SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL (DEEMED UNIVERSITY)

(Established under Section 3 of the UGC Act 1956)

Re-accredited by NAAC with ‘A’ grade (3.58/4) Awarded Category – I by UGC
Program: BBA LLB
Batch: 2021-2026
Semester: 2
Course Name: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
PRN: 21010126293
Name of the Student: BUSAM ARNAV REDDY

INSTRUCTIONS
Mention your details only in the space provided above. If any other details
name, contact detail etc. are written anywhere else in the answer script it will
be treated as adoption of unfair means.
Use diagrams and sketches wherever required.
Submission must be done by the student through google form link
provided by the examination department and all submissions must be in the
word format only(.doc/.docx). Submission of any other format will not
accepted.
Submission will not be accepted beyond the deadline given by the
examination department in each subject. Student will be marked absent in
case of late submission.
Formatting guidelines: Font size & name: 12 & Times New Roman; Line
spacing 1.5; Justified; Page size: A4; No borders
Write your answer in your own language and do not copy paste from any
source. Read the question carefully and write your answer fulfilling the
requirements of the question.
If the students copy from each other’s assignment, it will be considered as
unfair means case and performance will be treated as null and void for the
entire examination.
3.

INTRODUCTION
There are some fundamental rights that all people of the nation have the same access to no
matter what their background may be, including their race, place of birth, caste, gender, or
religious affiliation. The Supreme Court of India may be contacted by citizens of India who
believe their basic rights have been violated. From England's Bill of Rights, the United States'
Bill of Rights, and France's Declaration on the Human Rights, the Indian constitution's
essential rights are derived.

It's important to understand the meaning of "Discrimination."

An example of discrimination occurs when one person is treated differently from another one
in the same scenario. Discrimination may also occur when a person is placed on an equal
footing with another person despite the fact that they are in different circumstances, such as
being pregnant or disabled. There is no logical or factual justification for this behaviour.

Constitutional prohibitions against racial, religious, national origin, and gender discrimination
are included in Article 15.

Religion According to this law, no individual shall be denied admission to any public place or
policy because of their religious affiliation.
Disciplinary actions based on criteria such as race or ethnicity are illegitimate. An Afghan
citizen should not be treated differently from an Indian citizen, for example.
The place where a person was born. It is illegal to use a person's place of birth as a basis for
discrimination.
Human equality is sometimes equated with an inability to tolerate "discrimination." This is a
widespread misconception. Discrimination and violations of equality are commonly mistaken
for one another. Is it feasible that discrimination might be applied to anything that harms a
person and goes against their broad classification? The response is still a "NO." It has been
established by the Supreme Court in the following decisions that grouping people does not
necessarily imply discrimination. The caste system It is also against the law to discriminate
based on caste in order to prevent the upper castes from harming the lower castes.
Legal discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation cannot be based on the fact that
they are male or female. A few examples of this are gender bias and transgender
discrimination.

Special courts were formed by the state of Saurashtra in the Kathi Raning Rawat case in line
with the Saurashtra State Public Safety Measures Ordinance of 1949 to handle instances
involving sections 302, 307, and 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read in combination
with section 34. Kathi Raning Rawat had filed a lawsuit, prompting this action. Courts have
been asked to rule on whether or not these laws discriminate against the citizens of the
territory.

Regardless of the nature of the discrepancies in legislation, the court found that
discrimination was not present. The act was not discriminatory in any manner since it focused
on specific offences committed in certain locales, not individuals.

John Vallamattom v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 2902, was another notable case in which
the Indian Succession Act of 1925 was utilised to determine that the petitioners were not
entitled to bequeath any of their property to charity or religious organisations. They claimed
that it was unfairly biassed against Christian testamentary provisions in favour of non-
Christian ones.

Reservation
Article 15 Clauses (3), (4), and (5) are exceptions to Article 15 Clauses (1) and (2), according
to our analysis (2). (2). Under Article 15 Clauses 3, 4, and 5, the legislative branch is allowed
to take the following measures:.In regard to ladies and younger individuals. Regardless of
whether or not they receive state help, all educational institutions, including private ones,
should be required to admit students from socially and educationally disadvantaged groups or
the Scheduled Castes and Tribes. This will aid any persons who are socially or educationally
disadvantaged.

EXAMPLES FROM INDIA..

Educational institutions that make use of reservations
Special care for mothers and children depending on their place of residence There is a
reservation inside inside another reservation. Women and children are given extra
consideration because of where they live. Article 371: Reservations based on land area

As stated in Article 15(4), the state has the ability to implement specific measures to help
those who are socially and educationally disadvantaged, such as those from SC and ST.
Fairness and equity must be the watchwords of these regulations.

