P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra
Supreme Court of India · 12 August 2005 · 7 judges
The State cannot appropriate seats or enforce its reservation policy in unaided minority or non-minority institutions; such institutions may set their own fair, transparent, merit-based admissions and non-profiteering fees, subject to regulation including the Islamic Academy committees.
Facts
After the eleven Judge Bench decision in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, many disputes reached the High Courts and the Supreme Court. A Constitution Bench in Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka clarified Pai Foundation, allowing States to fix quotas for seat sharing in unaided professional colleges and directing permanent committees, headed by retired High Court Judges, to oversee admission tests and approve fee structures. Unaided minority and non-minority institutions imparting professional education challenged these directions. By orders of 15 July 2004 in P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra and 29 July 2004 in Pushpagiri Medical Society v. State of Kerala, the matters were placed before a seven Judge Bench.
Questions before the Court
- Can the State regulate admissions in unaided (minority or non-minority) institutions by enforcing its reservation policy or appropriating a quota of seats?
- Are unaided institutions free to devise their own admission procedure, and can Islamic Academy's direction for a compulsory entrance test by the State or an association of institutions stand with Pai Foundation?
- Could Islamic Academy issue guidelines regulating fees?
- Can admission procedure and fee structure be regulated by the committees ordered in Islamic Academy?
What the Court held
- Neither the reservation policy of the State can be enforced nor any quota of seats appropriated by the State in unaided minority or non-minority institutions. This would amount to nationalisation of seats and is neither a regulatory measure under Article 30(1) nor a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6). To that extent Islamic Academy does not lay down correct law.
- Paragraph 68 of Pai Foundation only permits consensual seat sharing arrangements. Minority institutions may admit non-minority students and members of their community from other States only to a limited extent, or they lose Article 30(1) protection. NRI seats up to 15% may be allotted at the management's discretion, used bona fide and not ignoring merit.
- Unaided institutions may adopt their own admission procedure if it is fair, transparent and non-exploitative. Institutions may hold a common entrance test, or the State may arrange one, followed by centralised counselling; a procedure failing the triple test may be taken over by the State.
- Each institution may devise its own fee structure, but it can be regulated to prevent profiteering, and no capitation fee can be charged.
- The two Islamic Academy committees for admissions and fees are valid regulatory measures that do not infringe Articles 19(1)(g) or 30, continuing temporarily under Article 142 until legislation, with their decisions open to judicial review. The ruling applies from the next academic year without disturbing admissions already made.
Why it matters
The judgment settles questions left by Pai Foundation and Islamic Academy on unaided professional institutions. It holds that the State cannot impose seat quotas or reservation on unaided minority or non-minority institutions, overrules Islamic Academy on that point, reads paragraph 68 of Pai Foundation as permitting only consensual arrangements, and upholds regulation of admissions and fees through common entrance tests and the admission and fee committees. It also calls on the Union and the States to legislate.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“Our answer to the first question is that neither the policy of reservation can be enforced by the State nor any quota or percentage of admissions can be carved out to be appropriated by the State in a minority or non-minority unaided educational institution. Minority institutions are free to admit students of their own choice including students of non-minority community as also members of their own community from other States, both to a limited extent only and not in a manner and to such an extent that their minority educational institution status is lost. If they do so, they lose the protection of Article 30(1).”
“We find great force in the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the States have no power to insist on seat sharing in the unaided private professional educational institutions by fixing a quota of seats between the management and the State. The State cannot insist on private educational institutions which receive no aid from the State to implement State's policy on reservation for granting admission on lesser percentage of marks, i.e. on any criterion except merit.”
“Our answer to Question-3 is that every institution is free to devise its own fee structure but the same can be regulated in the interest of preventing profiteering. No capitation fee can be charged.”
“On Question-4, our conclusion, therefore, is that the judgment in Islamic Academy, in so far as it evolves the scheme of two Committees, one each for admission and fee structure, does not go beyond the law laid down in Pai Foundation and earlier decisions of this Court, which have been approved in that case. The challenge to setting up of two Committees in accordance with the decision in Islamic Academy, therefore, fails.”
Provisions interpreted
Related judgments
- Overrules Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka (2003)“That part of the judgment in Islamic Academy, in our considered opinion, does not lay down the correct law and runs counter to Pai Foundation.” (page 44)
- Explains T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002)“We make it clear that the observations in Pai Foundation in paragraph 68 and other paragraphs mentioning fixation of percentage of quota are to be read and understood as possible consensual arrangements” (page 43)
- Distinguished in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India (2012)
Case and bench
- Parties
- P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra
- Case
- Civil Appeal No. 5041 of 2005 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 9932 of 2004), with connected appeals, writ petitions and IAs
- Decided
- 12 August 2005
- Bench
- R.C. Lahoti, CJI, Y.K. Sabharwal, D.M. Dharmadhikari, Arun Kumar, G.P. Mathur, Tarun Chatterjee, P.K. Balasubramanyan
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Judgment of the seven Judge Bench delivered by R.C. Lahoti, CJI.