Law and You > Constitutional Law > T.M.A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka
Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution play very important role in protecting rights and interests of minorities. India is consist of the people of various languages, religions, cultures etc. so existence of minority on the basis language, religion etc. are common therefore such provision play important role in protecting the rights of minority. Therefore we as the secular country need such provision. In this article, we shall discuss T.M.A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (T.M.A Pai Foundation Case) dealing with right of establishment and administration of minority institutions.
Citation: AIR 2003 SC 355
Bench: B. N. Kirpal CJI, G.B.Pattanaik, V. N. Khare, S.Rajendra Babu, and S.S.M.Quadri
The Case of TMA Pai Foundation was a landmark 11-judge order which laid down the contours of governmental regulations on private institutions.
Facts:
Dr. T.M.A Pai established an academic institution called ‘The Academy of General Education,’ which was founded as an organization under the Societies Registration Act,1860 in Manipal, which was in the state of Madras at the time, but became a part of the state of Karnataka after the states were recognized. The governor of the state adopted a law called the Karnataka Educational Institutions Ordinance, 1984 under the restriction of the capital charge to forbid the unethical collection of the fee in excessive amounts. A writ petition was filed challenging the legitimacy of the above-mentioned law and the state government’s directive dated 19.07.1984 limiting the total intake of college and allocating 40% of the seats as government seats. During the time that the petition was pending, Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act,1984 was passed that set the rates of capitation and tuition fees for private unaided (not taking any assistance from the government) educational institutions. The college in question was classified as a private unaided educational institution because it received no financial assistance from the state government.
Issues:
- Is there any law allowing one to establish and govern an educational institution?
- How will religious and linguistic minorities be decided—on the grounds of the state or the entire country?
- Whether or not the government’s rules on minority-affiliated or unaffiliated institutions violate Article 30?
- As for what degree can the government place limits on minority-aided and unassisted institutions’ management?
Arguments by petitioner
- The petitioners argued that the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 is in breach of Article 30 of the constitution, which allows linguistic and religious minorities the right to establish and govern their educational institutions.
- The applicants claimed that Konkani is a minority language spoken by a small group of people in the state. TMA Pai was a Konkani speaker by birth, as per the petitioners, hence after his death, a Konkani linguistic institution was founded to honour his memory and promote his goals. Because Konkani is a minority language spoken in Karnataka, it is protected by Article 30 of the constitution.
- As a result, private educational institutions must have total autonomy in their management, with the state refraining from interfering or imposing restrictions on nominees for private educational institutions’ governing bodies, provisions for student admission, fee structure determination, and teacher recruitment, among other things.
Arguments by Respondents:
- The state’s counsel argued that because Article 30 is not an inalienable and an absolute right, the government can put reasonable regulations and limitations on minorities’ private educational establishments in the interest of effective and equitable management.
- The respondents stated that the Act was passed to put an end to the practice of charging capitation fees and commercializing education. As a result, the Act’s provisions do not violate Articles 30, 14, or 19[of the Constitution.
Judgment:
Salient points of judgments are as follows:
- The term ‘minority’ in Art. 30(1) covers linguistic and religious minorities.
- For the purpose of determining the ‘minority’, the unit will be the State and not the whole of India. Thus, religious and linguistic minorities, which have been placed at par in Art. 30, have to be considered State-wise.
- Art. 30(1) gives religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions ‘of their choice’. The use of the words ‘of their choice’ indicates that even professional educational institutions would be covered by art. 30.
- The right conferred on the minorities by Art. 30(1) is not absolute. It has to be read subject to Art. 29(2) and other fundamental rights. Minority educational institutions thus become divisible into two categories, viz.: aided educational institutions and unaided educational institutions. The unaided institutions enjoy much greater autonomy than aided institutions.
- Admission of students to unaided minority educational institutions cannot be regulated by the State or the concerned university, except for providing the qualifications and minimum conditions of eligibility in the interest of academic standards. The right to admit students is an essential facet of the right to administer educational institutions of their choice the State Government or the University may not be entitled to interfere with that tight so long as the admission to the unaided educational institutions is on a transparent basis and merit is adequately taken care of. In case of unaided professional institutions, provision can be made for merit-based selection while giving the management sufficient discretion to admit students.
