Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION AND ORS. ETC.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS ETC.

Citation
1995 INSC 450
Decided
11 August 1995
Disposal
Disposed off

Holding

While deferring the larger constitutional questions to a larger bench, the Court issued interim directions for 1995-96, staying the Karnataka restriction, fixing the NRI quota at 15%, prescribing fee structures, ordering a central subvention, and directing a loan scheme for private medical and dental colleges.

Summary

The Supreme Court was approached to resolve disputes arising from the Karnataka amendment that restricted admissions to private professional colleges to Karnataka students only, and to address grievances about the fee gap between free and payment seats, the NRI quota, and the applicability of the Unnikrishnan scheme to minority institutions. The Court held that broader constitutional questions concerning Article 30 and uniform treatment of minority educational institutions must be decided by a larger bench, but it could issue interim directions for the 1995-96 academic year. It stayed the Karnataka amendment for that year, fixed the NRI quota at 15%, and prescribed a fee structure for free (merit) and payment seats in medical and dental colleges. The Court also ordered a central government subvention of Rs.5,000 per student and directed the Reserve Bank of India to devise a loan scheme for students. Further, it directed Karnataka to allocate payment seats among Karnataka, non‑Karnataka, and NRI students as per the specified percentages and set timelines for admissions. The petition was ultimately disposed of after these interim orders.

Issues considered

  • The applicability of Article 30 to a uniform admission scheme for all professional colleges, including minority institutions
  • Whether the Karnataka amendment restricting admissions to Karnataka students can be enforced for the 1995-96 academic year
  • The appropriate percentage for the NRI/foreign student quota for the 1995-96 academic year
  • The proper fee structure for free (merit) and payment seats in private medical and dental colleges
  • The provision of central government subvention to private medical colleges
  • The role of the Reserve Bank of India in providing study loans to students of private professional colleges
  • The need for a larger bench to consider the broader constitutional and policy questions

Legislation cited

Subjects

Admission to professional collegesArticle 30Minority Educational InstitutionsNRI quotaFee structureCentral government subventionStudy loan schemeKarnataka amendmentInterim directions

Judgment

A                T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION AND ORS. ETC.
                                          v.
               STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS ETC.

                                AUGUST 11, 1995

B   [KULDIP SINGH, S.C. AGRAWAL AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.]

          Constitution of India-Article 32-Admission to professional ·col-
    leges-Interim directions made regarding admission and fee ;tructure confined
    to Academic Year 1995-96 and limited to medical and dental col-
C   leges-Education-Admission to Professional Courses.

           In Unniklishnan, J.P. v. State ofAndhra Pradesh, a Constitution Bench
    of the Court on 4.2.1993, framed a scheme governing admission to profes-
    sional colleges with a view to eliminate the evil of capitation fee and to
D   ensure that merit prevails in the matter of admissions, both in respect of
    free seats as well as in respect of 'payment seats'. The scheme was to be
    effective from the Academic Year 1993-94 onwards. Review Petitions filed
    by several institutions against this judgment were dismissed by the Con-
    stitution Bench on May 14, 1993 subject to one clarification that it sha~l be
    open to the professional colleges to admit non resident Indian students to
E   the extent of five percent of the total intake in a given year. These 5% seats
    were to be out of fifty percent payment seats.

          On March 10, 1993, the Karnataka Legislature enacted Karnataka
    Selection of Candidates for Admission to Engineering, Medical, Dental,
    Pharmacy and Nursing Courses Rules, 1993 under the Karnataka Educa-
F   tional Institutions (Prohibition of Capital Fee) Act, 1984, providing certain
    preference in favour of Karnataka students in the matter of admission to
    these professional colleges. On May 20, 1995 amendments were made in the
    Rules as a result of which no more Karnataka student, except perhaps the
    non-resident Indians. Could be admitted to these institutions. The educa-
G   tional institutions that the said restriction caused grave prejudice to them
    in as much as they will not be able to fill up all the payment seats as the
    gap in the fees paid by 'free students' and 'payment students' was too large
    and contrary to the intention of the scheme.

          There was also a complaint that the gap in the fees paid by 'free
H students' and payment students is too large and that most of the boys from
                                        608·
                  T.M.A.PAIFOUNDATION v. STATE                          609

the well-to-do families were taking away the free seats leaving the payments A
seats to the students from the rural areas and backward communities. The
management also complaint that the fee prescribed were not sufficient to
meet the necessary expenditure. By order dated April 27, 1995 the Court
invited suggestions and comments from the State Governments and Govt.
of India as well as from the Indian Medical Council, University Grant
Commission, Dental Council of India and All India Council of Technical
                                                                             B
Education (A.I.C.T.E.). In response of the said order suggestions were
received from some of the State Governments, Statutory Councils Manage-
ments of the Educational Institutions and Students.

      Disposing of the matter, this Court                                      c
      HELD : 1.1. The demand of states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu for
a uniform treatment of all professional colleges - whether established and
maintained by minorities or by others - in the matter of admissions, invol-
ves the question whether Article 30 of the Constitution stands in the way of
such equal treatment. Several aspects of Article 30 are already pending D
before a larger Bench. Any such direction as prayed for by the said states
can be done only by the larger Bench. Moreover admissions are already
under way in several States in accordance with the said scheme, as modified
by the subsequent orders of this Court. Regulations have been framed by
the A.I.T.C.E., Dental Council and several State Governments on the basis E
of and in accordance with the said scheme. All of them cannot suddenly be
suspended at this point of time. It requires a much wider and more exten-
sive hearing of all points of view and a deeper consideration of the sugges-
tions of several governments, councils, institutions and others before a
definite opinion can be expressed. [623-H; 624-A-C]
                                                                               F
      1.2. Having regard to the grievance relating to the gap between the
fees payable by the 'free student' and the 'payment student' and the uniform
demand for increasing the N.R.IJForeign students quota, the court gave the
following directions for Academic Year 1995-96 limited to medical and
dental colleges is that: [624-F]
                                                                               G
      (a) N.R.I. quota is fixed at fifteen percent for the current academic
year. It shall be open to the management to admit N.R.I. students and
foreign students within this quota and in case they are not able to get the
N.R.I. or foreign students upto the aforesaid specified percentage, it shall
be open to them to admit students on their own, in the order of merit, within H
    610                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 2S.C.R.

