University, Ahmedabad v.
Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar & Ors. and Rev. Father W. L
G Proost & Ors. v. State of Bihar. In the last case it was said
that the right need not be enlarged· nor whittled down.
The Constitution speaks of administration and that must ).
fairly be left to the minority institutions and no more."
(Underlining by us)

The scope of Article 30{1) of the Constitution of India was
ALL BIHAR CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS ASSCN. v. STATE OF BIHAR (SINGH, J.] 61

again considered by a nine Judges Constitution Bench of this Court in A
the Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society & Anr. etc. v. State of
Gujarat & Anr., [ 1975] 1 SCR 173. Ray, C.J. observed thus:-

"The minority institutions have the right to adminis-
ter institutions. This right implies the obligation and duty
of the minority institutions to render the very best to the B
students. In the right of administration, checks and
balances in the shape of regulatory measures are required
to ensure the appointment of good teachers and their
conditions of service. The right to administer is to be
..... ' tempered with regulatory measures to facilitate smooth
administration. The best administration will reveal no c
' trace or colour of minority. A minority institution should
shine in exemplary eclecticism the administration of the
institution. The best compliment that can be paid to a
minority institution is that it does not rest on or proclaim
its minority character. _.,
D
Regulations which will serve the interest of the
students, regulations which will serve the interests of the
teachers are of paramount importance in good adminis-
tration. Regulations m the interest of efficiency of
teachers, discipline and fairness in administration are
necessary for preserving harmony among affiliated insti- E
tutions (Pages 196-197)

In the field of administration it is not reasonable to
claim that minority institutions will have complete auto-
nomy. Checks on the administration may be necessary in F
order to ensure that the administration is efficient and
sound and will serve the academic needs of the institution.
The right of a minority to administer its educational insti-
tution involves, as part of it, a correlative duty of good
administration. (Page 200)" ·
(Underlining by us) G

Mathew, J. discussing what type of action by the State would amount
to the abridgement of the right guaranteed under Article 30( 1) of the
Constitution of India observed at pages 265-266 thus:-

"The application of the term 'abridge' may not be H
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1988) 2 S.C.R.

A difficult in many cases but the problem arises acutely in
certain types of situations. The important ones are where
a law is not a direct restriction of the right but is designed
to accomplish another objective and the impact upon the
right is secondary or indirect. Measures which are directed
at other forms of activ.ities but which have a secondary or
B direct or incidental effect upon the right do not generally
abridge a right unless the content of the right is regulated.
As we have already said, such measures would include
various types of taxes, economic regulations, laws regula-
ting the wages, measures to promote heahh and to pre-
serve hygiene and other laws of general application. By
hypothesis, the law, taken by itself, is a legitimate one,
c aimed directly at the control of some other activity. The
question is about its secondary impact upon the admitted
area of administration of educational institutions. This is
especially a problem of determining when the regulation
in issue has an effect which constitutes an abridgement of
D the constitutional right within the meaning of Article
13(2). In other words, in every case the court must
undertake to define and give content to the word 'abridge'
in Article 13(2)( 1). The question to be asked and ans-
wered is whether the particular measure is regulatory or
whether it crosses the zone of permissible regulation and
E enters the forbidden territory of restrictions or abridge-
ment. So, even if an educational institution established by
a religious or linguistic minority does not seek recogni-
tion, affiliation or aid, its activity can be regulated in
various ways provided the regulations do not take away or
abridge the guaranteed right. Regular tax measures,
F economic regulations, social welfare legislation, wage and
hour legislation and similar measures may, of course have
some effect upon the right under Article 30(1). BJt where
the burden is the same as that borne by others engaged in
different forms of activity, the similar impact on the right
seems clearly insufficient to constitute an abridgement. If
G an educational institution established by a religious
minority seeks no recognition, affiliation or aid, the state
may have no right to prescribe the curriculum, syllabi or
the qualification of the teachers."

In Lilly Kurian v. Sr. Lewine & Qrs., [1979] 1 SCR 820 another
H Constitution Bench of this Court considered the scope, ambit and the
AIL BJHAR CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS ASSCN. v. STA1E OF BlliAR [SINGH, J.] 63

nature of right of linguistic and religious minorities under Article A
30(1) of the Constitution. A.P. Sen, J. speaking for the Court held
thus:

