There are several contentions why Majority community should have equal rights as that of

minority community. In many states, The Hindu community which is majority in the country
is minority in several states. It poses a question as why Majority community is not treated as
minority in these states. It is clear violation of Article 14, 15, 21, 29 and 30 of Indian
Constitution.

1. The prejudice against Judaism, Bahaism and Hinduism is significant. Hindus make up
only 1% in Ladakh, 2.75% in Ladakh. Mizoram, 2.77% in Lakshadweep, 4% in
Kashmir, 8.74% in Nagaland, 11.52% in Meghalaya, 29% in Arunachal Pradesh,
38.49% in Punjab, 41.29% in Manipur but Central does not declare them “minority”,
so Hindus are not covered by Article 29 and 30 and cannot establish and operate the
educational institution of their choice. On the other hand, using unbridled power
under the law, the Centre has arbitrarily declared Muslims a minority, this percentage
in Lakshadweep is 96.58%, in Kashmir it is 95%, in Ladakh it is 46% . Likewise, the
Centre declares Christians to be a minority, 88.10% in Nagaland, 87.16% in Mizoram
and 74.59% in Meghalaya. Therefore, they can establish and manage the educational
institution of their choice. Likewise, Sikhs in Punjab are 57.69% and Buddhists are
50% in Ladakh and they can set up and manage an educational institution of their
choice but are not Baha and Judaism, this is only 0.1% and 0.2% at the national level,
respectively.

2. Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 are the golden corners of our constitution. Therefore, the
Centre cannot arbitrarily grant minority status. The framers never intended to create a
National Minority Commission and a Ministry of Minority Affairs on the basis of
religion. Article 25 to 30 guarantees the right to freedom of religion and culture for
the majority and the minority. In addition, unity and integrity are the goals of our
Constitution. Therefore, the concept of religious minorities at the national level is
very dangerous for national unity and integration.

3. Rational basis of declaring certain religions as minority by Central Government as

they have less population in the States is contravened when benefits of schemes for
minority are acquired by those religious minorities in States where they are in
 majority and those religious communities who are actually minorities are not been
given equal status. The Muslims having majority in Lakshadweep and J&K, Sikhs
having majority in Chandigarh and Haryana and Christians having majority in
Mizoram, Meghalaya and Nagaland are still receiving minority benefits. Therefore,
classifying majority Christians, Sikhs, Muslims as “equal” to States having said
religions as minority violates basic principle of reasonable classification. The
classification is not intelligible differentia and fails test of rationality.

4. The ruling in the TMA Pai case is the law of the land; therefore, the determination of
a religious and linguistic “minority” is made only in the State and the Centre must
exercise its power not solely on advice and recommendations of the National
Committee on Minorities, but also based on consideration of the social, cultural and
religious conditions of the community in each state. Religious and linguistic
minorities for purposes of Article 29 and 30 shall be determined by the state taking
into account the proportion of different groups and communities in each state.
However, despite the clear legal position above, the Centre has completely failed to
apply the above principle in a uniform way by excluding not only Hindus but also
Hindus. Baha and Judaism are out of the scope of the “minority” status.

5. The Constitution of India is by the Indians and for the Indians. Globally, there are
6000 plus languages. Linguistic minorities are identified at State level & only Indian
languages are considered for protection under Articles 29-30. A Hindi speaking
person is linguistic minority in Kerala and Tamil speaking in Bihar. The same notion
may follow for religious minorities too and only India originated religions may be
considered as religious minority. ‘Minority' means a 'socially economically politically
non-dominant' group, which is inferior in population. It is relative term, represent very
inferior numbers, sections or group.

