T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION AND ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 283 · Decided: 10-05-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

-
T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION AND ORS. ETC. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC. 
MAY 10, 1995 
B 
[KULDIP SINGH, S.C. AGRAWAL AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.] 
Contempt of Court-Orders of court to be obeyed implicity-They 
should not be triffled with-Admission to medical, dental and engineering 
courses-Reserving seats for NRls/Foreign students-Deliberate violation and C 
infraction of orders of this Court-unconditional apology tendered by five 
Senior Officers of State-Rejected-They were held guilty of contempt of 
court-Their conduct censured. 
The preceedings for contempt of this court were initiated suo motu 
when it was brought to its notice that the Government of Maharashtra had · D 
framed roles regarding admission to medical, dental and engineering 
courses reserving fifteen percent seats for NRls/F oreign students contrary 
to the orders of this court dated 5.4.1994 and 13.5.1994. In response to the 
notice, an affidavit sworn to by the Under Secretary, Medical Education 
and Drugs Department, Government of Maharashtra was filed stating that 
the rules were framed after obtaining the opinion of the Law and Judiciary E 
Department to the effect that the number of seats permitted to be filled by 
NRis for the academic year 1994-95 under the orders of this court was 
fifteen percent. On the basis of this opinion, it was stated, the earlier 
orders fixing the quota at ten percent were revised to fifteen percent. 
Pursuant to a notice issued to the Secretary to the Government, Law and F 
Judiciary Department, an affidavit was filed admitting that there was some 
confusion as a result of reading the orders of this Court dated 5.4.1994 
and it was stated that it was a bonafide error on his part but there was no 
intention to over reach and flout the orders of this court or to give any 
wrong advice to the Department. The Principal Secretary to Law and 
Judiciary Department in his affidavit stated that the Government had G 
issued orders fixing the NRI quota at 10 percent as per the orders of this 
court; that later, however, the Maharashtra Association of Professional 
Educational Institutions, a representative body of private colleges for 
medical and engineering courses, submitted a representation addressed to 
the Chief Minister of Maharashtra contending that the NRI quota, accord- H 
283 
284 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A ing to the orders of this court, was fifteen percent and that on receipt of 
this representation, officers of the Medical Education Department also 
~ntertained a doubt regarding interpretation given to the orders of this 
court and hence addressed the Memo to the Law Department and on 
receipt of the opinion of the Law Department, revised orders Were issued 
B raising the NRI quota to fifteen percent. The Secretary in the Medical 
Education Department, Government of Maharashtra in her affidavit 
stated that it was with her knowledge and consent that this action of 
seeking the opinion of Law and Judiciary Department was taken and that 
the corrigendum was issued with her knowledge and consent. 
C 
Dispossing of the matter, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The order dated 5.4.94 made by a Seven-Judge Bench of 
this court was confined to Minority Educational Institutions. The order 
states so at more than one place. Under this order, it was directed that "in 
D so far as non-resident Indians and foreign students are concerned, the 
permissible limit would be only 5 percent of the total intake for a given 
year as per the direction contained in paragraph 6 of the order dated May 
14, 1993 as modified by order dated August 18, 1993 .. ,". The order dated 
May 13, 1994 deals with two aspects, viz. (a) fee structure in medical and 
dental colleges and (b) the NRI quota in these colleges. There was no 
E question of any doubt arising as to its meaning nor did it call for any doubt 
arising as to its meaning nor did it call for any interpretation. The order 
clearly states these facts: for the previous year, the NRI quota was fixed at 
fifteen percent; for the minority institutions, it was five percent; though 
NRI quota should not normally exceed more than five percent but since 
F this court bas reduced the fee structure, the said quota is fixed "as 10 
percent (of the total seats) for the year", Even if, this order is read with 
the direction in the order dated April 5, 1994 it does not lead to the 
conclusion that the said quota is fifteen percent. Firstly, the order dated 
April 5, 1994 was c

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