' "Protection of the minorities is an article of faith in the

I
~ '-l'
Constitution of India. The right to the administration of
institutions of minority's choice enshrined in Article 30(1) B
means~ 'management of affairs' of the- institution. This
right is, however, subject to the regulatory power of the
State. Article 30( 1) is not a charter for maladministration;
..._A
I ,
regulation, so that the right to administer may be better
exercised for the benefit of the -institution is permissible;
'
.... but the moment one goes beyond that and imposes, what c
).. is in truth, not a mere regulation but an impairment of the
right to administer, the Article comes into play and in the
interference cannot be justified by pleading the interest of
the general public; the interests justifying interference can
only be the interest of the minority concerned."
D
'l In view of these decisions it is now well-settled that minorities
based on religion or language, have fundamental freedom to establish
and manage educational institutions of their own choice, but the
State has right to provide regulatory provisions for ensuring educa-
y tional excellence, conditions of employment of teachers, ensuring
health, hygiene and discipline and allied matters. Such regulatory E
,.._ provisions do not interfere with the minorities' fundamental right of
administering their educational institutions; instead they seek to
, ensure that such institution is administered efficiently, and that
\ students who come out of minority institution after completion of
f
their studies are well equipped with knowledge and training so as to
stand at par in their avocation in life without any handicap. If F
t regulatory provisions indirectly impinge upon minorities' right of
administration of their institution, it would not amount to inter-
ference with the fundamental freedom of the minorities as the regu-
latory provisions are in the interest of the minority institutions
themselves. If the minority institution seeks affiliation or recognition
4
from the State or Education Board the State has the right to pres- G
cribe syllabi and terms and conditions for giving such affiliation or
'
,A, recognition or extending grants in aid. Minority institutions may be
categorised in three classes, (i) educational institutions which neither
seek aid nor recognition from the State, (ii) institutions that seek aid
from the State, and (iii) educational institutions which seek recogni-
tion but not aid.· Minority institutions which fall in the first category H
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ !988] 2 S.C.R.

are free to administer their institution in the manner they like, the
A
State has no power under the Constitution to place any restriction on
their right of administration. This does not mean that an unaided
minority institution is immune from operation of general laws of the
land. A minority institution cannot claim immunity from contract law
tax measures, economic regulations, social welfare legislation, labour
and industrial laws and similar other measures which are intended to
meet the need of the society. But institutions falling within the
second and third categories are subject to regulatory provisions which
the State may impose. It is open to the State to prescribe conditions
for granting recognition or disbursing aid. These conditions may
require a minority institution to follow prescribed syllabus for exami-
nation. courses of study, they may further regulate conditions of
C employment of teachers, discipline of students and allied matters. The
object and purpose of prescribing regulations is to ensure that
minority institutions do not fall below the standard of excellence
expected of an educational institution and that they do not fall
outside the main stream of the nation. A minority institution must
D a]so be fully equipped with educational excellence to keep in step
with others in the State; otherwise the students coming out of such
institutions will not be fully equipped to serve the society of the
nation. While the State has every right to prescribe conditions for
granting recognition or disbursing aidJ it cannot under the guise of
that power prescribe onerous conditions compelling the minority
E institution to surrender their rights of administration to the Govern-
ment. On the one hand the State is under an obligation to ensure that
educational standards in the recognised institutions must be accor-
ding to the need of the society and according to standards which
ensure the development of personality of the students in turning out
to be civilizedJ useful members of the society, and to ensure that the
F public funds disbursed to the' minority institutions are properly uti-
lised for the given purpose. On the other hand the State has to
respect and honour minority rights under Article 30( I) in the matter
of establishing and carrying of administration of institution of their
choice. In order to reconcile these two conflicting interests the State
has to strike a balance and statutory provisions should serve both the
G objects and such statutory provisions have to withstand the test of
Article 30( 1) of the Constitution. These principles have to be borne
in mind in considering the question of validity of statutory provisions
relating to minority educational institutions.

Since the petitioners challenge the Constitutional validity of
H Sections 3 and 18 of the Act we consider it necessary to reproduce
the same.
ALL BIHAR OIRISTIAN SQ-IOOLS ASSCN. v. STATE OF BIHAR [SINGH, J.] 65

"3. Taking over of the management and control: A
Taking over of the management and control of Non-
Government secondary schools by the state government:

( 1) All non-government secondary schools other than the
minority secondary schools based on religion or language B
declared as such by the State Government and Centrally
sponsored, autonomous and proprietary secondary
schools r~cognised by the State Government, recognis~d
permanently, provisionally or partially by the Board of
Secondary Education under the Bihar Sec<?ndary Educa-
tion, Board Act, 1976 (Bihar Act 25 of 1976) and the Bihar C
Secondary Education Board (Second amendment) Ordi-
nance, 1980 (Bihar Ordinance No. 82 of 1980 shall,
notwithstanding, anything containet'l in the said Act or the
said ordinance, be deemed to have been taken over by the
State Government with effect from the 2nd October,
1980. D

(2) The State Government may, by notification in the
official gazette from a specified date, take over the
management and control of such recognised minority or
proprietary or autonomous secondary schools, the mana-
ging committee, trust, association or corporate body of E
which voluntarily makes an unconditional offer to make
over the schools with all movable or immovable assets
.I and properties owned or possessed by the school which
\ include land, building, documents, books and registers
also. The State Government may lay down its conditions
for taking over management and control of schools, and F
r before making over the management and control it shall
be binding for the managing committee, trust association
or corporate body of the said schools, to comply with and
carry out the said conditions and it shall be valid.

(3) The State Government may, by notification in the G
official gazette take over the management and control of
such schools and on such terms and conditions as the
government may deem proper which have already recei-
ved permission of establishment from the Bihar Secondary
Education Board or of such, schools imparting Secondary
Education which have applied for permission of estab- H
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R.

