The question of notifying minorities

Last Updated14/05/2022

A Public interest litigation (PIL) in Supreme Court has challenged the power of the Centre to notify minority communities at a national level.

PIL has questioned the validity of Section 2(f) of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions or NCMEI Act 2004, terming it arbitrary and contrary to Articles 14, 15, 21, 29 and 30 of the Constitution.
Section 2(f) says “minority,” for the purpose of this Act, means a community notified as such by the Central Government.”
Section 2(c) of the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) Act, 1992 also gives the Centre similar powers.
In 2005, the then Central govt. notified five communities — Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Parsis — as minorities at the national level.
2014: government notified followers of Jainism as a minority community, making them sixth on the national list.

Petitioner argues that the Centre’s decision was arbitrary since the SC in the T. M. A. Pai Foundation vs State Of Karnataka case of 2002 held that for determining minority, the unit will be State and not the whole of India.
Centre’s notification has created a situation in which the communities declared as minorities by the Centre enjoy the status even in States/UTs where they are in majority, while followers of Hinduism, Judaism and Bahaism who are minorities are not accorded the same status under the Act.
They want SC to curtail the Centre’s power to notify national minorities or
Direct Centre to notify followers of Hinduism, Bahaism and Judaism as minorities in States/UTs where they are fewer in numbers or
Only those communities that are “socially, economically and politically non-dominant” besides being numerically smaller in States/UTs be allowed the status of minorities.

The Centre said it had the power to notify minority communities.
It has not taken a position about continuing the national list of minorities while it reiterated its power to notify communities as minorities under Central Acts.
The Centre pointed out that it had concurrent powers with States to take measures for the welfare of minorities.
States could have minorities notified as such within their jurisdiction, and it cited the examples of Maharashtra recognising Jews as a minority community and Karnataka recognising speakers of several languages as linguistic minorities.
It sought time to consult with all stakeholders before it could take a position.
It defended the constitution of the new Ministry of Minority Affairs and the Sachar Committee that studied the backwardness of Muslims in India.

Article 29: It provides that any section of the citizens residing in any part of India having a distinct language, script or culture of its own, shall have the right to conserve the same.
- It grants protection to both religious minorities as well as linguistic minorities.
- However, SC held that the scope of this article is not necessarily restricted to minorities only, as use of the word ‘section of citizens’ in the Article includes minorities as well as the majority.
Article 30: All minorities shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
- The protection under Article 30 is confined only to minorities (religious or linguistic) and does not extend to any section of citizens (as under Article 29).
Article 350-B: The 7th Constitutional (Amendment) Act 1956 inserted this article which provides for a Special Officer for Linguistic Minorities appointed by the President of India.
It would be the duty of the Special Officer to investigate all matters relating to the safeguards provided for linguistic minorities under the Constitution.

The Centre will consider several sociological and other aspects.
Any stand without detailed deliberations with stakeholders may result in an unintended complication for the country.
Though the power is vested with the Central government, it would consult the States and other stakeholders.

Prelims take away