Author: Diya Dhall, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies – Technical Campus
ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
The judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 252 of 1979) was delivered by the Supreme Court of India on October 31, 2002. The case dealt with the interpretation of Article 30 of the Indian Constitution regarding the rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. The court clarified that minorities, both religious and linguistic, have the right to establish and manage educational institutions of their choice. It held that admission to unaided minority institutions cannot be regulated by the state or university, and minorities have the autonomy to determine admission procedures, provided they are fair and merit-based. The court also ruled on various related legal issues raised in the case, including the definition of minorities, the scope of Article 30, and the applicability of certain precedents.
Keywords: Minority, Fundamental Rights, Religion, Educational Institution, Linguistic Minority, Establishment and Administration.
CASE DETAILS
| Judgement Cause Title | T.M.A. Pai Foundation V. State of Karnataka |
| Case Number | Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 252 of 1979 |
| Judgement Date | 31 October, 2002 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Quorum | B.N.Kirpal,CJI & G.B.Pattanaik & V.N.Khare & S.Rajendra Babu & S.S.M.Quadri |
| Author | V.N. Khare |
| Citation | AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 355 |
| Legal Provisions Involved | Article 14 of the Indian Constitution Article 19 of the Indian Constitution Article 25 of the Indian Constitution Article 26 of the Indian Constitution Article 29 of the Indian Constitution Article 30 of the Indian Constitution |
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT
In Part III of the Indian Constitution, there is Article 30 which provides for the rights of minorities in establishing and managing educational institutions. It is often called the “Constitutional Rights of Academics”. According to this article, every minority community has the right to establish and administer its own educational institutions of their choice. Language or religion should not be a barrier to any minority group’s decision in setting up and running educational institutions. The fact that Article 30 is very useful for minorities makes it quite crucial as well.
According to Article 30 of the Indian Constitution, all minorities have the right to set up and manage educational institutions based on their religion or language. The government cannot deny aid to an institution solely on the grounds of it being run by a minority, even if there is no language or religious basis for such support.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Academy of General Education was founded by Dr. T.M.A. Pai as an academic institution under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 in Manipal, which was then a part of the state of Madras but later became a part of the state of Karnataka after the states were recognized.
The governor enacted Karnataka Educational Institutions Ordinance, 1984 which provided that no capital charge should be imposed and forbidden to charge excess fees from students without any ethical justification. A writ petition was filed challenging the constitutional validity of this statute and also order dated July 19, 1984 passed by the State Government putting limit on number admissions to colleges and setting apart 40% seats for government quota.
During pendency of this petition, The Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 came into force which prescribed rates for capitation fee and tuition fee for private unaided educational institutions who received no aid from government.
Because it did not receive any financial assistance from the State Government, this college was classified as unaided private educational institution.
In 1993 a writ petition was filed by Islamic Academy Of Education along with connected petitions before a Bench consisting of five Judges. These cases were subsequently referred to Bench consisting of seven judges and finally the case was placed before a Bench of 11 Judges which further leads to the present case in which the court tries to answer the 11 questions presented before it.
LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
- What is the meaning and content of the expression “minorities” in Article 30 of the Constitution of India?
- What is meant by the expression “religion” in Article 30(1)? Can the followers of a sect or denomination of a particular religion claim protection under Article 30(1) on the basis that they constitute a minority in the State, even though the followers of that religion are in majority in that State?
- Whether the admission of students to minority educational institution, whether aided or unaided, can be regulated by the State Government or by the University to which the institution is affiliated?
- Whether the minority’s rights to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice will include the procedure and method of admission and selection of students?
- Whether the minority institutions’ right of admission of students and to lay down procedure and method of admission, if any, would be affected in any way by the receipt of State aid?
- Whether it would be correct to say that only the members of that minority residing in State ‘A’ will be treated as the members of the minority vis–vis such institution?
- Whether the member of a linguistic non-minority in one State can establish a trust/society in another State and claim minority status in that State?
- Whether the ratio laid down by this Court in the St. Stephen’s case (St. Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi is correct?