A the said quota. This direction shall operate in the case of all the States
    where admissions have not been finalised. No student who has already been
    admitted shall however be disturbed or removed. [624-G-H; 625-A]

          (b) So far as Minority Educational Institutions are concerned, the
    orders made on August 18, 1993 shall continue to govern them for this
B   academic year. This shall also be a general direction applicable to all States
    including colleges in Maharashtra imparting 'unani' medicine courses.
                                                                          [625-B]
         1.3. As regards State of Karnataka the following additional direction
    was given:
c
           ·(a) The restriction placed by the 1995 amendment to the Karnataka
    Selection of Candidates for Admission to Engineering, Medical, Dental,
    Pharmacy and Nursing Courses Rules,, 1993, viz.,. that only Karnataka
    students (as defined by the said Rules) shall be admitted against the
    payment seats shall not operate for the current academic year. Among the
D   fifty percent payment seats, fifteen percent are allocated to N.R.IJforeign
    students. Out of the balance thirty five percent seats, twenty percent shall
    be reserved for Karnataka students and remaining fifteen percent for non-
    Karnataka students - as was done during the previous academic year. The
    admission of Karnataka students against the payment seats shall be made
E   in accordance with the scheme framed in Unnikrishnan out of the students
    who have appeared in the entrance test already held. If any of the seats in
    this twenty percent remain vacant, they shall be added to the fifteen percent
    quota of non-Karnataka students and shall be filled in accordance with
    clause (b) below. [625-D-F]

F          (b) Since there is no sufficient time left for conducting a fresh com-
    mon entrance test for non-Karnataka students for admission to the
    aforesaid.fifteen percent seats specified in clause (a) above, following direc-
    tions is made: a press note shall be issued by the Government of Karnataka
    on or before August 15, 1995, to be published in all the national dailies,
G   calling for applications from non-Karnataka students for admission to
    payment seats in private medical and dental colleges in Karnataka, to be
    submitted on or before September 5, 1995. The applications shall be accom-
    panied by the Memorandum of marks in the qualifying examination, apart
    from other relevant documents. Admissions shall be made on the basis of
    merit determined on the basis of the marks obtained by them in qualifying
H   examination. The students admitted shall remit the requisite fee, as
                          T.MA PAl FOUNDATION v. STATE                           611

       specified, within ten days of the order of allotment. [625-G-H; 626-A]           A
             (c) All free seats, to be called "merit seats" shall be reserved for
       Karnataka students. Allotments against these free/merit seats and the
       payment seats meant for Karnataka students shall be completed on or
       before September 16, 1995 and of seats to non-Karnataka students on or
       before the October 9, 1995. Any seats remaining unallotted after that date       B
       or remaining unfilled as on October 30, 1995 shall be allowed to be filled
       by the Management on its own. [626:C1

            1.4. As regards the fee structure, in respect of the medical colleges
       and dental colleges for the current academic year, the following directions
       were given: [626-D]
                                                                                        c
              (a) The fee payable by the students allotted against free seats desig-
....   nated as merit seats in Medical Colleges shall be Rupees twenty thousand
       per annum. For the payment student, in respect of college~ having their
       own hospitals, the fee shall be Rupees seventy five thousand per annum,          D
       in respect of colleges which partly depend upon government hospital and
       partly upon their own facility the fee shall be Rupees seventy thousand per
       annum and for colleges which depend wholly upon government hospitals,
       the fees shall be Rupees sixty five thousand per annum. [626-E-F]

              (b) So far as Dental colleges are concerned, the fees shall be Rupees
                                                                                        E
       fifteen thousand per annum for free/merit seat and Rupees fifty thousand
       per annum for payment seats respectively. [626-G]

              1.5. The Central Government shall provide a subvention of Rupees
       five thousand per annum in respect of every student admitted in a private        F
       medical college, whether admitted against free/merit seat or against a
       payment seat, but not in respect of a student admitted against N.R.IJforeign
       student quota specified above. The subvention shall be made and continued
       until the student completes the course or for a period of five years whichever
       is earlier. The subvention amount by the Central Government shall be sent        G
       directly to the concerned college, towards fee, every year, commencing with
       Academic Year 1995-96. This direction shall be subject to the directions that
       may be issued by the larger Bench. [626-H; 627-A-B]

            1.6. The Reserve Bank of India shall evolve a scheme for extending
       study loans to the students studying in medical and dental colleges in           H
    612                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   private professional colleges. For this purpose, the study loans shall be
    deemed to be in the priority sector and shall be dealt with as category
    under 'Differential Rate Interest'. Pending the evolving of such a scheme,
    the Reserve Bank of India is requested to issue appropriate directions for
    this academic year in the following terms to Nationalised Banks forthwith,
    not later than ten days : [627-C-D]
B
           (a) Free/merit students shall be given a loan of Rupees fifteen
    thousand for the Academic Year 1995.-96 on production of (i) a certificate
    from the concerned medical/dental college that he is admitted against a
    free seat, (ii) an affidavit by the student and his father (in absence of the
C   father, by mother or other near relative) that the total annual income of
    the student's family does not exceed Rupees fifty thousan~ per year and
    (iii) a bond executed by the student (and in case he is a minor, by his
    father/mother or the guardian) undertaking to repay the loan in five equal
    annual instalments commencing from two years after completion of the
    course he is studying, or within one year of his obtaining employment,
                                                                                      -·
D   whichever is earlier. No security need be insisted upon. The amount of loan
    shall be remitted directly to the college concerned. The free/merit students
    shall pay the fees now fixed or the difference between the existing fee and
    the fee now fixed within one month of their admission. (627-E-G]