Special provisions have been made for the advancement of backward class members
under Article 15(4).

Article 15 of the Indian Constitution has a provision referred to as Clause 4. For the state's
benefit, it grants it the power to enact laws aimed at improving the lives of those who are
socially and educationally disadvantaged. Socially and educationally advanced classes are
sought for.

Article 15(4) uses the term "socially and educationally backward classes" to refer to groups
of persons who have suffered from the privilege class's discrimination and prejudice. This
group includes lower-class members of society who do not fit into either the SC or ST
classifications. Socially and educationally disadvantaged groups have lately been expanded to
include OBCs.. The number of reservations that may be made up to the allowed limit. India's
Supreme Court has imposed a ceiling on the percentage of quotas that may be set aside for
reservations by the government.

Indra Sawhney and others v. Indian Union

The constitution recognised social and educational deprivation, but not economic deprivation.
Reserved OBC jobs in central government, but not "creamy layer," were approved by court
(the forward section of a backward class, above a certain income).

The Second Backward Classes Committee, headed by BP Mandal, announced its conclusions
in 1980, igniting debate. For the OBCs, the report recommended a 27 percent allocation and a
22.5 percent quota for Scheduled Caste/Tribes (SCTs).
Twenty-seven percent of job postings for the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes
(SEBCs) may now be filled via direct recruitment by the Central Government.

Indra Sawhney, the petitioner, argued three key points against the Order in this case.

The right to equal opportunity granted by the Constitution was breached by the expansion of
reserves.
Having a lower caste was not a reliable indicator of one's status.
The government's ability to function effectively was under peril.

The government's order has been put on hold by the Supreme Court's five-judge panel until
the case is finally decided.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1992 to sustain the government's decision. According to the
Court, caste was an appropriate indicator of social deprivation. As a result, reservations for
people of Asian and Pacific Islander ancestry were put into effect in central government
positions in 1992. Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in India now have a 27% quota in the
federal government, according to India's Supreme Court. Even though some states were
sceptical about the existence of the "creamy layer," a study was commissioned to look into it.
Supreme Court of United States of America confirmed the creamy layer exemption in 1999
and expanded it to encompass SC and ST. This was in response to new challenges. This
verdict overturned the rulings in General Manager Southern Railway v. Rangachari and Akhil
Bharatiya Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India. Reservations may be utilised for
both promotions and appointments, according to those laws. Promotions cannot be subject to
reservations, as was ruled in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India. We've decided on
this.

In the 1992 case of Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India, the boundaries of state
jurisdiction were established. Reaffirming quotas of 50% and defining "social backwardness"
as a concept, the court defined 11 criteria for measuring backwardness. There were other
qualitative exclusions included in the nine-judge court's ruling, such as "creamy layer." Only
members of the Other Backward Castes are eligible for the creamy layer; members of other
categories, such as SC or ST, are not.
Article 15 has the ability to dismantle the dividing wall between the top and lower castes.
With respect to equality before law and equality among persons, Article 15 builds on Article
14. Case AIR 1993 SC 477 heard on this point was Indira Sawhney v. Union of India. A lot
of the authority of Article 15 comes from its predecessor, which is Article 14.

Conclusion

Article 15 has had a hard time reaching those who need it from the beginning of time.
People's lives have improved dramatically since the organisation was founded in 1949. When
it comes to enacting laws that promote social peace, it gives a framework for the legislative
body to work from. The number of crimes committed against people in lower socioeconomic
status groups has dropped significantly during the last several decades.

