SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(SC) 415

A.S.ANAND, B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, FAIZAN UDDIN, KULDIP SINGH, S.C.AGRAWAL, S.MOHAN, S.P.BHARUCHA
T. M. A. Pai Foundation – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent


Advocates:
A.K.PANDEY, A.K.SRIVASTAVA, A.MARIAPUTHAM, A.N.JAYARAM, A.S.BHASME, A.T.M.SAMPATH, ALPANA PODDAR, Anil B.Divan, ARUN SHARMA, ARUNA MATHUR, ASHOK GROVER, B.K.PRASAD, B.N.AGRAWAL, B.PARTHASARTHY, B.SIVASUBRAMANIAM, B.V.ACHARYA, B.V.BALARAM DAS, B.VIRBHADRAPPA, BHARAT SANGAL, BINU TARNTA, C.S.VAIDYANATHAN, DUMARAN, E.M.S.ANAM, EJAZ MAQBUL, F.S.NARIMAN, G.K.SHAVGOOR, Gaurav Agrawal, GOBINDA MUKHOTY, GOPAL SUBRAMANIUM, H.K.PURI, H.L.TIKKU, INDIVAR GUDWILL, Indu Malhotra, J.SEQUEIRA, JOSEPH VELLAPALLY, K.R.NAGARAJA, K.R.R.PILLAI, K.RAM KUMAR, K.V.MOHAN, K.V.VIJAYAKUMAR, K.V.VISHWANATHAN, KAILASH VASUDEV, KAPIL SIBAL, L.R.SINGH, LALITA KAUSHIK, M.A.Firoz, M.K.Dua, M.VIRAPPA, Naresh Kaushik, NOBIN SINGH, P.H.Parekh, P.Mahale, P.P.Rao, P.R.RAMASESHESH.S.PARIHARHAR, P.R.SITHARAMAN, Prerna Kohli, R.Jagannath Goulay, R.K.GARG, R.MOHAN, R.P.VADHVANI, R.SASIPRABHU, RANI CHHABRA, RANJIT GHOSAL, RATHIN DAS, ROXNA S.SWAMY, S.K.KULAKARNI, S.K.NAQVI, S.N.TERDAL, S.R.Bhatt, S.SELVARATHINAM, SHANKAR DIVATE, SUSHIL JAIN, SUSHMA SURI, T.C.SHARMA, T.V.S.N.Chari, U.S.Sagar, V.A.BOBDE, V.C.MAHAJAN, V.R.REDDY, VIKASH SINGH, VIMLA SINHA, Y.H.MUCHALA, YUNUS MALIK

ORDER

In these matters relating to admission to professional courses in medicine, engineering, pharmacy, nursing, etc. in educational institutions which are claimed to be Minority Educational Institutions, the petitioners have questioned the applicability of the scheme framed by this Court in J. P. Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 SCC 645, as well as the applicability of the Rules and Orders made by several State Governments on the basis of the said decision. By order dated October 7,1993 [reported in 1993 (4) SCC 286] passed by the Constitution Bench three questions were referred for consideration by a larger Bench. In pursuance of the said order, this Bench has been constituted. When the matters were taken up on March 16, 1994, the Court felt that it was necessary to reframe the first two questions. The hearing of the matters was, therefore, adjourned to March 18, 1994, on which date the questions requiring consideration by this Bench have been reframed to highlight the several aspects of the claims put forward by the petitioners. The claim of being a "minority" - whether based on religion or language - and the claim of being a "minority" educational institution"
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top