THE STATE OF BOMBAY v. BOMBAY EDUCATION SOCIETY AND OTHERS.
Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 568; 1954 INSC 75
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN , SUDHI RANJAN DAS, GHULAM HASAN, NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI, B. JAGANNADHADAS
Judgment date:
Case summary
1954 INSC 75. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1954-05-26. THE STATE OF BOMBAY v. BOMBAY EDUCATION SOCIETY AND OTHERS. Read the judgment and case...
Judgment text
Act. To hold that Government servants are, as such and as a class, disqualified to act as polling agents would be to engraft an exception to the statute, which is not there. Accordingly, we reaffirm the view taken by us that the appointment of a Government servant as poll~ng agent does not, without more, contravene sect10n 123(8). It is scarcely necessary to repeat our observa-tion in the original judgment that "if it is made out that the candidate or his agent had abused the right to appoint a Government servant as polling · agent by exploiting the situation for furthering his election prospects, then the. matter can be dealt with as an infringement of ·section 123(8). " In the result, this petition is dismissed ; but under the circumstances, without costs. Petition dismissed. THE STATE OF BOMBAY v. BOMBAY EDUCATION SOCIETY AND OTHERS. (With COnnected Appeals) [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C. J. , S. R. DAs, GHULAM HASAN, BHAGWATI and JAGANNADHADAS JJ.
J Constitution of India-Articles 29, 30(1), 337 Second Provisa- Government Circular-Prohibiting admission into Schools main· tained or aided by State on the ground of language of citizens- Such circular whether ultra vires of Articles 29(2) and 337 Second ~ Provisa-Article 29(1) and 30(1) of the Constitution-Word "Namely"-Meaning of. The Education Society of Bombay (respondent No. I) has been running a recognised Anglo-Indian School called Barnes High School at Deolali which receives aid from the State of Bombay. J and G are its Directors. English is used in the said school as the medium of instruction. The mother tongue of the Anglo-Indians is English. The State of Bombay issued a circular order on 6th January, 1954, headed "Admission to Schools teaching through the medium of English. " The operative portion of the order ·enjoined that no primary or secondary school shall from the date ·Of the order admit t~ a class where English is used as the medium _..
,f instruction any pupil other than a pupil belonging to a section nf citizens the language of which is English namely, Anglo-Indians and citizens of non-Asiatic descent. One P, a citizen of India and member of Indian Christian Community alleging English to be the mother tongue of his daughter, and one: M, a citizen of India and ,member of Gugrati Hindu Community alleging Gujrati to be the mother tongue of his son, were refused admission to the school for their respective wards on the basis of the aforesaid order dated 6th January, 1954.
The Society and its two Directors presented an application under article 226 of the Comtitution in the High Court - · ing the said order and from taking any steps or proceedings in enforcement of the same and compelling the respondent to withdraw or cancel the said pur-ported order and to allow the petitioner to admit to any standard in the said school any children of non- Anglo-Indian citizens or citizens of Asiatic descent and to educate them through the medium of English language. Likewise Major Pinto and his daughter '- Brenda and Dr. Gujar and his son Gopal made similar applications, being Nos. 288 and 289 of 1954 respective- ! y, praying for similar reliefs. The three applications were consolidated on 11th February, 1954, and were heard together and were disposed of by the same Judgment and Order pronounced on the 15th February, 1954. The High Court accepted the petitions and made an order as prayed. The State of Bombay has now come up in appeal against the said Orders.
~ On the facts of these cases two questions arise namely (1) as to the right of students who are not Anglo-Indians or who are -of Asiatic descent to be admitted to Barnes High School which is a recognized Anglo-Indian School which imparts education tprough the medium of English, and (2) as to the right of the said Barnes High School to admit non-Anglo-Indiai; ; students and students of Asiatic descent. The questions, thus . confined to the particular facts of these . cases, appear to us to admit of a very simple solution, as will be presently explained. Re (1) : As already indicated Barnes High School is a recognized Anglo-Indian School which has all along been imparting education through the medium of English. It receives aid out of State funds. The nt until such special grant (1) L. R. [1q17] A. C. 62. • ceases at the end of ten years from the commencement 1954 of the Constitution as mentioned in the first proviso to Th< Stat< of Bombay that article.
The second proviso runs as follows :-v. "Provided further that no educational institution &mbay Ed11catio11 Soci. ty and shall be entitled to receive any grant under this article \ Othm. unless at least forty per cent. of the annual admissions • DasJ. therein are made available to members of communities other than the Anglo-Indian community. " lt is clear, therefore, that the Constitution has imposed upon the educational institution run by the Anglo-Indian Community, as a condition of such special -grant, the duty that at least 40 per cent. of the annual admissions therein must be made available to members of communities other than the Anglo-Indian Community. This is undoubtedly a constitutional obligation.
In so far as clause 5 of the impugned order enjoins that no Primary or Secondary school shall from the date of this order admit to a class where English is used as the medium of instruction any pupil other than the children of Anglo-Indians or of citi~ens of non-Asiatic descent, it quite clearly prevents the Anglo-Indian Schools including Barnes High School from performing their constitutional obligations and exposes them to the risk or losing the special grant. The learned Attorney-General refers ·to clause 7 of the impugned order and suggests that the authorities of Anglo-Indian Schools may still discharge their constitutional obligations by following the advice given to them in that concluding clause. The proviso to article 337 does not impose any obligation on the Anglo-Indian Community as a condition for receipt of the special grant other than that at least 40 per cent. of the annual admissions should 'oe made available to non-Anglo-Indian pupils.
The advice, tendered by the State to the Anglo-Indian Schools by clause 7 of the impugned order, will, if the same be followed, necessarily impose an additional burden on the Anglo-Indian Schools to which they are not subjected by the Constitution itself. The covering circular No. SSN 2054(b), which was issued on the same day, throws out the covert hint of th_! : possibility, in consequence of the impugned order of some change becoming necessary in the existing procedure for the 19-87 S. C. India/59 • equitable distribution of the total grant among Anglo- Indian Schools, although the impugned order was not intended to affect the total grant available for distribution to Anglo-Indian Schools under the Constitution. If, in the light oi the covering circular. clause 7 is to be tre:1ted · as operative, in the se11se that a non-comp11ance with it will entail loss of the whole or part of this grant as.
a result of the change in the existing procedure for the equitable distribution, then it undoubtedly adds to article 337 of the Constitution a further conJition for the receipt by Anglo-Indian Schools of the special grant secured to them by that article. On the other hand if clause 7 is to be treated merely as ad. vice, which may or may not be accepted or acted upon, then clause 5 will amount to an absolute prohibition against the admission of pupils who are not Anglo- Indians or citizens of non-Asiatic descent into Anglo- India11 Schools and will compel the authorities of such Schools to commit a breach of their Constitutional obligation under article 337 and thereby forfeit their constitutional right to the special grants. In either view of the matter the impugned order cannot but be regarded as unconstitutional. In our opinion the second question raised in these appeals must also, in view of article 337, be answered agaimt the State.
The result of the foregoing discussion is that these appeals must be dismissed and we order accordingly. The State must pay the costs of the respondents. Appeals dismissed. AFTAB AHMAD KHAN "· THE STATE OF HYDERABAD. [MmrnERJEA, VIVIAN BosE and GHULAM HASAN JJ. ] Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), ss. 233, 235-Scope of s. 233-Law as to joinder of charges-except;on thereto enacted jn s. 235-/oint trial of distinct oflc'nceJ. Section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1398) embodies the general law as to the joinder of charges and lays • down a rule that for every distinct offence there should Ge a
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.