5.
INTRODUCTION

ARTICLE 16, "CONCERNING AFFAIRS RELATING TO PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT,

According to Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India, equality of opportunity is guaranteed
in areas relating to employment or the appointment of state officials. This clause applies to
male and female individuals equally. Everyone living in India is encouraged to attend and
take part in the event.
The Equal Protection Clause of Article 16 (2) of the Constitution protects persons from
discrimination on the basis of their religion, race, caste, gender, ancestry, place of birth, or
domicile. This protection extends to all aspects of an individual's identity.
The exclusions that are outlined in Articles 16.3(3), 16.4(4), and 16.6 are the only ones that
are exempt (5). The following is a breakdown of the particulars: First, the right to create
legislation regarding employment or appointment to a job that requires residence in the state
or Union Territory that is under consideration for this inquiry lies with Parliament. This
authority may be exercised since Parliament already has this jurisdiction. For instance, one
factor to take into account is the location of a person's primary place of home. The
Constitution's article 16's third clause may be found here.
There is the possibility that preferential treatment will be accorded to any social group that, in
the eyes of the state, is seen to be disadvantaged and that is underserved by the services that
are provided by the state. Those who fall into this category include the elderly, the poor, and
the disabled. (4) of the [16]th Section
It is not permissible under any circumstances for the state to prevent members of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes who are already employed by the state from receiving
promotions that come with corresponding seniority increases to any class or classes of
positions in the state's service if the state believes that members of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes are underrepresented in the service. This is the case even if the state
believes that members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are underrepresented in the
It is stated in [Article 16(4A)] that.
Nothing in this article shall prevent consideration of any unfilled vacancies of a given year
that are reserved for being filled up in that year, in accordance with any provision for
reservation made under Clauses (4) or (5) of this Article. In other words, this article does not
prohibit consideration of any unfilled vacancies. This factor will be taken into account for the
purpose of assessing whether or not the limit of fifty percent has been reached (4A). These
unfilled jobs are not to be included alongside the vacancies that happened in a given year
when determining whether or not we have achieved this limit. Instead, they are to be
excluded from the calculation. According to [Article 16(4B),] a piece of legislation is not
considered null and void if it stipulates that a person who holds an office or is a member of
the governing body of a religious or denominational organisation must be a follower of a
certain religion or denomination. In other words, this provision makes it possible for an
organisation to require its leaders to adhere to a specific religious or denominational tradition.
To be more specific, it may be found in [Article 16(5)].
4. Nothing in this Article shall prevent the state from making any additional provisions for
the appointment or promotion of any economically disadvantaged citizens, other than those
indicated in the preceding paragraph, so long as at least ten percent of the jobs in each
category are reserved for them. In addition, this Article shall not prevent the state from
making any additional provisions for the appointment or promotion of any economically
disadvantaged citizens. You may locate the [article 16(6)] at this location.
An order by the Supreme Court that upholds an Article 14 violation by the state of Karnataka
would be unconstitutional because Article 14 is a fundamental component of the Constitution
of India, and because the rule of law is at the very core of it. As a result, a court would be
powerless to uphold a violation of Article 14, and since the rule of law is at the very core of
it, an order by the Supreme Court would be unconstitutional.
A democratic government in the United States must adhere to the principle that all
individuals must be treated with respect, and the Constitution includes provisions for
affirmative action to ensure that those who are not treated equally are not given the
impression that they are. The Constitutional Scheme mandates that all parts of public
employment must be carried out in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution at all
times.

6.a)
In exercising his constitutional, statutory, or contractual rights, a person makes use of the
authorities that have been bestowed upon him. Individuals with rights have the ability to exert
influence on the actions of others, such as requiring them to do or refrain from performing a
certain action. The doctrine of Waiver of Rights is predicated on the premise that a person is
the best judge of his own interests and is free to relinquish the enjoyment of rights provided
to him by the State. However, the individual must be aware of his rights and the waiver must
be voluntary.
The doctrine of Waiver of Rights is predicated on the premise that a person is the best judge
of his own interests and is free to relinquish the enjoyment of rights provided to him by the
State. However, the individual must be aware of his rights and the waiver must be voluntary.

If a person waives a right, he or she can no longer claim that right and cannot challenge the
legality of that legislation. The idea is predicated on the concept that a person is the best
judge of his own interests, and that he should decide for himself when given full information.
It is possible for an individual in India to renounce contractual or legislative rights, but not
those enshrined in the constitution. Fundamental Rights are those rights that are essential to
an individual's well-being. The Fundamental Rights are outlined in Part 3 of the Indian
Constitution.
These include: \sRight to Freedom (Articles 19 and 22) Right against Exploitation (Article 23
& 24) (Article 23 & 24)
The right to freedom of religion (Article 25 & 28)
Rights to Education and the Arts (Article 29 & 30)
Access to Constitutional Redress (Article 32) (Article 32)
The fundamental rights exist not just for the benefit or well-being of the individual, but also
as a matter of public policy. Consistent with public policy, rights cannot be abandoned. In
addition, the Constitution stipulates that the State safeguard these rights.

The courts were faced with the question of surrendering rights shortly after the Constitution
was put into effect.
Behram Khurshed in the State of Bombay in 1954. v. State of Bombay
The preamble of the Indian Constitution was noted to be the source of the fundamental rights.
The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable and cannot be
renounced. When it comes to issues of constitutional policy, the concept of waiver is
meaningless.

