- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Misbah Alam Shaikh v. State Of Maharashtra And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant filed a writ petition (WP No. 1349 of 1995) before the Bombay High Court challenging the State of Maharashtra’s decision to abolish the State Minority Commission that had been constituted by the previous Government. The High Court dismissed the petition on 30-10-1995. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court of India by way of a Special Leave Petition. During earlier proceedings in the Supreme Court, notice was issued to the National Commission for Minorities and the Union Government to show cause why the National Commission should not assume responsibility for safeguarding minority interests in Maharashtra. Counter-affidavits were subsequently filed by the National Commission, the Central Government, and the State of Maharashtra.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, in the absence of a statutory mandate, the State of Maharashtra can be compelled by a writ of mandamus to constitute or reconstitute a State Minority Commission after its abolition.
- Whether the State Government’s decision to abolish the Minority Commission was mala fide.
- Whether the National Commission for Minorities, constituted under the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992, suffices to protect and monitor minority rights within the State.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The abolition of the State Minority Commission by the successor Government was mala fide and politically motivated.
- Although counsel conceded that the Act does not statutorily compel a State to establish its own Minority Commission, the appellant contended that practical protection of minority rights required a State-level body.
State of Maharashtra's Position
- The State averred that there is no statutory requirement compelling it to maintain a separate Minority Commission.
- The decision to abolish the Commission was a policy choice made by the Cabinet and could not be characterised as mala fide merely because political perceptions differed.
Union of India / National Commission for Minorities
- The Union Government informed the Court that, consistent with Sections 3 and 9 of the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992, it would open a branch of the National Commission in Mumbai to monitor minority safeguards in Maharashtra.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court examined Sections 3 and 9 of the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992. Section 3 imposes a duty on the Central Government to constitute a National Commission, while Section 9 outlines its functions, including monitoring constitutional and statutory safeguards for minorities and recommending measures for their effective implementation. The Court noted that:
- There is no statutory compulsion on any State Government to create a separate Minority Commission.
- Because the National Commission already has jurisdiction and responsibility under the Act, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued directing the State to constitute or reconstitute its own Commission.
- The abolition decision, taken by the Cabinet of the incoming Government, cannot be labelled mala fide solely because political perceptions vary; policy disagreements do not, by themselves, establish bad faith.
- The Union Government’s commitment to establish a branch office of the National Commission in Mumbai alleviates concerns about monitoring minority rights in Maharashtra.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED / DISPOSED OF
The Supreme Court affirmed the Bombay High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition, finding no legal basis to compel the State of Maharashtra to re-establish its Minority Commission. The immediate consequence is that the State’s abolition decision stands, while oversight of minority safeguards will be undertaken by the National Commission for Minorities through a branch in Mumbai. The order turns on statutory interpretation rather than creation of new precedent; it reiterates that, absent a statutory mandate, Courts will not interfere with State policy choices on constituting advisory bodies.
Order
1. Leave granted. We have heard the counsel on both sides.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 30-10-1995 made in WP No. 1349 of 1995 dismissing the writ petition. The appellant has challenged the abolition of the Minority Commission set up by the State Government. When the matter had come up earlier, we had issued notice as to why the National Commission should not take up the issue of protecting the interest of the minorities in the State of Maharashtra as under:
“to show cause why the National Commission for minorities should not undertake the responsibility under the statute for the protection and safeguarding the interest of the minorities in the State of Maharashtra.”
3. Pursuant thereto, the National Commission as well as the Central Government have filed their counter-affidavits. The State of Maharashtra has independently filed its counter. Section 3 of the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992, for short the Act, provides that the Central Government shall constitute a body to be known as “the National Commission” for minorities to exercise the powers conferred on, and to perform the functions assigned to it under the Act. Section 9 of the Act in Chapter III envisages the functions of the Commission. The Commission shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely, (a) to evaluate the progress of the development of minorities under the Union and States; (b) to monitor the working of the safeguards provided in the Constitution and in laws enacted by Parliament and the State Legislatures; (c) make recommendations for the effective implementation of safeguards for the protection of the interests of minorities by the Central Government or the State Governments….” Sub-section (2) postulates that the Central Government shall cause the recommendations referred to in clause (c) of sub-section (1) to be laid before each House of Parliament along with a memorandum explaining the action taken or proposed to be taken on the recommendations relating to the Union and the reasons for non-acceptance, if any, of any of such recommendations. Thus, it could be seen that under the statute, as rightly conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant, there is no statutory compulsion, on the part of the State Government, to constitute a Commission called “the Minority Commission” in the State. On the other hand, by operation of Section 3 read with Section 9, it is the duty of the Central Government to constitute a National Commission and it shall be the duty and the responsibility of the National Commission to ensure compliance of the principles and programmes evaluated in Section 9 of the Act protecting the interest of the minorities for their development and working of the safeguards provided to them in the Constitution and the laws enacted by Parliament as well as the State Legislatures. The object, thereby, is to integrate them in the national mainstream in the united and integrated Bharat providing facilities and opportunities to improve their economic and social status and empowerment. The State Government cannot be directed, by a mandamus, to constitute a Commission or to reconstitute the Commission which was abolished by it, due to want of statutory compulsion.
4. It is not in dispute that the State Commission for Minorities was constituted by the earlier Government of Maharashtra and it came to be abolished by the successor political party in power. It is contended by Shri M.N Shroff, learned counsel for the appellant, that the decision taken by the State Government is mala fide. We find no force in the contention.
5. It may be that perception of political parties differ from one another. But when the Government found the necessity, after the political party was voted to power and the decision taken by the Cabinet, to abolish the minority Commission, it cannot be characterised a mala fide 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.
6. 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 Parliament and the State Legislature in relation to the State of Maharashtra.
7. Under those circumstances, the apprehension expressed by the appellant that the rights and the safeguards given to the minorities would not now be monitored is not correct. Under these circumstances, we do not find any compelling reason warranting interference. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Alert