For the purposes of Article 30 of the Constitution of India, what is the unit with reference to which the existence of a religious or linguistic minority is to be determined?

This is a Public Interest Litigation filed by the writ petitioner, who is said to be the Founder-Trustee of Devi Seva Sangam, Mondaikadu, Kanyakumari District, seeking a Mandamus directing the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 & 9 to cancel the minority status of the Respondent Nos.6 and 7 within the time period to be fixed by this Court.

Averments contained in the Writ Petition, in brief, are as follows: 2.1. The sixth respondent - college, namely Sree Ayyappa College for Women, is an aided linguistic minority arts and science private college under Respondent Nos.1 to 3 & 5, which is affiliated to the fourth respondent - university. The sixth respondent - college was given the linguistic minority status vide Judgment and Decree dated April 21, 1987 made in O.S. No.1221 of 1985 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil. It is run by the seventh respondent, namely Sree Ayyappa College Educational Society which is a registered society, and has been receiving aid from Tamil Nadu Government. It is situate in Kanyakumari District adjoining and neighbouring the State of Kerala. 2.2. According to the writ petitioner, though Malayalees form a linguistic minority in Tamil Nadu, they constitute the majority in Kerala. Even though the sixth respondent - college is registered as a linguistic minority educational institution enjoying minority rights under the Constitution of India, it is practically functioning under the control of the eighth respondent, namely Nair Service Society, Kerala. Nair caste forms a major and sizeable section of the total population in Kerala; they form a majority there. 2.3. Further, photograph of late Mannathu Padmanabhan, who is the founder of the eighth respondent - Nair Society and has nothing to do with the sixth respondent - college, is featured prominently in the academic calendars, magazines and prospectus of sixth respondent - college, describing him as the founder of eighth respondent - Nair Society. Further, holidays are declared by the sixth respondent - college on his birth and death anniversaries. 2.4. Further contention of the writ petitioner is that the atmosphere and ambience in the sixth respondent - college is such that it belongs to the eighth respondent - Nair Society. One Mr.G.Sukumaran Nair, a Keralite (residing in Kerala) holding the post of General Secretary of eighth respondent - Nair Society, is the Treasurer of the Managing Committee of the sixth respondent - college. Further, one Advocate Sri M. Sangeethkumar, Director of eighth respondent - Nair Society and President of Thiruvananthapuram District Union, is functioning as the Secretary of the sixth respondent - college using false address as if he is residing in Tamil Nadu. And one Narendranath Nair, President of Board of Directors of eighth respondent - Nair Society, is the President of the College Committee of the sixth respondent - college. Further, faculty members are often appointed from the non-minority Nair caste alone. Out of the total 49 teachers, only 4 are non-Nairs and the remaining 45 are from Nair caste. The faculty members of the aided section of sixth respondent - college, which is run under the financial aid of the Government of Tamil Nadu, are also predominantly appointed from the Nair caste. Apart from appointing non-eligible faculties from Nair community in Kerala, students are also appointed without following the norms, all by exploiting the minority status. Further, several financial irregularities are happening in sixth respondent - college. 2.5. The aforesaid facts makes it pellucid that the sixth respondent - college is being run by the eighth respondent - Nair Society which caste does not belong to a minority. Minority status shall be based only on religion and language and not based on caste. Accordingly, the writ petitioner prays that Respondent Nos.1 to 5 may be directed to cancel the minority status of Respondent Nos.6 and 7. Hence, the Writ Petition. CASE OF RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3

Third respondent filed a counter affidavit on their own behalf and on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. The sum and substance of the counter is that the Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O. Ms. No.270, Higher Education (J1) Department dated June 17, 1998 had issued guidelines to declare minority status to educational institutions. As per the guidelines, insofar as the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned, any person whose mother tongue is any language other than Tamil shall be considered as linguistic minority in the State; and in respect of religious minority, any person whose religion is other than Hindu shall be considered as religious minority in the State. The seventh respondent - society is a separate entity administering the college. There is no material evidence to prove that the society has bondage with eighth respondent - Nair Society. The late Mannathu Padmanabhan is a renowned person and hence printing his photo and honouring his birth and death do not bring any legal incapacity to the society or the college. Appointments are being made as per procedure and Respondent Nos.1 to 3 cannot enter into the jurisdiction of the selection committee constituted by the seventh respondent – society. The representation of the writ petitioner can be acted upon by Respondent Nos.1 to 3, provided it is valid and supported by evidence. The averments made in the petition are baseless. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the writ petition. CASE OF RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5