E        (b) Payment students shall be extended a loan upto Rupees fifty
    thousand on the same terms but on further condition, that they furnish
    adequate security to the satisfaction of the Bank for the loan advanced.
                                                                       (627-H]
          1.7. So far as engineering and other colleges are concerned, the rules,
F   regulations and orders made by the concerned council, government and
    this court shall continue to govern for this academic year. There shall be
    no change insofar as these colleges are concerned. The position obtaining
    in the Academic Year 1994-95 shall apply and continue for Academic Year
    19~5-96. The allotment of students to these colleges shall be completed by
G   September 30, 1995. Any seats remaining unallotted - or any seats remain-
    ing unfilled on or after 16th October, 1995 shall be allowed to be filled by
    the Management. (628-A-B]

          1.8. Insofar as the suggestion ofKarnataka, and Tamil Nadu Govern-
    ments for uniform system of admissions to private colleges and for equal
H   treatment of all professional colleg\!S - irrespective of the fact whether they
                  T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION v. STATE                        613

are M.E.Is. or not • is concerned, it involves the issue whether Article 30 A
stands in the way of equal treatment of M.E.Is. and other similady placed
educational institutions not established by the minorities. This question
cannot be considered by this Bench. It can be done only by the larger Bench.
So also, the request of Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu Governments to
introduce the system of only two categories (free seats and N.R.I. seats in
                                                                             B
the proportion of 80:20 or 75:25, as the case may be) cannot be considered
by this Bench but only bya larger Bench (of seven Judges) in vi~ of the fact
that decision in Unnikrishnan was rendered by a Bench of five Judges.
                                                                  [628-C-E]
      CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Interlocutory Application                   C
Nos. 25-27.

                                    In

      Writ Petition (C) No. 317 of 1993 Etc. Etc.

      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)                          D

      D.P. Gupta, Solicitor General, K.T.S. Tulsi Additional Solicitor
General, N. Santosh Hegde, F.S. Nariman, H.N. Salve, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan,
Kapil Sibal and K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Advs., B.K. Prasad, Arun K. Sharma,
P. Parmeshwaran, S. Ravindra Bhat, Navin R. Nath, Ms. Kiran Jethanand, · E
P.D'Souza, S.M. Jadhav, K.S. Chauhan, R.B. Misra, Nalin Tripathi,
Janaradhan M., Padmanabha Mahale, M. Veerappa, M.D. Adkar, Ejaz
Maqbool, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, B.E. Avhad, Dr. Roxna Swami, Subhash
Sharma, Bharat Sangal, Ms. A. Subhashini, L.R Singh, Ms. Lalita Kaushik,
Kailash Vasudev, A.K. Panda, Indeevar Goodwill, R.P. Wadhwani, T.C.
Sharma, P.R. Ramasesh, Ashok Grover, K.R. Nagaraja, B. Parthasarthy, F
Ranjit Kumar, Mrs. Aruna Mathur, Raj Kumar Mehta, Ms. Kiran Suri, Ms.
Bina Gupta, Rajiv Kumar Sharma, B.B. Singh, Mrs. Rani Chabra, A.V.
Rangam, A.S. Bhasme, M.J. Paul, Mrs. Rachna, Arun K. Sinha, K.R.
Choudhary, K. Ramkumar, Ejaz Maqbool, A.M. Khanwilkar and Mrs. V.D.
Khanna for the appearing parties.                                        G
      The following Order of the Court was delivered :

      Though the orders we are now making are interim in nature, it is
appropriate to set out briefly the circumstances leading to the present stage
for a proper appreciation of the several directions we are making herein.       H
    614                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A            In Unnikrishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1993] 1 S.C.C. 645,
      a Constitution Bench of this Court framed a scheme governing admission
      to professional colleges. This was done with a view to eliminate the evil of
      capitation fee and the absolute discretion which the managements of these
      colleges were exercising in the matter of admission of students. The main
      objective was to ensure that merit prevails in the matter of admissions, both
B     in respect of what were called "free seats" as well as in respect of "payment
      seats". This judgment was rendered on February 4, 1993. The scheme was
    · to be effective from the Academic Year 1993-94 onwards.

           Review Petitions were filed by several institutions against the said
C judgment. They were dismissed by the Constitution Bench on May 14, 1993
    subject to one clarification, viz., that it shall be open to the professional
    colleges to admit non-resident Indian students to the extent of five percent
    of the total intake in a given yeat. These five percent seats were to be out
    of fifty percent payment seats.
D
          The Government of Karnataka sought to apply the said scheme to
    Minority Educational Institutions (M.E.Is.) as wel~ though the judgment
    did not purport to say so. Complaining against the extension of the scheme
    to them, certain M.E.Is. approached this Court by way of writ petitions.
    Writ Petition (C) No. 350 of 1993 was filed by Islamic Academy of
E   Education, Mangalore (claiming to be a religious M.E.I.) and Writ Petition
    (C) No. 355of1993 was filed by S.Venkatesha Education Society (claiming
    to be a linguistic minority). While the Islamic Academy of Education was
    running a dental college in Karnataka, S. Venkatesha Education Society
    was running an engineering college in that State. These writ petitions came
F   up before a Bench comprising the Hon'ble Chief Justice and one of us
    (B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.) on May 14, 1993. The Bench made the following
    interim order :

