B.B.A. L.L.

B (Integrated Law degree course)

Law of Crime-I

RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE OF PROPERTY

Submission To: Submitted By:

Dr. V.K. KAPOOR NONIT HATILA

VIVEK

Faculty of Law Roll no:-

17RU11015,

17RU11032

Raffles University
School of Law

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I take this opportunity to express our humble gratitude and

personal regards to Dr. V.K. KAPOOR for inspiring me and guiding
me during the course of this project work and also for his cooperation
and guidance from time to time during the course of this project work
on the topic.

Neemrana

Date of Submission:
Name of Students

th
4 April, 2019
NONIT HATILA

VIVEK
 ARTICLE 29 OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION

INTRODUCTION

It talks about Cultural and Educational Rights Protection of interests of minorities.

(1) Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a
distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same.

(2) No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the
State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or
any of them.1

ABOUT AMENDMENT

Art. 29(2) is controlled by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, by inserting Cl. (4)
in Art. 15.

Prior to this amendment, in case of Sanjib v. Princpali2 the Supreme Court held that the
Madras Communal G.O. was ultra vires in as much as it distributed seat in State education
institutions amongst communities according to a certain proportion per community. In the
case of State of Madras v. Champakam3 it was further observed that Art. 29(2) is not
controlled by Art. 46 and that the Constitution does not intend to protect the interests of the
backward classes in the matter of admission to educational institution.

Cl. (4) was added to Art. 15 by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, to bring Art.
15 and 29 in the line with Art. 16(4), 46 and 340 to make it constitutional for the State to
reserve seats for backward classes of citizens, Scheduled Cast and Tribes in public
educational institutions.

1
Constitution of India.
2
AIR 1957 Cal (para. 6).
3
AIR 1951 SC 226.
However, this First Amendment Act inserted Cl. (4) to Art. 15 to lift the general equality
guaranteed in Art. 29(2) with respect to the right to admission into an educational institution
maintained by or receiving aid from the State. 4 Art. 15(4) has then to read as a proviso or an
exception to Art. 29(2) and if an order is justified by the provision of the former, its validity
cannot be impeach on the ground that it violates or infringes the fundamental rights
guaranteed by Art. 29(2).5

It is to be noted, however, that Art. 15(4) does not validate communal reservation or
distribution on communal lines, but only validates reservation for members of the backward
classes and Scheduled Cast and Tribes.

ARTICLE 29 OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION CLAUSE (1)

Article 29 of Indian constitution Clause (1) gives the right to every section of the citizens,
which has a distinct language, script or culture, to conserve the same. If such sections of
citizens desire to preserve their own language, script or culture, the State would not stand in
their way. Perhaps residents of a State having different script, language or culture may also
object to illegal migration from a neighbouring country resulting in adverse impact on the
language, script or culture of that State.
A minority community can effectively conserve its language, script or culture by and through
educational institutions and, therefore, the right to establish and maintain educational
institutions of its choice is a necessary concomitant to the right to conserve its distinct
language, script or culture and that is what Article 30(1) confers on all minorities. “Article 29
of Indian constitution” clause (1), neither controls the scope of Article 30(1) nor is controlled
by that article. The scope of the two is different.
Article 29 of Indian constitution clause (1) is not confined to minorities but extends to all
sections of citizens. Similarly Article 30(1) is not cont fined to those minorities which have a
distinct language, script or culture but extends to all religious and linguistic minorities.
Further, Article 30(1) gives only the right to establish and administer educational institutions
of minorities choice while Article 29(1) gives a very general right to conserve the language,
script or culture. Thus the right in Article 29(1) may be exercised without establishing

4
State of U.P. v. C.O.D. Chheoki Employees Co-op. Society Ltd., AIR 1997 SC 1413.
5
Balaji H.R. v. State of Mysore, AIR 1963 SC 649.
 educational institutions and the right under Article 30(1) need not be exercised for conserving
language, script or culture.
In Jagdev Singh Siddhanti v. Pratap Singh Daulta6 the appellant, who was declared elected
to the House of the People, was alleged to have used corrupt practices to promote communal
enmity between the Hindu and the Sikh communities prohibited by Section 123(3),
Representation of People Act, 1951. Two instances were given by the respondent, a defeated
sitting member, in support of his allegations:

 That the appellant by taking help of the Hindi agitation, propagated that the
respondent was an enemy of the Arya Samaj and the Hindi language, and

 that the appellant used a religious symbol -a flag called ”Om thaj” -in his meetings.
The High Court accepted the contention of the respondent and set aside the election of the
appellant. But the Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment
of the Punjab High Court. As to the first ground, Shah read clause

 of Section 123 in the light of the fundamental right guaranteed in Article 29of the
Constitution clause 1. He observed: Right to conserve the language of the citizens includes
the right to agitate for the protection of the language. Political agitation for conservation of
the language of a section of the citizens cannot therefore be regarded as a corrupt practice
within the meaning of Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act. Unlike Article
19(1), Article 29 of Indian constitution clause 1 is not subject to any reasonable restrictions.
The court also said that the right under Article 29 on Indian constitution clause 1 is absolute?

