MISBAH ALAM SHAIKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

A                          MISBAH ALAM SHAIKH
                                         v.
                THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

                              FEBRUARY 10, 1997
B               [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.)

          National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992.

         Ss. 3 and 9-Minority Commissio1t-Set up by Government of
C Maharashtra-Abolished by successor State Govemmelll-Held, it cannot be
  said that the decision to abolish Minority Commission by State Government
  was not in accordance with law-There is no statutory compulsion on the part
  of State Government to constitute the "Minority Commission" in the State-It ·
  is the duty of the Central Government to constitute a National Commission
D and it shall be the duty and the responsibility of the National Commission to
  ensure compliance of the principles and programmes evaluated in s. 9 protect-
  ing the illlerest of minorities.

          Constitution of India, 1950:
E          Article 226-Held, State Govemment cannot be directed by a man-
     damus, to constitute a Min01ity Commission or to reconstitute the Commis-
     sion which was abolished by it due to want of statutory compulsion.

           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 796 of
F 1997.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 30.10.95 of the Bombay High
     Court in W.P. No 1349 of 1995.

           M.N. Shroff for the Appellant.
G
          K.N. Bhat, Additional Solicitor General, S.K. Dholakia, Ms. Niran-
     jana Singh, Ms. Sushma Suri, A.K. Srivastava, S.M. Jadhav and D.M.           '("
     Nargolkar for the Respondents.

 H         The following Order of the Court was delivered :
                                         1112
                         M.ASHAIKHv. STATE                               1113

      Leave granted. We have heard the counsel on both sides.                     A

       This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Bombay
High Court dated 30.10.95 made in W.P. No. 1349/95 dismissing the writ
petition. The appellant has challenged the abolition of the Minority Com-
mission set up by the State Government. When the matter had come up               B
earlier, we had issued notice as to why the National Commission should
not take up the issue of protecting the interest of the minorities in the State
of Maharashtra as under :

         "to show cause why the National Commission for minorities should         C
         not undertake the responsibility under the statute for the protec-
         tion and safeguarding the interest of the minorities in the-State of
         Maharashtra."

      Pursuant thereto, the National Commission as well as the Central
Government have filed their counter affidavits. The State of Maharashtra D .
has independently filed its counter. Section 3 of the National Commission
for Minorities Act, 1992, for short the Act, provides that the Central
Government shall constitute a body to be known as "the National Commis-
sion" for Minorities to exercise the powers conferred on, and to perform
the functions assigned to it under the Act. Section 9 of the Act in Chapter E
III envisages the functions of the Commission. The Commission shall
perform all or any of the following functions, namely, (a) to evaluate the
progress of the development of minorities under the Union and States; (b)
to monitor the working of the safeguards provided in the Constitution and
in laws enacted by Parliament and the State Legislatures; (c) make recom- F
mendations for the effective implementation of safeguards for the protec-
tion of the interests of minorities by the Central Government. or the State
Governments. Sub-section (2) postulates that the Central Government shall
cause the recommendations referred to in clause (c) of sub- section (1) to
be laid before each House of Parliament along with a memorandum G
explaining the action taken or proposed to be taken on the recommenda-
tions relating to the Union and the reasons for non-acceptance, if any, of
any of such recommendations. Thus, it could be seen that under the
statute as rightly conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant, there
is no statutory compulsion, on the part of the State Government, to H
    1114                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1997] 1 S.C.R.

A constitute a Commission called "the Minority Commission" in the State. On          -;j.-'
    the other hand, by operation of Section 3 read with Section 9, it is the duty
    of the Central Government to constitute a National Commission and it shall
    be the duty and the responsibility of the National Commission to ensure
    compliance of the principles and programmes evaluated in Section 9 of the
B   Act protecting the interest of the minorities for their development and
    working of the safeguards provided to them in the Constitution and the
    laws enacted by the Parliament as well as the State legislatures. The object,
                                                                                      'X
    thereby, is to integrate them in the national main stream in the united and
    integrated Bharat providing facilities and opportunities to improve their
c   economic and social status and empowerment. The State Government
    cannot be directed, by a mandamus, to constitute a Commission or to
    reconstitute the Commission which was abolished by it, due to want of
    statutory compulsion.

          It is not in dispute that the State Commission for Minorities was
D                                                                                     .,,..
    constituted by the earlier Government of Maharashtra and it came to be
    abolished by the successor political party in power. It is contended by Shri
    M.N. Shroff, learned counsel for the appellant that the decision taken by
    the State Government is mala fide. We find no force in the contention.

E         It may be that perception of political parties differ from one, another.
    But when the Government found the necessity, after the political party was
    voted to power and the decision taken by the Cabinet, to abolish the
    minority Commission, it cannot be characterised a mala fide decision. May
                                                                                       ~-
    be the perception may not be correct in the view of another political party.
F   The decision may or may not be right, but it cannot be characterised as a
    mala fide decision.

                                                                                               ~
        Under those circumstances, we cannot hold that the decision to
                                                                                               t
  abolish the Minority Commission by the State Government, in the absence                     )..

G of any statutory compulsion, was not in accordance with law. It is now an                    >-
  admitted position that, as stated in the counter affidavit by the Central
  Government that they have undertaken to establish the branch of National             "("
  Commission in Maharashtra at Mumbai to monitor the development of the
  minorities and the working of the safeguard as provided in the Constitution
H and in the laws enacted by the Parliament and the State Legislature in
                         M.ASHAIKHv. STATE                             1115
relation to the State of Maharashtra.                                          A
      Under those circumstances, the apprehension expressed by the ap-
pellant that the rights and the safeguards given to the minorities would not
now be monitored is not correct. Under these circumstances, we do not
not find any compelling reason warranting interference. The appeal is
accordingly disposed of. No costs.
                                                                               B

R.P.                                                   Appeal disposed of.