A lishment to the said Board immediately before the date of
promulgation of this Act and the utility of such school is
proved in the eye of the government and which fulfil
within 3 years of the promulgation of the ordinance, the
conditions lay down by the State Government with regard
to,land, building, furniture, equipments and enrolment.
B
The qualification and suitability of teachers working "I
against 9 posts of the school, one clerk and two or~derlies
of such school before the promulgation of this ordinance,
shall be examined by a Committee constituted by the
State Government for the purpose and if found suitable
c for appointment in government service they shall be
appointed in the government service along with taking
over the management and control of the school."

"Section 18: Recognition of minority Secondary schools:

D ( 1) The schools declared a minority school under the
provision of the Bihar Secondary Education Board Act,
1976 (Bihar Act 25 1976) and the Bihar Secondary
Education Board (Second Amendment) Ordinance 1980
(Bihar Ordinance 82 of 1980) shall be deemed to have
been recognised under the provisions of this Act.
E
(2) The State Government may, by notification, recognise
as a minority secondary school, such secondary school

'.
which has been established by a minority community on
the basis of religion or language for the purposes of
meeting the educational requirement and for the protec~
F tion of culture of their section and which fulfils the
prescribed condition of recognition.

(3) The minority Secondary school accorded recognition
under sub-sections ( 1) and (2) shall be managed and
controlled under the following provisions:-
G
(a) Every minority secondary school shall have a manag-
ing committee registered under the societies registration
Act, 1862 and shall have written bye-laws regarding its
constitution and function.

(b) According to the prescribed qualification laid down
ALL BIHAR CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS ASSCN. v. STATE OF BIHAR [SINGH, J.J 67

by the State Government for the teachers of the nationali- A
sed secondary schools and .within the number of sanc-
tioned posts, the managing committee of the minority
secondary schools shall appoint the teacher with the
concurrence of the school service board constituted under
section 10 of this Act. Provided that while considering the
question of giving approval to appointment of any teacher B
--{
under this sub-section the board shall only scrutinise as to
whether the proposed appointment is in accordance with
the rules laying down the qualification and the manner of
making appointment framed by the State Government has
been followed or not, and no more.

(c) There shall be rules regarding the service condition of
c
teachers of minority schools based on natural justice and
the prevailing law, a copy of which shall be sent to the
State Government.

(d) The Managing Committee with the approval of the D
School Service Board shall have powers to remove a
teacher, to terminate his services, to dismiss and to
discharge him from service. Provided that for the purpose
of approval any disciplinary action against the teacher by
the managmg committee, the Board shall scrutinise
whether disciplinary proceedings have been in accordance E
with the rules and no more.

(e) Mentally and physically in-capacitated person shall not
be appointed as teacher or non-teaching staff of the
school.
F
(f) No grant shall be admissible for payment of salary of a
teacher or a non-teaching staff if appointed or retained
beyond 58 years of age.

(g) Only such fees shall be charged from the students as
are prescribed by the State Government. Prior approval of G
the State Government shall be necessary to charge higher
fees than what is prescribed.

(h) The schools shall be open to inspection on any wor-
king day by the authorised inspecting officers of the
Education Department, the civil authority and authorised H
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1988] 2 S.C.R.

A officers- of Health Department.

(i) It shall be their duty to obey instructions regarding,
admission and transfer of the students, discipline and
punishment, records and accounts, curricular and co-
curricular activity, rules regarding health and cleanliness
B issued or made by the State Government.

(j) The State Government shall have powers to issue
instructions not inconsistent with the · provisions of

c
Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution for efficient
management and for improving and standard of teaching
and it shall be obligatory for the recognised minority
r
schools to comply with them_ '"
)
(k) In the event of violation of this section and the rules
made thereunder and the instruction issued under it, the
said managing committee may make an application within
b sixty days of the date of the order to th~ officer authorised
by the State Government, against the withdrawal of recog~
nition or withholding or stopping grants and the autho-
rised officer shall, after hearing the case, take his decision
and it shall be binding."

E Section 3 of the impugned Act provides for compulsory acquisition or
taking over of the administration or assets of non-Government
secondary schools. Section 3( 1) lays down that all government secon-
dary schools other than minority secondary schools shall be deemed
-
to have been taken over by the State Government with effect from
2nd October, 1980. There were five categories of secondary schools
)
t functioning in the State of Bihar, and out of them, the management
and control of only non-government secondary schools have been f
taken over by the State. The minority secondary schools, proprietary
secondary schools, centrally sponsored schools and autonomous
secondary schools have not been taken over by Section 3( 1) of the -·
Act. It does not affect a minority secondary school at aH. As regards
G Section 3(2) it confers power on the State Government to take over
the management and control of recognised minority schools, proprie-
tary or autonomous secondary schools by issuing a notification in the
official Gazette provided the managing committee, trust, association
or the corporate body which may have been maintaining such schools
makes an unconditional offer to the State Government to make over
H the school with ail assets and properties. If the State Government
ALL BlliAR CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS ASSCN. v. STATE OF BlliAR ISINGH, J .j 69

accepts the offer and considers it necessary to take over the manage- A
ment of such a school it may lay down terms and conditions for the
take over of the management and control of the school. Section 3(2)
does not confer any power on the State to compulsorily acquire or
take over the management of a minority school instead the manage-
ment is free to maintain and carry on the administration of its school
and the State has no power to interfere with its administration. The B
State is entitled to take ever the school on~y if an un-conditional offer
is made by the management of the school. There is, however, no
compulsion on the management of a minority school to make over
I
the school to the Government. If the management of a minority·
~-- school finds it difficult to maintain its school, instead of closing down,
it may, in the larger interest of the educational need of the area, C
hand-over the control and management of the institution to the State.
Section 3(2) does not interfere with minority's rights to maintain or
administer its school, it merely enables the State to take over the
conttol and management of a minority institution only when an
unconditional offer is made to it by the management of the minority
institution. There is, therefore, no question of Section 3(2) infringing D
the rights of minority institutions.