- Because of the interplay of Art. 29 (2) with Art. 30(1), an aided minority institution is entitled to admit students belonging to the minority group. At the same time, it is also required to admit nonminority students to a reasonable extent, whereby the character of the institution is not annihilated, and, at the same time, the rights of the citizen engrafted under Art. 29(2) are not subverted. What would be a ‘reasonable’ extent, would vary from the type of institution, the courses of education for which admission is being sought and other factors like educational needs. It is for the concerned State Government to notify the percentage of non-minority students to be admitted in the light of the above indicia.
- Observance of inter se merit amongst the minority students could also be ensured. In case of aided professional institutions, it can also be stipulated that passing of the common entrance test held by the State agency is necessary to seek admission. In case of non-minority students eligible to seek admission should normally be on the basis of the common entrance test held for the remaining seats, admission by the State agency followed by counseling wherever it exists.
- A minority institution may have its own procedure and method of admission as well as selection of students, so long as the procedure is fair and transparent. The selection of students in professional and education colleges should be on the basis of merit. The procedure adopted or selection made should not be tantamount to mal-administration. Even an unaided minority institution ought not to ignore the merit of the students for admission; otherwise it will fail to achieve excellence.
- While giving aid to professional institutions, the aid giving authority may prescribe the conditions on the basis of which admissions will be granted by the aided colleges by virtue of merit, coupled with the reservation policy of the State qua non-minority students. The merit may be determined on the basis of an entrance examination conducted by the University or the State concerned. The authority concerned may devise other means also to ensure that admissions are granted on the basis of merit in educational institutions.
- The right to administer, not being absolute, there could be regulatory measures for ensuring educational standards and maintaining excellence thereof. Conditions of affiliation or recognition of unaided institutions can comprise conditions pertaining to the academic and educational character of the institution and ensure uniformity, efficiency and excellence in educational courses. But these conditions should not be such as to lead to governmental control. In case of unaided educational institutions, the regulatory measures of control regulating facets of administration should be minimal. An unaided institution must have greater autonomy than an aided institution. It must have autonomy in such matters as appointment of staff, taking disciplinary action against staff, admission of students, charging of fees etc. A rational method of selecting teachers and for taking disciplinary action against them has to be evolved by the management. There is no need for the management of a private unaided institution to seek prior permission or approval of a government authority to take disciplinary action against a staff member. For redressing grievances of employees of aided as well as unaided institutions who are subjected to punishment or termination of service, a mechanism need to be evolved. Appropriate tribunals presided over by judicial officers of the rank of district judges could be established. The State or other controlling agencies could prescribe minimum qualifications and experience for the teaching staff.
- The aid giving authority can, as a condition of granting aid, put restraints on the freedom of administration and management of the institution. Conditions may be imposed as are necessary for the proper maintenance of the high standard of education as the financial burden is shared by the State. Interests of the staff have also to be protected. An aided institution cannot have the same autonomy in the matter of administration and management as a private unaided institution, but, at the same time, it cannot be treated as a government institution. Regulations may be framed governing service conditions for teaching and other staff for whom aid is provided but without interfering with the over-all administrative control of the management over the staff.
- Fees chargeable by unaided institutions cannot be regulated but no capitation fee can be charged. In aided institutions, fees can be so charged that there is no profiteering. Reasonable surplus to meet cost of expansion and augmentation of facilities does not, however, amount to profiteering.
- All citizens have a right to establish and administer educational institutions under Arts. 19(1)(g) and 26(a).
The word ‘occupation’ in Art. 19(1)(g) covers such an activity. Such institutions are however subject of Arts. 19(b) and 26(1), but this is subject to the right of the minority institutions to admit minority students.
Such religious denominations or sections thereof as do not fall within the special categories carved out in Art. 29(1) and 30(1) can establish and maintain religious and educational institutions under Art. 26(a). The religious and linguistic minorities have an additional right to establish educational institutions under Art. 30(1), in addition to Arts. 19(1) (g) and 26(a).
Thus, the Constitution recognizes the right of an individual or a linguistic minority or a religious denomination or a religious minority to establish educational institutions.
Conclusion:
In this case, an 11 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court decided the scope of right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice under Article 30(1) read with Article 29(2) of the Constitution. The majority opinion delivered by 6 Judges held that only the State can determine the status of a religious or linguistic minority and religious and linguistic minorities, who have been put on a par in Article 30, have to be considered State-wise. However, the right under Article 30(1) cannot be such as to override the national interest or to prevent the Government from framing regulations and 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. Government regulations cannot destroy the minority character of the institution or make the right to establish and administer a mere illusion.