http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12  

PETITIONER: T.M.A.PAI FOUNDATION & ORS.ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT11/08/1995

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)

CITATION:  1995 AIR 2431            1995 SCC  (5) 220  JT 1995 (6)    33        1995 SCALE  (4)665

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Though the  orders we  are now  making are  interim  in nature,  it   is  appropriate   to  set   out  briefly   the circumstances leading  to the  present stage  for  a  proper appreciation of the several directions we are making herein.      In Unnikrishnan.J.P.   v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993 (1) S.C.C.645),  a Constitution Bench of this Court framed a scheme governing  admissions to  professional colleges. This was done with a view to eliminate the evil of capitation fee and the  absolute discretion  which the managements of these colleges were  exercising in  the  matter  of  admission  of students. The  main  objective  was  to  ensure  that  merit prevails in  the matter  of admissions,  both in  respect of what were  called "free  seats" as  well as  in  respect  of "payment seats".  This judgment  was rendered on February 4, 1993. The  scheme was to be effective from the Academic Year 1993-94 onwards.      Review Petitions  were filed  by  several  institutions against the  said  judgment.  They  were  dismissed  by  the Constitution  Bench   on  May   14,  1993   subject  to  one clarification,  viz.,   that  it   shall  be   open  to  the professional colleges  to admit non-resident Indian students to the extent of five percent of the total intake in a given year. These  five percent  seats were  to be  out  of  fifty percent payment seats.      The Government  of Karnataka  sought to  apply the said scheme to  Minority Educational  Institutions  (M.E.Is.)  as well, though  the  judgment  did  not  purport  to  say  so. Complaining against  the extension  of the  scheme to  them, certain  M.E.Is.  approached  this  Court  by  way  of  writ petitions. Writ  petition (c)  No.350 of  1993 was  filed by Islamic Academy  of Education,  Mangalore (claiming  to be a religious M.E.I.)  and writ  Petition (C) No.355 of 1993 was filed by  S.Venkatesha Education  Society (claiming  to be a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12  

linguistic minority). While the Islamic Academy of Education was running  a dental  college in  Karnataka, S.  Venkatesha Education Society was running an engineering college in that State.  These   writ  petitions   came  up  before  a  Bench comprising the  Hon’ble Chief  Justice and  one of  us (B.P. Jeevan Reddy,  J.) on  May 14,  1993.  The  Bench  made  the following interim order:      "2. There  will be  an interim  order in      the following terms:-      (1) Fifty  per cent  of the total intake      in    the    petitioner’s    educational      institutions shall  be permitted  to  be      filled up  by candidates selected by the      agencies of  the State Government on the      basis of a competitive examination/test.      The candidates  so selected and admitted      shall pay scales of fee as applicable to      this class  of students as determined by      the State Government from time to time.      (2) The  remaining fifty per cent of the      intake   may   be   regulated   by   the      petitioners    to    admit    candidates      belonging to the particular religious or      linguistic   minority.    However,   the      selection shall  be made strictly on the      basis  of  merit  among  the  candidates      seeking admission  to the  institutions.      Such merit  shall be  determined on  the      basis of the academic performance of the      qualifying examination;  or on the basis      of   any   objective   test   that   the      institution  might   itself   apply   to      determine such  relative  and  competing      merits; or  on the  basis of performance      of the  results of  the selection  tests      that the  State  Government  may  itself      hold  for   selecting   candidates   for      admission to  technical colleges  in the      State.   It    is   optional   for   the      petitioners to  adopt any  one of  these      three  modes  and  apply  it  uniformly.      Candidates so  selected on  the basis of      merit  amongst   the  minorities  shall,      however, abide  by such condition in the      matter of  payment of  tution and  other      fee as  may be  permitted by  the  State      Government.      (3) It  is made clear that this order is      made  on   the   assumption   that   the      petitioners are  minority  institutions.      It  is   open  to   the  respondents  to      question  this  status  claimed  by  the      petitioners."      Several other  Educational Institutions  claiming to be M.E.Is. filed  writ petitions questioning the application of the said  scheme to them. All these writ petitions including Writ Petition  (C) Nos.350  and 355  of 1993 were heard by a Constitution Bench.  On August  18, 1993,  it passed interim orders applicable  to Academic  Year 1993-94,  which  orders were based  upon the  order dated May 14, 1993 (made in Writ Petition (C)  Nos. 350 and 355 of 1993) coupled with certain modifications and clarifications. After hearing the parties, the Constitution  Bench framed  three questions and referred the same  to a  larger Bench  by its  order dated October 7, 1993. The  order  of  reference  is  reported  in  1993  (4)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12  

