Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka

FACTS AND ISSUE

The Supreme Court constituted a five-judge Bench to interpret and clarify the majority decision of the eleven-judge Bench in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002). The TMA Pai judgment, which dealt with the rights of minority and non-minority educational institutions under Article 30, was being understood and implemented differently across various States. This led to conflicting regulations and subsequent widespread litigation, including challenges to interim orders passed by other courts.

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

• Interpretation of TMA Pai: The Court adopted a judicially unprecedented procedure by constituting a five-judge Bench to interpret the decision of an eleven-judge Bench. This was done to settle the confusion and provide workable guidelines derived from TMA Pai.

• Regulation of Educational Institutions:

  • The Court emphasized that educational institutions cannot be used for profiteering.

  • Fee Structure: It was directed that the State Governments must appoint a permanent committee in each State for the purpose of setting up the fee structure in unaided private institutions. This committee's decision would be subject to challenge only under Article 226 of the Constitution.

  • Admission Procedure: The Court directed that a permanent committee be appointed to ensure that the Common Entrance Tests (CET) conducted by associations of colleges for admission to professional and non-professional colleges are fair and transparent. Merit must be maintained amongst the eligible minority applicants.

• Minority Quota and State Quota:

  • Islamic Academy directed the State Government to notify a reasonable percentage of non-minority students to be admitted in unaided minority institutions, having regard to the type of institution and the needs of minorities.

  • (Note on P.A. Inamdar): This specific view of Islamic Academy, that the State had the power to fix the percentage of quota even in unaided educational institutions, was later overruled in P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005) on the ground that it ran counter to the principles laid down in TMA Pai.

RELEVANT CASE LAWS

• T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002): Held that unaided professional institutions are entitled to autonomy in their administration while upholding the principles of merit. It allowed unaided non-minority colleges to reserve a percentage of seats for management admission.

• St. Xaviers College v. State of Gujarat (1974): Observed that the whole object of conferring the right on minorities under Article 30 is to ensure equality between the majority and the minority.

{pg 306, 1283, 1333, 1348, 1349, Indian constitutional law by MP Jain, 8th ed} {pg 166 Constitution of India by VN Shukla, 14th ed}