             "2. There will be in interim order in the following terms :-

G            (i) Fifty per cent of the total intake in the petitioner's educational
             institutions shall be permitted to be filled up by candidates selected
             by the agencies of the .the State Government on the basis of a
             competitive examination/test. The candidates so selected and ad-
             mitted shall pay scales of fee as applicable to this class of students
H            as determined by the State Government from time to time.
                      T.M.A. PAl FOUNDATION v. STATE                        615

            (ii) The remaining fifty per cent of the intake may be regulated by A
            the petitioners to admit candidates belonging to the particular
            religious or linguistic minority. However, the selection shall be
            made strictly on the basis of merit among the candidates seeking
            admission to the institutions. Such merit shall be determined on
            the basis of the academic performance of the qualifying examina-
                                                                                   B
            tion; or on the basis of any objective test that the institution might
            itself apply to determine such relative and competing merits; or on
            the basis of performance of the results of the selection tests that
            the State Government may itself hold for selecting candidates for
            admission to technical colleges in the State. It is optional for the
            petitioners to adopt any one of these three modes and apply it         c
            uniformly. Candidates so selected on the basis of merit amongst
            the minorities shall, however, abide by such condition in the matter
            of payment of tuition and other fee as may be permitted by the
            State Government.
                                                                                   D
            3. It is made clear that this order is made on the assumption that


-           the petitioners are minority institutions. It is open to the respon-
            dents to question this status claimed by the petitioners."

          Several other Educational Institutions claiming to be M.E.ls. filed
    writ petitions questioning the application of the said scheme to them. All     E
    these writ petitions including Writ Petition (C) Nos. 350 and 355 of 1993
    were heard by a Constitution Bench. On August 18, 1993, it passed interim
    orders applicable to Academic Year 1993-94, which orders were based
    upon the order dated May 14, 1993 (made in Writ Petition (C) nos. 350
    and 355 of 1993) coupled with certain modifications and clarifications.        p
    After hearing the parties, the Constitution Bench framed three questions
    and referred the same to a larger Bench by its order dated October 7, 1993.
    The order of reference is reported in 1993 (4) S.C.C. 286. The three
    questions referred are :

            "(1) What is the meaning and content of the expression 'minorities'    G
            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 educa-
            tional institution is a Minority Educational institution?              H
     616                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 2S.C.R.

 A           (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 Educa-
             tional Institution even while permitting the Minority Educational
 B
             Institution to admit students belonging to the relevant minority to
             the extent of 50% of its intake capacity?

           The Seven-Judge Bench met and after hearing the counsel for the
     parties, it re-framed the questions arising before it into seven questions on
 C   March 18, 1994. The seven questions framed by the larger Bench are :

             '(l)(a) Where a religious or linguistic niinority in State 'A' estab-
             lished an educational institution in the said State, can the member
             of that religious/linguistic group in State 'B' claim rights flowing
             from Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India in respect of the
 D           above said educational institution established in State 'A'?

             (b) Whether it would be correct to say that only the members of
             that minority residing in State 'A' will be treated as the members
             of the minority vis-a-vis such institution?

.E           (2) What are the indicia for treating an educational institution as
             a minority educational institution? Would an institution be
             regarded as a minority educational institution only because it was
             established by a person(s) belonging to a religious or linguistic
             minority or it is being administered by a person(s) belonging to a
             religious or linguistic minority?
 F
             (3) Whether the minority's 'right to establish and administer educa-
             tional institutions of their choice' will include the procedure and
             method of admission and selection of a student?

             (4) Whether the admission of students to minority educational
 G
             institution, whether aided or unaided, can be regulated by the State
             Govt. or by the University to which the Institution is affiliated?
                                                                                      '
             (5) Whether the decision of this Court in St. Stephens is right in
             saying that Article 30 clothes a minority educational institution with
 H           the power to admit students by adopting its own method of selec-
-                      T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION v. STATE                        617

             tion and that the State or the affiliated University has the power A
             to regulate admission of students to such minority educational
             institution even while permitting the minority educational institu-
             tion to admit students belonging to the relevant minority to the
             extent of 50% of intake capacity. We make it clear that the
             percentage decided in St. Stephens case will equally be open for B
             re-consideration.

             (6) What is meant by the expression 'religion' in Article 30(1)?
             Can the followers of a sect of denomination of a particular religion
             claim protection under Article 30(1) on the basis that they con-
             stitute a minority in the State even though the followers of that      C
             religion are in majority in that State?

             (7) What is meant by the expression 'language' in Article 30(1)?
             Does it include a language which is not included in the Eight
             Schedule to the Constitution?"
                                                                                    D
     The Bench could not, howeyer, complete the hearing. The matters
     remained part heard.

           In view of the approaching Academic year 1994-95, the larger Bench
     directed on April 5, 1994 that the interim order made by this Court for the    E
     year 1993-94 shall continue to govern admissions for the Academic Year
     1994-95 as well, both M.E.ls. and others. The directions included the fees
     to be charged from the 'free' students and 'payment' students. So far as
     N.R.I. quota is concerned, while it was fixed at fifteen percent for the
     Academic Year 1993-94, it was fixed at ten percent for the Academic Year
     1994-95.                                                                       F
           In view of the fact that the Academic Year 1995-96 was commencing,
.
~.   certain institutions approached this Court again for appropriate directions .
     This Court directed that the orders made earlier with respect to Minority
     Educational institutions shall continue to govern the admissions for the G
     Academic Year 1995-96 as well. While so, the Karnataka Government
     brought about a change in law which has made several institutions to
     approach this Court again for appropriate directions. As is well-known, the
     bulk of these private professional colleges are situated in the State of
     Karnataka and to a lesser extent in Maharashtra. Private professional
     colleges are there in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and other states as well H
    618                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A but the problem now before us mainly concerns the States of Karnataka           -.
    and Maharashtra. We shall first state the change in law brought about by
    the Karnataka Government in the matter of admissions to private colleges.