ARTICLE 29 OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION CLAUSE (2)

Article 29 of Indian constitution Clause (2) relates to admission into educational institutions
which are maintained or aided by State funds. No citizen shall be denied admission in such
institutions on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them. It may be
recalled that Article 15 also prohibits discrimination against citizens on grounds of reli’ gion,

6
AIR 1965 SC 183
etc. But the scope of the two articles is different. Firstly, Article 15(1) protecté citizens only
against the State while Article 29 of Indian Constitution clause (2) protects citizens against
the State or anybody who denies the right conferred by it. Secondly, Article 15 protects
citizens against discrimination generally but Article 29 of Indian constitution clause (2)
protects only against a particular species of discrimination namely, denial of admission into
educational institutions maintained or aided by the State.

Finally, the specific grounds on which discrimination is prohibited are not the same in the two
articles. ”Place of birth” and “sex” do not occur in Article 29(2), while ”language” is not
mentioned in Article 15.

The Madras High Court held that the effect of omitting the word “sex” from Article 29 of
Indian Constitution clause (2) is that the right of women to admission in educational
institutions is a matter within the regulation of college authorities.35 It is doubtful if that
interpretation is still valid. Read with Article 15(3), Article 29(2) may not be availed of by
males for seeking admission in an exclusively female institution but its protection cannot be
denied to female students in all men’s institution.

Article 29 of Indian constitution clause (2) is a special article and is a controlling provision
when the question relates to admission to colleges? The right to admission into an educational
institution is a right which an individual citizen has as a citizen and not as a member of any
community or class of citizens?7 Hence a school run by a minority, if it is aided by State
funds, cannot refuse admission to children belonging to other communities.” In St. Stephen’s
College v. University of Delhi 7(St. Stephen’s College), the court held that a minority
community may reserve up to 50 per cent seats for the members of its own community in an
educational institution established and administered by it even if the institution is getting aid
from the State. Later a divided eleven-judge Bench in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of
Karnataka8 (T.M.A. Pai Foundation), while agreeing with the St. Stephen’s College case“,
has relaxed the so per cent limit and has held that a reasonable percentage may be fixed by
the State in which the minority institution is situated.

7
(1992) 1 SCC 558
8
(2002) 8 SCC 481
In the words of Kirpal CJ

The best possible way is to hold that as long as the minority educational institution permits
admission of citizens belonging to the non-minority class to a reasonable extent based upon
merit, it will not be an infraction of Article 29 of Indian Constitution clause (2), even though
the institution admits students of the minority group of its own choice for whom the
institution was meant.

The State, however, cannot direct minority educational institutions to restrict admission to the
members of their own community. A Bombay Government Circular Order directing the
schools with English medium to admit only Anglo Indians and citizens of non-Asiatic descent
in the classes taught in English language was held ultra vires, because the order denied to all
pupils whose mother tongue was not English, admission into any school where the medium
of instruction was English.

The order would not be valid even if the object for making it is the promotion or
advancement of the national language.‘ The court said:

Whatever the object, the immediate ground and direct cause for the denial is that the mother
tongue of the pupils is not English. Adopting the language of Lord Thankerton, it may be said
that the laudable object of the impugned order does not obviate the prohibition of Article
29 of Indian Constitution clause (2) because the effect of the order involves infringement of
this fundamental right, and that effect is brought about by denying admission only on the
ground of language.

“Article 29 of Indian Constitution” Clause (2), however, does not confer a legal right on the
members belonging to other communities to freely profess, practise and propagate their
religion within the precincts of a college run by a minority community. Article 29(2) cannot
be invoked where refusal of admission to a student is on the ground of his not possessing
requisite qualifications or where a student is expelled from an institution for acts of
indiscipline.
To overcome court’s interpretation invalidating special provision for admission to weaker
sections of the society“8 the Constitution (1st Amendment) Act, 1951, added clause (4) to
Article 15 to the effect that nothing in Articles 15 and 29(2) shall prevent the State from
making any special provision for the advancement of any SEBCs of citizens or for the SCs
and STs. Accordingly, the State is now empowered to reserve seats in State colleges for any
SEBCs of citizens or for the SCs and STs. To overcome similar interpretation“ the
Constitution 93rd Amendment has introduced clause (5) in Article 15 which, however, has no
reference to Article 29 of Indian Constitution clause (2).
While ordinarily educational institutions established in pursuance of Article 29 of Indian
Constitution clause (1) or 30(1) are subject to Article 29(2), they are not so if they do not
receive any aid from the State. Therefore, in the matter of admission they are free from the
constraints of Article 29(2).

The unaided majority institutions do not stand in the same position as the unaided minority
institutions. The latter are free to admit students exclusively from the minority community
subject to the requirement of merit inter se, while the former may be subjected to any
other reasonable restrictions in public interest. On further clarification in P.A. Inamdar v.
State of Maharashtra9”, the court held that neither the policy of reservation can be enforced
by the State nor any quota or percentage of admissions can be carved out to be appropriated
by the State in a minority or non-minority unaided educational institution.

Minority institutions are free to admit students of their own choice including students of non-
minority community as also members of their own community from other States, both to a
limited extent only and not in a manner and to such an extent that their minority educational
institution status is lost.

CONCLUSION

Our constitution aims at “Unity in Diversity”. The minority status is not only dependant on
the basis of religion but also on linguistic minorities. These provisions are inserted in the
constitution so that minorities can also preserve and develop their culture.

9
(2004) 8 SCC 139