S.C.C.286. The three questions referred are:      "(1) What  is the meaning and content of      the expression  ‘minorities’ in  Article      30 of the Constitution of India?      (2)  What   is  the   meaning   of   the      expression     ‘Minority     Educational      Institution’ and  what is the indicia to      determine   whether    an    educational      institution is  a  Minority  Educational      Institution?      (3) Whether  the decision  of this Court      in St.Stephens  is right  in saying that      Article   30    clothes    a    Minority      Educational Institution  with the  power      to admit  students by  adopting its  own      method of  selection and  that the State      or the  affiliating  University  has  no      power to  regulate admission of students      to such Minority Educational Institution      even  while   permitting  the   Minority      Educational   Institution    to    admit      students  belonging   to  the   relevant      minority to  the extent  of 50%  of  its      intake capacity?      The Seven-Judge Bench met and after hearing the counsel for the  parties, it  re-framed the questions arising before it into  seven  questions  on  March  18,  1994.  The  seven questions framed by the larger Bench are:      "(1) (a) Where a religious or linguistic      minority in  State  ‘A’  established  an      educational  institution   in  the  said      State,   can    the   member   of   that      religious/linguistic group  in State ‘B’      claim rights  flowing from Article 30(1)      of the  Constitution of India in respect      of the abovesaid educational institution      established in State ‘A’?      (b) Whether  it would  be correct to say      that only  the members  of that minority      residing in State ‘A’ will be treated as      the members  of the  minority  vis-a-vis      such institution?      (2) What are the indicia for treating an      educational institution  as  a  minority      educational   institution?    Would   an      institution be  regarded as  a  minority      educational institution  only because it      was established by a person(s) belonging      to a religious or linguistic minority or      it is  being administered by a person(s)      belonging to  a religious  or linguistic      minority?      (3) Whether  the  minority’s  ‘right  to      establish  and   administer  educational      institutions  of   their  choice’   will      include  the  procedure  and  method  of      admission and selection of a student?      (4) Whether the admission of students to      minority    educational     institution,      whether  aided   or  unaided,   can   be      regulated by  the State  Govt. or by the      University to  which the  Institution is      affiliated?      (5) Whether  the decision  of this Court      in St.Stephens  is right  in saying that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12  

    Article   30    clothes    a    minority      educational institution  with the  power      to admit  students by  adopting its  own      method of  selection and  that the State      or the  affiliated  University  has  the      power to  regulate admission of students      to such minority educational institution      even  while   permitting  the   minority      educational   institution    to    admit      students  belonging   to  the   relevant      minority to  the extent of 50% of intake      capacity. We  make  it  clear  that  the      percentage decided  in St.Stephens  case      will   equally    be   open    for   re-      consideration.      (6) What  is  meant  by  the  expression      ‘religion’ in  Article  30(1)?  Can  the      followers of a sect or denomination of a      particular  religion   claim  protection      under Article  30(1) on  the basis  that      they constitute  a minority in the State      even  though   the  followers   of  that      religion are in majority in that State?      (7) What  is  meant  by  the  expression      ‘language’ in  Article  30(1)?  Does  it      include a language which is not included      in   the    Eight   Schedule    to   the      Constitution?"      The Bench could not, however, complete the hearing. The matters remained part heard.      In view  of the  approaching Academic Year 1994-95, the larger Bench  directed on  April 5,  1994 that  the  interim order made by this Court for the year 1993-94 shall continue to govern  admissions for the Academic Year 1994-95 as well, both M.E.Is. and others. The directions included the fees to be charged  from the ‘free’ students and ‘payment’ students. So far  as N.R.I.  quota is concerned, while it was fixed at fifteen percent  for the Academic Year 1993-94, it was fixed at ten percent for the Academic Year 1994-95.      In view  of the fact that the Academic Year 1995-96 was commencing, certain institutions approached this Court again for appropriate  directions. This  Court directed  that  the orders made  earlier with  respect to  Minority  Educational Institutions shall continue to govern the admissions for the Academic Year  1995-96 as  well.  While  so,  the  Karnataka Government brought  about a  change in  law which  has  made several  institutions  to  approach  this  Court  again  for appropriate directions.  As is well-known, the bulk of these private professional  colleges are  situated in the State of Karnataka and  to a  lesser extent  in Maharashtra.  Private professional  colleges  are  there  in  Tamil  Nadu,  Andhra Pradesh and  other states as well but the problem now before us mainly  concerns the States of Karnataka and Maharashtra. We shall  first state the change in law brought about by the Karnataka Government  in the matter of admissions to private colleges.      In the year 1984, the Karnataka Legislature had enacted the  Karnataka   Educational  Institutions  (Prohibition  of Capital Fee)  Act, 1984.  Rules were  made  under  this  Act called "Karnataka  Selection of  Candidates for Admission to Engineering, Medical,  Dental, Pharmacy  and Nursing Courses Rules, 1993"  on March  10, 1993.  The rules contained inter alia the  definition  of  "Karnataka  students".  The  rules provided certain  preference in favour of Karnataka students in the  matter of  admission to these professional colleges.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12  

