T.M.A. Pai Foundation and ors. (ii) Vs. State of Karnataka and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- - so long as the minority educational institution is permitted to draw students belonging to that minority to the extent of 50% seats even by going down the merit list, we see no reason why the state/affiliating university cannot stipulate that the general students as well as minority students mast all be drawn only from the common merit pool and that even the minority community students must also be admitted on the basis of inter se merit determined on the basis of common/joint entrance test. 4. in as much as the above questions must be clarified well before the commencement of the academic year 1994-95, it is but appropriate that a larger bench is constituted in the year 1993 itself, as far as possible......basis of inter se merit determined on the basis of common/joint entrance test. article 30, in our opinion, does not clothe a minority educational institution with the power to adopt its own method of selection of students. it is not a part of the minority character of the institution. the said requirement is but a piece of regulation which the state/affiliating university can prescribe in the interest of fairness and maintenance of standards. the order dated 24th september 1993, staying admission of students to minority educational institutions, is vacated.3. the papers be placed before the hon'ble chief justice for orders regarding the constitution of a larger bench.4. in as much as the above questions must be clarified well before the commencement of the academic year 1994-95, it is but appropriate that a larger bench is constituted in the year 1993 itself, as far as possible.

Judgment:

ORDER

1. During the course of hearing of these writ petitions, certain questions have cropped up, which in our opinion need to be answered authoritatively by a larger Bench. The questions are:

(1) What is the meaning and content of the expression 'minorities' in Article 30 of the Constitution of India? (2) - What is the meaning of the expression 'Minority Educational Institution' and what is the indicia to determine whether an educational institution is a Minority Educational Institution?

(3) Whether the decision of this Court in St. Stephens is right in saying that Article 30 clothes a Minority Educational Institution with the power to admit students by adopting its own method of selection and that the State or the affiliating University has no power to regulate admission of students to such Minority Educational Institution even while permitting the Minority Educational Institution to admit students belonging to the relevant minority to the extent of 50% of its intake capacity?

2. With regard to the third question, we think, we must briefly indicate the reasons for reference to the larger bench. In St. Stephens College v. University of Delhi : AIR1992SC1630 it is held that it is not permissible for the State or the affiliating University to provide that admissions to Minority Educational Institutions should also be on the basis of merit as determined in a joint/common entrance test and that the Minority Educational Institution too must draw its students from the common pool on the basis of merit. We entertain serious reservations with respect to the said holding. So long as the Minority Educational Institution is permitted to draw students belonging to that minority to the extent of 50% seats even by going down the merit list, we see no reason why the State/affiliating University cannot stipulate that the general students as well as minority students mast all be drawn only from the common merit pool and that even the minority community students must also be admitted on the basis of inter se merit determined on the basis of common/joint entrance test. Article 30, in our opinion, does not clothe a Minority Educational Institution with the power to adopt its own method of selection of students. It is not a part of the minority character of the Institution. The said requirement is but a piece of regulation which the State/affiliating University can prescribe in the interest of fairness and maintenance of standards. The order dated 24th September 1993, staying admission of students to Minority Educational Institutions, is vacated.

3. The papers be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for orders regarding the Constitution of a larger Bench.

4. In as much as the above questions must be clarified well before the commencement of the academic year 1994-95, it is but appropriate that a larger bench is constituted in the year 1993 itself, as far as possible.