Section 3(3) confers power on the State Government to take
over the management and control of the secondary schools which
may not have been recognised on the date of the enforcement of the
Ordinance of the Act. It provides that the State Government may E
take over the management and control of such schools on terms and
conditions which the Government may deem proper. These schools
include those which may have received permission for establishment
of the school frail) the Bihar Secondary Education Board or schools
which may have applied for permission of establishment immediately
before the date of the promulgation of the Ordinance provided the F
State Government is satisfied with regard · to the utility of such
schools. Section 3(3) relates to the taking over of management and
control of unrecognised schools other than minority schools. These
provisions do not affect the fundamental right of minority institution.
In this view Section 3 which provides for taking over of management
and control of non-government secondary schools does not in any G
manner encroach upon the fundamental right of a minority institution.

This brings us to the question as to whether the provisions of
Section 18 violate Article 30( 1). Section 18( 1) provides that a school
declared as a minority institution under the provisions of the Bihar
Secondary Education Act 1976 or under the Bihar Secondary H
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {1988] 2 S.C.R.

A Education Board (Second Amendment) Ordinance 1980 shall be
deemed to have been recognised under the provisions of the Act.
This provision ensures the continuity of recognition of a minority
school. Sub-section (2) provides for future recognition of a minority
school, it lays· down that the State Government may recognise a
minority secondary school which may have been established by a
B minority community on the basis of religion or language for the
purpose of meeting the educational requirement and for the protec-
tion of their culture provided it fulfils the prescribed conditions.
Section 18(3) lays down conditions under which a recognised minority
secondary school shall be managed and controlled. These terms and
conditions are specified in clauses (a) to (k). This section requires a
C recognised minority school to comply with the terms and conditions ·'
set out therein and in accordance with rules framed by the managing
committee regulating employment of teachers and disciplinary
·matters. It was urged that clauses (a) to (k) of Section 18(3) make
serious inroad on the right of a minority institution to carry on its
administration according to its own choice. The terms and conditions
D prescribed therein regulate and control the administration of a
minority school, which are violative of Article 30( 1) of the Consti-
tution. We would examine each of the clauses (a) to (k) in detail to
determine the crucial question, whether any of these clauses violate
petitioners' fundamental right guaranteed to them under Article·
30{1) of the Constitution.
E
Section 18(3) provides that recognised 'minority secondary
schools shall be managed and controlled in accordance with the
provisions contained in clauses (a) to (k). Clause (a) requires a
minority secondary school to have a managing committee registered _)
under the Societies Registration Act 1862 and to frame written bye-
F laws regulating constitution and functions of the managing commit·
f
tee. Th~ bye-laws regarding the constitution of the managing
committee are required to be framed by the minority institution
itself. The State or any other authority has no power or authority to
impose any terms or conditions for the constitution of the managing
committee. If a society running a minority institution frames written
G bye-laws providing for the constitution of managing committee
entrusted with the function of running and administering its school it
would ensure efficient administration. This clause is in the interest of )
the minority institution itself, as no outsider is imposed as a member
of the Managing Committee, there is no interference with the mino-
rities right to administer its school. Clause (b) provides for two things,
1-i firstly 1t requires the managing committee of a minority school to
ALL BIHAR CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS ASSCN. v. STATE OF Bll!AR (SlNGH, J.] 71

appoint teachers possessing requisite qualifications as prescribed by A
the State Government for appointment of teachers of-other nationali·
f ~ed schools, secondly, the managing committee is required to make
appointment of ·a teacher with the concurrence of the School Service
Board constituted under Section 10 of the Act. Proviso to clause
t (b) lays down that the School Sevice Board while considering the
I
' question of granting approval to the appointment of a teacher shall J B
ascertain if the appointment is in accordance with the rules laying
, down qualifications, and manner of making appointment framed by
~ the State. Government. J'he proviso makes it clear that the School
Service Board has no further power to interfere with the right of
managing committee of a minority school in the appointment o{ a
teacher. Under clause (b) the managing committee is required to c
make appointment of a teacher with the concurrence of the school
service board. The expression 'concurrence' means approval. Such
approval need not be prior approval, as the clause does not provide
for any prior approval. Object and purpose underlying clause (b) is to
ensure that the teachers appointed in a minority school should
possess requisite qualifications and they are appointed in accordance D
1 with the procedure prescribed and the appointments are made for the
sanctioned strength. The selection and appointment of teachers is left
to the management of the minority ~chool, there is no interference
with the managerial rights of the institution. In granting approval the
School Service Board has limited power. The appointment of quali·
fied teachers in a minority school is a sine qua non for achieving E
educational standard and better administration of the institution.
Clause (b) is regulatory in nature to ensure educational excellence in
! the minority school. Clause (c) requires a minority school to frame
rules regulating conditions of service of its teachers, such rules should
be consistent with principles of natural justice and the prevailing law.
The clause further requires the minority ~nstitution to submit a copy F
of such rules to the State Government. This clause in substance lays
down that the management of a recognised minority school shall
frame Rules, regulating conditions of service of teachers and such
rules shall conform to principles of natural justice and prevailing law.
~
These provisions are directed to avoid uncertainty and arbitrary
exercise of power. If Rules are framed by the management those G
rules would bring uniformity in administration and there would be
security of employment to teachers. In a civilised society the
observance of principles of natural justice is an accepted rule, these
principles contain basic rules of fair play and justice and it is too late
in the day to contend that while administering a minority school the
management should have right to act in contravention of the princi- H
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R.

