CASE ANALYSIS OF TMA

PAI FOUNDATION v. STATE

OF KARNATAKA
FACTS

“Academy of General Education” was an educational

institution which was founded by Dr TMA Pai in 1942 in
Madras. But after the reorganisation of the states, the
institution became a part of the state of Karnataka.

Later, several institutions were founded under the name

of this institution including the “Manipal Engineering
College Trust” for establishment and administration of
“Manipal Institute of Technology” (second petitioner).
The trust intended to promote the Konkani Language
and to encourage the Konkani language speaking
students. Later on, the trustees of the engineering
college transferred the ownership of the college to the
TMA Pai trust (first petitioner) which was formed in the
memory of Dr TMA Pai.

The governor of Karnataka promulgated an ordinance

called the “Karnataka Educational Institutions
Ordinance, 1984” with the aim to prevent the
educational institutions to charge excessive amounts in
the name of fees. The state government also passed an
order fixing the total intake of the students and also
imposing a fixed percentage of seats as government
seats.

The engineering college, owned by the TMA Pai trust fell

into the category of Minority unaided private
educational institution as it was not receiving 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

There were several issues that came before the Apex

court. The major issues were:

1. Whether there is any provision under which one can

establish and administer educational institution or
not?
2. How the minorities whether it is religious or linguistic
will be decided- on the basis of the state or the
whole country?
3. Whether the government’s regulations on the
minority aided or unaided institutions are violative of
Article 30 or not?
4. To what extent the government can impose
restrictions on the administration of minority aided
 and unaided institutions?

LAWS

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

RATIO DECIDENDI

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).

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT

The learned counsel on behalf of the minority education

institutions contended that Constitution provides a
fundamental right to the minorities to establish and
administer educational institutions under Article
30. Hence, private educational institutions should have
full autonomy in their administration & the state should
not interfere or lay down conditions regarding
nominations of the governing bodies of the private
institutions, provisions regarding the admission of the
students, the fixing of the fee structure and recruitment
of teachers etc.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT
The counsel in behalf of the state contended that as
Article 30 is not an absolute right, Government can
impose reasonable restrictions over the minority private
education institutions for fair and better administration.

JUDGEMENT

In this case, the 11- judge bench had dealt with several
issues regarding the autonomy of the private minority
educational institutions.

1. The Apex court held that all citizens have a right to

establish and administer educational institutions
under Article 19(1)(g), 26 and the minorities under
Article 30 but these rights are not absolute rights.
2. The court while dealing with the issue of how it
would be decided who are minorities as there is no
definition of “minorities” in the constitution, held that
minorities (Religious& linguistic) would be decided
on the basis of States.
3. The court regarding the issue of whether state’s
interference in the administration of the aided
minority private educational institutions is violative of
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
the state’s claim to insist that in order to grant aid
the State can prescribe reasonable regulations to
ensure the excellence of the institutions.
4. In the case of unaided minority institutions,
 regulatory measures imposed by the state should be
minimal. Recruitment of teaching & non-teaching
staff, administrative control, fee structure would be
beyond the Government’s control.
5. In the case of aided minority institutions,
Government can impose regulations but those
should be reasonable restrictions & also government
cannot interfere in the day-to-day administration of
the aided minority private education institutions.
6. In the case of admission, the minority unaided
educational institutions can admit & 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 community 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 the 21st century, private education has become an

inseparable part of our education system. Privatization,
Liberalization, Globalization & the government’s failure to
provide adequate higher secondary education to its
population has brought the concept of private education
to light.

Here, the whole debacle had started with the issue of

whether the government can interfere in the internal
matters of the private (aided & unaided) institutions or
not.

The government’s interference in the governing body of

the 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 the darkness but the 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. The court while dealing
with this issue relied upon the case “D.A.V.
College v. State of Punjab” & held that minorities
(Religious& linguistic) would be decided on the basis of
States even though “Education” is now a part of the
Concurrent List.

Another issue before the court was whether the

government can regulate the nomination of the members
in governing bodies, admission of the students,
recruitment of teaching and non-teaching staff of the
private minority institutions or not.

Article 30(1) of the Constitution provides rights to the

minorities to establish and administer educational
institutions “of their choice”. But if the government puts
unreasonable restrictions on the minority educational
institutions while giving financial aid or affiliation, then the
sole purpose of such institutions will be defeated.

While dealing with this issue the court relied upon various
cases like-

St. Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi, State of

Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, State of Bombay v.
Bombay Education Society, Kerala Education Bill,
1957 etc. and held that the right under Article 30(1) is
not so absolute as to prevent the Government from
making any regulation whatsoever.

I do agree with the Apex court’s judgement regarding the

government’s regulations in the minority private
educational institutions. In one hand, there should be
reasonable restrictions imposed by the state over these
institutions for a better and fair education system. The
minority, as well as the non-minority students, should
also be provided 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 & Educational
Rights) plays a major role in interpreting the extent of the
rights of minorities to establish and administer
educational institutions.

T.M.A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka[1] is a

landmark judgement that has given answers to several
questions regarding the minorities’ rights & government’s
regulations in the administration of educational
institutions. This case has given clarity on how Article
29(2) applies to Article 30(1).

Author(s) Name: Rumela Biswas (Christ University,

Delhi NCR)

References:

[1](2002) 8 SCC 481