Introduction:
Dr. TMA Pai in 1942, Madras founded an “Academy of General Education” which was an educational institution. The institution became a part of the state of Karnataka after the reorganization of the states.
After that, some more institutions were founded under the name of this institution like “Manipal Engineering College Trust” for establishment and administration of ‘Manipal Institute of Technology’. That trust wanted to promote the Konkani Language and to encourage the students speaking same language. Afterwards, the trustee of the engineering college transferred the college ownership to TMA Pai trust which was formed in the memory of Dr. TMA Pai.
Karnataka’s governor promoted an ordinance named “Karnataka Educational Institutions” from charging extra money in the name of fees. The state government also passed an order which fixed total intake of students and also imposed a fixed percentage of seats as government seats.
The college which fell under TMA Pai foundation was seen under the category of Minority unaided private educational institution as it did not received any aid from the state.
Challenging the 1984 ordinance and the order of the state, the petitioners filed a writ petition on the basis that the government’s regulation in the administration of the Minority educational institution infringes the rights of the minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.
Issues Raised:
Several issues that came before Apex Court were:-
- Whether there is any provision under which one can establish and administer educational institution or not?
- How the minorities whether it is religious or linguistic will be decided- on the basis of the state or the whole country?
- Whether the government’s regulations on the minority aided or unaided institutions are violative of article or not?
- To what extent the government can impose restrictions on the administration of minority aided and unaided institutions?
The laws which came into light under this case are :-
- Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian constitution.
- Article 29(2) of the Indian constitution.
- Article 30(1) of the Indian constitution.
- Article 26 of the Indian constitution.
Though the minorities have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice under Article 30(1) of the constitution, it is not an absolute right, it is subject to Article 29(2).
Arguments of Petitioner’s and Respondents:
The counsel on behalf of the minority education institutions contended that constitution provides fundamental rights for the minorities for establishing and administering the institutions under Article 30. So, the private institutes of education should have the fullest autonomy in their administration and even the state should not interfere to any of the conditions relating to private institutions, provisions regarding admission of the students, fixing of fees etc.
The respondent responded that article 30 is not a right which is absolute. Government have full right to put reasonable restrictions over the education of minorities for the betterment.
Judgment:
In this case, judges dealt with several issues related to the autonomy of the private minority educational institutions :-
- Apex court held that all citizens have right to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 19(1)(g), 26 and the minorities under Article 30 but these rights were not considered as absolute rights.
- The court regarding the issue of whether state’s interference in the administration of the aided minority private educational institutions is violating Article 30(1), held that the constitutional right under Article 30(1) to administer an educational institution of their choice does not necessarily militate against state’s claim to insist that in order to grant aid the state can prescribe reasonable regulations to ensure the excellence of institutions.
- In the case of unaided minority institutions regulatory measures imposed by the state should be minimal. Recruiting teachers and non- staff, fees structure etc. will be considered beyond government’s control.
- In case of admission, the minority unaided educational institutions can admit and select students of their choice but the procedure of selection must be fair and transparent.
- Aided minority educational institutions also have the right to admit students belonging to their country on the basis of merit. But it must admit a reasonable number of non-minority students as well. The reasonable number would be decided by the respective states.
Analysis:
In this century, private education has become that part of our education system which can never be separated from education. Privatization, Liberalization and globalization including the government failure to provide higher education to its population has brought the concept of private education to light.
The government’s interference in the governing body of institutions means that there can be political influence that can put unreasonable restrictions upon the educational institutions. Education aims to set one free from all darkness but government’s interference is not only putting shackles over the educational institutions but also putting restrictions on the quality of education.
- The first issue was that how it would be decided that who minorities are as there was no reference regarding “minorities” in the constitution.
- Another issue before the court was whether the government can regulate the nomination of the members in governing bodies, admission of the students etc.
Article 30(1) of the constitution provides rights to the minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice but if the government unreasonable restrictions on the minority educational institutions while giving financial aid, then the sole purpose of such institutions will be defeated.
While dealing with the issue the court relied upon various cases like-
- St. Stephen’s college vs. University of Delhi
- State of Madras vs. Champakam Dorairajan
- Kerala educational bill, 1957
According to my opinion, I agree with the decision taken by the apex court. On one hand there should be reasonable restrictions imposed by the state over these institutions for a better and fair educational system. The minority as well as non minority students, should also be provide with the opportunity to receive education from private institutions.
On the other hand, it is also important that the restrictions imposed by the government should be reasonable and the government should not interfere with the day to day administration of the institutions which can mitigate the minority nature of the institutions.
Conclusion:- Article 29 and Article 30- Cultural and Educational Rights play a major role in interpreting the extent of the rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.
TMA Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka is a landmark judgment that has given answers to several questions regarding the minorities’ rights and government’s regulations in the administration of educational institutions. This case clears on how Article 29(2) applies to Article 30(1).
This article is written by Aayushi Khaneja, IMIRC College of Law, CCS University an intern under Legal Vidhiya