By amendments  effected on  May 20, 1995, however, two major changes  were   brought  about,   viz.,  (a)  definition  of "Karnataka student" was amended to read as follows:      (1) "Karnataka  Student" means a student      who  has   studied  in   one   or   more      Government  or   Government   recognised      educational institutions  located within      the State  of Karnataka  for  a  minimum      period of ten academic years (commencing      from first  standard to twelth standard,      both standards  inclusive or  qualifying      examination, either  continuously or  in      broken periods)  as on first July of the      year in  which Entrance Test is held and      has studies,  appeared  and  passed  the      Secondary      Leaving       Certificate      Examination    or     Tenth     Standard      Examination   and    the   Second   Pre-      University  Examination   or  the   12th      standard Examination  in a Government or      Government    recognised     educational      institution located  within the State of      Karnataka." and (b)  Rule 5  was amended  providing that  all free seats shall be  filled only  by Karnataka  students and  that  all payment seats,  except as  otherwise provided  in  the  said Rules, shall  be filled  by  Karnataka  students  only.  The result of  these amendments is that no non-Karnataka student can be  admitted to  these institutions-  except perhaps the non-resident Indians and that too under and by virtue of the orders of this Court.      The  educational   institutions   both   belonging   to minorities and  others are  complaining that all these years they were  admitting students  from all  over  the  country, N.R.Is. and  even foreign  students  and  that  the  present restriction causes  grave prejudice to them inasmuch as they will not  be able  to fill  up all  the payments seats. They submit  that   after  the   scheme   in   Unnikrishnan   was implemented, the  Karnataka  Government  was  alloting  only Karnataka students  against free  seats  while  the  payment seats were  divided  between  Karnataka  students  and  non- Karnataka students  in a  certain  proportion,  besides,  of course,  the   N.R.I.  quota.   The   Minority   Educational Institutions  complain  that  they  are  entitled  to  admit students belonging  to  their  minority  community  (whether religious or  linguistic) from all over the country and that they cannot  be confined  to Karnataka alone. They point out that one  of the  questions before  the seven-Judge Bench is whether a  M.E.I. is  entitled to draw students belonging to that minority  from outside  the  State  or  whether  it  is restricted to  that particular  State alone. By amending the said Rules in the above manner, they complain, the Karnataka Government has pre-empted the answer to the question.      There  is   no  change  in  law  so  far  as  State  of Maharashtra is concerned. The Maharashtra Government has, of course, filed  an application  seeking  specific  directions from this  Court with  respect to the extent of N.R.I. quota for the Academic Year 1995-96 and with respect to the manner in which the M.E.Is.  should be allowed to make admissions.      Pausing here  we must  mention a  change in law brought about by  the Regulations framed by the Dental Council under the Dentists  Act, 1948. This change, of course, is relevant insofar as  dental colleges  alone are concerned. But having regard to  the fact  that there are a large number of dental colleges in  Karnataka -  and may  be some in other States -

