http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: MISBAH ALAM SHAIKH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/02/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAWATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted. We have heard the counsel on both sides.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment of the  Bombay High  Court dated  30.10.95 made  in W.P. No. 1349/95 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."      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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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 the Parliament as well  as the  State Legislatures. The object, thereby, is to integrate  them in the national main stream 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.      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.      It may  be that  perception of political parties differ from one  another. But  when the Government found, 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  not  be  right,  but  it  cannot  be characterised as a mala fide decision.      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  the Parliament  and  the  State  Legislature  in relation to the State of Maharashtra.      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  don not  find any compelling reason warranting  interference. The  appeal is  accordingly disposed of. No costs.