No counter filed on their side. CASE OF RESPONDENT NOS.6 AND 7

The Respondent Nos.6 and 7 filed a counter affidavit denying the averments made in the writ petition. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the sixth respondent - college is owned and administered by the seventh respondent - society. The seventh respondent was originally registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 [Act No.XII of 1955] in T.C. No.2 of 1969. With the advent of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Societies Act, 1975 [Tamil Nadu Act No.27 of 1975], it is deemed to be registered thereunder. 5.1. The chief object of the seventh respondent - society is to establish or assist in establishing and making available educational and cultural institutions and thereby promoting the interest of Malayalam speaking linguistic minority community in the State of Tamil Nadu; to make available and devise ways and means and accord facilities for candidates to specialize in any branch of knowledge; to give training in technical, commercial, scientific, agricultural or any other field of education for the educational, cultural and spiritual betterment of the students without any distinction of caste, creed or colour; and to train children to grow up as good citizens in the Republic of India. 5.2. The seventh respondent - society is governed by its own rules and regulations. Its affairs are taken care of by its Board of Directors whose total capacity is 25 members; current strength is 17 members. They are elected by the General Body of the Society. The Board of Directors, in turn, would elect among themselves the office bearers viz., President, Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer. The Secretary shall hold the position of Correspondent / Secretary of the institutions functioning under the seventh respondent - society. The day-to-day administration of the Society and the college is taken care of by the Executive Committee consisting of nine members. Any Malayalee not below the age of 21 years is entitled to apply for membership. Members must be shareholders of the society. 5.3. The Executive Committee is vested with the powers to appoint teaching, non-teaching and other staffs to the institutions and to exercise disciplinary control over them. The society has been submitting the necessary returns and the appropriate forms periodically to the Registrar of Societies all these years. The sixth respondent - college is declared as a Malayalam linguistic minority educational institution under Article 30 of the Constitution of India vide the aforesaid Judgement and Decree dated April 21, 1987 passed in O.S. No.1221 of 1985. The sixth respondent - college is affiliated to the fourth respondent - university and duly complies with the requirements under the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 and the relevant Rules. It is one of the reputed college in the State of Tamil Nadu. Although, sixth respondent - college is a Malayalam linguistic minority institution, admission is not denied to anyone on the ground of language, caste or creed. Admissions are made strictly in accordance with the norms and guidelines prescribed by the fourth respondent - university, the University Grants Commission of India [UGC] and the Government of Tamil Nadu. 5.4. The appointment of staffs, both teaching and non-teaching, is made by the Executive Committee of seventh respondent - society by following due procedure. The selection is purely on merits in a fair and P a g e N o . 11 o f 5 1 transparent manner. The third respondent - Directorate of Collegiate Education approves the staff-grant towards the salaries for those serving in aided posts. The sixth respondent - college has been maintaining good academic standards and excellent discipline in the campus and producing good results in education and doing service in the field of Women Education and Empowerment. 5.5. Late Mannathu Padmanabhan, one of the founder of eighth respondent - Nair Society, is recognised as a freedom fighter and social reformer in the State of Kerala. He is respected by all the Malayalees across the world. As a mark of honour for his best service, his photo is printed in the college calendar and his birth and death anniversaries are commemorated in the college. He cannot be confined to the people of a particular community. The allegations stated in the writ petition are unfounded and malicious. 5.6. The object of the sixth respondent - college is welfare of Malayalam speaking minority people in the State of Tamil Nadu, whereas the object of the eighth respondent - Nair Society is welfare of Nair community. The eighth respondent is in no way connected with the affairs and administration of respondents 6 and 7. Their entire administration is in the hands of the Malayalam speaking people in State of Tamil Nadu. As per the Memorandum of Association of the seventh respondent - society, any Malayalee can become its member. Membership is not restricted to Malayalees residing in Tamil Nadu. Hence, Mr.G.Sukumaran, Mr.M.Sangeeth Kumar and Mr.P.N.Narendranath are eligible to become members of seventh respondent - society and are also eligible to be elected as its office bearers. The writ petitioner does not have any public interest. Accordingly, respondents 6 and 7 prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. EIGHTH RESPONDENT'S CASE