A pies of natural justice. Clause (c) is regulatory in nature which
requires the managing committee to frame rules of employment
consistent with principles of natural justice and the prevailing law.
No outside agency is_ required to frame rules of employment of
teachers instead the management itself is empowered to frame ru1es.
There is therefore no element of interference with the management's
B right to administer a minority school.

Learned counsel for the petitioner took serious objection to the
1
provisions contained in clause (d) of Section 18(3) which lays down
that the managing committee of a minority institution shall have
power to remove, terminate, dismiss or discharge a teacher with the -
approval of the School Service Board. It was urged that School
C Service Board has been imposed as a higher authority over the
management, if the Board refused to grant approval to the disci-
plinary action taken by the management against a teacher, the
management's right of adrriinistration would be affected adversely.
The School ServiCe Board enjoys blanket power on the manage-
D ment's right to take disciplinary action against its employees and
therefore clause (d) infringes with the minority's right of manage-
ment. We do not find any substance in the submissions. Indisputably
power to remove, dismiss, terminate or discharge a teacher from
service IS an essential attribute of management's right but dause (d)
does not invest that power on any outside 9gency. The power to take
E disciplinary action vests in the managing committee of the minority
school, it is required to exercise that power in accordance with the
rules framed by it. Clause (d) requires that the managing committee
shall take approval of the School Service Board in removing, termi-
nating, dismissing or discharging a teacher from service. The manag-
ing committee is not required to obtain prior approval from the
F School Service Board, instead it may seek approval of the School
Service Board after taking action. The School Service Board while
considering the question of granting approval does not enjoy any
unlimited power it is required to consider if the managing committee,
has taken the disciplinary action in accordance with the rules framed.
by the managing committee itself. If the Board finds that managing
G committee has taken action in accordance with Rules the School
Service Board has no option but to accord approval, but if the
disciplinary action is ta~en contrary to the rules framed by the
minority school itself, the School Service Board will be justified in
refusing to a.;cord approval. The School Service Board is not invested
with any veto or blanket power without any guidance, on the other
H hand it has limited power and guidelines are prescribed for the
ALL BIHAR CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS ASSCN. v. STATE OF BIHAR [SINGH, J.J 73

exercise of such powers. Such a provision is reasonable to ensure that A
rules framed by the minority school are followed and security of
employment of teachers, is maintained and there be no arbitrary
exercise of power. Clause (d} of Section 18(3) expressly provides that
while considering the question of granting approval to the disci-
plinary action taken by the management of a minority institution the
School Service Board shall scrutinise whether disciplinary proceed- B
ings hac;l been taken in accordance with the rules and no more.
Regulatory provisions requiring approval of disciplinary action taken
by the management of a minority institution have been upheld by this
Court in a number of cases.

In Re Kerala Education Bill case this Court upheld the validity
( of clauses 11 and 12(4) of the Bill. Clause 11(1) required a recognised C
minority institution to appoint teachers selected by the State Public
Service Commission. While Clause 12(4) laid down that no teacher of
an aided school shall be dismissed, removed, reduced in rank or
suspended by the management without previous sanction of the
authorised off:cer. This Court held that these clauses were designed D
"1 to give protection and security to the teachers who are engaged in
rendering service to the nation and were permissible regulations
which the State could impose on the minorities as a condition for

.,
i
granting aid to their educational institutions. The court further held
that since these aforesaid clauses of the Bill were regulatory, they do
not violate Article 30{1) of the Constitution. Section 8(4) of the E
Delhi School Education Act 1973 which require a managing commit-
tee of recognised private school to obtain approval of the Director
1 for suspending an employee was upheld in its application to the
\ minority institutions by this Court in Frank Anthony Public School
} Employees' Association, [1986] 4 SCC 707 case and Mrs. Y.
Theclamma's [1987] 2 SCC 516 case. In the latter case this Court F
i- observed that while the right of the minority to establish and adminis-
ter educational institutions of their choice cannot be interfered with,
restrictions by way of regulations for the purpose of ensuring edu-
cational standards and maintaining excellence thereof can validly be
prescribed. Regulations can be made for ensuring proper conditions
~ of service for the teacher and also for ensuring a fair procedure in the G
matter of disciplinary action. Section 8(4) of Delhi Act was designed
.A.. to · afford some measure of protection to teachers of the minority
institutions without interfering with the management's right to take
disciplinary action.

