By Kenneth Nongsiej
The Shillong Times in its December 9, 2024 reported on the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Raphael Warjri concerning the Assam-type building that houses St. Anthony’s Lower Primary (LP) School. According to the petitioner the school management has proposed to demolish the colonial era structure which is of considerable architectural and historical value. Warjri has sought the court’s intervention to conserve the building by halting its demolition.
This PIL currently under the proceeding of the Meghalaya High Court. The focus is on how the Meghalaya High Court will address these issues and arrive at a verdict and this article will explore the key issues from a legal perspective while exploring two central questions: Whether the government can declare a school building owned by a religious minority as a heritage site and acquire it and whether the rights of religious minorities to administer educational institutions are protected under the Constitution of India
Whether the government can declare a school building owned by a religious minority as a heritage site and acquire it
St. Anthony’s LP School building owned and run by the Catholic Church has not yet been declared a heritage site by the State Government. Nor has the government attempted to acquire the property. However, the petition raises complex questions regarding the procedure and implications of designating a religious minority’s property as a heritage structure.
The Meghalaya Heritage Act, 2012 serves as the guiding legislation in this matter. Under Section 3 of the Act the competent authority is empowered to declare a site or building as a heritage property. Additionally, Section 4 allows the government to acquire or take possession of such sites to ensure their maintenance and preservation.
To declare the St. Anthony’s LP School building a heritage site the government must follow the procedure outlined in the Act. However, such a move could have significant consequences. It might interfere with the administrative autonomy of the school and disrupt the academic calendar of its students. The school management has already justified its decision to construct a new building on the grounds that the existing structure is fragile and no longer safe for students.
Moreover, the declaration of a heritage site raises questions about compensation and ownership. Would the government provide land to the Church in Laitumkhrah for the loss of its property? These issue would inevitably result in prolonged litigation delaying the construction of a safer building for students.
Whether the rights of religious minorities to administer educational institutions is protected under the Constitution of India
The Constitution of India provides robust protection to religious and minorities through Article 30 under Part III of the Fundamental Rights of the Constitution of India. Further, Article 30 sub clause 1 provides the rights to minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice without undue interference from the State and this provision is rooted in the recognition that minority communities must have the autonomy to preserve their cultural, religious, and educational identity.
In the case of Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust and Ors. V. Union of India and Ors. (2014) the Supreme Court ruled that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009 cannot be imposed on minority schools whether aided or unaided as doing so would violate Article 30(1). The Court held that any law infringing upon the autonomy of minority institutions is ultra vires the Constitution.
Applying this precedent to the current case one must ask whether the Meghalaya Heritage Act, 2012, can be enforced upon a minority institution without violating Article 30(1) and if declaring St. Anthony’s LP School a heritage site under the Act might limit the Church’s ability to administer the institution thereby infringing on its constitutional rights such a move could potentially be challenged as unconstitutional similar to the Supreme Court’s ruling on the RTE Act in the Pramati case.
While the right to property is no longer a fundamental right under the Constitution it remains a constitutional right under Article 300A. This provision states that no person shall be deprived of their property except by the authority of law. In recent years the Supreme Court has reiterated the importance of the right to property in protecting individuals and entities from arbitrary state action.
In the recent judgment of Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Another v. Bimal Kumar Shah and Others the Supreme Court elaborated on the importance of protecting property rights under Article 300A of the Constitution. The Court observed that although the right to property is no longer a fundamental right it remains a constitutional right and any deprivation of property must strictly adhere to the principles of due process, public purpose, and fair compensation.
The judgment further observed that the acquisition of private property by the State cannot be arbitrary and must meet the standard of proportionality. The Court stated that even in cases of eminent domain the justification of public purpose must be compelling and the compensation equitable.
This ruling might hold significant relevance for the PIL concerning St. Anthony’s LP School if the Meghalaya government attempts to declare the school building a heritage site and subsequently acquires it under the Meghalaya Heritage Act, 2012. It will need to demonstrate compliance with the criteria established in this case. Failure to ensure public purpose and fair compensation may render such an action unconstitutional, thereby inviting judicial intervention.
This judgment holds relevance for the ongoing PIL. If the Meghalaya Government decides to acquire St. Anthony’s LP School building under the Heritage Act, it must demonstrate that such acquisition serves a public purpose and compensates the owners adequately and if it fail to do so it could result in the acquisition being struck down as unconstitutional.
The case of St. Anthony’s LP School presents a delicate balancing act between heritage conservation and the constitutional rights of religious minorities. On the one hand, the building’s architectural and historical significance cannot be denied. On the other hand, the Church’s right to administer the school without state interference is constitutionally protected.
It is very important to consider the practical implications of declaring the school building a heritage site as since the structure is fragile and unsafe for students, prioritizing its conservation over the safety and education of children may be unjustifiable.
The PIL filed to conserve St. Anthony’s LP School building raises important questions about the intersection of heritage conservation, constitutional rights, and property law. While the Meghalaya Heritage Act, 2012, provides a legal framework for declaring and acquiring heritage sites, its application to minority institutions must be carefully scrutinized in light of Article 30 of the Constitution. As the legal battle is underway all eyes will remain on the High Court’s verdict which could have far-reaching impacts for heritage conservation, minority rights, and property law.