The eighth respondent - Nair Society filed a counter affidavit and stated that they have no role in the establishment, administration or management of the sixth respondent - college or seventh respondent - society. Nair community people had their origin only in Kerala. Malayalees residing in Kanyakumari District, after the State reorganization, became Malayalam speaking people of Tamil Nadu and thereby constituted a linguistic minority in Tamil Nadu. Hence, they are entitled to the benefits under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Members of seventh respondent - society were stakeholders and members of the eighth respondent - Nair Society. Merely because respondents 6 and 7 receive help, guidance, support or patronage from the eighth respondent - Nair Society, it does not mean that they are owned, managed or controlled by the latter. Therefore, the averments that the sixth respondent - college is administered by eighth respondent - Nair Society is wholly misconceived and without any factual or legal basis. The averments made in the writ petition are baseless and made with ulterior motive. The eighth respondent is not a necessary party to the Writ Petition. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the same. CASE OF RESPONDENT NOS.9 AND 10

No counter on their side.

Mr.K.N.Thampi, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would submit that the sixth respondent - college is a linguistic minority aided institution under Respondent Nos.1 to 3 & 5 affiliated to the fourth respondent - university. It is situate in Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. The linguistic minority status was declared vide the Judgment and Decree passed by the Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil at Kanyakumari District in O.S. No.1221 of 1985 and the same was accepted by the Government of Tamil Nadu in 1987. The linguistic minority status is continued till date. The sixth respondent - college was originally run by the seventh respondent - society, but today it is so only on records. 8.1. His main contention is that, though the sixth respondent has been registered and functioning as linguistic minority educational institution, practically, the sixth respondent institution is currently managed and run by the eighth respondent - Nair Society, whose object is welfare of members of Nair community. Nair community forms a sizeable majority population in Kerala and an institution managed by the same cannot be given a minority status. Such a grant or enjoyment of minority status would be grave misuse of the Constitutional provisions. 8.2. To support the said contention, he would submit that late Mannathu Padmanabhan was the founder of the eighth respondent - Nair Society and he had absolutely nothing to do with the sixth respondent - college. Yet in each of the academic calendars and prospectus of the sixth respondent - college, his photograph is prominently printed with foot note to the effect that he is the founder of Nair Service Society of Kerala. That apart, on his birth and death anniversaries, holiday is being declared for the college. 8.3. Further, he would assert that appointments to the sixth respondent - college are confined to Keralites, that too mostly those from Nair community, and not extended to the Malayalees residing in Tamil Nadu. Significant posts of respondents 6 and 7, like Correspondent, General Secretary, President, Board of Directors, are all held by people belonging to Nair community hailing from and residing in the State of Kerala. Hence, the sixth respondent - college being practically run by eighth respondent - Nair Society, which community forms a majority population in Kerala, cannot continue to enjoy the status of linguistic minority educational institution, and no financial aid should be extended to it by the Government of Tamil Nadu. Accordingly, the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would pray to allow the Writ Petition and thereby direct the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 & 9 to cancel the minority status of the Respondent Nos.6 and 7. He would rely on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society -vs- Government of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (1986) 2 SCC 667 [Coram Strength = 3].

Opposing these submissions, Mr. K.K. Udhayakumar, learned State Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5, would invite attention to the counter of Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and submit that, the Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O. Ms. No.270, Higher Education (J1) Department dated June 17, 1998 issued guidelines to declare minority status to educational institutions, as per which, Malayalam is a minority language as far as the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned. The minority status is determined based on the number of Malayalam speaking people in the State of Tamil Nadu. In Tamil Nadu, approximately less than 5% of the population speaks Malayalam; hence, Malayalam is considered as a minority language in the State of Tamil Nadu. Whether an institution is being administered by members of a community which forms the majority population in another state, is irrelevant for determining its minority status in Tamil Nadu. The allegation that Keralites, especially Nairs, are exclusively appointed as teaching staffs is untrue and unsubstantiated. All the appointments are being made after obtaining due approval from the competent authorities. Further, all the admissions are made as per the norms of fourth respondent - university, the Government of Tamil Nadu and the UGC. The writ petitioner has filed this Writ Petition only with a view to sort out his personal vengeance against the sixth respondent - college. There is no good reason assigned to cancel the linguistic minority status conferred to the sixth respondent - college. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the Writ Petition. He would rely upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dayanand Anglo Vedic (DAV) College Trust and Management Society -vs- State of Maharashtra, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 14 [Coram Strength = 2].

Mr.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel for M/s.Ajmal Associates, Counsel on record for fourth respondent - university, would adopt the arguments advanced on the side of Respondent Nos.1 to 3 & 5 and pray to dismiss the Writ Petition.

Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned Senior Counsel for M/s.Isaac Chambers, Counsel on record for respondents 6 and 7, would reiterate their counter averments and submit that this Public Interest Litigation is filed with some ulterior motive to trouble respondents 6 and 7. He would pray to dismiss the Writ Petition with costs.

Ms.J.Anandhavalli, learned Counsel appearing for eighth respondent, would reiterate their counter averments and submit that eighth respondent - Nair Society is in no way involved in the administration of the respondents 6 and 7. Late Mannathu Padmanabhan is a freedom fighter and social reformer in the State of Kerala and it is true that he founded the eighth respondent - Nair Society. His photo is printed in the college's calendars, prospectus and magazines, and his birth and death anniversaries are commemorated by declaring holidays, as a way of honouring his sacrifices to the nation. He is respected by all the Malayalees and his sacrifices cannot be said to be limited or confined to any particular community. Contending that the eighth respondent - Nair Society is not a necessary party to the Writ Petition, she would pray to dismiss the Writ Petition.

Mr.R.Nandakumar, learned Counsel appearing for ninth respondent, would submit that conferment of linguistic minority status to educational institution comes under the purview of the State Government and the Central Government or the ninth respondent has no direct role to play in it. He would further submit that as per the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004, in case of any decision on the side of State Government qua minority status, the aggrieved person / institution may file an appeal under Section 12A of the aforesaid Act before the ninth respondent. In this case, as no such decision is taken on the side of the State Government and no such appeal has been filed. If the writ petitioner is aggrieved with the linguistic minority status conferred upon the sixth respondent - college, he may very well approach the concerned authority under the State Government for relief. In other words, the writ petitioner has an alternative remedy and without exhausting the same, the Writ Petition would not lie.

Mr.K.Jeyamohan, learned Counsel appearing for tenth respondent, would submit that the tenth respondent is the office bearer of the Kanyakumari District Nair Service Society. He would seek to clarify that the eighth respondent - Nair Society has no legal or organisational connection with the Kanyakumari District Nair Service Society functioning in the State of Tamil Nadu. He would submit that the respondents 6 and 7 are allegedly influenced by eighth respondent - Nair Society resulting in preference being given to Keralites in staff appointments and other benefits, which is prejudicial to the interests of the local Malayalam linguistic minority in Tamil Nadu. Hence, he would contend that sixth respondent - college and seventh respondent - society shall be subjected to scrutiny, so as to ensure that the benefits of linguistic minority status and the State aid are extended only to the rightful beneficiary. Stating so, he would pray this Court to pass appropriate Orders.

Heard on either side. Perused the materials available on record.

This Court would like to begin with some brief history. From a historical perspective, the present day Nagercoil of Kanyakumari District formed a part of the Princely State of Travancore. The Princely States of Cochin and Travancore merged together to form the State of Travancore - Cochi on July 1, 1949. Thereafter, under the State Reorganisation Act, 1956, the modern day Kerala came to be formed through an exchange of regions with the Madras Presidency; Malabar District (except the islands of Laccadive and Minicoy) which formed part of the Madras Presidency and the Kasaragod Taluk of Kanara District merged with the State of Travancore - Cochi to form the present day Kerala and in exchange, four Southern Taluks of Travancore namely Thovalai, Agastheeswaram, Kalkulam and Vilavancode were merged with the State of Madras to form a new district there called the Kanyakumari District with Nagercoil as its headquarters, and the Shencottah Taluk of Quilon District was merged with the State of Madras to form part of the existing Tirunelveli District. Now Shencottah is in Tenkasi District. The above history could be gathered from Sections 4 and 5 of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956 and from the history section under the official websites of the State of Kerala and the District of Kanyakumari ["https://kerala.gov.in/subdetail/NTM1ODMxNzQuNDg=/MjA0ODc2O DQuMzY=" and "https://kanniyakumari.nic.in/history/", viewed on August 14, 2026, at 17:46 hours]. Consequently, some of the Malayalam speaking population came to a part of the State of Madras, later renamed as Tamil Nadu vide the Madras State (Alteration of Name) Act, 1968 [Act No.53 of 1968] with effect from January 14, 1969.