The Commissioner of Income Tax for Delhi and Rajasthan and Others v. Basheshar Nath and
Others
Basheshar Nath v. CIT, in which the majority declared that fundamental rights cannot be
waived, is the most significant case on the Doctrine of Waiver to date. It was decided that
individuals would not be able to give up any of their fundamental freedoms.' It was possible
for anybody who was not happy with the outcome of an investigation to register a complaint
with the appropriate authorities. According to Justice Bhagwati, the concept of waiver does
not apply to the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court has a sacred duty to uphold and
defend the fundamental rights enumerated in Part III of our Constitution, given our unique
social, economic, educational, and political circumstances.

Bombay Municipal Corporation vs. Olga Tellis & Amicus Curiae:

Estoppel could not be used against the Constitution, according to the court. The Preamble of
the Indian Constitution declares that the country is a democratic republic, and no citizen may
be forced to give up their fundamental rights.

The following are some of the most important aspects of the teaching:
In order to relinquish one's rights, one must have the intention to do so. Rights may be
explicitly or implicitly waived. In either written or verbal form, a waiver may be expressed.
Based on a person's behaviour or actions, an implied waiver is established.

When someone renounces rights voluntarily, it shows that he or she understands the nature of
such rights and the consequences of giving them up. It is important to be aware of one's rights
and privileges, but it is not necessary to fully understand them.

In the absence of its applicability to constitutional rights, the waiver hypothesis serves as an
important check on legislative power. It is possible that a person would have to give up some
of his or her rights in order to benefit from some state-provided benefits if the hypothesis
were true.

Fairness and reason are the foundations of this ideology. If someone claims contradicting
facts, it would be unethical and unjust to listen to them. Making money off a legislation and
then questioning its legality is illogical. Furthermore, under the doctrine of ignorantia juris
non excusat, a person who claims ignorance of the unconstitutionality of an act is not entitled
to an explanation.
Doctrine's Essentials:
It’s important because one must intend to surrender rights. Waiver of rights may be declared
or implied. Express waivers are written or verbal. Actions or inactions determine implied
waiver.
This implies the person giving up rights must be aware of their significance. You require a
basic understanding of the right/privilege. Without waiver, legislative power is severely
constrained. If the notion is implemented, a person may have to give up their rights for
government aid.

6.d)
Introduction
No one is allowed to be punished twice for the same crime under the concept of autrefois
convict or double jeopardy. When a person is placed on a second trial for an offence for
which he or she has previously been tried, prosecuted, or convicted, the term "Double
Jeopardy" is used. Criminals are punished for their wrongdoing, and the goal of
rehabilitative justice is to help those who have been convicted of a crime get back on their
feet. Unnecessarily punishing and making life difficult for prisoners is not the system's
intention. However, repeat offenders who are convicted more than once for the same offence
are not unheard of; it happens all the time.

The fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian constitution are being violated by this
practise of imposing several penalties for the same infraction. Indian citizens' basic rights are
outlined in Part III of the country's constitution. Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution states
that no one shall be tried and punished for the same offence more than once under these basic
rights.
In India, double jeopardy laws are based on this provision of the constitution. When someone
is accused of a crime and tried in a court of law, the doctrine states that he or she cannot be
tried again for the same offence.

Double Jeopardy: Constitution of India

Fundamental rights in India are laid forth in detail in Part III of the Indian Constitution. This
basic right, stated in Art 20(2), stipulates that: No individual shall be tried and punished for
the same offence more than once under these fundamental rights. A person may not be
prosecuted or penalised more than once for the same offence, according to Article 20 (2).
There are three important components to the term 'Prosecution' within this article that are
necessary to understand the notion.
In order to successfully prosecute a crime, there are three required elements:
A person must first be accused of a crime in order to be eligible. The General Clause Act
further defines the term as any legally sanctioned act or omission.
The second need is that the case be brought to the attention of a court or other judicial body
that has jurisdiction over the matter. Departmental and administrative authorities are not
included in this court's jurisdiction. The defence of double jeopardy for a second prosecution
is only available in instances that are being tried in courts or tribunals of law or justice.
To sum up, when a tribunal accepts administrative and departmental inquiries, these
investigations are not deemed proceedings and, as a result, cannot be included in procedures
for prosecution and punishment.
According to these elements, double jeopardy in India only fulfils the maxim of acquitting
someone who has already been found guilty, and not acquitting someone who has already
been found guilty. It may only be used in circumstances when the defendant is convicted and
sentenced in their first procedure.

Only matters heard by courts or tribunals are covered by the constitutional prohibition on
double jeopardy. Statutory entities like departments or administrative organisations, which
have the authority to conduct investigations and impose sanctions, are excluded.

