T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka
Supreme Court of India · 31 October 2002 · 11 judges
An eleven judge Bench held that all citizens may establish and administer educational institutions under Articles 19(1)(g) and 26, minorities also under Article 30, with minority status judged State-wise; the Unni Krishnan scheme was held unconstitutional.
Facts
Private educational institutions, aided and unaided, set up by minorities and non-minorities, filed writ petitions and appeals asserting a right to establish and administer educational institutions free of rules that impinged on their autonomy, particularly over admissions and fees. Writ Petition No. 350 of 1993 (Islamic Academy of Education) had been placed before five Judges, who doubted whether Article 30 allowed a minority institution its own method of selection and the correctness of St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi; the matters reached an eleven Judge Bench, which in 1997 recorded that it would not feel bound by In Re Kerala Education Bill or St. Xavier's College. Eleven questions were referred, some reframed, covering the meaning of minority, admissions and regulation of minority institutions, St. Stephen's, and the Unni Krishnan scheme.
Questions before the Court
- Is there a fundamental right to establish and administer educational institutions, and under which provisions?
- Does the scheme framed in Unni Krishnan J.P. v. State of A.P. require reconsideration?
- Is the State or the whole of India the unit for determining a religious or linguistic minority under Article 30?
- To what extent can the State regulate admissions and administration in private, and in aided and unaided minority, institutions?
What the Court held
- All citizens have a right to establish and administer educational institutions under Articles 19(1)(g), as an 'occupation', and 26, subject to Articles 19(6) and 26(a); minorities have it specifically under Article 30. 'Education' covers all levels, including professional education.
- Religious and linguistic minorities, being put at par in Article 30, are to be determined State-wise, not with reference to the whole of India.
- The Unni Krishnan scheme and the direction to impose it are unconstitutional, except its holding that primary education is a fundamental right. Capitation fees and profiteering are barred, but a reasonable surplus for expansion is not profiteering. Unaided institutions may set their fees and admit students on a fair, transparent, merit-based basis.
- The right under Article 30 is not absolute. Regulations in the national interest and for academic standards apply to all institutions, but cannot destroy minority character. Unaided minority institutions should face minimal control in day-to-day management, including appointment of staff.
- A minority institution remains one on receiving aid, but Article 29(2) then applies. It may admit minority students, yet must admit non-minority students to a reasonable extent fixed by the State. St. Stephen's basic ratio is correct, but no rigid 50% ceiling can be laid down.
Why it matters
The judgment recognises the right of every citizen to establish educational institutions as an occupation under Article 19(1)(g), sets aside the Unni Krishnan fee and seat scheme, fixes the State as the unit for minority status, and lays down how far aided and unaided minority and non-minority institutions may be regulated in admissions, fees and staff. Four referred questions were left to regular Benches. The Articles 29(2) and 30(1) holding drew partial dissents.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“The right to establish and administer educational institutions is guaranteed under the Constitution to all citizens under Articles 19(1)(g) and 26, to minorities specifically under Article 30. All citizens have a right to establish and administer educational institutions under Articles 19(1)(g) and 26, but this right is subject to the provisions of Articles 19(6) and 26(a). However, minority institutions will have a right to admit students belonging to the minority group, in the manner as discussed in this judgment.”
“Linguistic and religious minorities are covered by the expression "minority" under Article 30 of the Constitution. Since reorganisation of the State in India has been on linguistic lines, therefore, for the purpose of determining the minority the unit will be the State and note the whole of India. Thus, religious and linguistic minorities, who have been put at par in Article 30, have to be considered State-wise.”
“Any regulation framed in the national interest must necessarily apply to all educational institutions, whether run by the majority or the minority. Such a limitation must necessarily be read into Article 30. The right under Article 30(1) cannot be such as to override the national interest or to prevent the government from framing regulations in that behalf. It is, of course, true that government regulations cannot destroy the minority character of the institution or make the right to establish and administer a mere illusion; but the right under Article 30 is not so absolute as to be above the law.”
“The establishment and running of an educational institution where a large number of persons are employed as teachers or administrative staff, and an activity is carried on that results in the imparting of knowledge to the students, must necessarily be regarded as an occupation, even if there is no element of profit generation.”
Provisions interpreted
Related judgments
- Explains Rev. Sidhajbhai Sabhai v. State of Bombay (1962)“The aforesaid decision does indicate that the right under Article 30(1) is not so absolute as to prevent the government from making any regulation whatsoever.” (page 27)
- Explained in Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka (2003)
- Explained in P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005)
- Distinguished in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India (2012)
- Followed in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India (2014)
Case and bench
- Parties
- T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka
- Case
- Writ Petition (civil) 317 of 1993 (with connected writ petitions, civil appeals, SLPs and transfer cases)
- Decided
- 31 October 2002
- Judges named in the file
- B.N. Kirpal (CJI), G.B. Pattanaik, V.N. Khare, S. Rajendra Babu, S.S.M. Quadri, Ruma Pal, S.N. Variava, Ashok Bhan, Arijit Pasayat
- Opinions
- Kirpal, CJI delivered the majority judgment, which answers the referred questions. Khare, J. concurred. Quadri, J. concurred except on Articles 29(2) and 30(1), where he agreed with Ruma Pal, J., who dissented on Questions 1 and 8 to that extent. Variava, J., with whom Ashok Bhan, J. agreed, dissented on balancing Articles 29(2) and 30(1).
Questions on this case
3 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.