Chairperson And Members Can Be From Same Minority Community-Kerala HC Upholds Amendment To Commission For Minorities Act

The Division Bench of the HC comprising of Chief Justice Mr. S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly while referring to Kerala State Commission for Minorities Act, 2014 and National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992 held –

"Both the Acts were discussed by us since we feel that what is important is not the community of the Chairperson and members of the Commission belonging to the same minority community or different minority community, but the functions to be discharged by the members in contemplation of the provisions of the Act, 2014. Merely because the Chairperson and the member belong to one community, that would not, and cannot, In any manner, interfere with the duties and obligations in the matter of discharging the functions in contemplation of the provisions of the Act, 2014."

Senior Counsel Mr. Raju Joseph appeared for the Writ Petitioner assisted by Advocate Julian Xavier and Advocate General Mr. K. Gopalakrishna Kurup appeared for the Respondents before the High Court

The Court was hearing a Writ Petition filed by Mr. Justine Pallivathukkal a lawyer by profession and a member of the Roman Catholic community (a recognized minority community in Kerala).

The Petitioner had challenged the Kerala State Commission for Minorities (Amendment) Act, 2017, on the ground that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The reliefs sought by the Petitioner included – i) Issue a Writ to quash the Amendment Act, the same being unreasonable, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 13(2) of the Constitution, ii) Issue a declaration that the appointment of persons from the same minority community as members of the KSMC is unconstitutional and void, iii) Issue a Writ directing the 1st respondent Government to reconstitute the 2nd respondent Commission by including persons from different minority communities in Commission.

Respondent No. 1 argued before the High Court that is trite and settled law that legislation can be challenged only on the grounds of lack of legislative competence, being violative of fundamental rights, and manifestly arbitrary. Further, it was contended that as regards legislative competence, the Petitioner did not have a case of there being a lack of legislative competence for the State in enacting the amendment act.

The issue which was dealt with by the Court was with respect to the amendment made to Section 3(2)(b) of the Act 2014, by which the word 'another' originally contained therein was replaced by the letter "a", due to which the stipulation as it originally stood, that the Chairman and the member of the commission shall be from different communities would be taken away.

The Court referred to the various functions of the State Minority Commission and held that Section 9 of the State Act 2014 is in pari materia with the provisions of Section 9 of the Act of 1992.

"Merely because the Chairperson and a Member is from the one and the same community, it cannot be said to be conferment of unbridled and arbitrary power to interfere with the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India," the Bench added.

"Merely because the Chairperson and the member belong to one community, that would not, and cannot, in any manner, interfere with the duties and obligations in the matter of discharging the functions in contemplation of the provisions of the Act, 2014, the Court held.

Further, the Bench opined, "Under the Constitution of India, in our considered opinion, no appointment can be made based on religious considerations and no appointment can be denied also on that basis. This is for the fundamental reason that our Constitution is founded also on the principles of Secularism and democracy with the freedom for liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship, equality of status and of opportunity, and to promote among them all, fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation, which is also the edict and reflection of the preamble of the Constitution."

The Court also noted that it may be true that as per the Act 1992, and Act, 2014 the Chairperson and members shall belong to the minority community, however, that would not in any manner interfere with any of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. The Court also added that the purpose of the legislation is to ensure the comprehensive advancement of the minority communities in the nation as well as the State in various fields.

Additionally, the Court observed, "Therefore, what is relevant and important is the purpose for which the Commission is constituted, and not the community of the members of the Commission, which has no role to be played in discharging the functions."

The Court also noted that the Act of 2014 had to be interpreted in the broadest sense order to achieve its target rather than making a pedantic and narrow approach in the matter of appointment of the Chairperson and a member from different communities.

The Bench finally held that the Petitioner had not made out any case to secure the reliefs that were sought by him in the Writ Petition.

In the light of these observations, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition.

Click here to read/download the Judgment