English law's idea of double jeopardy, on the other hand, is far broader. S. 300 of the CrPC
does, however, acknowledge the concept's broad scope, so broadening the scope of the
provision in India. Under the Criminal Procedure Code, the scope of the constitutional
prohibition on double jeopardy is significantly widened. Section 300 of the Criminal
Procedure Code (CPC) defines double jeopardy and provides a detailed examination of what
constitutes double jeopardy and what all of the exceptions are created. One of the most
important aspects of double jeopardy rules is that they apply to both acquitted and convicted
criminals. It follows that people who can be acquitted or convicted of the crime face double
jeopardy.

2.
INTRODUCTION
Article 12 (Fundamental Rights) of Part III of the Indian constitution defines the term "State."
As used in this section, unless the context requires otherwise, "the State" refers to any local or
other authority inside Indian territory or under the jurisdiction of the Indian government in
addition to the Indian government and parliament. Only for the purposes of Part III's
obligations, Article 12 has a meaning. It doesn't matter if an organisation doesn't fit the
current definition of "state" because it is performing a public duty or because the State or
public officials support its actions; an Article 226 writ against an organisation can still be
valid if its actions are in violation of some other provision of the Constitution. An "other
authority" is defined in Article 12 of the Constitution as a distinct entity from either the
government, legislature, or municipal authorities. For the purposes of this definition, "State"
include any government agency functioning inside Indian territory that has been formed via
law. When it comes to implementing laws passed by Parliament or the State, there is no
distinction between those who have the responsibility to implement such laws and those who
are simply given the right to do so.
A "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution means an entity that is governed by or under
the jurisdiction of the government in all three ways: financially, operationally, and
administratively. If the control is entirely regulatory, it will not be a state..

In this area, there is authority.

Quasi-government agencies and companies having the capacity to run revenue-generating
public enterprises are referred to as "authorities." A law that forms a quasi-governmental or
governmental entity comes within the concept of "government or quasi-government."
As a legal term, "authority" refers to one's ability to exert influence. Aside from "State,"
which has been used by courts throughout history, these terms are among the "primary
generalities" in our Constitution. INDIA'S LOCAL AUTHORITY SYSTEM

The States have full control over local administrations under the 7th Schedule's List. That
item contains a list of local government organisations. There is a distinction between a
municipality and a "state" in Article 12 since a municipality contains the Municipal
Committee, a Panchayat, and a Port Trust. "State government" and "federal government" are
distinct terminology but do not indicate that the powers in issue belong to any of these two
institutions.

To be considered a "local authority," an organisation must satisfy the following requirements:

1.One's own, unique, and independent legal existence.

2.Capable of raising financial resources

3.At a certain address.

4.A high degree of self-reliance is shown.

5. Delegated by law to municipalities to execute activities that are typically delegated to

municipalities.

Personnel not affiliated with the local self-government system who have the responsibility for
law enforcement are described by this term. Instrumentality and agency have a lot in common
in terms of meaning. A state "instrumentality or agency," on the other hand, is distinct from
"authorities outside of the state." The word "other authorities" may only be used if it is used
by a person who has the authority to do so. The inclusion of an authority on a list of state
agencies and instrumentalities does not constitute it a state agency or instrumentality, but
rather a legal body that is recognised by the government.

In the case of R.D.Shetty v/s International Airport Authority[xiii], the Court established five
criteria for what constitutes a "other authority."
1.To begin with, a business acquires control of the Department of Government.
2.State ownership or management of the whole share capital is a second option.
3.Has complete control over the market.
4.A fourth characteristic of the functional character is its political aspect.
5. Widespread and broad state control.
6. Power as a Concept.
Article 12 of the Constitution does not explicitly refer to the court when defining "State."...
Its link to the Constitution's Part III has sparked a lot of controversy. In the event that Article
12 were applied to the court, it would be seen as capable of acting in a way that violates basic
rights. State's non-judicial arm is the Judiciary by definition. Even after a court's decision has
been rendered final, a person's writ jurisdictional rights might still be violated if they believe
the decision is unjust or unfair. Constitutional provisions such as Article 32 and Article 129-
40, which provide the Supreme Court power, were argued to give the Court "corrective
jurisdiction.". The Supreme Court's order is final, thus senior counsel may seek under Article
32 provided they have a legitimate basis for doing so. Chief Justice Syed Quadri ruled that
Article 32 can only be used to enforce the fundamental rights granted in Part III and that no
judicial order passed by any superior court in the judicial proceedings can be said to violate
any fundamental rights, as superior courts of justice do not fall within the scope of the State
or other authorities under Article 12 of the constitution.