- Whether the decision of this Court in Unni Krishnan J.P. v. State of A.P. (except where it holds that primary education is a fundamental right) and the scheme framed thereunder required reconsideration/modification and if yes, what?
- Whether the non-minorities have the right to establish and administer educational institution under Article 21 and 29(1) read with Articles 14 and 15(1), in the same manner and to the same extent as minority institutions?
PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
- The counsels for Petitioner submitted that the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 contravened Article 30 of the constitution which provides for the right of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer their own educational institutions.
- The counsels for Petitioner submitted that Konkani was spoken by only a small fraction of the people living in that state; hence it was a minority language.
- The counsels for Petitioner submitted that since TMA Pai spoke Konkani as his mother tongue, so after he died a Konkani medium institution should be set up in memory of him and for continuation of his aims. Also, under this article is covered the minority language, Konkani of Karnataka.
- The counsels for Petitioner submitted that it includes no interference by the State with nominations to Governing Bodies, admission policies for students, fee structures and appointment of teachers among other things with regards to private education institutions. In light of this therefore private educationists are to have total freedom over their administration.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
- The counsels for Respondent submitted that since Article 30 is not an unalienable or absolute right, the government is entitled to impose reasonable restrictions and limitations on the private educational institutions owned by minorities in the name of efficient and just administration.
- The counsels for Respondent submitted that purpose of the Act’s passage was to prohibit the practice of commercializing education and imposing capitation fees. Therefore, neither Articles 30, 14, or 19 of the Constitution are violated by the Act’s provisions.
RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Article 14 of the Indian Constitution
- Article 19 of the Indian Constitution
- Article 25 of the Indian Constitution
- Article 26 of the Indian Constitution
- Article 29 of the Indian Constitution
- Article 30 of the Indian Constitution
JUDGEMENT (RATIO DECIDENDI)
- The Court held that the term ‘minority’ under Article 30 include both religious and linguistic minority. The minorities are to be considered state wise as the states in India are reorganised on the basis of language.
- The Court held that the Article 30 of the Indian Constitution gives both linguistic and religious minority to establish and administer educational institution of their choice. It includes professional educational institutions.
- The Court held that admission of students to unaided minority educational institutions cannot be regulated by the State or the University as Right to admit students is an essential facet of right to administer educational institutions of their choice, the State Government or the University may not be entitled to interfere with that right in respect of unaided minority institutions.
- The court held that admission of students in an aided educational institution cannot be denied on the grounds of religion, caste, race, language or any of them.
- The court held that the minority institution can have its own procedure and method od admission and of selection of students, but such procedure has to be fair and transparent and it should be based on merit.
- The court held that the decision laid down in St. Stephen’s College case is not correct.
- The court held that the scheme framed by the Court in Unni Krishnan’s case and the direction to impose the same, except where it holds that primary education is a fundamental right, is unconstitutional.
- The court held that the term ‘education’ in the article of the Indian constitution means and includes education at all levels from primary to post graduate level.
CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
The judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka reaffirms the foundational principles of minority rights in education under the Indian Constitution. By recognizing the autonomy of minority institutions and protecting their rights to establish and manage educational institutions, the court upholds the diversity and inclusivity enshrined in the Constitution. The decision provides clarity on the scope and application of Article 30, ensuring that minority communities have the freedom to preserve and promote their cultural and linguistic heritage through education. It sets a crucial precedent for future cases involving minority rights, fostering a more equitable and inclusive educational landscape in India. The judgment serves as a testament to the judiciary’s commitment to upholding constitutional values and safeguarding the rights of all citizens, regardless of religious or linguistic affiliation.
REFERENCES
Important Cases Referred
St. Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi
Gandhi Faizeam College v. Agra University
D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab
State of Kerala v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial
Rev. Bishop S.K. Patro v. State of Bihar
Rev. Sidharjbahi Sabhai v. State of Bombay
State of Bombay v. Bombay Education Society and Ors.
The State of Madras v. Srimathi Champakam Dorairajan
Important Statutes Referred
Constitution of India,1950
The Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984