          In the year 1984, the Karnataka Legislature had enacted the Kar-
    nataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capital Fee) Act, 1984.
B   Rules were made under this Act called "Karnataka Selection of Candidates
    for Admission to Engineering, Medical, Dental, Pharmacy and Nursing
    Courses Rules, 1993" on March 10, 1993. The rules contained inter alia the
    definition of "Karnataka students". The rules provided certain preference
    in favour of Karnataka students in the matter of admission to these profes-
c   sional· colleges. By amendments effected on May 20, 1995, however, two
    major changes were brought about, viz., (a) definition of "Karnataka stu-
    dent" was amended to read as follows:                                ·

            (1) "Karnataka Student" means a student who has studied in one
            or more Government or Government recognised educational in-
D           stitutions located within the State of Karnataka for a minimum
            period of ten academic years (commencing from first standard to
            twelth standard, both standards inclusive or qualifying examina-
            tion, either continuously or in broken periods) as on first July of
            the year in which Entrance Test is held and has studies, appeared
E           and passed the Secondary Leaving Certificate Examination or
            Tenth Standard Examination: and the Second Pre-University Ex-
            amination or the 12th Standard Examination in a Government or
            Government recognised educational institution located within the
            State of Karnataka.

F   and (b) Rule 5 was amended providing that all free seats shall be filled
    only by Karnataka students and that all payment seats, except as otherwise
    provided in the said Rules, shall be filled by Karnataka students only. The
    result of these amendments in that no non-Karnataka student can be
    admitted to these institutions - except perhaps the non-resident Indians
G   and that too under and by virtue of the orders of this Court.

         The educational institutions both belonging to minorities and others
  are complaining that all these years they were admitting students from all
  over the country, N.R.ls. and even foreign students and that the present
  restriction causes grave prejudice to them inasmuch as they will not be able
H to fill up all the payments seats. They submit that after the scheme in
 "I.•
                          T.M.APAIFOUNDATION v.STATE                          619

        Unnikrislman was implemented, the Karnataka Government was allotting A
        only Karnataka students against free seats while the payment seats were
        divided between Karnataka students and non-Karnataka students in a
        certain proportion, besides, of course, the N.R.I. quota. The Minority
        Educational Institutions complain that they are entitled to admit students
        belonging to their minority community (whether religious or linguistic)
        from all over the country and that they cannot be confined to Karnataka B
        alone. They point out that one of the questions before the seven-Judge
        Bench is whether a M.E.I. is entitled to draw students belonging to that
        minority from outside the State or whether it is restricted to that particular
        State alone. By amending the said Rules in the above manner, they com-
        plain, the Karnataka Government has pre-empted the answer to the ques-
        tion.
                                                                                    c
              There is no change in law so far as State of Maharashtra is con-
        cerned. The Maharashtra Government has, of course, filed an application
        seeking specific directions from this Court with respect to the extent of
        N.R.I. quota for the Academic Year 1995- 96 and with respect to the D
        manner in which the M.E.Is. should be allowed to make admissions.


              Pausing here we must mention a change in law brought about by the
        Regulations famed by the Dental Council under the Dentists Act, 1948.
        This change, of course, is relevant insofar as dental colleges alone are E
        concerned. But having regard to the. fact that there are a large number of
        dental colleges in Karnataka - and may be some in other States - this
        question has become relevant. In the year 1948, Dentists Act was enacted.
        By Amendment Act 30 of 1993, Section 10-A was inserted providing that
        no new college or new course of study shall be opened except with the
        prior permission of the Central Government. Every person applying for F
        such permission is obliged to prepare and submit a scheme in accordance
,-
        with the provisions of Section 10-A. Section 20 of the Act permits Regula-
        tions to be made by the Dental Council with the approval of the Central
        Government, regulating inter alia the standards of examinations held in the
        dental colleges and also in particular to "(fa) prescribe the form of the
                                                                                    G
        scheme, the particulars to be given in such scheme, the manner in which
        the scheme is to be preferred and the fee payable with the scheme under
 '      clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section lOA." Accordingly, the Dental
        Council has framed Regulations on January 5, 1995. These Regulations are
        broadly modelled upon and incorporate the scheme contained in Unnik-
        rishnan. The expression "competent authority" is defined in clause (b) of H
    620                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   Regulation 3 in the following words :

            "O\mpetent Authority' means a Government or University or any
            other authority as may be designated by the Government or the
            University or by law to allot students for admissions to various
            dental colleges in a State or Union Territory."
B
          It is contended by Sri F.S. Nariman that once these Regulations are
    made, they alone govern the admissions to and fees payable in the dental
    colleges and that the Karnataka Rules aforesaid - and in particular the
    amended Rule 5 read with the definition of "Karnataka student" - cease to
c   apply to them with effect from the said date. It is submitted that with from
    the date of the said Regulations, Karnataka Government has no power over
    the dental colleges. These submissions are disputed by the learned Advo-
    cate General of the Karnataka.                    --

          Over the last two years, several problems and difficulties in the
D matter of implementation of the said scheme were brought to our notice
    by the governments, managements, students and their parents. In par-
    ticular, it was being complained that the gap in the fees paid by 'free
    students and 'payment students' is too large and that contrary to the
    intention of the scheme, most of the boys from the well-to-do families were
    taking away free seats leaving the payment seats to students from the rural
E   areas and backward communities. The managements also complained that
    the fees prescribed by this Court is· not sufficient to meet the necessary
    expenditure. Keeping these representations in mind, we made the following
    order on April 27, 1995 suo motu :