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12  

this  question  has  become  relevant.  In  the  year  1948, Dentists Act  was enacted.  By Amendment  Act  30  of  1993, Section 10-A  was inserted  providing that no new college or new course  of study  shall be  opened except with the prior permission of  the Central Government. Every person applying for such  permission is  obliged to  prepare  and  submit  a scheme in  accordance with  the provisions  of section 10-A. Section 20  of the Act permits Regulations to be made by the Dental Council  with the approval of the Central Government, regulating inter  alia the standards of examinations held in the  dental   colleges  and  also  in  particular  to  "(fa) prescribe the  form of  the scheme,  the particulars  to  be given in  such scheme,  the manner in which the scheme is to be preferred  and the  fee payable  with  the  scheme  under clause (b)  of sub-section (2) of section 10A." Accordingly, the Dental  Council has  framed Regulations  on  January  5, 1995.  These  Regulations  are  broadly  modelled  upon  and incorporate  the   scheme  contained  in  Unnikrishnan.  The expression "competent authority" is defined in clause (b) of Regulation 3 in the following words:      "‘Competent    Authority’     means    a      Government or  University or  any  other      authority as  may be  designated by  the      Government or  the University  or by law      to  allot  students  for  admissions  to      various dental  colleges in  a State  or      Union Territory."      It is  contended by  Sri. F.S.Nariman  that once  these Regulations are  made, they  alone govern  the admissions to and fees  payable  in  the  dental  colleges  and  that  the Karnataka Rules  aforesaid- and  in particular  the  amended Rule 5  read with  the definition  of "Karnataka  student" - cease to apply to them with effect from the said date. It is submitted that  with  effect  from  the  date  of  the  said Regulations, Karnataka  Government has  no  power  over  the dental colleges.  These  submissions  are  disputed  by  the learned Advocate General of the Karnataka.      Over  the   last  two   years,  several   problems  and difficulties in  the matter  of implementation  of the  said scheme were  brought  to  our  notice  by  the  governments, managements, students  and their  parents. In particular, it was being  complained that the gap in the fees paid by ‘free students’ and  ‘payment students’  is  too  large  and  that contrary to  the intention  of the  scheme, most of the boys from the  well-to-do families  were taking  away free  seats leaving the  payment seats  to students from the rural areas and backward  communities. The  managements also  complained that the  fees prescribed by this Court is not sufficient to meet    the    necessary    expenditure.    Keeping    these representations in  mind, we  made the  following  order  on April 27, 1995 suo motu:      "A Constitution  Bench of  this court in      Unnikrishnan J.P.  & Ors.  v.  State  of      A.P. &  Ors. (1993)  1 SCC 645, framed a      Scheme regarding admission of candidates      to the private professional colleges. In      terms of  the Scheme 50% seats were free      seats  and   the  remaining   50%  seats      have(?)  were   payment  seats.   By   a      subsequent order  part  of  the  payment      seats were  also allocated as NRI quota.      The Scheme  has now  been operative  for      over two  years. We  would like  to have      the suggestions  and comments  from  the      State Governments  and  Union  of  India

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12  

    regarding the functioning of the Scheme.      The   concerned   Ministeries   of   the      Government shall  indicate in  case  any      modification/change in  the  working  of      the Scheme is required at this stage.      Copy  of  this  Order  be  sent  to  the      Advocate Generals  of  all  the  States,      Attorney  General   of   India,   Indian      Medical   Council,   University   Grants      Commission, Dental Council of India, All      India Council  for Technical  Education.      The response of the above shall be filed      before 31st July, 1995."      In response  to the  above order,  some  of  the  State Governments, statutory  councils, managements,  students and other interested  persons have come forward with suggestions which may briefly be mentioned hereinbelow. SUGGESTIONS:      The  Karnataka  Government  has  suggested  that  there should  be   a  uniform  method  of  admission  to  all  the professional colleges  irrespective of the fact whether they were established  and maintained  by a minority community or by others  and that  the  scheme  of  admissions  should  be applied equally  to deemed universities. In short, they want a  uniform   scheme  of   admissions   applicable   to   all professional colleges.  It is  further  submitted  that  the denial of  discretion to  the management  in the  matter  of admission of students altogether has led to great resentment and lack  of incentive  in better management and improvement of  the   institutions.  It   is  suggested   that  all  the professional  colleges   should  be   permitted   to   admit N.R.Is/foreign  students   (and  in   case   N.R.Is./foreign students are not available, students of their own choice) to the extent of twenty five percent of the intake capacity and the rest  seventy five  percent should  be treated  as  free seats. MAHARASHTRA:      The  Maharashtra  Government  has  suggested  that  the present scheme of fifty percent free seats and fifty percent payment seats may be modified to make it eighty percent free seats and twenty percent non-resident quota. It is submitted that admissions to both these quotas should be allowed to be made by  the State  Government alone  and that  the fees for twenty percent  N.R.I. seats  should be so fixed as to cover entire cost  of running  the college.  It is  also submitted that constitutional reservations be allowed to be made among the eighty  percent free  seats. Another  suggestion made is that students  coming from  outside  Maharashtra  should  be allowed to  be charged  higher  fees  than  the  maharashtra students. TAMIL NADU:      The Tamil  Nadu Government has suggested that under the present scheme,  students from  rural  background  and  poor classes are  not able  to  get  into  merit  seats.  It  has suggested that  twenty five  percent seats  be reserved  for N.R.Is./Management and  the balance  of seventy five percent seats should  be allowed  to be  filled by the government as free seats.  It has  requested that the separate  status for minority institutions permitting them to admit fifty percent of the students on their own may be abolished and that there should be  a uniform  pattern  of  admissions  for  all  the professional colleges.  It has  pointed out  that because of the special  consideration shown  to M.E.Is.,  a  number  of institutions   are   falsely   claiming   to   be   minority institutions only with a view to gain the advantage of fifty

