CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) DELHI NCR

SCHOOL OF LAW

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Subject Code – LAW552N

CIA - III
CASE ANALYSIS

P.A. INAMDAR V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

AIR 2005 SC 3236

Submitted By-
ADITI MISHRA
21212272
5BBALLB

Under the Guidance of

Mr. Sandeep TM

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sr. No. Particulars Page No.

1. Introduction 4

2. Facts of the Case 4

3. Issues Involved in the Case 5

4. Laws involved in the Case 6

5. Arguments of the Case 8

6. Analysis and Judgement of the Case 9

7. Conclusion 11

2
P.A. INAMDAR v. STATE OF MAHARSHTRA

Citation (2005) 6 SCC 537

Date of Judgement 12th August 2005

Court Supreme Court of India

Case Type Appeal (civil) 5041 of 2005

Appellant P.A. Inamdar

Respondent State of Maharashtra

Bench Chief Justice R.C. Kumar, Justice G.P. Mathur, Justice Tarun
Chatterjee, Justice P.K. Bala Subramanyan and Justice R. Lahoti

Referred Law Constitution Law, Educational Affairs

It is a case decided the Supreme Court, in which the dispute related to the fixation of quota in
respect of unaided professional institutions and to the holding of examinations for admission
into such colleges. The interpretation put by a 5-Judge Bench in the case of Islamic Academy
of Education v. State of Karnataka1, on the 11-Judge Bench decision in the case of T.M.A.
Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka2, was also in question. The Bench decided that the
issues raised should be referred to a larger Bench for final determination having regard to the
nature of the controversy involved in this case.
As an interim measure, for the academic year 2004-05, for the State of Karnataka, it
was prima facie held in this case that the seats should be filled up by the institutions
concerned in the ratio of 50:50 purely as a temporary measure and without prejudice to the
contentions of the parties for the purpose of the final disposal.
1
Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 6 SCC 697.
2
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481.

3
INTRODUCTION

P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra 3 is a landmark case in legal history of India which dealt
with the issue of minority educational institutions’ autonomy and their reservation policies.
The case was heard by the Supreme Court of India in 2005. It still remains a significant
precedent that continues to shape the discourse surrounding minority rights and education in
India. It also highlights the importance of preserving the autonomy of minority institutions
and ensuring equal opportunities for all while respecting the diversity the diversity and
cultural pluralism of the country.

The case revolved around the interpretation of Article 30(1) 4 of the Indian Constitution, that
guarantees religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer educational
institutions of their choice. The petitioner, P. A. Inamdar, represented a group of private
unaided minority institutions in Maharashtra, challenging the state government’s policy of
imposing a common entrance test and reservation quotas for admissions into professional
courses. This case will further discuss the pros and cons of the T.M.A. Pai Foundation v.
State of Karnataka5.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, upheld the autonomy of minority educational
institutions and recognized their right to admit students of their choice. The court ruled that
minority institutions, while adhering to the principle of merit, have the freedom to devise
their own admission procedures and are not bound by the reservation policies imposed by the
state.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. P. A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra6 involved the petitioner, P. A. Inamdar,

representing a group of private unaided minority institutions in Maharashtra, and the
respondent, the State of Maharashtra representing the state government. The central issue
in the case was the autonomy of minority educational institutions and their right to admit

3
P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 6 SCC 537.
4
INDIA CONST. art. 30, cl. 4.
5
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481.
6
P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 6 SCC 537.

4
 students of their choice, specifically in relation to the state government’s policies of a
common entrance test and reservation quotas for admissions into professional courses.
2. The case revolved around the interpretation and application of Article 30(1) 7 of the Indian
Constitution, which guarantees religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish
and administer educational institutions of their choice. The Maharashtra government
had implemented reservation policies, including quotas for socially and
educationally backward classes (OBCs), in private unaided institutions, which were
challenged by the petitioner as an infringement on their autonomy.
3. The case focused on the autonomy of minority institutions in devising their own
admission procedures and policies while adhering to the principle of merit.
4. The case was heard by a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, and in 2005,
the court delivered a landmark judgment. The Supreme Court upheld the autonomy of
minority institutions and recognized their right to admit students of their choice, without
being bound by the reservation policies imposed by the state government.
5. The judgment reaffirmed the constitutional protection granted to minority institutions
and their unique character in the Indian education system. It emphasized the importance
of balancing the right to equality with the right to establish and administer
educational institutions for minority communities.

ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE

1. Is the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation

of Admissions and Fees) Act, 20058, constitutional and consistent with the fundamental
rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution?
2. Do minority educational institutions have the right to establish and administer
their institutions without interference from the state, as protected under Article 30 of the
Indian Constitution?
3. Can minority institutions provide reservations for minority students in admissions, and
if so, what is the permissible extent of such reservations to ensure constitutional
principles of equality and non-discrimination are not violated?

7
INDIA CONST. art. 30, cl. 1.
8
Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Fees) Act,
2005, No. XXVIII, Maharashtra Act, 2005 (India).

5
4. What is the scope of the state’s authority to regulate admission processes in private
unaided professional educational institutions, particularly concerning the admission of
minority students and the preservation of merit-based admissions?
5. How should fundamental rights, including the right to establish and administer
educational institutions (Article 309), the right to equality (Article 1410), and the right to
protection of cultural and educational rights of minorities (Article 29 11), be interpreted
and applied in the context of this case?

LAWS INVOLVED IN THE CASE

1. Article 19(1)(g)12 –

“to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business”

2. Article 19(6)13 –
“Nothing in sub clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law
in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the
interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right
conferred by the said sub clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub clause shall
affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from
making any law relating to,
i. the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any
profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or
ii. the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the
State, of any trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion,
complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise.”

3. Article 30(1)14 –

9
INDIA CONST. art. 30.
10
INDIA CONST. art. 14.
11
INDIA CONST. art. 29.
12
INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl. 1(g).
13
INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl. 6.
14
INDIA CONST. art. 30, cl. 1.

6
 “All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish
and administer educational institutions of their choice”

4. Article 4115 -

“Right to work, to education and to public assistance in certain cases The State shall,
within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for
securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of
unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved
want”

5. Article 51-A (h)16 –

“to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform”

6. Article 51-A (j)17 –

“to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that
the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement PART V THE
UNION CHAPTER I THE EXECUTIVE The President and Vice President”

7. Article 15(4)18 –

“Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from making
any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward
classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes”

8. Article 14119 -

“Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts The law declared by the
Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India”

ARGUMENTS OF THE CASE

15
INDIA CONST. art. 41.
16
INDIA CONST. art. 51-A, cl. (h).
17
INDIA CONST. art. 51-A, cl. (j).
18
INDIA CONST. art. 15, cl. 4.
19
INDIA CONST. art. 141.

7
 The petitioners argued that private unaided educational institutions have the right
to administer their own admissions and that the state cannot impose reservation
policies or interfere with their autonomy. They contended that the state’s interference
in admissions violated their fundamental right to carry on any occupation, trade,
or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution.
 The state argued that admissions should be based on merit and that private
institutions should not have unrestricted freedom to admit students of their choice. They
contended that the government had a legitimate interest in ensuring equitable access to
education and promoting social justice through reservation policies.
 The case also involved the issue of minority institutions and their right to administer their
own admissions. The petitioners, who were minority educational institutions, argued that
they should have even greater autonomy in admissions, as guaranteed by Article 30(1) of
the Indian Constitution.
 The state argued that since private unaided educational institutions sought recognition and
affiliation from the government, they should be subject to certain regulations, including
admissions. They contended that regulation was necessary to ensure transparency, prevent
commercialization, and safeguard the interests of students.
 The Supreme Court had to strike a balance between the autonomy of private institutions
and the state’s interest in regulating admissions. The court recognized the importance of
autonomy but also acknowledged the state’s role in ensuring social welfare and access to
education. The judgment established a framework for admissions in private unaided
institutions, including the right of the state to regulate admissions to some extent while
respecting the autonomy of these institutions.

ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE

1. All the petitions were allowed and sent before the regular benches for hearing
2. Article 30(1) was discussed in various facets elaborating the issues above mentioned.
3. A general clearer than the former with directions to central government was made and
sent to the regular benches.

In addition to the above stated judgements, the two committees for monitoring admission
procedure and determining fee structure in the judgment of Islamic Academy, are in our
view, permissive as regulatory measures aimed at protecting the interest of the student
8
community as a whole as also the minorities themselves, in maintaining required standards of
professional education on non- exploitative terms in their institutions. Legal provisions made
by the State Legislatures or the scheme evolved by the Court for monitoring admission
procedure and fee fixation do not violate the right of minorities under Article 30(1) 20 or the
right of minorities and non-minorities under Article 19(1)(g)21.

