The main legal point established in the judgment is the special rights of minority educational institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution, including the preferential right to admit students of their own community/language, and the requirement for a common entrance test to be conducted by an association representing all colleges of a particular type in the State.

JUDGMENT - CHANDRACHUD D.Y. (Dr.), J.:—Rule, returnable forthwith. Counsel for the respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.

2. In this batch of matters under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, three questions of law arise for adjudication, based on the submissions which have been urged by Counsel for the petitioners before the Court:

(1) Wether a separate Common Entrance Test can be permitted to be held for a professional course by an Association purporting to represent institutions conducted and managed by a religious or linguistic minority;

(2) Wether a separate Common Entrance Test can be permitted to be held in the State by an Association representing Unani Medical Colleges in the State;

(3) Wether the Committee constituted in pursuance of the judgment of the Supreme Court in (Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka)1, 2004(1) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)593 is correct in holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain a dispute raised before it in regard to the quota prescribed by the State for admissions to be made by minority-run educational institutions from amongst students of their own community.

3. Each of these questions which arises before the Court in this batch of matters turns upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in (T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka)2, 2003(3) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)(C.B.)603, which has been explained and construed by a judgment of a Constitution Bench in Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka, 2003(6) S.C.C. 697. The Constitution Bench in Islamic Academy of Education (supra) has set out in the opening paragraph of the judgment that after the decision that was rendered in T.M.A. Pai Foundation on 31st October, 2002 the Union of India, State Governments and educational institutions "understood the majority judgment in different perspectives." Various State Governments enacted their own regulations which led to litigation in several courts. The Constitution Bench was constituted so that the doubt/anamolies, if any, could be clarified. We must, therefore, at the outset, begin this judgment with the basic premise that the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation has now been duly considered and interpreted by the subsequent Constitution Bench in Islamic Academy of Education. The decision of the Constitution Bench resolves doubts and anomalies which had arisen out of conflicting interpretations sought to be placed by diverse State Governments, by educational institutions and by the Union of India, on the earlier decision. The answer which we must furnish to the issues which have been raised before this Court, must be consistent with the law which has been laid down by the Supreme Court. Moreover, the determination by this Court of the issues which have been framed earlier must be consistent with the perspective and the precepts which form the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education. Our endeavour must, therefore, be to formulate a solution which is consistent with the letter and spirit of the judgment of the Supreme Court in all respects. The institutions and, perhaps more importantly, the students must have a degree of certainty in respect of the academic year which is now close at hand.

4. In its decision in Islamic Academy of Education, the Supreme Court formulated four questions for determination; these being areas in which the interpretation of the earlier decision in T.M.A. Pai Foundation was in issue. The four questions were as follows:

"(1) Whether the educational institutions are entitled to fix their own fee structure;

(2) Whether minority and non-minority educational institutions stand on the same footing and have the same rights;

(3) Whether private unaided professional colleges are entitled to fill in their seats, to the extent of 100% and if not, to what extent; and

(4) Whether private unaided professional colleges are entitled to admit students by evolving their own method of admission.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document