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12  

percent admissions on their own. UNION OF INDIA:      The Union  of India  has filed  an application  seeking extension of  time by  six weeks  on  the  ground  that  the suggestions formulated  by the  Ministry of  Human  Resource Development have  been submitted  to  the  Cabinet  for  its approval and that the Cabinet is likely to consider the same and take a decision in about six weeks. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (U.G.C.):      The U.G.C.  has stated  that because  of certain  legal difficulties, it  could not  evolve a fee structure or frame regulations governing  the admissions  to these professional colleges. It  is stated that in any event regulations framed by A.I.C.T.E.,M.C.A.  and D.C.A. cover most of the field. It has requested  the Court  to empower it to frame regulations under Sections 12 and 12-A regulating the admissions and the fees to  be charged  in these  colleges.  It  has  sought  a clarification whether  the said  scheme  applies  to  deemed universites. It  has  also  suggested  that  for  generating additional resources  the colleges may be permitted to admit more N.R.Is./foreign students against payment seats. A.I.C.T.E.:      A.I.C.T.E. has stated that it has framed regulations as contemplated by  this court incorporating the scheme evolved in Unnikrishnan.  It has  suggested  that  the  present  fee structure should be revised and that the N.R.I. quota should be increased. INTERVENORS:      A  number   of  educational  institutions  have  sought permission to  intervene  in  the  matter.  They  have  made several  suggestions.   Broadly  speaking,  they  want  more discretion in  the matter  of admission  of students,  steep increase in  the fees,  hiking up of N.R.I. quota and so on. The fees,  it is submitted, should be ‘need based’ and fixed separately for  each institution.  Some of  the M.E.Is. have asked for  liberty  to  admit  the  entire  hundred  percent strength  with  the  students  belonging  to  the  concerned minority. At  the same  time, Sri  Nariman stated  that  the M.E.Is. should  be made  to admit  the students belonging to the particular  minority strictly in order of merit. Learned counsel did not plead for any discreation for the management of M.E.Is. in the matter of admission. THE PRESENT STATUS:      The situation  as on  today is  that in  the  State  of maharashtra, not only the common entrance test has been held and  result  published  but  the  students  have  also  been allotted  against   all  the   free  seats.   But  for   the clarification sought by the State Government with respect to N.R.I. quota, the allotment of payment seats would also have been completed  by now.  In Karnataka,  common entrance test has been  held confining  it to Karnataka students alone and results have  been published  but no allotment has been made awaiting the  orders of  this Court. (Sri Rama jois, learned counsel  appearing   for  certain   non-karnataka   students complains that  State Government  is in truth colluding with the managements  of professional  colleges with  a  view  to defeat the  scheme framed  by  this  Court  and  that  while amending Rules  on one  hand restricting  the admissions  to karnataka  students,   the  Government   has  permitted  the managements to  issue advertisements  inviting  applications for admission  to these colleges to be submitted directly to them. Even  the amendment  of Rules  in  1995  (referred  to above), says  Sri Jois,  is in truth intended to allow these colleges to admit students to their choice directly since it is a  well known  fact that  all the payment seats cannot be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12  