They are reasonable restrictions in the interest of minority institutions permissible under
Article 30(1)22 and in the interest of general public under Article 19(6) 23 of the Constitution.
The suggestion made on behalf of minorities and non- minorities that the same purpose for
which Committees have been set up can be achieved by post-audit or checks after the
institutions have adopted their own admission procedure and fee structure, is unacceptable for
the reasons shown by experience of the educational authorities of various States. Unless the
admission procedure and fixation of fees is regulated and controlled at the initial stage, the
evil of unfair practice of granting admission on available seats guided by the paying capacity
of the candidates would be impossible to curb.

Non-minority unaided institutions can also be subjected to similar restrictions which are
found reasonable and in the interest of student community. Professional education should be
made accessible on the criterion of merit and on non-exploitative terms to all eligible students
on a uniform basis. Minorities or non-minorities, in exercise of their educational rights in the
field of professional education have an obligation and a duty to maintain requisite standards
of professional education by giving admissions based on merit and making education equally
accessible to eligible students through a fair and transparent admission procedure and on a
reasonable fee-structure.

In this judgment, the Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the legislation
known as the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation
of Admissions and Fees) Act, 200524. The Act sought to regulate the admission process and
fee structure in private unaided educational institutions, including professional colleges.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, upheld the constitutional validity of reservations
for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes (SC/ST/OBC) in

20
INDIA CONST. art. 30, cl. 1.
21
INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl. 1(g).
22
INDIA CONST. art. 30, cl. 1.
23
INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl. 6.
24
Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Fees) Act,
2005, No. XXVIII, Maharashtra Act, 2005 (India).

9
these institutions. However, it also established that there should be no reservation for the
“institutions’ share” of seats, which refers to seats that are not funded or aided by the
government. The court ruled that private unaided educational institutions have the autonomy
to determine the admission process, including the right to establish their own selection
criteria and fee structure.

It held that the state government can regulate admissions and prescribe a quota for
students belonging to reserved categories in private unaided educational institutions.
However, the Court also emphasized that such regulation should be reasonable, fair, and
transparent, and should not unduly infringe upon the autonomy of these institutions.

The judgment laid down important principles regarding the autonomy of private
unaided educational institutions and the extent to which the state can regulate them. It
affirmed that the right to establish and administer educational institutions is a fundamental
right protected under Article 19(1)(g)25 of the Indian Constitution, and any regulation must
strike a balance between the state’s interest in promoting social welfare and the institution’s
right to autonomy.

The Supreme Court further held that private unaided educational institutions could not
be compelled to provide reservations in respect of seats in postgraduate courses. However,
the court ruled that the fees charged by these institutions must be reasonable and not
profiteering in nature. The judgment in the P.A. Inamdar case has had significant implications
for the reservation policies in private unaided educational institutions in India. It established a
balance between the autonomy of these institutions and the need for social justice through
reservations.

CONCLUSION

This case holds a very important place in the history of the reservation, The suggestion made
on behalf of minorities and non- minorities that the same purpose for which Committees have
been set up can be achieved by post-audit or checks after the institutions have adopted their
own admission procedure and fee structure, is unacceptable for the reasons shown by
experience of the educational authorities of various States. Unless the admission procedure

25
INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl. 1(g).

10
and fixation of fees is regulated and controlled at the initial stage, the evil of unfair practice
of granting admission on available seats guided by the paying capacity of the candidates
would be impossible to curb. Non-minority unaided institutions can also be subjected to
similar restrictions which are found reasonable and in the interest of student community.
Professional education should be made accessible on the criterion of merit and on non-
exploitative terms to all eligible students on a uniform basis.

Minorities or non-minorities, in exercise of their educational rights in the field of professional

education have an obligation and a duty to maintain requisite standards of professional
education by giving admissions based on merit and making education equally accessible to
eligible students through a fair and transparent admission procedure and on a reasonable fee-
structure. In our considered view, on the basis of judgment in Pai Foundation and various
previous judgments of this Court which have been taken into consideration in that case, the
scheme evolved of setting up the two Committees for regulating admissions and determining
fee structure by the judgment in Islamic Academy cannot be faulted either on the ground of
alleged infringement of Article 19(1)(g)26 in case of unaided professional educational
institutions of both categories and Article 19(1)(g) read with Article 30 27 in case of unaided
professional institutions of minorities.

26
INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl. 1(g).
27
INDIA CONST. art. 30.

11