Only in these few cases did the Supreme Court ruled that an aggrieved party might get
compensation after exhausting all other options, such as a petition for judicial review since
the court's ruling is final. In the rarest of rare cases, it was ruled that the need to do justice
had to take priority above the concept of certainty of judgement.

Petitioners have the right to remuneration ex debito justitiae when they are awarded a
curative remedy. Natural justice may be violated if a judge refuses to disclose his personal
connection to the subject matter or the parties. This may be used in cases when there is a
reasonable suspicion of bias. The petitioner must explain why they are requesting a curative
procedure.

CONCLUSION
Article 12 of the Constitution doesn't define "State" as the court... Its relationship to Part III
has caused discussion. Article 12 would violate essential rights if applied to the court.
Judiciary is the state's non-judicial branch.
When assessing whether a company is a state agency or instrumentality, consider the
following:
State finances are an important source of information.
The government has total control, a history of doing similar activities and then handing them
off, and an element of command or authority because it is governmental and functioning.
Whether the legal person is a corporation founded by law or a firm established under one is
irrelevant.
1.
INTRODUCTION
There is a connection between the right to freedom of speech and expression, which includes
the right to freedom of the press. A free press is necessary for democracy because it serves as
a check and balance on the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the government.
The creative licence that journalists are allowed to wield is, however, limited. The limitations
that are imposed on it are outlined in paragraph 2 of Article 19 of the Constitution. In
paragraph 2 of Article 19, the following justifications for restrictions are listed:
1. The Sovereignty, Integrity, and Independence of the Indian Nation
2) The protection of the country
3) Goodwill for people of different countries
4) Upholding Decency, Morality, and Ethics in Order to Preserve Peace

Ignorance of the rules of the game

The concept of a distinct and independent right to privacy first emerged in the context of tort
law, which recognised a new cause of action for damages resulting from an unauthorised
invasion of private. This is where the concept of a separate and unique right to privacy was
first formed. When it comes to the right to privacy, the general law of privacy, which allows
for a tort case in court for an unauthorised invasion of private, and the constitutional
recognition of the right to privacy, which protects against unauthorised governmental
intrusion, are really just two sides of the same coin. The general law of privacy allows for a
tort case in court for an unauthorised invasion of private, and the constitutional recognition of
the right to privacy protects against unauthorised governmental intrusion. It is a violation of
the first component of this right to use a person's name or likeness for commercial or non-
commercial purposes without their agreement. It is also a violation to write and publish their
life stories without their consent, regardless of whether the stories are laudatory or not, as is
stated further down. However, because of the Constitution, we now have the ability to
exercise this freedom.
There is a possibility that there is no right to privacy or compensation for damages in the
context of the actions and behaviours of public officials while they are carrying out their
official responsibilities. This is self-evident. This is the case regardless of whether or not the
publication is based on false facts and representations, provided that the official does not
prove that the release was made (by the defendant) with a cavalier disregard for the truth. If
the defendant can demonstrate that he made a reasonable investigation into the facts before
publishing the material, then he does not need to establish that the information he published is
accurate. This burden of proof is removed from the defendant. If it were shown that the
publication was false and that it was done out of vengeance or personal animosity against the
defendant, then the defendant would have no defence and would be responsible for damages.
In addition, it is very obvious that a public official is afforded the same degree of protection
as any other citizen in non-work-related situations.
This is the case because the Constitution guarantees everyone the same level of protection.
Petitioners have the legal right to publish his life narrative or autobiography even if they do
not have Auto Dada's authorization or approval since he has not authorised the publishing of
either his life tale or autobiography. On the other hand, if they continue and divulge his whole
life narrative, they run the risk of trespassing on his right to privacy and might be held
accountable for the repercussions of their actions. The state or its authorities are unable to
prevent or restrict the publication of the item at issue because it is impossible for them to do
so. Public figures who believe that they have been harmed as a result of the publishing of a
piece of material have the option to pursue legal action, if such action is available.

