LAW

Supreme Court Decisions

On State Minorities Commission Misbah Alam Shaikh, Appellant v. State of Maharashtra and another, Respondents

K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.

National Commission for Minorities Act (19 of 1992), Sections 3,9 - State Minorities Commission -Constitution of - No Statutory obligation on State Government - Abolition by State Government of State Minority Commission constituted by it after coming into power of new political party - Cannot he said to be mala fide action in absence of statutory compulsion - Moreso, since each political party may have different perception.

It may be that perception of political parties differ from one another. But when the Government found, after the political party was voted to power and the decision taken by the Cabinet to abolish the Minority Commission, it cannot be characterised as a malafide decision. May be the perception may not be correct in the view of another political party. The decision may or may not be right, but it cannot be characterised as a mala fide decision.

Under those circumstances, we cannot hold that the decision to abolish the Minority Commission by the State Government, in the absence of any statutory compulsion, was not in accordance with law. It is now an admitted position that, as stated in the counter-affidavit by  the Central Government that they have undertaken to establish the branch of National Commission in Maharashtra at Mumbai to monitor the development of the minorities and the working of the safeguards as provided in the Constitution and in the laws enacted by the Parliament and the State Legislature in relation to the State of Maharashtra.                   

(Source: AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1409)

On Right to Health

State of Punjab and others, Appellants v. Mohinder Singh Chawla, etc., Respondents.

K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.

Constitution of India, Article 21 - Right to life - Includes right to health - State Government employee - Medical reimbursement - Approval granted for specialized treatment in hospital outside State - Reimbursement of room rent charges - Cannot be rejected.

It is settled law that right to health is an integral to right to life. Government has constitutional obligation to provide the health facilities. If the Government servant has suffered an ailment which requires treatment at a specialised approved hospital and on reference whereat the Government servant had undergone such treatment therein, it is but the duty of the State to bear the expenditure incurred by the Government servant. Expenditure, thus, incurred requires to be reimbursed by the State to the employee. Having had the constitutional obligation to bear the expenses for the Government servant while in service or after retirement from service, as per the policy of the Government, the Government is required to fulfil the constitutional obligation. Necessarily, the State has to bear the expenses incurred in that behalf. (Source: AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1225)

B.R. Ambedkar on Rights of Minorities

Rights of minorities should be absolute rights They should not be subject to any consideration as to what another party may like to do to minorities within its jurisdiction. If we find that certain minorities in which we are interested and which are within the jurisdiction of another State have not got the same rights which we have given to minorities in our territory, it would be open for the State to take up the matter in a diplomatic manner and see that the wrongs are rectified. But no matter what others do, I think we ought to do what is right in our own judgement and personally I think that the rights which are indicated in clause 18 are rights which every minority, irrespective of any other consideration is entitled to claim. The first right that we have given is the right to use their language, their script and their culture. We have stated that "there shall be no discrimination on the ground of religion, language, etc." in the matter of admission into State educational institutions. We have said that "no minority shall be precluded from establishing any educational institution which such minority may wish to establish". It is also stated here that whenever a State decides to provide aid to schools or other educational institutions maintained by the minority, they shall not discriminate in the matter of giving grant on the basis of religion, community or language. Sir, I cannot understand how there can be any objection to these rights which have been indicated in clause 18. Nobody has advanced any argument that either these rights are in excess of what a minority ought to have or are such that a minority ought not to have them.                                      

(Participating in Constituent Assembly Debate on Clause 18 of the Draft Constitution)