Learned counsel for .the petitioner place~ reliance on the H

....'•.
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) 2 S.C.R.

decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. Very Rev. Mother
A
Provincial, [ 197 1) 1 SCR 734; Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society
& Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr., (1975] 1 SCR 173 and Lilly ..,_
Kurian v. Sr. Lewina & Ors., [1979] 1 SCR 820 and All Saints High
School, Hyderabad v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., [19801
2 SCR 924 in support of his contention that the clauses (c) and (d) of
B Section 18(3) interfere with the minorities right of managing their
institution. On a careful consideration of the ratio of these decisions j
we are of the opinion that these authorities do not support the
petitioners'' submissions. In State of Kerala v. Very Rev. Mother
Provincial, 11980 l 2 SCR 924 the High Court of Kerala had declared }-""Ill
Sections 48 and 49 of the Kerala University Act 1969 unconstitutional _/\
on the ground that those provisions violated fundamental right of a
C minority institution guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Consti- '...{
tution. In appeal this Court upheld the view taken by the High Court
on the ground that Sections 48 and 49 contained provisions regulating
the constitution of governing body of an affiliated college in accor-
dance with the statutes and ordinances framed by the University. The
D statutes and ordinances so framed designated and nominated persons
to function as members of the governing body of an affiliated college. ""
The effect of those provisions was that outside agencies were induc-
ted into the managing committee of a minority institution. This Court
held that effect of Sections 48 and 49 was to displace the adminis-
tration of the college by giving it to a distinct corporate body which - i
E was in no way answerable to the minority institution. The Court
further held that the managing committee constituted under the
statute. and the ordinances was an alien authority, for the manage-
ment of the minority institution which was in clear violation of
Article 30(1) of the Constitution.

F In Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society & Anr. etc. v. State
of Gujarat and Anr., this Court held that Sections 51A and 52 of the
Gujarat University Act 1949 as amended in 1972 could not be made
applicable to a minority institutiqn as under the aforesaid provisions
no punishment could be inflicted by the management of an affiliated
college on a member of the staff unless it obtained approval of the
G Vice-Chancellor or an officer authorised by'him. The Court held that
the provision relating to· grant of approval·- tonf~rred blanket power
on an outside authority without laying down any guidelines, it direc-.
tly interfered with the minorities right to administer their institution.
In Lilly Kurian v. Sr. Lewtna & Ors., this .Court again· held that
orqinance 33 framed under the Kerala University Act 1969 conferting
H right of appeal a&.ainst the disciplinary_ action taken by a minority
ALL BIHAR CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS ASSCN. v. STA1E OF BIHAR (SINGH, J.l 75

institution to the Vice-Chancellor was constitutionally invalid as it A
interfered with the disciplinary power of a minority educational
institution.· The Court further held that Ordinance 33 conferred a
right of veto in disciplinary matters of minority institution, it did not
lay down any guidelines instead, it conferred an uncanalised and
unguided power on the appellate authority. The Court held that
conferment of uncanalised and unguided appellate power on the B
Vice-Chancellor resulted into grave encroachment on the right of the
minority institution to enforce and cover its discipline in its adminis-
tration. The Court emphasised that since the Vice-Chancellor's
·power was unlimited and undefined he could interfere with the orders
of the minority institution inflicting punishment without there being
any justified ground. The Ordinance was struck-down as it contained C
no guidelines for the exercise of the appellate power. In All Saints
High School, Hyderabad v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.,
this Court held that Section 3( 1) and (2) of the Andhra Pradesh
Recognised Private Educational Institution Control Act, 1975 could
not be applied to a minority institution as the provisions contained
therein encroached upon the fundamental right of minorities guaran- D
teed to them under Article 30( 1) of the Constitution. Section 3( 1)
contained an unqualified mandat~ that no teacher shall be dismissed
except with the prior approval of the competent authority. Section
3(2) conferred appellate power on an outside authority to interfere
with the disciplinary action taken by the managing committee of an
educational institution. This Court (majority) held that the unquali- E
fied power conferred on an outside authority which was made a judge
of bothJ facts and law, the exercise of which was made to depend
purely on subjective considerations, constituted an infringement' of
the right guaranteed by Article 30(1) of the Constitution. These
decisions do not affect the view taken by us. As already discussed
clauses (c) and (d) of Section 18(3) of the Act are regulatory in F
nature to ensure the educational standard of security of employment
of teachers and no unguided, uncanalised, blanket power in the
nature of veto or appellate power has been conferred on any outside
agency against the disciplinary action taken by the management of a
minority institution. The School Service Board is vested with limited
po:wer to see that the person proposed to be appointed possesses the G·
requisite qualifications prescribed and that the prescribed method of
selection was followed by the management.

The choice of the person for appointment continues to vest in
the managing committee of the minority school. Similarly in disci-
plinary matters also th~ managing committee of a minority school has· H
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1988] 2 S.C.R.

