D.A.V. College, Bhatinda v. State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 1731

DAV COLLEGE V. STATE OF PUNJAB

Whether Hindus can be considered a minority community in the State of Punjab for the purposes of Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution?

Fundamental Rights of Minorities: The Court emphasized the rights of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. This includes the right to choose the medium of instruction and script, which is guaranteed under Articles 29(1) and 30(1) of the Constitution.
Legislative Competence: The principle that no State has the legislative power to prescribe a particular medium of instruction for higher education that infringes upon the Parliament’s authority under Item 66 of List I, which relates to coordinating and determining standards in such institutions.
Harmonious Construction: The Court utilized the doctrine of harmonious construction to reconcile conflicting legislative powers between State and Union laws, asserting that Union legislation prevails when there is an overlap regarding educational matters.
Non-Infringement of Rights: The Court held that the State must harmonize its powers to prescribe the medium of instruction with the rights of minorities, ensuring that they are not compelled to adopt a medium or script that does not reflect their cultural and linguistic identity.

Certain provisions of the Guru Nanak University Act, 1969 were argued to be unconstitutional by the Dayanand Anglo-Vedic (DAV) College Trust and Managing Society, which was speaking on behalf of many institutions.
The petitioners claimed that Articles 14, 19, 26, 29(1), and 30(1) of the Constitution were infringed by these parts.
Prior to Punjab and Haryana’s separation by the Punjab Reorganisation Act, the DAV institutes were connected to Punjab University.
The DAV institutes lost access to Punjab University’s resources and were deemed outside of its purview as a result of later notifications.
As members of Punjab’s Hindu minority, the petitioners argued that Article 30 (1) gave them the authority to create and run their educational institutions.

The Supreme Court held how Articles 29(1) and 30(1) differ from one another.
- Any minority community in India is guaranteed the right to preserve their language, script, and culture under Article 29(1).
- The right of religious and linguistic minorities to create and run educational institutions is expressly protected in Article 30(1).
The Court decided that the population of the state should be used to identify a minority for the purposes of Article 30(1), citing the Kerala Education Bill case.
The court held that the Arya Samaj, while being a part of the Hindu religious minority in Punjab, could claim the protection of Article 30(1) for its educational institutions.
The court ruled that the provisions of the Act did not infringe on the fundamental rights of the petitioners, as there was no compulsion for them to adopt Sikh religious teachings.
The Act was aimed at promoting Punjabi culture, literature, and teachings of Guru Nanak, which did not violate the petitioners’ rights to conserve their language, script, or culture.
The Court held that the DAV institutions were immune to legal action under Article 30(1) and could not be forced to abide by the Guru Nanak University Act’s restrictions.