# MISBAH ALAM SHAIKH v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

- **Citation:** [1997] 1 S.C.R. 1112
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1997-02-10
- **Bench:** K. Ramaswamy, G.T. Nanavati
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/misbah-alam-shaikh-v-the-state-of-maharashtra-and-anr-15164
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992.
Ss. 3 and 9-Minority Commissio1t-Set up by Government of
C Maharashtra-Abolished by successor State Govemmelll-Held, it cannot be
said that the decision to abolish Minority Commission by State Government
was not in accordance with law-There is no statutory compulsion on the part
of State Government to constitute the "Minority Commission" in the State-It ·
is the duty of the Central Government to constitute a National Commission
D and it shall be the duty and the responsibility of the National Commission to
ensure compliance of the principles and programmes evaluated in s. 9 protecting the illlerest of minorities.
E
Constitution of India, 1950:
Article 226-Held, State Govemment cannot be directed by a mandamus, to constitute a Min01ity Commission or to reconstitute the Commission which was abolished by it due to want of statutory compulsion.

## Text

A
MISBAH ALAM SHAIKH
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
FEBRUARY 10, 1997
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.)
National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992.
Ss. 3 and 9-Minority Commissio1t-Set up by Government of
C Maharashtra-Abolished by successor State Govemmelll-Held, it cannot be
said that the decision to abolish Minority Commission by State Government
was not in accordance with law-There is no statutory compulsion on the part
of State Government to constitute the "Minority Commission" in the State-It ·
is the duty of the Central Government to constitute a National Commission
D and it shall be the duty and the responsibility of the National Commission to
ensure compliance of the principles and programmes evaluated in s. 9 protecting the illlerest of minorities.
E
Constitution of India, 1950:
Article 226-Held, State Govemment cannot be directed by a mandamus, to constitute a Min01ity Commission or to reconstitute the Commission which was abolished by it due to want of statutory compulsion.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 796 of
F 1997.
G
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.10.95 of the Bombay High
Court in W.P. No 1349 of 1995.
M.N. Shroff for the Appellant.
K.N. Bhat, Additional Solicitor General, S.K. Dholakia, Ms. Niranjana Singh, Ms. Sushma Suri, A.K. Srivastava, S.M. Jadhav and D.M.
'("
Nargolkar for the Respondents.
H
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
1112
M.ASHAIKHv. STATE
1113
Leave granted. We have heard the counsel on both sides.
A
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 B
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 C
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 D .
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 E
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 recomF
mendations 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 G
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 H
1114
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1997] 1 S.C.R.
A constitute a Commission called "the Minority Commission" in the State. On
-;j.-'
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
B 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
'X
integrated Bharat providing facilities and opportunities to improve their
c 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.
D
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.
E
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.
F The decision may or may not be right, but it cannot be characterised as a
mala fide decision.
Under those circumstances, we cannot hold that the decision to
~
t
abolish the Minority Commission by the State Government, in the absence
)..
G 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 safeguard as provided in the Constitution
H and in the laws enacted by the Parliament and the State Legislature in
M.ASHAIKHv. STATE
1115
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 do not
not find any compelling reason warranting interference. The appeal is
accordingly disposed of. No costs.
R.P.
Appeal disposed of.
A
B