Government aid is not a Fundamental Right: Comment

By | June 17, 2022
Government aid is not a Fundamental Right: Comment

Last Updated on by Admin LB

The Article ‘Government aid is not a fundamental right’ is all about the recent decision of the Supreme Court where it was emphasized that there are various factors upon which the Government aid is dependent but certainly it cannot be put under the category of the fundamental right. The Article also covers constitutional provision which explicitly reflects that Government should not make discrimination in educational institutions.

Both the communities (minority or majority) are entitled to follow the rules as prescribed by the aid. Uttar Pradesh State Government filed an appeal with the Supreme Court in response to a 2018 Allahabad High Court ruling in which it was declared that Regulation 101 of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 was invalid. This decision reached by the High Court has been overturned by the Supreme Court.

Introduction: Government aid is not a fundamental right

Recently, the Supreme Court came to the decision that a government’s provision of support to an institution is not a basic right. It was also determined that minority-serving institutions and non-majority-serving universities must get the same amount of financial aid.

The judgment was taken by Justices S. K. Kaul and M. M. Sundresh that the receiving institution must establish that it meets the conditions associated with the award. According to the statement, an institution may decline the grant if it disagrees with the terms and conditions, but it may not declare that the grant must be provided on its own terms. Helping individuals is an issue of policy choice. It was also said,

“With regard to the government’s concern for the interests of institutions and its ability to  carry out such an activity.”

According to the investigation’s results, before making a decision of this kind, the government must analyze various information. According to the law, all decisions about help, including whether or not to grant it and how it is administered, must take “budget limitations and shortcomings” into account. This involves determining whether to approve the request.

The court ruled that “the right to accept help is not a basic right,” limiting the ability to challenge a decision made in its implementation. To put it another way, “An institution has no inherent right to contest the governmental decision to withdraw financing.”

According to the text, “Perhaps such a challenge would still be possible to an institution when a grant is awarded to one university as opposed to the other similarly situated institution.”

The Uttar Pradesh state government filed an appeal with the Supreme Court in response to a 2018 Allahabad High Court ruling declaring Regulation 101 of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 invalid. This decision reached by the High Court has been overturned by the Supreme Court.

Government funding is not a basic entitlement for any organization, regardless of the demographic composition of its majority or minority population. According to the Supreme Court, both parties must comply with the aid’s terms and conditions.

All conditions for the appropriate use of the grant-in-aid by an educational institution are applicable, regardless of whether the institution is controlled by a majority or a minority. This covers both state and federal rules. Citing the court’s landmark decision in the T.M.A. Pai case, a bench of Justices S.K. Kaul and M.M. Sundresh stated that

“grant of aid to that educational institution cannot be discriminated against if other educational institutions are eligible to receive aid,” which is all that Article 30(2) states.

The ruling was affirmed by India’s highest court. The court has ruled that an institution may not oppose a “policy decision” by the government to withhold funds as a “matter of right.”

A government assistance grant must be used in conformity with the accompanying conditions and limits. It was stated that each institution was responsible for deciding whether or not to take the monies along with the conditions. There is no restriction prohibiting a business or organization from rejecting a grant if they do not choose to accept and adhere to its stipulations.

As Justice Sundresh noted in his ruling for the Court, contrary to popular belief, an organization should never be permitted to insist that help should only be provided on the terms it determines for itself. The court outlined the limitations that accompany the notion that charity organizations are “entitled” to government funding.

Government support is first a question of policy choice. Numerous elements come into play, but the interests of the organization and the government’s capacity to comprehend the process are two of the most significant. According to the court’s decision, “budget limits and deficits are recognized as significant factors in making any decision concerning help,” and this is true even when deciding whether or not to offer assistance and how it would be distributed.

Given that receiving aid is not a basic human right, any legal challenge to the policy’s implementation must be based on more specific grounds. Thus, neither a university nor any other body may ever contest a government’s decision to remove financial support. As noted by the court, an institution may bring up such a claim even if it is shown that a grant was provided to one school at the expense of another school in a comparable scenario.

After the Allahabad High Court determined that a portion of the Intermediate Education Act of 1921 was unconstitutional, Uttar Pradesh filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.

The following has been taken into consideration by the Supreme Court:

  • Receiving financial aid from the government is not a fundamental right for any organization, regardless of the demographic makeup of its majority or minority group.
  • A school is able to make appropriate use of a grant-in-aid regardless of whether or not the administration of the grant is carried out by the majority or the minority of the teachers and staff at the school.
  • Article 30(2) states that an institution that is run by a minority, whether that minority is religious or linguistic in nature, is qualified to receive money from the federal government.
  • In order for an educational institution to be eligible for financing, it must first be eligible for assistance from other educational institutions that are eligible for assistance.
  • No organization has the legal standing to challenge the decision to withhold assistance as a “matter of right” so long as the government maintains its policy of doing so.
  • A government aid grant must be used in accordance with the terms and restrictions that accompany it. An establishment must either consent to the terms and conditions in order to be eligible for the award, or it may choose to pursue its own course of action.

In Delhi, the Supreme Court of India ruled that receiving assistance is not a fundamental right and that when deciding whether or not to provide financial aid to educational institutions, the government must consider a variety of factors, such as the availability of funds and other deficiencies. Regarding these institutions, the court ruled that no distinction can be established between those supported by minority groups and those supported by non-minority groups.[1]

A bench composed of Justices S K Kaul and M M Sundresh ruled that

“the eligibility to get an assistance is not a basic right, and the challenge to a decision made in implementing it should only be on constrained grounds.”

“Therefore, it is difficult for a university or other institution to fight a policy decision to cease financial support. When one school receives a grant and the other does not, it is still possible for one institution to be placed in a situation where it must address the issue.”

The judge offered a remark. According to the rulings of the Supreme Court, an organization has the legal right to reject a grant if it is unwilling to comply with the grant’s conditions.[2]

A court ruled that an organization never has the authority to insist that help should only be supplied on their conditions. The court rules that Regulation 101 of the Intermediate Education Act of 1921 is unconstitutional owing to the fact that it was issued under that statute. The bench said that a Constitutional court is expected to stay out of a policy decision that is deemed to be in the public interest so long as there is no obvious or substantial evidence of arbitrariness.

The ruling’s conclusion was that executive authority is the “residue of the legislative one,” and as a consequence, the exercise of such power, Idaho’s modification, cannot be challenged on the basis of simple inference. According to what the court has suggested, for the government to implement a policy standard, there must be proof that it has engaged in manifest, extreme, and excessive arbitrariness.[3]


[1] Right to get aid from Government Not Fundamental Right, There Cannot Be Any Difference Between Minority & Non- Minority Aided Institutions: Supreme Court, Available Here

[2] Right to Get Grants by Minority Institutions is Not a Fundamental Right: SC, Available Here

[3] Right to govt. aid, not Fundamental Right: SC, Available Here

Spread the love
Author: Vartika Kulshrestha

Content Writer and Research Intern

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.