New Delhi, April 23 :    New Delhi, April 23:  Sindhi is a recognised language under Schedule 8 of the Constitution, which recognises 18 other languages, but it isn't an official language in any state. Pointing out this peculiarity, an impassioned plea was made before an 11-judge bench of the Supreme Court that Sindhi language forums, educational institutions and other special bodies should be recognised as 'minority institutions'. Neither the Centre nor any state should interfere in the functioning of Sindhi institutions, which must enjoy the privileges and special status of other minority institutions, senior counsel Indira Jai Singh pleaded. Appearing on behalf of several Sindhi institutions, Jai Singh argued that Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution were different and independent of each other. Under 29, no person could be discriminated in the name of caste, region, religion or language. Article 30 gives minorities the 'right' to 'establish and administer educational institutions'. State governments use Article 29 to control minority institutions saying they could not deny admission to students of different language, religion and region. Institutions run by linguistic minorities - such as Tamil or Bengali or Assamese institutions in Delhi - enjoy 'minority status' and state government aid as well. But in states where these are majority languages, they cannot claim 'minority status'. In its set of 10 questions to be answered in the case, the court asked 'whether a minority in state A becomes majority in state B or continues to be minority'. Jai Singh argued that Sindhi was taught in its 'original Arabic medium known as the Sindhi script' and as the petitioner board promoted the 'distinct and rich culture of Sindh', it was a minority institution. The counsel told the court that both aided and unaided bodies should be treated equally and simply because a government aided a minority institution it should not interfere in its affairs, especially admission of students and administration. Several other counsel argued that 'admission' in a minority institution was part of 'administration'. The bench has taken up issues like 'minority', 'religion', 'language', 'minority institutions', 'what constitutes a minority institution', 'administration' in minority institutions, 'admission' procedure and related issues. The bench headed by Justice B.N. Kirpal had earlier expanded the scope of the question before the judiciary by including 'non-minority' institutions and so what constitutes a 'majority' will also be decided. Jai Singh said the Constitution 'does not use the word 'national' language and no such national language exists'. Hindi in the 'Devnagri script' was only an official language and use of the word 'official' in article 343 of the Constitution was 'deliberate and is meant only to indicate that official communications will be in Hindi', she said. Further, under Article 345, a state 'may, by law,' adopt one or more language for official purposes, Jai Singh argued. The 'minority character of an institution is not dependent on the courses that are taught in the institution. 'The imparting of secular/technical education will not destroy the minority character of the institution. The minority character is determined by the fact that it gives preference in admission to students of its own community,' Jai Singh said.