F           "A Constitution Bench of this Court in Unnikrishnan J.P. and Ors.
            v. State of A.P. & Ors., [1993] 1 SCC 645, framed a Scheme
            regarding admission of candidates to the private professional col-
            leges. In terms of the Scheme 50% seats were free seats and the
            remaining 50% seats have (?) were payment seats. By a subsequent
            order part of the payment seats were also allocated as NRI quota.
G           The Scheme has now been operative for over two years. We would
            like to have the suggestions and comments from the State Govern-
            ments and Union of India regarding the functioning of the Scheme.
            The concerned Ministeries of the Government shall indicate in
            case any modification/change in the working of the Scheme is
H            required at this stage.
                        T.MAPAIFOUNDATION v. STATE                           621

                  Copy of this Order be sent to the Advocate Generals of all the   A
              States, Attorney General of India, Indian Medical Council, Univer-
              sity Grants Commission, Dental Council of India, All India Council
              for Technical Education. The response of the above shall be filed
.l.
              before 31st July, 1995."
                                                                                   B
            In response to the above order, some of the State Governments,
      statutory councils, managements, students and other interested persons
      have come forward with suggestions which may briefly be mentioned
      hereinbelow.

           SUGGESTIONS :                                                           c
            The Karnataka Government has suggested that there should be a
      uniform method of admission to all the professional colleges irrespective
      of the fact whether they were established and maintained by a minority
      community or by others and that the scheme of admissions should be D
      applied equally to deemed universities. In short, .they want a uniform
      scheme of admissions applicable to all professional colleges. It is further
      submitted that the denial of discretion to the management in the matter of
      admission of students altogether has led to great resentment and lack of
      incentive in better management and improvement of the institutions. It is
      suggested that all the professional colleges should be permitted to admit E
      N.R.ls./foreign students (and in case N.R.ls./foreign students are not avail-
      able, students of their own choice) to the extent of twenty five percent of
      the intake capacity and the rest seventy five percent should be treated as
      free seats.

           MAHARASHTRA :                                                           F

              The Maharashtra Government has suggested that the present scheme
      of fifty percent free seats and fifty percent payment seats may be modified
      to make it eighty percent free seats and twenty percent non-resident quota.
      It is submitted that admissions to both these quotas should be allowed to G
      be made by the State Government alone and that the fees for twenty
      percent N.R.I. seats should be son fixed as to cover entire cost of running
      the college. It is also submitted that constitutional reservations be allowed
      to be made among the eighty percent free seats. Another suggestion made
      is that students coming from outside Maharashtra should be allowed to be
      charged higher fees than the Maharashtra students.                            H
    622                    SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [1995]SUPP.2S.C.R.

A         TAMILNADU:

           The Tamil Nadu Government has suggested that under the present
    scheme, students from rural background and poor classes are not able to
    get into merit seats. It has suggested that twenty five percent seats be
    reserved for N.R.Is./Management and the balance of seventy five percent
B   seats should be allowed to be filled by the government as free seats. It has
    requested that the separate status for minority institutions permitting them
    to admit fifty percent of the students on their own may be abolished and
    that there should be a uniform pattern of admissions for all the professional
    colleges. It has pointed out that because of the special consideration shown
    to M.E.ls., a number of institutions are fals~ly claiming to _be minority
c   institutions only with a view to gain the advantage of fifty percent admis-
    sions on their own.

          UNION OF INDIA :

           The Union of India has filed an application seeking extension of time
D   by six weeks on the ground that the suggestions formulated by the Ministry
    of Human Resource Development have been submitted to the Cabinet for
    its approval and that the Cabinet is likely to consider the same and take a
    decision in about six weeks.

          UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (U.G.C.) :
E
           The U.G.C. has stated that because of certain legal difficulties, it
    could not evolve a fee structure or frame regulations governing the admis-
    sions to these professional colleges. It is stated that in any event regulations
    framed by A.l.C.T.E., M.C.A. and D.C.A. cover most of the field. It has
    requested the Court to empower it to frame regulations under Sections 12
F
    and 12-A regulating the admissions and the fees to be charged in these
    colleges. It has sought a clarification whether the said scheme applies to
    deemed universities. It has also suggested that for generating additional
    resources the colleges may be permitted to admit more N.R.ls./foreign
    students against payment seats.
G
          A.I. C. T.E. :

          A.I.C.T.E. has stated that it has framed regulations as contemplated
    by this court incorporating the scheme evolved in Unnikrishnan. It has
    suggested that the present fee structure should ·be revised and that the
H   N.R.I. quota should be increased.
                  T.M.A PAI FOUNDATION v. STATE                          623

     INTERVENORS :                                                              A
       A number of educational institutions have sought permission to
intervene in the matter. They have made several suggestions. Broadly
speaking, they want more discretion in the matter of admission of students,
steep increase in the fees, hiking up of N.R.I. quota and so on. The fees,
it is submitted, should be 'need based' and fixed separately for each           B
institution. Some of the M.E.ls. have asked for liberty to admit the entire
hundred percent strength with the students belonging to the concerned
minority. At the same time, Sri Nariman stated that the M.E.ls. should be
made to admit the students belonging to the particular minority strictly in
order of merit. Learned counsel did not plead for any discretion for the
management of M.E.ls. in the matter of admission.
                                                                                c
      THE PRESENT STATUS :

       The situatio11 as on today in that in the State of Maharashtra, not
only the common entrance test has been held and result published but the D
students have also been allotted against all the free seats. But for the
clarification sought by the State Government with respect to N.R.I. quota,
fhe allotment of payment seats would also have been completed by now.
In Karnataka, common entrance test has been held confining it to Kar-
nataka students alone and results have been published but no allotment has
been made awaiting the orders of this Court. (Sri Rama Jois, learned E
counsel appearing for certain non-Karnataka students complains that State
Government is in truth colluding with the managements of professional
colleges with a view to defeat the scheme framed by this Court and that
while amending Rules on one hand restricting the admissions to Karnataka
students, the Government has permitted the managements to issue adver-
tisements inviting applications for admission to these colleges to be sub- F
mitted directly to them. Even the amendment of Rules in 1995 (referred
to above), says Sri Jois, is in truth intended to allow these colleges to admit
students of their choice directly since it is a well known fact that all the
payment seats cannot be filled by Karnataka students.) So far as other
States are concerned, precise information is not placed before us except G
to state that the process of admission is at various stages of finalisation.