The undisputed facts are that, both, the respondents 6 and 7, are situate in Nagercoil of Kanyakumari District. The sixth respondent - college, on records, runs under the administration of the seventh respondent - society. The seventh respondent - society was originally established in the year 1969 and registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 [Act No.XII of 1955]. Subsequently, with the advent of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Societies Act, 1975 [Tamil Nadu Act No.27 of 1975], in view of Section 53 thereof, the seventh respondent - society is deemed to registered thereunder. The objects of the seventh respondent - society as per their Memorandum of Association, is 'to establish or assist in establishing and making available educational and cultural institutions and thereby promoting the interest of Malayalam speaking linguistic minority community in the State of Tamil Nadu; to make available and devise ways and means and accord facilities for candidates to specialize in any branch of knowledge; to give training in technical, commercial, scientific, agricultural or any other field of education for the educational, cultural and spiritual betterment of the students without any distinction of caste, creed or colour; and to train children to grow up as good citizens in the Republic of India'. The sixth respondent - college was declared by Civil Court as a linguistic minority educational institution vide Judgment and Decree dated April 21, 1987 made in O.S. No.1221 of 1985 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil, and the same was recognised by the Government of Tamil Nadu in 1987. There is no serious dispute with regard to the above facts.

The core contention of the writ petitioner is that the sixth respondent - college and the seventh respondent - society, are highly influenced by the eighth respondent - Nair Society, to the extent that they are practically run by the eighth respondent - Nair Society. This influence, according to the writ petitioner, besides in day-to-day functioning of respondents 6 and 7, is strongly reflected in staff appointments as well, as predominantly only Keralites (residents of Kerala), especially those from Nair community, are appointed as staff members. The writ petitioner would assert certain basis for his contentions which includes featuring the picture of late Mannathu Padmanabhan, founder of eighth respondent - Nair Society, in the academic calendars, prospectus and magazines of the sixth respondent - college and declaration of holiday to commemorate his birth and death anniversaries.

That apart, careful perusal of the averments contained in the Writ Petition would show that he also, though on a lighter vein, attacks the linguistic minority status of sixth respondent on the ground that Malayalam is the language of the majority in the adjoining and neighbouring State of Kerala. This Court would like to deal with this contention of the writ petitioner first and then consider his core contention described above.

Firstly, this Court deems fit to extract Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India hereunder: "Cultural and Educational Rights Article 29. 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 ground only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them. Article 30. Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.

Article 29 provides that any section of citizens residing in India or any part thereof has the right to protect their linguistic and cultural interests. Article 30 (1) is more relevant to the case on hand. It speaks of the rights of minorities, be it linguistic or religious, to establish and run educational institutions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has interpreted Article 30 in its Judgment in Dayanand Anglo Vedic (DAV) College Trust & Management Society's Case [cited supra]. The interpretation was that an educational institution claiming the status of minority, be it linguistic or religious, and the consequent benefits, must not only be established but also be run by the minorities. Relevant extract from the Judgment reads thus: "34. After giving our anxious consideration to the matter and in the light of the law settled by this Court, we have no hesitation in holding that in order to claim minority/linguistic status for an institution in any State, the authorities must be satisfied firstly that the institution has been established by the persons who are minority in such State; and, secondly, the right of administration of the said minority linguistic institution is also vested in those persons who are minority in such State. The right conferred by Article 30 of the Constitution cannot be interpreted as if irrespective of the persons who established the institution in the State for the benefit of persons who are minority, any person, be it non-minority in other place, can administer and run such institution."

So, it is clear that an educational institution must be established by a religious or linguistic minority, and also be run by the same, in order to claim the status of minority.

The question now is what does minority means and how is it to be ascertained as to whether a set of people or community constitute a minority in a given case. A Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court consisting of seven Hon'ble Judges, in the case of In Re: Kerala Education Bill, 1957, reported in AIR 1958 SC 956, set out a brief overview of the cultural and educational rights under the Constitution and their inter-se relationship, and went on to partly answer the aforesaid question as minority means any community less than 50% of the total population. The remaining part of the question, which forms the vital part, is 50% of the total population of what ? The Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the preliminary opinion that it would not be a satisfactory test to determine minority in relation to the particular region of the State where the educational institution is or intended to be situated, rather than the State as a whole. Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court refrained from expressing a final opinion on the question on what is to be considered as the unit for determining minority status, it was observed that as the law in question there applies to the entirety of the State, minority is to be determined in relation to the State. Thus, the principle advanced is that, when the matter involves a State law applicable throughout that State, then the unit for determining minority status is that State. Relevant extract reads thus: "Re. Question 2: 20. Articles 29 and 30 are set out in Part III of our Constitution which guarantees our fundamental rights. They are grouped together under the sub-head “Cultural and Educational Rights”. The text and the marginal notes of both the articles show that their purpose is to confer those fundamental rights on certain sections of the community which constitute minority communities. Under clause (1) of Article 29 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 has the right to conserve the same. It is obvious that 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 distinctive language, script or culture and that is what is conferred on all minorities by Article 30(1) which has hereinbefore been quoted in full. This right, however, is subject to clause 2 of Article 29 which provides that 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. 21. As soon as we reach Article 30(1) learned counsel for the State of Kerala at once poses the question : what is a minority? That is a term which is not defined in the Constitution. It is easy to say that a minority community means a community which is numerically less than 50 per cent, but then the question is not fully answered, for part of the question has yet to be answered, namely, 50 per cent. of what? Is it 50 per cent of the entire population of India or 50 per cent of the population of a State forming a part of the Union? The position taken up by the State of Kerala in its statement of case filed herein is as follows:

