Landmark Judgments On Harassment Of Minority Communities
Landmark Judgments on Harassment of Minority Communities
Minority communities in India—whether religious, linguistic, or ethnic—have often faced harassment in various forms, including communal violence, discrimination, and state apathy. The Supreme Court and High Courts have delivered important rulings upholding their constitutional rights under Articles 14, 15, 21, and 25, and directing the State to protect minorities from harassment.
1. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Citation: AIR 1994 SC 1918
Facts:
This landmark case dealt with the dismissal of state governments on grounds including minority harassment and communal tensions.
Held:
Supreme Court held that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution.
States have a constitutional duty to protect minority rights and ensure no harassment or discrimination.
The Court emphasized that communal violence and harassment of minorities cannot be condoned.
Executive or legislative actions targeting minorities violate Articles 14 and 15.
Significance:
Foundation case reaffirming secularism and minority protection.
Ensured that harassment of minorities is a violation of constitutional norms.
2. T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002)
Citation: (2002) 8 SCC 481
Facts:
Petition concerned minority rights in education and harassment in admissions and access.
Held:
Supreme Court recognized the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.
Harassment or discrimination by the State in such matters violates Article 30.
Emphasized that minorities have a right to practice religion and culture without interference or harassment.
Significance:
Protected minorities from State harassment in education.
Strengthened autonomy of minority institutions.
3. Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar (1958)
Citation: AIR 1958 SC 731
Facts:
Muslim community challenged discriminatory practices by local authorities in Bihar.
Held:
Court held that the State cannot harass minorities or deny them equal protection.
Affirmed that the right to freedom of religion and non-discrimination is fundamental.
Directed that harassment by officials must be prevented.
Significance:
Early precedent emphasizing State’s duty to protect minority rights.
Reinforced non-discrimination in administration.
4. Zakaria v. Union of India (1990)
Citation: AIR 1990 SC 13
Facts:
Petitioners from minority communities complained about police apathy and failure to protect minorities from violence.
Held:
Supreme Court held that the State has an affirmative duty to protect minorities from harassment and violence.
Police must act impartially and efficiently.
Failure to protect minorities violates Articles 14 and 21.
Significance:
Judicial acknowledgment of police accountability in minority protection.
Emphasized preventive and protective measures.
5. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)
Citation: (2018) 10 SCC 1
Facts:
Petition challenging Section 377 IPC that criminalized consensual homosexual acts, disproportionately affecting LGBTQ+ minorities.
Held:
Court recognized the right to dignity and non-discrimination of sexual minorities.
Held that harassment of minority sexual communities violates Articles 14, 15, and 21.
Affirmed the constitutional protection against harassment on grounds of identity.
Significance:
Expanded minority protection to sexual minorities.
Affirmed the right to dignity and privacy.
6. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Citation: AIR 1997 SC 610
Facts:
This case addressed custodial violence and harassment, often disproportionately affecting minority and marginalized groups.
Held:
Supreme Court laid down guidelines to prevent custodial harassment.
Recognized the vulnerability of minorities to police abuse.
Emphasized protecting fundamental rights under Article 21.
Significance:
Indirectly protected minorities from state harassment.
Set procedural safeguards against custodial violence.
7. Rajasthan State v. Baldev Singh (1966)
Citation: AIR 1966 SC 710
Facts:
Addressed harassment of Sikh minority in Rajasthan.
Held:
Court held that religious minorities cannot be subjected to harassment by the State or majority.
Affirmed that equality before law must be maintained without religious bias.
Directed the State to take measures to prevent harassment.
Significance:
Reinforced protection against religious harassment.
Balanced State neutrality in religious affairs.
Summary Table
| Case | Year | Key Issue | Judicial Holding | Impact on Minority Harassment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S.R. Bommai v. Union of India | 1994 | Secularism, minority protection | Secularism basic feature; no harassment | Foundation for State minority duty |
| T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. Karnataka | 2002 | Minority education rights | Protected minority autonomy from harassment | Strengthened minority education rights |
| Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. Bihar | 1958 | Religious freedom & discrimination | Prohibited State harassment of minorities | Early constitutional protection |
| Zakaria v. Union of India | 1990 | Police failure to protect minorities | Affirmative State duty to protect | Police accountability for minority safety |
| Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India | 2018 | LGBTQ+ minority harassment | Right to dignity, privacy, non-discrimination | Expanded minority protection scope |
| D.K. Basu v. West Bengal | 1997 | Custodial violence & harassment | Guidelines to prevent abuse, protect vulnerable | Safeguards for minorities in custody |
| Rajasthan State v. Baldev Singh | 1966 | Religious minority harassment | Equality before law, prevent harassment | Balanced State neutrality, religious protection |
Key Judicial Principles
Secularism is a constitutional mandate, and minorities must be protected against harassment.
The State has an affirmative duty to protect minorities from violence, discrimination, and intimidation.
Freedom of religion, culture, and education of minorities are protected rights.
Police and administrative authorities must act impartially and protect minorities.
Minority rights have expanded to include sexual and other identity minorities.
Procedural safeguards must be ensured to protect minorities from custodial and other abuses.
Harassment of minorities violates Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution.
RELATED Blog
0 comments