The co-relation between Articles 19(1)(g) and 30 of the Indian Constitution provides a nuanced understanding of the rights granted to Indian citizens and, in particular, to religious and linguistic minorities. Both articles are integral parts of the Constitution, ensuring the fundamental rights of individuals and groups. Let’s delve deeper into the linkage between these two articles:

Article 19(1)(g):

Article 19 guarantees certain fundamental freedoms to the citizens of India. Clause (g) of Article 19(1) provides: “All citizens shall have the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.”

This article ensures that all citizens have the right to conduct a trade, business, or profession of their choice, provided it is a lawful activity. However, this right is not absolute and can be restricted on grounds mentioned in Article 19(6), such as the interest of the general public or for the protection of a particular interest.

Article 30:

Article 30 provides certain rights to religious and linguistic minorities. It reads: “All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.”

This right is in recognition of the distinct cultural, linguistic, and religious identity of various groups in India and aims to protect them from potential discrimination. Article 30 ensures that the state cannot, in the guise of regulating education, invade the rights of minorities to establish and administer their educational institutions.

Co-relation:

1. Confluence of Rights: When religious or linguistic minorities choose to establish educational institutions as a part of their profession, occupation, trade, or business, they are exercising their rights under both Articles 19(1)(g) and 30. While Article 19(1)(g) grants them the right to carry out this activity as a form of trade, business, or profession, Article 30 ensures their autonomy in administering these institutions without undue interference from the state.
2. Balancing Autonomy with Regulation: The T.M.A. Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka case highlighted this correlation. The Supreme Court held that while minority institutions have rights under Article 30, they are still bound by regulations ensuring educational standards, provided these regulations are reasonable and in the larger interest of the public. This mirrors the permissible restrictions found in Article 19(6) for the rights under 19(1)(g).
3. Non-Discrimination and Equality: While Article 30 provides special rights to minorities, the rights under Article 19(1)(g) are available to all. In this context, the Supreme Court has maintained that while minorities have the right to establish and administer institutions, non-minority groups, exercising their rights under Article 19(1)(g), also have similar rights, albeit without the special protections of Article 30.

In essence, while Articles 19(1)(g) and 30 serve different purposes, they converge when it comes to the establishment and administration of educational institutions by minority groups. Together, they form a framework that protects both individual entrepreneurial rights and the collective rights of minority groups in the sphere of education.