In two cases pertaining to D.A.V. College, this Court had to consider whether the Hindus were a religious minority in the State of Punjab. In D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab [(1971) 2 SCC 269 : 1971 Supp SCR 688] the question posed was as to what constituted a religious or linguistic minority, and how it was to be determined. After examining the opinion of this Court in Kerala Education Bill, 1957 case [AIR 1958 SC 956 : 1959 SCR 995] the Court held that the Arya Samajis, who were Hindus, were a religious minority in the State of Punjab, even though they may not have been so in relation to the entire country. In another case, D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab [(1971) 2 SCC 261 : 1971 Supp SCR 677] the observations in the first D.A.V. College case [(1971) 2 SCC 269 : 1971 Supp SCR 688] were explained, and at SCR p. 681, it was stated that “what constitutes a linguistic or religious minority must be judged in relation to the State inasmuch as the impugned Act is a State Act and not in relation to the whole of India”. (SCC p. 264, para 5) The Supreme Court rejected the contention that since Hindus were a majority in India, they could not be a religious minority in the State of Punjab, as it took the State as the unit to determine whether the Hindus were a minority community. 79. There can, therefore, be little doubt that this Court has consistently held that, with regard to a State law, the unit to determine a religious or linguistic minority can only be the State. 80. The Forty-second Amendment to the Constitution included education in the Concurrent List under Entry 25. Would this in any way change the position with regard to the determination of a “religious” or “linguistic minority” for the purposes of Article 30? 81. As a result of the insertion of Entry 25 into List III, Parliament can now legislate in relation to education, which was only a State subject previously. The jurisdiction of Parliament is to make laws for the whole or a part of India. It is well recognized that geographical classification is not violative of Article 14. It would, therefore, be possible that, with respect to a particular State or group of States, Parliament may legislate in relation to education. However, Article 30 gives the right to a linguistic or religious minority of a State to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The minority for the purpose of Article 30 cannot have different meanings depending upon who is legislating. Language being the basis for the establishment of different States for the purposes of Article 30, a “linguistic minority” will have to be determined in relation to the State in which the educational institution is sought to be established. The position with regard to the religious minority is similar, since both religious and linguistic minorities have been put on a par in Article 30." [Emphasis supplied by this Court] 23.2. Further, as per the G.O. Ms. No.270, Higher Education (J1) Department dated June 17, 1998, issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, which was relied on by the learned Counsel State Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 & 5, linguistic minority status is to be determined based on the number of people speaking that language in the State of Tamil Nadu. 23.3. So, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in In Re: Kerala Education Bill, 1957's Case, though did not conclusively answer the question as to what is minority, it laid down the principle that in so far as State laws applicable to the entirety of that State is concerned, linguistic minority status is to be ascertained with reference to the population of the entire State. The prinicple was refined and consolidated by a larger bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation's Case, by holding that in so far educational institutions are concerned, the status of linguistic or religious minority is to be determined with reference to the population of the State in which the educational institution is situated or intended to be situated. And the legal stance of the Tamil Nadu, as it could be seen from the above referred Government Order, also appears to be in line with the afore-cited Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, it is pellucid that whether Malayalam speaking population form a linguistic minority in Tamil Nadu or not, is to be seen with reference to the State of Tamil Nadu alone. Whether they form the majority population in another state, is irrelevant for determining their minority status in Tamil Nadu. A similar view was taken by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundaran Swamigal Medical, Educational and Charitable Trust -vs- State of Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 2002 Mad 42, while dealing with the question of whether people belonging to Telugu Chetty Community qua Telugu speakers form a minority in Tamil Nadu, while Telugu is spoken by the majority population in Andhra Pradesh. As long as the Malayalam speaking population residing in Tamil Nadu, form less than 50% of the total population of Tamil Nadu, they shall be considered as linguistic minority for the purpose of Article 30. According to the learned State Counsel, in Tamil Nadu, less than 5% (probably much less) of the population speaks Malayalam and hence, Malayalam is considered as a minority language in the State of Tamil Nadu. The fact that Malayalees are numerically less than 5% in Tamil Nadu has not been seriously disputed. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to hold that Malayalam is a minority language as far as the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned, and the linguistic minority status of the sixth respondent - college run by the seventh respondent - society would not be vitiated on the ground that Malayalees account for majority of the population in Kerala.

