P.A. INAMDAR AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 603 · Decided: 12-08-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Reference answered

Judgment (excerpt)

I • 
P.A. !NAMDAR AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 12, 2005 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., Y.K. SABHARWAL, D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, 
ARUN KUMAR, G.P. MATHUR, TARUN CHATTERJEE AND 
P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
A 
B 
c 
Articles 19(/)(g), 29 and 30{1), 41and51-A, Seventh Schedule, List III, 
Entry 25-Unaided non-minority and minority (religious and linguistic} 
inslilutions-Jmparting professional education-Extent of the power a/State 
to regulate adnzissions and fee structure, seat sharing/quota and to implement 
reservation policy-Held, 'Minority' status is determinable with reference to 
a State and not by taking into consideration population of the country as a 
D 
whole-Articles 29 and 30 are intended to confer protection on minorities 
rather than an abstract right. 
Right to establish and administer educational institutions 
Minority educational institutions not taking any aid from the State and 
also not seeking any recognition would exercise their right unhampered by 
any "restrictions excepting those which are in national interest. 
Minority unaided educational institutions seeking affiliation or 
recognition-Existence of infrastructure sufficient for its growth can be 
stipulated as a pre-requisite lo grant of recognition or affiliatior>-There 
cannot be interference in day-to-day administration-Non-minority unaided 
institutions can also be subjected to sbnilar restrictions which are found 
reasonable and in the interest of student community-Minorities or non~ 
minorities, in exercise of their educational rights in the field of professional 
education, have an obligation and a duty to maintain requisite standards of 
professional education by giving admissions based on merit and making 
education equally accessible to eligible students through a/air and transparent 
admission procedure and based on a reasonable fee-structure. 
E 
F 
G 
Admissions in minority institutions, aided or unaided, shall be at the 
H 
603 
604 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
State level-Transparency and merit shall have to be assured-Having 
regard to larger interest and welfare of student community to promote merit, 
achieve excellence and curb mal-practices, it would be permissible to 
regulate admissions by providing a centralized and single window procedure-
Till regulations are framed, admission committees constituted pursuant to 
B 
decision in Islamic Academy can oversee admissions to ensure merit. 
Fee-Capitation fee and profiteering cannot be permitted-It is permis-
sible to regulate admissions and fee structure in order to ensure merit and 
transparency. 
C 
Monitoring Committees-Scheme evolved in Islamic Academy for 
setting up Committees for monitoring admission procedure and determining 
fee structure cannot be faulted either on ground of alleged infringement of 
Article 19(l)(g) as regards unaided non-minority institutions or Article 
19(J)(g) read with Article 30 with respect to unaided minority institutions-
D 
The Union/States are expected to bring legislation on the subject-Till then 
the Committees would continue to exist. 
Reservation-State cannot insist on unaided private educational 
institutions to implement state's policy on reservation in admission. 
E 
Quota-Scheme evolved in Islamic Academy allowing States to fix 
quota for seat sharing between Management and the State in unaided private 
educational institutions both minority and non-minority disapproved and to 
that extent Islamic Academy overruled. 
f 
Articles 41 and 51-A : 
Education is national wealth essential for nation's progress and 
prosperity-Imparting education even though on occupation, it cannot be 
equated to a trade or business. 
G 
Prospective operation of judgment-Admission process having already 
commenced-The judgment shall be given effect to from next academic year. 
Unaided non-minority and minority (both religious and linguistic) 
institutions, imparting professional education, felt that in, spite of the 
H 
eleven Judge Bench decision in T.MA. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, 
P.A. JNAMDAR v. STA TE 
605 
(2001] Suppl. 3 SCR 587 and as explained in Islamic Academy of Education 
A 
& Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., [2003] 6 SCC 697, some of the main 
questions remained unsettled. Their quest to minimize State's regulatory 
role as regards admissions and fee structure, particularly in view of the 
situations that emerged after the decision in Islamic Academy, culminated 
in the

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