A full power to remove, terminate or discharge a teacher, but it has to
obtain the approval of the School Service Board, here again the
Service Board has a limited power to ascertain whether the disci-
plinary proceedings have been taken in accordance with the rules
framed by the manag~ment itself, the School Service Board has no.
other power in the matter. These provisions do not suffer from the
B legal infirmities as pointed out in the aforesaid decisions.

Clause (e) of Section 18(3) merely provides that mentally and
physically in-capacitated person shall not be appointed as teacher
or non-teaching staff of the school. If mentally and physically in-
capacitated person are appointed to a minority institution 'it will serve
no useful purpose instead the institution will suffer, therefore
c appointment of disabled persons will not be. in the interest of the
administration of a minority school itself. Clause {f) of Section 18{3)
provides that the State shall not pay any grant towards the payment
of salary of a teacher or other employee of a minority institution if he
is appointed or permitted to be retained beyond 58 years of age. In
the State of Bihar the age of superannuation is fixed at 58 years for its
employees. Consistent with that policy this clause provides that
public funds of the State shall not be used for the employment of a
person in service who may have crossed 58 years of age. This
however, does not place any restriction on the right of Jhe manage-
ment of the minority institution -to employ or retain a person beyond
E 58 years of age, the management is free to .c,k) so but if the manage-
ment does so, the State shall not be responsible for paying grants
towards the salary of S'Jch teacher or employee. This provision does
not in any way interfere with the minorities right of administration of
its institution. Clause (g) provides that only such fees shall be
charged from the students as prescribed by the State Government
F and the management is not permitted to charge higher fees except
with prior approval of the State Government. In the counter affidavit
filed on behalf of the State it has been stated that education upto
matriculation is free in the State and therefore no fees is charged
from the students. Consistent with the general policy the State has
made it a condition of recognition to a minority school in providing
G that fees shall be charged from the students as prescribed by the State
Government and if the management decides to charge higher fees it
must seek the approval of the State Government. This provision is
regulatory in nature it would not be in the interest of the minority
schools to ~barge higher fees as that would be against the interest of
the institution itself. If the managing committee finds that circum-
H stances exist to charge higher fees to meet the need of the institution,
ALL BIHAR CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS ASSCN. v. STATE OF BIHAR [SINGH, J.] 77

it may place the necessary facts and circumstances before the State A
Government and in that event the State Government shall consider
the question of granting permission.

Clause (h) provides for the inspection of minority secondary
school by the authorised inspecting officer of Education Department
and officers of Health Department. The object and purpose of B
inspection is to ensure that the money from the public funds given to
a minority school as grants-in-aid, is utlised for the purpose it is given
and inspection by officers of Health Department would ensure
hygiene, cleanliness and health of the students in the institution.
_ C) a use (h) in our opinion does not in any way trespass upon the
' minorities fundamental right. Clause (i) of Section 18(3) provides C
that it shall be the duty of the minority institution to obey instruc-
tions regarding admission and transfer of the students, discipline and
punishment, records and accounts, curricular and co-curricular acti-
vities, rules regarding health and cleanliness issued or made by the
Government. This clause is wide and general in nature, it contem-
plates framing of rules by the State Government regarding health, D
cleanliness, and accounts. It further requires the minority institution
to obey instructions issued by the State regarding admission and
transfer of students, discipline, and maintenance of accounts. The
instructions which may be issued under this clause relating to
admission, transfer of students and discipline, punishment or mainte-
nance of accounts must be in confirmity with the minorities freedom E
under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. Under the guise of this
power the State Government cannot trespass on the. forbidden field
of minorities right of administration of their schools. These instruc-
tions must relate to secure the efficiency in educational standard, and
should be regulatory in nature to achieve efficiency in the adminis-
tration. Laying down principles and methods relating to admission F
and transfer of students and discipline and punishment and mainte-
nance of record and accounts and essential to maintain the efficiency
in the administration of the institution, and no exception can be
taken to instructions relating to these matters unless they interfere
with the right of administration. No instructions or rules, as contem-
plated by clause (i) of Section 18(3) were placed before u~ by. t~e G
petitioners, which may have t~n~en~ t.o interfere with the mmont!es
right of administration of theu mstltuttons. Howev~r, we w?uld h~e
to- express our view that if the State Govem~ent m ~xerctse of tts
powers under clause (i) of Section 18(3) issues m.structlo.ns or frames
rules, interfering with the minorities right such ms.tru~ttOns or. rules
would be violative of Article 30( 1) of the Constitution but 1f the H
78 SUPREME COURT .REPORTS (1988] 2 S:C.R.