4.
INTRODUCTION
Secular ideals in India are built on the protection of the rights of religious and ethnic
minorities. Since its inception, India has been a strong proponent of religious tolerance and
equality for all faiths. Indian constitution Article 30 is one of the clauses that protect minority
rights. Part III of the Indian Constitution contains Article 30, which discusses the basic rights
guaranteed to all Indian people, regardless of caste, religion, or gender. Article 30 guarantees
the establishment and administration of educational institutions for minorities.
There are two clauses in Article 30:
All linguistic and religious minorities have the freedom to 'create' and 'administrate'
educational institutions of their own choosing under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution. This
clause protects the rights of two categories of people: religious minorities and linguistic
minorities. the freedom to create and run educational institutions of their own choosing is
reserved for the aforementioned minority To "create" an institution is to give it legal life, but
to "administrate" an institution means to efficiently oversee and conduct its business.
Managing and overseeing the institution's affairs is what the term "administration" refers to.
Management must be unrestricted and unhindered, so that the community's founding
members may shape the institution according to their own visions and ideas for how to best
serve the needs of the community and the institution. In this way, minority communities have
the option of establishing educational institutions that fulfil both aims, that is, to safeguard
their religious or cultural traditions and to educate their children in their own language, which
serves both purposes.

Specifically, Article 30(2) prohibits the State from discriminating against any educational
institution that is run by a religious or linguistic minority because of this fact.

Minority Rights
The Indian Constitution fails to define the word "minority" sufficiently, necessitating further
discussion. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the "ity" comes from the Latin word
"minor" and is translated as "little number" in English. By "minority," as defined by the
Cambridge Dictionary, we mean individuals or groups of people who are marginalised in
society because of their ethnic origins, religious affiliations, or political ideologies. We can
also refer to those who are members or associates of such groups, as well as those who are
born into such groups. The term "minority" is used in the Indian Constitution, however it is
not defined.
the Indian Constitution's Article 29 refers to "minorities," but it really refers to "any segment
or people residing in any region of the nation shall have the right to safeguard their language
or script or culture, which is diverse and diversified. It further states that residents should be
able to enrol in any public or state-funded educational institution, regardless of religion,
colour, caste, language, or any other factor.

National Commission of Minorities Act, Section 2, Clause (c) defines six groups as
minorities under Section 2 (c).
Christians
Muslims
Sikhs
Buddhists
Hindus (Parsis)
Article 30 of the Indian Constitution, with which we are dealing, solely refers to minorities in
religion and language.

Minority Identification and Classification Article 30 of the Code

Minorities in religion
Sikhs, Muslims, Christians, and Zoroastrians are among India's six major religions, as are
Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, and Muslims. The federal government has designated these
populations as minorities. India is a religiously diverse nation. Some of these communities
have a larger population and are referred to as "majority" communities. A community's
numerical size is the primary criterion for its designation as a religious minority. Hindus, for
example, constitute the vast majority of the population of India. Because of India's multi-
religious population, the government must safeguard the country's religious minorities.
Minority rights and interests are protected by the National Commission for Minorities
(NCM), a government agency formed in 1992.

Linguistic Minority
Class or group of individuals who speak a different language than the majority are known as
linguistic minorities. The interests of India's linguistic minorities are safeguarded under the
country's constitution.
In accordance with Article 350-A of the Indian Constitution, the states are obligated to ensure
that children from linguistic minorities have access to teaching in their mother tongues at the
elementary level of education.

All residents who no longer speak the main language are considered linguistic minorities by
the National Commission of linguistic Minority (NCLM) in its thirty-eighth file.

Minority Rights in India's Constitution

In accordance with Section 29,
Indian Constitutional Article 29(1) guarantees the right to language, script, and cultural
preservation to any segment of the country's population, regardless of where they live. By
and via an educational institution, a minority group or community may maintain or defend its
language, script or culture. Therefore, the ability to build and hold and maintain institutions
of their own choice is essential to the right to preserve its own language, script, or cultural
traditions. It is guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. It states that all minorities,
regardless of their religious or linguistic affiliation, have the freedom to construct and run
educational institutions of their own choosing. It is also protected under Article 30(2), which
states that if a minority is in charge of an educational institution, the state is entitled to
financial aid. It is true that this privilege is subject to clause (2) of Article 29, which stipulates
that no citizen of the country may be denied entrance to a state-supervised educational
institution or assistance from public funds because of his or her religion, race, caste, or
language.

Non-citizens, on the other hand, are subject to Article 30, while only citizens are covered by
Article 29.

S.P Mittal v. India challenged the 1980 Auroville Act. Article 30 of the Constitution
protects religious and linguistic minorities, said the Supreme Court. Sri Aurobindo's mother
inspired Pondicherry's Auroville. Articles 29 and 30 don't ban religion.

Using Section 30, anybody may start their own school. Ignore minority organisations.
Satisfying community needs. People may teach their children their faiths, languages, and
customs.
All affiliated colleges must teach in Punjabi after D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab. Article
30 allows minorities to start, run, and teach in their own schools. Article 30 broke (1).
Minority schools may employ teachers without four-year degrees.