6. The constitutional, position of the Hindus Jains Buddhists Sikhs vis-a-vis other
religions is best understood with reference to Part-III. Article 14 says that State shall
not deny to any person equality before law and equal protection of the laws. Article
15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth.
Article 25 inter alia states that all persons are equally entitled to freedom of
conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion.
7. It empowers State to make law for regulating or restricting economic, financial,
political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice.
Article 26 states that every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have
the right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes; to
manage its own affairs in matters of religion; to own and acquire movable and
immovable property; and to administer such property in accordance with law the
Laws to control religious places must be in spirit of Articles 14-15. Equality
guaranteed under Articles 14-15 and freedom to manage religious affairs under
Articles 26 have been abrogated by States for Hindus Jains Buddhists Sikhs.
Considering temple finances a secular matter, tentacles of State are now deeply
entrenched into religious matters such as conduct of puja and other rituals. It is
submitted that right to manage institutions conferred under Article 26 are natural right
for all communities. But Hindus Jains Buddhists Sikhs have been denied and State
Laws offends Articles 14, 15, 26.

8. Articles 29-30 virtually guarantees that Hindus will splinter into smaller groups that
can claim minority status on the basis of language or culture, thereby securing
immunity from depredations of the State. Groups such as the Ramakrishna Mission-
Lingayats claims minority status for this reason, as they run educational institutions.
In 1927, passage of Hindu Religious Endowments Bill caused communities in
Canara-Malabar to claim to be separate and independent communities. Petitioner
submits that this harms unity and national integration by encouraging more groups to
separate as distinct entities, not because they have seen themselves as such
historically-religiously but simply for constitutional convenience.

9. In Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2014) 5 SCC 75], the Court
dealt with claim by Podhu Dikshitars (Smarthi Brahmins) to administer the properties
of a temple dedicated to Lord Natraja at Sri Sabanayagar Temple at Chidambaram.
The Court noted that rights conferred under Article 26 are subject to provisions of
Part III. The Court extracted a portion of the Madras High Court, which held that
Podhu Dikshitars constitute a religious denomination, or in any event, a section
 thereof, because they are a closed body, and because no other Smartha Brahmin who
is not a Dikshitar is entitled to participate in either the administration or in the
worship of God. This is their exclusive and sole privilege which has been recognized
and established for several centuries. The Court also observed that fundamental rights
protected under Article 26 cannot be waived. Thus, the power to supersede the
administration of a religious denomination, if only for a certain purpose and for a
limited duration, will have to be read as regulatory, otherwise, it will violate the
fundamental right contained in Article 26.

10. In Deep Chand v. State of U.P & others [(1980) 3 SCC 281] it was held that, a
Legislature has no power to make any law in derogation of injunction contained in
Article 13(2) which imposes a prohibition on the State in making laws taking away or
abridging the rights conferred by Part-III, and declares that laws made in
contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void. No post-
constitution law can be made contravening the provisions of Part-III, and therefore
such a law to that extent, though made, is a nullity from its inception, and is still born.
The power of Parliament and the Legislature of States to make laws is subject to the
limitations imposed by Part-III of the Constitution. The general power of legislation,
to that extent, is restricted.

11. In Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj vs The State Of Rajasthan And Others [(1963)
AIR 1638], the Supreme Court held that the term "matters of religion", used in Article
26(b) of the Constitution, is synonymous with the term "religion" in regard to Article
25(1) of the Constitution of India; the protection under Article 26 extends to acts in
pursuance of religion, and therefore contains a guarantee for rituals and observances,
ceremonies and modes of worship which are an integral part of religion.

12. In Waman Rao v. Union of India (AIR 1981 SC 271), the Court heldthat every breach
of fundamental rights cannot be seen as a violation of basic structure. The Court also
emphasized on social and economic justice as one of the major goals of the
Constitution. In the case of S.P. Gupta v. President of India [AIR 1982 SC 149], the
court reaffirmed that a constitutional amendment cannot override the basic structure
of the Constitution. Further, in I.R. Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu [(1999) 7 SCC 133]
it was held by the nine judge bench unequivocally that, "If the doctrine of basic
structure provides a touchstone to test the amending power or its exercise, there can
be no doubt and it has to be so accepted that Part III of the Constitution has a key role
to play in the application of the said doctrine." Moreover, it was opined that the basic
structure doctrine is the very essence of the Constitution and any acts, rules and
regulations that violate its essence cannot be allowed.