S.Srinivasan Menon v. The Govt. of Tamil nadu
WP(MD).12560/2020 · 2026:MHC:3383 · W.P. (MD) No.12560 of 2020
Coram: Justice C.V. Karthikeyan · Justice R.Sakthivel
No. Such minority status is not based on caste or religion but on language. So long as those administering the institution are members of the linguistic minority and their acts are not prejudicial to the interest of that linguistic minority residing in the State, it is irrelevant even if key positions are occupied by members of a community forming the majority in another State. Honouring a renowned figure who speaks the minority language, by featuring his photograph and commemorating his anniversaries, is a mode of preserving the language, literature, history and culture and is incidental to the rights under Articles 29 and 30.
Constitution of India — Art.29, Art.30(1) — Linguistic minority educational institution — Unit for determining minority status — Establishment and administration by the minority —
Constitution of India — Art.30 — Unit for determining minority status — The State —
Held: For the purpose of Article 30, the status of a linguistic or religious minority is to be determined with reference to the population of the State in which the educational institution is or is intended to be situated, and not the country as a whole. (¶23)
Constitution of India — Art.30 — Majority in a neighbouring State — Irrelevant —
Held further: That the speakers of the minority language form the majority population in another State is irrelevant for determining their minority status in the State where the institution is situated. (¶23)
Constitution of India — Art.30(1) — Institution must be established and administered by the minority —
Held further: To claim minority status an educational institution must not only be established by persons who are a minority in that State, but the right of administration must also be vested in those persons. (¶21, ¶22)
Constitution of India — Art.29, Art.30 — Linguistic minority status — Caste of administrators immaterial —
Held further: Where minority status rests on language and not on caste or religion, the caste of those administering the institution is irrelevant so long as they belong to the linguistic minority and do not act prejudicially to its interest. Writ Petition dismissed. (¶25, ¶29, ¶33)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 25The 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.
Paragraph 29Yet 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.
Paragraph 30Further, 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.
One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of S.Srinivasan Menon v. The Govt. of Tamil nadu — and get the Madras High Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India