Coming to the core contention of the writ petitioner, which simply put is that, the respondents 6 and 7 are practically run by eighth respondent - Nair Society; Nair community forming the majority population in Kerala, respondents 6 and 7 are not entitled to their linguistic minority status and the same is to be cancelled on that score. He would rest the aforesaid allegation on certain grounds as stated in Paragraph No.18 hereinabove.

The core contention of the writ petitioner, rested on whatsoever basis, deserves to be recorded only to be rejected, for the reason that the sixth respondent - college administered by the seventh respondent - society is a linguistic minority educational institution. Their minority status is not based on caste or religion, it is rather based on language. As held in Dayanand Anglo Vedic (DAV) College Trust & Management Society's Case [cited supra], for the purpose of Article 30, an educational institution must not only be established by a minority, but also be administered and run by the same. So long as an educational institution is established and run by the minority, be it linguistic or religious, there is no harm to its minority status. As it could be seen from the Memorandum of Association of seventh respondent - society, at the time of its establishment, its office bearers were all Malayalees residing in Nagercoil of Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu. The writ petitioner who alleges that all the members holding significant posts are from Nair community, could have at least obtained Form-VI and Form-VII that the seventh respondent ought to submit to the Registrar of Societies, which would have thrown light on the present office bearers of the seventh respondent - society, but he did not do so. Even if the present office bearers are predominantly from Nair community as alleged by the writ petitioner, it is irrelevant so long as they are Malayalees and they do not act prejudicial to the interest of the Malayalam speaking linguistic minority residing in Tamil Nadu - which would essentially be a question of fact that needs an enquiry to unearth the truth. This is because the minority status conferred upon the sixth respondent - college is based on their language as stated above. In other words, whether or not respondents 6 and 7, being linguistic minority institutions, are being administered by members of Nair community forming the majority population in Kerala, so long as such members are Malayalees and their acts are not prejudicial to the interest of the Malayalam speaking linguistic minority people in Tamil Nadu, is irrelevant for determining the linguistic minority status of sixth respondent - college in Tamil Nadu.

Besides, the objects of the seventh respondent - society as it could be seen from their Memorandum of Association, reveals a clear interest to promote education among all, more specifically Malayalam speaking minority population in Tamil Nadu. It could further be seen from their Memorandum of Association that any Malayalee could become a member of the seventh respondent - society, and it is them who elect the Board of Directors of the seventh respondent - society. And the Board of Directors internally elect the office bearers. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds no material or reason to disbelieve the object of seventh respondent - society as a cloak or a pretentious one.

As regards the allegation regarding appointments and admissions, respondents 6 and 7 as well as respondents 1 to 5 (official respondents), have in their arguments stated that such allegations are untrue and unsubstantiated. The counters filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and respondents 6 & 7, read together would assert that staff appointments are made by following a merit based fair and transparent procedure, and that all the student admissions are made as per norms of the fourth respondent - university, the Government of Tamil Nadu and the UGC. The writ petitioner has failed to substantiate his allegations with material evidence. The writ petitioner would state the names of two faculties and allege that they belong to Nair community and are from Kerala. This Court is of the view that no suspicion arises merely because a few of the faculties appointed belong to Nair community. It is not sufficient to establish that members of Nair community are favoured in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Malayalam speaking linguistic minority population in Tamil Nadu. Hence, this Court considers the allegations qua appointments and admissions as not established.

Similarly, the allegation regarding financial frauds, also remains unsubstantiated and untrue.

Yet another contention of the writ petitioner is that Mr.G.Sukumaran Nair, who is residing in Kerala holding the post of General Secretary of eighth respondent - Nair Society, is also the Treasurer of the Managing Committee of the sixth respondent - college. This Court finds nothing concerning with the same, unless otherwise established. As stated above, respondents 6 and 7 being Malayalam linguistic minority educational institutions in Tamil Nadu, so long as it is run by Malayalees and the interest of Malayalam speaking population in Tamil Nadu is protected and not prejudiced, it is irrelevant even if almost all the key positions are occupied by a particular majority community in Kerala.

