P.A. INAMDAR AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Spread the love

Post Views: 749

CITATION	(2005) 6 SCC 537
DATE OF JUDGMENT	August 12, 2005
COURT	Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	P.A. Inamdar and Others
RESPONDENT	State of Maharashtra and Others
BENCH	R.C. Lahoti, C.J. and Y.K. Sabharwal, D.M. Dharmadhikari, Arun Kumar, G.P. Mathur, Tarun Chatterjee and P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.

INTRODUCTION

The Appeal has been initiated by the Appellant, who acted as the legal representative for a consortium of privately funded minority institutions located within the State of Maharashtra. The primary contention within this appeal revolved around the policy enacted by the state government, which mandates a uniform entrance examination and allocates reservation quotas for admissions into various professional courses. The central issue under scrutiny before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India pertains to the interpretation of Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, it was established that the establishment of an educational institution constitutes an “occupation” under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Consequently, states are precluded from regulating the admission policies of unassisted minority educational institutions administered by minority communities. Nevertheless, certain regulations may be stipulated to uphold academic standards.

Subsequent to the pronouncement of the judgment by the eleven-Judge bench on October 31, 2002, in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, the Union of India, various state governments, and educational institutions construed the majority ruling from diverse viewpoints. Consequently, distinct statutes and regulations were promulgated by various state governments. These respective state authorities enforced these statutes in relation to self-financed private institutions, whether minority or otherwise, and additionally, exercised their powers to issue various government directives subsequent to the judgment.

To elucidate the uncertainties arising from the T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka case, it was established in the subsequent case of Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka that the state possesses the authority to institute reservations in favor of economically or socially disadvantaged segments of the population. In pursuit of ensuring transparency in the admission process and fee framework, the Court opted to establish committees as a means to implement the rulings set forth in the T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka case. The allocation of quotas shall be determined and established by the competent authority of the State Government.

The primary contention within this appeal revolved around the policy enacted by the state government, which mandates a uniform entrance examination and allocates reservation quotas for admissions into various professional courses.

In this case, dispute pertains to the determination of allocation quotas for unaided professional institutions and the administration of entrance examinations for admission to these educational establishments. The interpretation rendered by a five-member bench in the matter of Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka (2003) concerning the eleven-member bench decision in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) was also a subject of contention.

ISSUE RAISED

Is there a determination or establishment of admission quotas for unaided professional institutions?
Whether there is a legal authorisation and jurisdiction in place for the administration of examinations?
Whether the responsibilities of committees overseeing matters related to admissions and fees, are established in the precedent set by the Islamic Academy case?
What is the limit of regulations and control, imposed by the State?

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT

The Appellant argued that the directives pertaining to the establishment of permanent committees to oversee admissions and fee structures in unaided minority and non-minority institutions, as outlined in the case of Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka, are in conflict with the precedent set in the judgment of T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka.

The appellant emphatically stressed that the usurpation of authority to govern the admissions and fee framework of self-supporting professional institutions does not constitute a justifiable limitation within the purview of Article 19(6) of the Constitution.

The Appellant contended that the operation of an educational institution is a constitutionally protected fundamental right falling within the purview of ‘occupation’ as enshrined in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. However, it is imperative to acknowledge that Article 19(6) empowers the State to enact regulations and impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of public welfare on the privileges conferred upon citizens by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

The appellant asserts that when a State assumes the authority to determine admission policies and fee structures of an educational institution, it amounts to the nationalisation of said institutions. Such nationalisation of education is posited as an unjustifiable encumbrance upon the rights bestowed under Article 19.

The Appellant emphasised that the government’s role is limited to preventing mal-administration in the process of student selection and fee determination. The state is not authorised to assume direct control over the administration of these institutions.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT

The Respondent contended that State, in light of private unaided educational institutions’ pursuit of recognition and affiliation from the government, they ought to be amenable to specific regulatory measures, most notably pertaining to admissions. The contention put forth asserts that such regulation is imperative to uphold transparency, curb commercialisation, and safeguard the welfare of students.

JUDGEMENT

The Hon’ble Supreme Court assessed the constitutionality of the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Fees) Act, 2005, which aimed to govern admission processes and fee structures in private unaided educational institutions, including professional colleges.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of reservations for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes (SC/ST/OBC) in these institutions. However, it clarified that there should be no reservation for the “institution’s share” of seats, referring to those not government-funded.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed the autonomy of private unaided educational institutions to establish their admission criteria and fee structures. The state government can regulate admissions and set quotas for reserved categories but must do so reasonably, fairly, and transparently, without infringing on institutional autonomy.

This judgment established crucial principles regarding the autonomy of private unaided educational institutions, emphasising that their right to establish and administer institutions is protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. Regulations must balance the State’s social welfare interests and institutional autonomy.

The Supreme Court also ruled that private unaided institutions couldn’t be compelled to provide reservations for postgraduate courses but must maintain reasonable fees, avoiding excessive profiteering.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of P.A. Inamdar and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others, upheld the constitutional validity of reservations for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes in private unaided educational institutions, while affirming the autonomy of these institutions in determining admission criteria and fee structures. This judgment established a balance between the State’s social welfare interests and the institutional autonomy, emphasising the protection of the right to establish and administer institutions under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. It clarified that no reservations should be imposed on the “institution’s share” of seats not government-funded, and private institutions couldn’t be compelled to provide reservations for postgraduate courses but must maintain reasonable fees.

REFERENCE