      In the above state of affairs, it is obvious, any major modification of
the scheme in Unnilaislman can only be for the next academic year and
onwards. The major demand of Karnataka and the Tamil Nadu Govern-
ments is for a uniform treatment of all professional colleges - whether         H
    624                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A established and maintained by minorities or by others - in the matter of
    admissions. This submission involves the question whether Article 30 of the
    Constitution stands in the way of such equal treatment. Several aspects of
    Article 30 are already pending before a larger Bench as stated above. It is,
    therefore, not possible for us to make any such direction as prayed for by
                                                                                    ....
    the said governments. That can be done only by the larger Bench.
B
          Moreover, admissions are already under way in several States in
    accordance with the said scheme, as modified by the subsequent orders of
    this Court referred to above. Regulations have been framed by the
    A.l.T.C.E., Dental Council and several State Governments on the basis of
C   and in accordance with the said scheme. All of them cannot suddenly be
    suspended by us and at this point of time. It requires a much wider and
    more extensive hearing of all points of view and a deeper consideration of
    the suggestions of several governments, councils, institutions and others
    before a definite opinion can be expressed. Need there certainly is for
    evolving a better and a fool prcof scheme consistent with public interest.
D   None before us, it may be noted, asked for a return to the situation
    obtaining prior to Mohini Jain v. State of Kamataka, [1992] 3 S.C.C. 666
    and Unnikrishnan.

          There is yet another consideration. Since the aforesaid decisions of
E this Court, the outlay in education has been raised substantially; we are
    told that as a percentage of G.D.P., it has almost been doubled. We need
    not emphasise the fundamental significance of investment in education. It
    is, therefore, time that the governments and public financial institutions
    involve themselves more actively in promoting education.

F         We have also taken note of the grievance relating to the gap between
    the fees payable by the "free student" and the uniform demand for increas-
    ing the N.R.l./foreign students quota. Hence the following directions,
    confined no doubt to Academic Year 1995-96 only and limited to medical
    and dental colleges only :

G (1) So far as N.R.I. quota is concerned, it is fixed at fifteen percent for the
    current academic year. It shall be open to the management to admit N .R.I.
    students and foreign students within this quota and in case they are not
    able to get the N.R.I. or foreign students upto the aforesaid specified
    percentage, it shall be open to them to admit students on their own, in the
H   order of merit, within the said quota. This direction shall be a general
                   T.M.A PAI FOUNDATION v. STATE                           625

direction and shall operate in the case of all the States where admissions A
have not been finalised. It is, however, made clear that the virtue of this
direction, no student who has already been admitted shall be disturbed or
removed.

(2) So far as minority Educational Institutions are concerned, the orders
made on August 18, 1993 shall continue to govern them for this academic           B
year. This shall also be a general direction applicable to all States. It is
made clear that the above direction applies equally to colleges in
Maharashtra imparting 'unani' medicine courses.

(3) So far as State of Karnataka is concerned, the following additional           C
directions are made :

(a) The restriction placed by the 1995 amendment to the Karnataka
Selection of Candidates for Admission to Engineering, Medical, Dental,
Pharmacy and Nursing Courses Rules, 1993, viz. that only Karnataka
students (as defined by the said Rules) shall be admitted against the D
payment seats shall not operate for the current academic year. Among the
fifty percent payment seats, we have allocated fifteen percent to
N.R.l./foreign students [direction (1)). Out of the balance thirty five per-
cent seats, twenty percent shall be reserved for Karnataka students and
remaining fifteen percent for non-Karnataka students - as was done during E
the previous academic year. The admission of Karnataka students against
the payment seats shall be made in accordance with the scheme framed in
Unnikrishnan out of the students who have appeared in the entrance test
already held. If any of the seats in this twenty percent remain vacant, they
shall be added to the fifteen percent quota of non-Karnataka students and
shall be filled in accordance with clause (b) below.                         F

(b) Since there is no sufficient time left for conducting a fresh common
entrance test for non-Karnataka students for admission to the aforesaid
fifteen percent seats specified in clause (a) above, the following direction
is made : a press note shall be issued by the Government of Karnataka on
or before August 15, 1995, to be published in all the national dailies, calling   G
for applications from non-Karnataka students for admission to payment
seats in private medical and dental colleges in Karnataka, to be submitted
on or before fifth day of September, 1995. The applications shall be
accompanied by the Memorandum of marks in the qualifying examination,
apart from other relevant documents. All the applications so received shall       H
    626                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   be tabulated and admissions made on the basis of merit determined on the
    basis of the marks obtained by them in the qualifying examination. The
    students admitted shall remit the requisite fee, as specified hereinbelow,
    within ten days of the order of allotment. The remitting of amount by the
    student into the government account in the specified Bank or the govern-
    ment treasury, as the case may be, shall be treated as acceptance of
B   allotment of seats by the student and the same shall be binding upon all
    concerned.