Article 30 (2) prohibits governments from defunding minority-run schools.

The Indian Supreme Court ruled that Swami Vivekananda's Ram Krishna Mission to
propagate Vedanta is part of Hinduism. Individuals can't utilise Article 30. (1). Krishna
teaches Vedanta. Calcutta High Court overturned Ramkrishna Mission's minority status in
West Bengal.

As the court found in TMA PAI v. State of Karnataka, "According to some, the State does
have the authority to step in and impose rules and regulations on the management of minority
institutions. It was mainly aimed at the selection or nomination by the state on the
management of private institutions and to grant rights regarding admissions, fees, shortlisting
and selection and appointing faculty via state channels."

The formal education system of India encompasses the educational establishments

maintained by India's minority populations to propagate formal education. The government
thus sets rules and regulations for all other private organisations, including those controlled
by minority groups, unless otherwise specified in the legislation themselves. It might be
stated that these rights are not perfect or full based on the explanation of Supreme Court
decisions. The position of these rights was stated by Justice Reddy. That's what he said
"Under Article 30(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, minorities have a
fundamental right to establish their own institutions, set their own terms and policies for
education, choose their own syllabus and subject matter, and administer their own
examinations, as well as award degrees and diplomas. Schools have the right to seek
recognition for their degrees and certificates, and they may do so by requesting assistance
from other educational institutions that offer the same kind of education and have had success
in doing so. Article 30, is regarded to be a blend of the advantages as well as the constraints.
on one hand and it delivers special protections and advantages to the minority of the nation,
on the other side it has considerable negatives as well. The constraints consist of the
Government’s role. It had to grant such status and incorporation or affiliation to those
minority groups that are attempting to gain the affiliation. If the Government fails to do so
then a three members committee will be constituted and the members of the committee
belong to the minority only, it has the authority to determine the final and permanent
decision. This body is known as the National Commission for Minority Education Institution.
Its basic role is to deliver a final and unbreakable decision, recommend powers, and authority
and to give guidance.

During the administration of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, some of the
significant institutions were allowed direct and swift absorption. The UPA government came
up with the national common minimum program. Let us also remember that under the UPA
administration the states under the leadership of the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) were
considerably prejudiced and persecuted numerous minority educational institutions. The
disadvantage incurred was connected to the antipathy of the BJP to the protections afforded
by Article 30 of the Indian Constitution.

Article 30 offers unique educational rights to minority institutions but aresultsting in

disadvantages to the Hindu and other majority institutions. There is no government
engagemeniner the running of educational institutions maintained by the minority population.
They have unlimited influence over their institutions and it is the primary basis for the
exploitation of their privileges by the minority. If any misconduct develops among these
types of groupings then the government is having no capacity to interfere or solve the matter.
Article 30 of the Indian constitution authorizes the minority institutions to preserve the
criteria of reserving per per cent of the seats for the poor according to the Right to Education
Act and it is again contrary to the fundamental rights as guaranteed in the Constitution of
India.

Additionally, Clause 1(A) of Article 30 release the minority institutions from the obligation
to carry out the implementation of the reservation policy for the backward classes and again it
violates the rights of the backward classes as granted by the Indian Constitution. The
essential goal behind establishing article 30 is to make sure equal treatment of minorities but
currently the situation is reversed and this article is degrading the basic rights of non-minority
groups to construct and manage their institutions. Or we may argue that it is obstructing the
non-minority groups to exercise their right of formation and management of their institutions
correctly.
One more indication of the discrimination of non-minority institutions is the autonomy of
minority groups which exempts them from government inspection while non-minority
organizations again have to confront the government intervention and control over

Conclusion
The government's handling of minority institutions is unfortunate due to Article 30's current
situation. The government cannot control minority institutions since it has no jurisdiction to
meddle in their management. Unlike non-minority institutions, minority institutions get no
government engagement. Due to government meddling and control, non-minority institutions
cannot appropriately build and administer their institutions. Even when minority institutions
commit malpractices, the government can't halt it, leading to uneven treatment for minorities
and non-minorities. The law ensured minorities equal treatment in establishing and managing
own educational institutions. Non-minority groups are disadvantaged by the provision,
whereas minority groups have complete authority over establishing and administering their
own educational institutions. Article 30 is the main source of inequality and discrimination
for non-minority communities. Non-minority groups can't build and manage schools freely
due of government restrictions and duties. The community becomes unbalanced.