The paper unfolds a disappointing picture of the rights promised to the minorities through Article 30 and their implementation. The debates in the constituent assembly imply a tolerant rather than an encouraging approach of the state towards the minorities. This explains the stand of the Constitution-makers not to provide the promised fundamental rights automatically but to make the minorities assert their demands. As far as interpretation of Article 30 by the courts is concerned, one finds three trends. Firstly, the judgments are contextual, hence, many times, they are different, reflecting the personal convictions of the judges. This makes interpretation of the Article vague and subject to a constant struggle between the minorities and the state. Secondly, these judgments are more liberal with linguistic minorities than with the religious ones and, thirdly, they reflect a trend towards gradually reducing the scope of the Article, giving space to governmental regulations and control.