    (c) All free seats, hereinafter to be called "merit seats" shall be reserved
    for Karnataka students. Allotments against these free/merit seats and the
C   payment seats meant for Karnataka students shall be completed on or
    before September 16, 1995. The allotment of seats to non-Karnataka
    students shall be completed on or before 9th day of October, 1995. Any
    seats remaining unallotted after that date or remaining unfilled as on 30th
    October, 1995 shall be allowed te be filled by the Matt:igement on its own.

D         FEE STRUCTURE :

          So far as fee structure is concerned, the following orders are made
    in respect of the medical colleges and dental colleges for the current
    academic year :
E   (A) The fee· payable by the students allotted against free seats which may
    hereafter be designated as merit seats shall be Rupees twenty thousand per
    annum. The fee payable by the payment student is fixed at Rupees seventy
    five thousand, Rupees seventy thousand and Rupees sixty five thousand per
    annum respectively. In other words, in respect of colleges having their own
F   hospitals, the fee shall be Rupees seventy five thousand per annum, in
    respect of colleges which partly depend upon government hospital and
    partly upon their own facility shall be Rupees seventy thousand per annum
    and in respect of colleges which depend wholly upon government hospitals,
    the fees shall be Rupees sixty five thousand per annum.                   ·
G          So far as dental colleges are concerned, the fees shall be Rupees
    fifteen thousand per annum for free/merit seat and Rupees fifty thousand
    per annum for payment seats respectively.

    (B) The Central Government shall provide a subvention of Rupees five
H   thousand per annum in respect of every student admitted in a private
                   T.M.APAIFOUNDATION v. STATE                           627

medical college, whether admitted against free/merit seat or against a A
payment seat, but not in respect of a student admitted against
N.R.I./foreign student quota specified above. The subvention shall be made
and continued until the student completes the course or for a period of
five years whichever is earlier. The subvention amount by the Central
Government shall be sent directly to the concerned college, towards fee,
                                                                           B
every year, commencing with Academic Year 1995-96. This direction shall
be subject, of course, to the directions that may be issued by the larger
Bench.

(C) The Reserve Bank of India is directed to evolve a scheme for extending
study loans to the students studying in medical and dental colleges in          C
private professional colleges. This direction is made after hearing Sri
Harish Salve, for the Reserve Bank of India, to whom we had given a notice
for this purpose. For this purpose, the study loans shall be deemed to be
in the priority sector and shall to dealt with as a category under 'Differen-
tial Rate Interest'. Pending the evolving of such a scheme, the following       D
direction is made for this academic year and the Reserve Bank of India is
requested to issue appropriate directions to Nationalised Banks forthwith,
not later than ten days.

       So far as free/merit students are concerned, they shall be given a loan
of Rupees fifteen thousand for the Academic Year 1995-96 on production E
of (i) a certificate from the concerned medical/dental college that he is
admitted against a free seat, (ii) an affidavit by the student and his father
(in the absence of the father, by mother or other near relative) that the
total annual income for the students' family does not exceed Rupees fifty
thousand an year and (iii) a bond executed by the student (and in case he F
is a minor, by his father/mother or the guardian) undertaking to repay the
loan in five equal annual instalments commencing from two years after
completion of the course he is studying, or within one year of his obtaining
employment, whichever is earlier. No security need be insisted upon. The
amount of loan shall be remitted directly to the college concerned. The
free/merit students shall pay the fees now fixed or the difference between G
the existing fee and the fee now fixed within one month of their. admission.

      So far as payment students are concerned, a loan upto Rupees fifty
thousand may be extended to them on the same terms but on further
condition that they furnish adequate security to the satisfaction of the Bank   H
    628                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 2S.C.R.

A   for the loan advanced.

          So far as engineering and other colleges .are concerned, the rules,
    regulations and orders made by the concerned council, government and
    this court shall continue to govern for this academic year. There shall be
    no change insofar as these colleges are concerned. In short, the position
B   obtaining in the Academic Year 1994-95 shall apply and continue for
    Academic Year 1995-96. The allotment of students to these colleges shall
    be completed by September 30, 1995. Any seats remaining unallotted - or
    any seats remaining unfilled.on or after 16th October, 1995 shall be allowed
    to be filled by the Management.
c          Insofar as the suggestion of Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu Govern-
    ments for uniform system of admissions to private colleges and for equal
    treatI_Uent of all professional colleges - irrespective of the fact whether they
    are M.E.Is. or not - is concerned, it involves the issue whether Article 30
    stands in the way of equal treatment of M.E.Is. and other similarly placed
D   educational institutions not established by the minorities. This question
    cannot be considered by us. It can be done only by the larger Bench.
    Similarly, the request of Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu Governments to
    introduce the system of only two categories (free seats and N.RJ. seats in
    the proportion of 80:20 or 75:25, as the case may be) cannot be considered
E   by us but only by a larger Bench (of seven Judges) in view of the fact that
    decision in Unnikrishnan was rendered by a Bench of five Judges. There is
    yet another circumstance : the Government of India is yet to come forward
    with its suggestions in the matter, as stated above. After the suggestions of
    the Government of India are received, appropriate orders have to be made
    to be effective for the next academic year onwards. We are also of the
F    opinion that so far as the final adjudication of the several issues indicates
    hereinabove are concerned, it has to be done by a larger Bench as indicated
     above. The questions posted before the seven-Judge Bench too have to be
     answered. The scheme framed in Unnikrishnan may also have to be recon-
     sidered/modified.
G
          The Hon'ble Chief Justice may consider constituting a Bench of
    seven Judges for considering and deciding the above issues.

    R.A.                                                      Petition disposed of.


Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Admission to professional colleges"Sign in to search

For a digitally signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's own website. Only the court can issue one.