TMA PAI FOUNDATION VS STATE OF KARNATKA : CASE SUMMARY

The Supreme Court in its landmark judgment TMA Foundation & Ors Vs. State of Karnatka & Ors (2002) SUPP 4 SCR 587 determined following aspects in relation to unaided private educational institutions and minority educational institutions.

Whether there is Fundamental Right to establish Educational Institutions?

The Court held that education is covered under “occupation” under Article 19 (1) (g) as such there is a fundamental right to establish educational institution. Religious denomination has also fundamental right to establish educational institution under Article 26 (1). Religious and linguistic minorities are also having fundamental right to establish educational institution under Article 30 (1).

Was educational scheme devised in Unnikrishnan correct in respect of private educational institutions ?

The Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan J P and Ors Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) 1 SCC 645 has held that commercialization of education was not permissible. The Supreme Court has devised scheme which has to followed while granting recognition/affiliation to private institutions. The Scheme inter alia provided for 50% frees seats which have to filled by nominee of University/Government on the basis of merit determined on common competitive examination and 50% payment seats by those candidates who are willing to pay based on inter se merit. The maximum fee has to prescribed by appropriate authority or competent court.

The Supreme Court observed that the scheme has resulted into higher expense than revenue to institutions. The restrictions imposed on the educational institutions by the scheme cannot be said to be reasonable. The Court noted that Unnikrishnan judgment has created some problems as payment seats candidates will be incurring cost of education of free seats candidates. More affluents students belonging to urban area are faring better in competitive examination and availing the free seats and students belonging to rural areas are forced to take admission in free seats.

The Supreme Court held that any system of selection which deprive the private unaided educational institution right of rational selection are unreasonable. Surrendering the total process of selection to state will be unreasonable as was done in Unnirishnan Case.

The Supreme Court overruled the decision in Unnikrishnan in respect of admission and fixation of fee in private unaided institutions.

Can private institutions be regulated by State ?

The Supreme Court held that the while state has right to prescribe qualifications for admission for  private unaided colleges, such institutions  have right to admit students of their choice, subject to objective and rational procedure of selection. Conditions can be made by Government for admission of small percentage of weaker sections granting them freeships and scholarships. The Court observed that profiteering is not permitted in Indian Conditions but such institutions have right fix fee structure which lead to betterment of education facilities. Such institutions have also right to constitute its governing body for which qualifications may be prescribed by state. Any interference in appointment of persons on board or teachers by State will be unreasonable.

State can take regulate academic standards, atmosphere or infrastructure but State can not fix fee, or appoint teachers or control composition of governing board or nominate students for admission.

Authority granting recognition or affiliation to Private unaided educational institutions can lay down conditions in respect of academic and educational aspects but can not interfere in administration of such institutions.

Unaided professional institutions have to take recognition/affiliation from appropriate authority and follow the regulation required for ensuring academic standards, efficiency, uniformity and excellence. But state cannot interfere in administration and management.

In aided professional institutions State can make rules regarding merit based admission and apply reservation policy. State can also put fetters on administration and management of such institutions.  

What will be unit of determining minority institution ?

The Supreme Court reiterated the view taken in Re. Kerala Education Bill (1957-1959) SCR 995  that religious or linguistic minority has to determined at state level.  Inclusion of  education in Concurrent List vide 42^nd amendment nowhere changes this position.

What will be extent of regulation of minority institutions ?

The Court held that unaided minority institutions can be autonomous except regulation for maintaining academic standards and atmosphere.

Minority Institutions established under Article 30 (1)  availing state aid have to be read with Article 28 (3)   and Article 29 (2).  Article 30 (1) is not absolute and are subject to provisions of Article 28 (3) and Article 29 (2). Article 28 (3) provides that it will not be required for persons to take part in religious instruction in  educations institutions receiving state aid or recognition. Article 29 (2) provides that there will not be any discrimination on ground of religion, race, caste or language in admission to educational institutions receiving state aid.

The Supreme Court held that receiving state aid does not alter the minority character of the minority institution covered under Article 30 (2).

The Supreme Court in Stephens College has held that minority institutions receiving state aid has to admit 50 % students from non-minority community. The rigid principle provided under St. Stephen’s College Vs University of Delhi (1992 1 SCC 558 was overruled and minority institutions were given discretion to decide ratio depending on relevant factors. The minority institutions had to give preference in admission  to minorities in the state.

_______________________________________________