New Delhi: Taking a view very different from that of the Centre on Minority Educational Institutions (MEIs), Attorney General Soli Sorabjee on July 25 told the Supreme Court that minority's right to establish and administer educational institutions under the Constitution was absolute.

"The fundamental right of administration of a minority educational institution under Article 30, on its terms and language, is absolute," Sorabjee submitted before an 11- Judge constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice B N Kirpal hearing arguments on several aspects of the minority educational institutions (MEIs).

Solicitor General Harish Salve, appearing for the Centre, had contended last week that in the Constitutional framework of schemes no right was absolute and hence the right to establish and administer and educational institutions by the minority community could not be an absolute right.

At the beginning of his submissions before the Bench, Sorabjee said he was appearing in his capacity as Attorney General and that he was neither appearing for the government nor against it.

He said the Supreme Court had held that no fundamental right in Indian Constitution was absolute and unregulated. "The same would apply to Article 30," he added.

However, the reasonable restrictions applicable to the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(G) would not be applicable to Article 30 dealing with the right of the minority to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

"The management (of MEIs) must be free from control so that the founder or their nominees can mould the instruction as they think fit and in accordance with their ideas of how the interests of the community in general and the institution in particular will be best served," he said.

The right to administer a MEI, inter-alia, comprises the right of management of the institution by a Committee appointed by it, he said and added, "any interference which erodes that right necessarily affects the autonomy of the educational institution and would be impermissible under Article 30".

Salve had submitted that, "Secular laws designed to obtain secular objects and not designed to directly impair the rights under Article 30 would not be violative of Article 30" even if these tend to encroach upon certain aspects of the management of the MEIs like appointment and payment of salaries to the teachers.

PTI