ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 474 · Decided: 14-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION AND ANOTHER 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS 
AUGUST 14, 2003 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.N. VARIA VA, K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, ARIJIT 
PASA YAT AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 30-Right of minority educational 
C institutions-Decided in T.M.A. Pai case-Subsequent statutes/Regulations 
led to litigation-Case interpreted in different perspectives-Reference to 
Constitution Bench of Supreme Court for interpretation of the case-Held: 
There can be no fixing of a rigid fee structure by Government-Each institute 
has freedom to fix its own fee structure which should also generate surplus-
But the surplu:; to be used only for the educational institutions and not for 
D personal gain or any other business or enterprise-Direction to set up a 
Committee in each State for considering fixation of fee~Minority and non-
minority educational institutions do not stand on the same footing-For 
admission in unaided private professional colleges both minority and non-
minority, merit is to be criteria-In case of non-minority institution only a 
E certain percentage of seats can be reserved for admission and the rest is to 
be filled on the basis of counselling by State Agencies according to local 
needs-In case of unaided minority professional colleges different percentage 
can be fixed keeping in mind the need of the particular community apart from 
the local needs-Private unaided professional colleges are not entitled to 
admit students by evolving their own method of admission-The management 
F of such institutions are to select students of their quota on the basis of 
common entrance test either conducted by State or by an Association of all 
colleges of a particular type in the State-Direction to State Government to 
appoint a Committee to ensure fair test conducted by the Association of 
colleges. 
G 
Pusuant to judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of 
H 
Karnataka and Ors., [20021 8 SCC 481, Union of India, various State 
Governments and educational institutions understood the majority judgment 
therein in different perspectives. Different statutes/regulations were enacted/ 
framed by different State Governments. These led to litigations in several 
474 
ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION. v. ST A TE 
475 
courts. Interim orders passed therein were challenged in the present petitions, A 
wherein majority decision in T.M.A. Pai case was attempted to be interpreted 
by various parties as suited to them. Therefore the petitions were referred to 
Five Judges Bench for clarification of the judgment in T.M.A. Pai case. 
Petitioners/applicants contended that the answers given to the 
questions as set out at the end of the majority judgment lay down the true B 
ratio of the judgment. 
The following questions arose for clarification: 
1. 
Whether the educational institutions are entitled to fix their 
own fee structure; 
2. 
Whether minority and non-minority educational institutions 
stand on the same footing and have the same rights. 
3. 
Whether private unaided professional colleges are entitled to 
fill in their seats, to the extent of 100%, and if not to what 
extent; and 
4. 
Whether private unaided professional colleges are entitled to 
admit students by evolving their own method of admission. 
Clarifying the judgment in T.MA. Pai case, the Court 
c 
D 
HELD: (Per V.N. Khare, CJ/for himself and/or Variava, Balakrishnan E 
and Pasayat, JJ.) 
1. The answers to the questions, in the majority Judgment in T.M.A. 
Pai case are merely a brief summation of the ratio laid down in the Judgment 
The ratio decidendi of a Judgment has to be found out only on reading the 
entire Judgment. In fact, the ratio of the judgment is what is set out in the F 
judgment itself. The answer to the question would necessarily have to be read 
in the context of what is set out in the judgment and not in isolation. In case 
of any doubt as regards any observations, reasons and principles, the other 
part of the judgment has to be looked into. By reading a line here and there 
from the judgment, one cannot find out the entire ratio decidendi of the 
judgment. (489-D-F] 
G 
2.1. There can be no fixing of a rigid fee structure by the Government. 
Each institute. must have the freedom to fix its own fee structure taking into 
consideration the need to generate funds to run the institution and to provide 
facilities necessary for the benefit of the students. They must also be able to 
generate surplus which 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.