Advocates:
LAKSHMI RAMAN SINGHM. VEERAPPA

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 25

CASE NO.:

Writ Petition (civil) 317 of 1993

PETITIONER:

T.M.A.Pai Foundation & Ors.Etc.Etc.

RESPONDENT:

State of Karnataka & Ors.Etc.Etc.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/11/2002

BENCH:

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri.

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

W I T H

Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.252 of 1979, 54-57, 2228 of 1981, 2460,

2582, 2583-84, 3362, 3517, 3602, 3603, 3634,3635, 3636, 8398,

8391, 5621, 5035, 3701, 3702, 3703, 3704, 3715, 3728, 4648, 4649,

2479, 2480, 2547 and 3475 of 1982, 7610, 4810, 9839, and 9683-84,

of 1983, 12622-24 of 1984, 119 and 133 of 1987, 620 of 1989, 133

of 1992, 746, 327, 350, 613, 597, 536, 626, 444, 417, 523, 474,

485, 484, 355, 525, 469, 392, 629, 399, 531, 603, 702, 628, 663,

284, 555, 343, 596, 407, 737, 738, 747, 479, 610, 627, 685, 706,

726, 598, 482 and 571 of 1993,D.No.1741, 295 and 764 of 1994, 331,

446 and 447 of 1995, 364 and 435 of 1996, 456, 454, 447 and 485 of

1997, 356, 357 and 328 of 1998, 199, 294, 279, 35, 181, 373, 487

and 23 of 1999, 561 of 2000, 6 and 132 of 2002, Civil Appeal

Nos.1236-1241 and 2392 of 1977, 687 of 1976, 3179, 3180, 3181,

3182, 1521-56, 3042-91 of 1979, 2929-31, 1464 of 1980, 2271 of

1981, 2443-46 of 1981, 4020, 290, 10766 of 1983, 5042 and 5043 of

1989, 6147 and 5381 of 1990, 71, 72 and 73 of 1991, 1890-91, 2414

and 2625 of 1992, 4695-4746, 4754-4866 of 1993, 5543-5544 of 1994,

8098-8100 and 11321 of 1995, 4654-4658 of 1997, 608, 3543 and

3584-3585 of 1998, 5053-5054 of 2000, 5647, 5648-5649, 5650, 5651,

5652, 5653-5654, 5655, 5656 of 2001 and 2334 of 2002, Civil Appeal

Nos.7647, 7648, 7687, 7696, 7694, 7656, 7658, 7686, 7663-64, 7650-

51, 7661, 7666, 7669, 7668, 7660, 7671, 7677-7684, 7652-54, 7673,

7689, 7691, 7692 of 2002 [@ SLP (C) Nos.9950 and 9951 of 1979,

11526 and 863 of 1980, 12408 of 1985, 8844 of 1986, 12320 of 1987,

14437, 18061-62 of 1993, 904-05 and 11620 of 1994, 23421 of 1995,

4372 of 1996, 10360 and 10664 of 1997, 1216, 9779-9786, 6472-6474

and 9793 of 1998, 5101, 4480 and 4486 of 2002], T.C.(Civil) No.26

of 1990, T.P.(Civil) Nos.1013-14 of 1993.

SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI,J.

On October 31, 2002, while recording my answers to the

eleven questions referred to the Bench of eleven learned

Judges of this Court, I noted in a separate judgment,

concurring with the majority except in regard to answers to

question Nos.5(b), 8, 10 and 11, that I would give my

reasons later for agreeing on those aspects with the opinion

of our learned sister Ruma Pal,J. and dissenting with the

majority opinion as well as the opinion of learned brother

Variava,J., with whom learned brother Bhan,J. agreed. Here

follow the reasons.

The difference of opinion mainly relates to the true

interpretation of clause (2) of Article 29 and clauses (1)

and (2) of Article 30 of the Constitution and their

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 25

interaction.

Article 30 is a much discussed provision in Courts.

It has been the subject matter of consideration by various

High Courts as well as by this Court. I have already quoted

clauses (1) and (2) of Article 30 and clause (1) of Article

29 in the said judgment. To appreciate various rival

contentions, first I shall examine the extent of the right

conferred by clauses (1) and (2) of Article 30. It is a

common ground that all minorities, whether based on religion

or language, are bestowed the right to establish and to

administer educational institutions of their choice in

clause (1) of Article 30. The following aspects of the right

conferred therein on the minorities need to be noticed: (1)

to establish educational institutions; (2) which are of

their choice and (3) to administer them.

The choice of educational institutions may vary from

religious instruction to temporal education or a combination

of both. Having regard to the width of Entry 25 of the

Concurrent List*, the choice of educational institutions may

be understood to include places for imparting educat