A instructions and rules are issued with the object and purpose of
securing efficiency in the administration or .in securing the educa-
tional standard the same would be valid. It must. be borne in mind
that as the ttided minority institutions receive money from public
revenues the State Government is entitled to issue instructions or
frame rules for the maintenance of records and accounts and such
B instructions or rules would not interfere with the minorities right
under Article 30( l) of the Constitution. Similarly, no exception can
be taken to instructions or rules regarding health and cleanliness such
instructions or rules would be in the interest of the institution itself.
Clauses (j) and (k) of Section 18(3) confer power on the State
Government to issue instructions consistent with the provisions of
C Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution for efficient management and ,
r
for improving the standard of teaching and a minority school is )
required to comply with those instructions. The State Government ._
has no unrestricted power to issue instructions on the other hand
these clauses expressly refer to Articles 29 and 30 and provide that
instructions shall not be inconsistent with the constitutional provi-
0 sions. The State Government has power to make regulatory pro-
visions for achieving efficiency in the management and improving the
standard of education in the minority schools, it may therefore issue
instructions for securing that purpose. If instructions are issued for
the better management of the minority schools, no grievance to their
validity can be raised, as now, it is well-settled by a number of
E authorities of this Court that a minority institution has right to
administer its educational institution but it has no right to mal-
administration. Any rule or instruction issued by the Government to
prevent mal-administration would be valid. Clause (k) provides that
if any instructions are issued by the State or any of its authority or
rules are framed, or if any officer authorised by the State Govern-
F ment issues any order for the withdrawal or recognition or with·
holding or stopping of grants to a minority school the managing
committee of the minority school has right to raise a grievance before
an officer authorised by the State Government within sixty days. It
further provides that the authorised officer shall after hearing the
G case take his decision which shall be binding on the parties. This
clause confers a right on the management of the minority school to
challenge any arbitrary exercise of power by an authority of the State
in withdrawing recognition or with-holding or stopping the disburse-
ment of aid to the institution. Apparently clause (k) has been enacted
by the Legislature to safeguard the interest of the minority school
l-I and it does not in any manner violate Article 30( 1) of the Consti-
tution.
ALL BIHAR CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS ASSCN. v. STATE OF BlliAR (SlNGH, J.] 79

Clauses (a) to (k) of Section 18(3) lay down terms and condi- A
tions for granting recognition to a minority school, and these are
regulatory in nature which seek to secure excellence in education and
efficiency in management of schools. These provisions do not confer
any unguided blanket or veto power on any outside agency or
authority to veto the decision of the management of the school.
Instead minority's right to manage its school in accordance with rules B
framed by it is fully preserved. The Legislature has taken care to
confer a limited power on the School Service Board for granting
approval to appointment and dismissal of a teacher which are
necessary in the interest of educational need and discipline of the
minority school itself. The terms and conditions applicable to a
recognised minority school do not compel the management of a C
minority school to surrender its right of administration instead the
management is free to administer its school in accordance with the
-rules framed by it.

Guarantee of freedom to a minority institution under Article
30( 1) of the Constitution does not permit the minority institution to D
act contrary to law and order, law of contract, industrial laws or
other general laws which are enacted for the welfare of the society. If
the minorities claim for immunity from the law of the land is upheld
that would be unreasonable and against the interest of the minority
institutions themselves. In Christian Medical College Hospital
Employees' Union & Anr v. Christian Medical College Vellore E
Association & Ors., (Civil Appeal No. 8818 of 1983, decided on 20th
October 1987) a question arose whether Sections 9A, 10, 11A, 12 and
33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were applicable to educa-
tional institutions established and administered by minorities which
are protected by clause ( 1) of Article 30 of the Constitution. This
Court answered the question in affirmative. The Court held that the F
labour legislation was applicable to the management of a minority
educational institution and it observed thus:-

"These rights which are enforced through the several
pieces of labour legislation in India have got to be applied
to every workman irrespective of the character of the G
management. Even the management of a minority educa-
tional institution has got to respect these rights and
implement them. Implementation of these rights involves
the obedience to several labour laws including the Act
which is under consideration in this case which are
brought into force in the country. Due obedience to those _ H
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R.

A laws would assist in the smooth working of the educational
institutions and would facilitate proper administration of
such educational institutions. If such laws are made in-
applicable to minority educational institutions, there is
every likelihood of such institutions being subjected to
mal-administration. Merely because an impartial tribunal
B
is entrusted with the duty of resolving disputes relating to
employment, unemployment, security of work and other
conditions of workmen it cannot be said that the right
guaranteed under Article 30( I) of the Constitution of
India is violated. If a creditor of a minority educational
institution or a contractor who has built the building of
c such institution is permitted to file a suit for recovery of
the money or damages as the case may be to him against
such institution and to bring the properties of such insti·
tution to sale to realise the decretal amount due under
the decree passed in such suit is Article 30( 1) violated?
Certainly not. Similarly the right guaranteed under Article ,
D
30(1) of the Constitution is not violated, if a minority :
school is ordered to be closed when an epidemic breaks ·
out in the neighbourhood, if a minority school building i·s
ordered to be pulled down when it is constructed contrary
to town planning law or if a decree for possession is
passed in favour of the true owner of the land when a
E school is built on a land which is not owned by the
management of a minority school. In the same way if a
dispute is raised by an employee against the management
of a minority educational institution such dispute will have
necessarily to be resolved by providing appropriate
machinery for that purpose. Laws are now passed by ail
F the civilised countries providing for such a machinery."

We accordingly hold. that the impugned Act does not violate
petitioners' rights guaranteed under Article 30( 1) of the Constitution.
In the result petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed but there will
be no order to costs. ·
G
S.L. Petitions dismissed.