T.M.A.

Pai Foundation & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors

(2002) 8 SCALE 1: AIR2003SC355

B.N.KIRPAL CJI & G.B.PATTANAIK & V.N.KHARE & S.RAJENDRA

BABU & S.S.M.QUADRI

31 October, 2002

1. Facts:

Considering that India is a diverse country and all class and type of people live there.
India has a big mass of people uneducated and lack quality of education. There are also
very less number of schools and colleges. private educational institutions have been
established by educationists, philanthropists and religious and linguistic minorities. Their
grievance is that the necessary and unproductive load on their back in the form of
governmental control, by way of rules and regulations, has thwarted the progress of
quality education. It is their contention that the government must get off their back, and
that they should be allowed to provide quality education uninterrupted by unnecessary
rules and regulations, laid down by the bureaucracy for its own self-importance. The
private educational institutions, both aided and unaided, established by minorities and
non- minorities, in their desire to break free of the unnecessary shackles put on their
functioning as modern educational institutions and seeking to impart quality education for
the benefit of the community for whom they were established, and others, have filed the
present writ petitions and appeals asserting their right to establish and administer
educational institutions of their choice unhampered by rules and regulations that
unnecessarily impinge upon their autonomy.

A writ Petition was filed by the Islamic Academy of Education and the connected
petitions in this regard was placed before a 5 judge bench for determination, to know
whether private educational institutions are entitled to their autonomy devoid of the
governmental control and so that they should provide free and quality education. The
matter was placed before a 7 judge bench and the Bench, being of the opinion that Article
30 did not protect the minority institutions in this regard,. The court directed for the same
to be placed before an 11 judge bench in lieu of the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution
wherein “education” was included in Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule. The
contention of the Petitioners was that the control of the government was arbitrary in the
sense that they are an autonomous institutions, entitled to their own methods in terms of
fees, staff employment and the control of the Government in regard to the same would
constitute an impediment to their fundamental rights. The Court held in this case that
while it is true that government regulations cannot destroy the minority character of the
institution, but the right assured under Article 30 is not so absolute so as to be above the
law. Any regulation framed in the national interest therefore applies to all educational
institutions, be it majority or minority. While the words of Article 30(1) remain
unqualified, one cannot read them independently of morality, health and standards of
education. The Court also held that be it aided, or unaided, the management must seek to
employ rational procedures for selection of staff and discipline, and the State is well
within its rights to prescribe minimum conditions for the same.

2. Issues:
1. Whether there exists a fundamental right to set up educational institutions and if so,
under which provision?
2. Whether the decision of Unni Krishnan required reconsideration?
3. To what extent may government regulations be imposed upon private institutions?
4. What is to be the unit to determine the existence of a religious or linguistic minority in
relation to Article 30?
5. To what extent can the rights of aided institutions be regulated?
3. Judgement:

The court examined the definitions of ‘profession’, ‘occupation’, ‘trade’ and business’
under Article 19(1)(g) , thereby holding that education is a charitable activity by nature,
and lacks any profit motive that may be attached to it and then proceeded to club the same
under the expression of ‘occupation’. The court then relied on a case so as to establish
that the purpose of employing all four words in Article 19(1) (g) is to cover all avenues
and modes through which a man earns his livelihood, so as to ensure that any activity
taken on by a person to earn his livelihood is included within the ambit of Article 19(1)
(g). The court in this case accurately and clearly stated that at the place where very large
number of persons are employed as teachers of administrative staff or any other
profession involving imparting of education to students, regardless of the element of
profit generation, the same must and should be regarded as an occupation, even if the
same does not exist.

The Court in this case held that private unaided /aided institutions recognized by the State
are entitle to impose a higher fee than that of government institutions but the same is
subject to the maximum limit fixed by the state, and held that commercialization of
education was impermissible and “opposed to public policy”. The Court upheld the power
of the government to frame rules and regulations in matter of admission and fees as well
as recruitment in the case of private aided educational institutions, and formulated a
scheme so as to impose it upon even those institutions seeking affiliation/recognition even
if they were unaided. The scheme entailed that 50% of seats in the institution would be
“free seats” and given on basis of merit on a common entrance exam and the remaining
50% would be paid seats and would be determined on the same basis as that of the free
seat criteria. The scheme also stated that the fee will be subject to a ceiling as may be
prescribed by the appropriate authority or court.

The Court even went on to say that while profiteering is forbidden, a reasonable revenue
surplus would be appropriate, and regulations for the same may be imposed. A rigid free
structure, compulsory nomination of staff, etc would be deemed as unreasonable
restrictions. Special emphasis was also placed on merit.

4. Held:

The court actively recognized the rights of religious denominations and sections thereof
to establish educational institutions under Article 26(a), provided they do not fall under
the special categories enumerated in Article 29(1) and Article 30(1).

The Supreme Court held that the right to basic education is implied in the fundamental
right to life, and interpreted the same in conjunction with the directive principles on
education. The Court explained a sensible fee structure, wherein the need to produce
funds for the betterment of the educational institution is considered, and the autonomy of
the institute was given precedence in this case, as well, wherein the private institution
may constitute its own governing body as well. The court, however also held, At the same
time it has to be ensured that even an aided institution does not become a government
owned and controlled institution.
The court held in this case that in respect of a state law, the determining factor to take into
consideration for the purposes of establishing a unit, can only be a state, be it a religious
or linguistic community. While this point was not conclusively decided, the emphasis on
the aspect that it has to be determined with respect to the ‘state’ alone, was placed. State
is this the conclusive parameter for the same.