The Supreme Court has observed in a ruling that the immunity, granted to the minorities under Article 30 (1) of the constitution, can not be a shield for using education to reap huge profits. ''The protection envisaged therein is not for shielding commercialised activities intended to reap dividends by holding education as a facade,'' it said.

However, the court quashed the complaint by a student's father against the exorbitant fees charged by an unaided minority school, as the state legislature had not fixed an upper limit for the fees to be charged by such an institution.
The ruling was handed down last week by a bench of Mr justice K T Thomas and Mr justice s N Phookan while disposing of an appeal and a writ' petition.
The appeal and the writ petition were directed against a judgement of the Bombay High Court, dismissing a writ petition by an unaided minority school-Little Flower School-- seeking quashing of a complaint against it by a student's father, alleging that the school was charging higher fee.

It was alleged in the complaint that the principal and six office bearers of the school had committed an offence under Section 7 of the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee), Act 1987.

The Supreme Court in its judgement said that it was a question of facts in each case whether the limit imposed by the government regarding approved fees would hamper the right under Article 30 (1) of the constitution in so far as they apply to any unaided educational institution, established and administered by the minorities.

Bureau Report