Further, late Mannathu Padmanabhan, is said to be not just the founder of eighth respondent - Nair Society, but also a renowned and respected freedom fighter. He is said to be celebrated and respected by Malayalees all over the world. In such circumstances, his social identity is broader than that of hailing from and serving his particular community. A linguistic minority educational institution may feature photographs of a renowned freedom fighter who speaks the minority language in its calendars, prospectus, magazines, etc., and commemorate his birth and death anniversaries and the same is to be seen as a mode of preserving its language, literature, history and culture. Thus, it is incidental to the minority rights under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India and cannot vitiate the minority status of sixth respondent - college run by seventh respondent - society.

Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner would rely on the following paragraph from A.P. Christian Medical Educational Society's Case [cited supra] in support of his contentions: "7. Even while narrating the facts, we think, we have said enough to justify a refusal by us to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. We do not have any doubt that the claim of the petitioner to start a minority educational institution was no more than .the merest pretence. Except the words, “as the Christian Minorities' Educational Institutions” occurring in one of the objects of the society, as mentioned in the memorandum of association, there is nothing whatever to justify the claim of the society that the institutions proposed to be started by it were ‘minority educational institutions’. Every letter written by the society whether to the Central Government, the State Government or the University contained false and misleading statements. As we had already mentioned the petitioner had the temerity to admit or pretend to admit students in the first year MBBS course without any permission being granted by the government for the starting of the medical college and without any affiliation being granted by the University. The society did this despite the strong protest voiced by the University and the several warnings issued by the University. The society acted in defiance of the University and the government, in disregard of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, the Osmania University Act and the regulations of the Osmania University and with total indifference to the interest and welfare of the students. The society has played havoc with the careers of several score students and jeopardised their future irretrievably. Obviously the so-called establishment of a medical college was in the nature of a financial adventure for the so-called society and its office bearers, but an educational misadventure for the students. Many, many conditions had to be fulfilled before affiliation could be granted by the University. Yet the society launched into the venture without fulfilling a single condition beyond appointing someone as Principal. No one could have imagined that a medical college could function without a teaching hospital, without the necessary scientific equipment, without the necessary staff, without the necessary buildings and without the necessary funds. Yet that is what the society did or pretended to do. We do not have any doubt that the society and the so-called institutions were started as business ventures with a view to make money from gullible individuals anxious to obtain admission to professional colleges. It was nothing but a daring imposture and sculduggery. By no stretch of imagination, can we confer on it the status and dignity of a minority institution." 31.1. It was held therein that institutions founded primarily as business ventures cannot be let to enjoy minority status on false pretence. In this case, as held above, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the objects stated in the Memorandum of Association of the seventh respondent - society. Further, sixth respondent run by seventh respondent has a long standing recognition as linguistic minority institution under Respondent Nos.1 to 3 & 5. Further, there is no material on record to suggest that their claim of linguistic minority status is ill-founded or that they are run purely on business motive or any false pretext of linguistic minority interest. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the case law relied on the side of the writ petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

Moreover, the writ petitioner if really is aggrieved by the linguistic minority status of respondents 6 and 7, very well has an alternate and efficacious remedy before the first respondent. He may approach the first respondent and raise his grievances with supporting documents or evidence. To be noted, respondents 1 to 3 in their counter have stated that the representation of the writ petitioner can be acted upon by them, provided it is valid and supported by evidence. Since the sixth respondent - college is receiving financial aid from the Government of Tamil Nadu, the latter has every right to impose reasonable restrictions over the sixth respondent - college and it even has the power to withdraw the grant of aid if any maladministration, misuse of the aid or the linguistic minority status is found by the Government of Tamil Nadu. Further, if dissatisfied with the decision of the Tamil Nadu Government on such a complaint by the writ petitioner, he can knock the doors of the ninth respondent - National Commission for Minority Institutions constituted under the National Commission for Minority Institutions Act, 2004 [Act No.2 of 2005] [See the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court (Coram Strength =2) in Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny -vs- State of West Bengal, reported in (2018) 6 SCC 772]. Of course, alternate remedy rule is bound by exceptions. But such exceptions are limited in scope and this Court does not deem the present case a fit one for invoking any of the exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy. Hence, on that score, the Writ Petition is not maintainable.

In view of the foregoing narrative, this Court does not find any reason whatsoever to disturb the linguistic minority status of respondents 6 and 7. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed. [C.V.K, J.] [R.S.V, J.] 18.08.2026