filled by  Karnataka students.)  So far  as other States are concerned, precise  information  is  not  placed  before  us except to  state that the process of admission is at various stages of finalisation.      In the above state of affairs, it is obvious, any major modification of  the scheme  in Unnikrishnan can only be for the next  academic year  and onwards.  The major  demand  of Karnataka and  the Tamil  Nadu Governments  is for a uniform treatment of all professional colleges - whether established and maintained by minorities or by others - in the matter of admissions. This  submission involves  the question  whether Article 30  of the  Constitution stands  in the  way of such equal treatment.  Several aspects  of Article 30 are already pending before  a larger  Bench  as  stated  above.  It  is, therefore, not possible for us to make any such direction as prayed for by the said governments. That can be done only by the larger Bench.      Moreover, admissions  are already  under way in several States in  accordance with  the said  scheme, as modified by the subsequent  orders of  this  Court  referred  to  above. Regulations have  been  framed  by  the  A.I.T.C.E.,  Dental Council and several State Governments on the basis of and in accordance with the said scheme. All of them cannot suddenly be suspended  by us and at this point of time. It requires a much wider  and more extensive hearing of all points of view and a  deeper consideration  of the  suggestions of  several governments, councils,  institutions  and  others  before  a definite opinion  can be  expressed. Need there certainly is for evolving  a better  and a  fool proof  scheme consistent with public interest. None before us, it may be noted, asked for a return to the situation obtaining prior to Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992 (3) S.C.C.666) and Unnikrishnan.      There is yet another consideration. Since the aforesaid decisions of  this Court,  the outlay  in education has been raised substantially;  we are  told that  as a percentage of G.D.P., it  has almost  been doubled.  We need not emphasise the fundamental  significance of investment in education. It is,  therefore,   time  that   the  governments  and  public financial institutions  involve themselves  more actively in promoting education.      We have  also taken  note of  the grievance relating to the gap  between the  fees payable by the "free student" and "payment student"  and the uniform demand for increasing the N.R.I./foreign   students   quota.   Hence   the   following directions, confined  no doubt to Academic year 1995-96 only and limited to medical and dental colleges only: (1) So  far as  N.R.I. quota  is concerned,  it is  fixed at fifteen percent  for the  current academic year. It shall be open to  the management to admit N.R.I. students and foreign students within  this quota and in case they are not able to get the  N.R.I.  or  foreign  students  upto  the  aforesaid specified percentage,  it shall  be open  to them  to  admit students on  their own,  in the  order of  merit, within the said quota.  This direction shall be a general direction and shall operate in the case of all the States where admissions have not  been finalised. It is, however, made clear that by virtue of  this direction,  no student  who has already been admitted shall be disturbed or removed. (2)  So   far  as   minority  Educational  Institutions  are concerned, the orders made on August 18, 1993 shall continue to govern  them for this academic year. This shall also be a general direction applicable to all States. It is made clear that the  above direction  applies equally  to  colleges  in Maharashtra imparting ‘unani’ medicine courses. (3) So far as State of Karnataka is concerned, the following

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12  

additional directions are made: (a) The  restriction placed  by the  1995 amendment  to  the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Engineering, Medical,  Dental, Pharmacy  and Nursing Courses Rules, 1993,  viz., that only Karnataka students (as defined by the  said Rules)  shall be  admitted against  the payment seats shall not operate for the current academic year. Among the fifty  percent payment  seats, we have allocated fifteen percent to  N.R.I./foreign students  [direction (1)]. Out of the balance  thirty five percent seats, twenty percent shall be reserved  for Karnataka  students and  remaining  fifteen percent for  non-Karnataka students - as was done during the previous academic  year. The admission of Karnataka students against the  payment seats  shall be made in accordance with the scheme  framed in  Unnikrishnan out  of the students who have appeared  in the  entrance test already held. If any of the seats  in this  twenty percent remain vacant, they shall be added  to the  fifteen  percent  quota  of  non-Karnataka students and  shall be  filled in accordance with clause (b) below. (b) Since  there is no sufficient time left for conducting a fresh common  entrance test  for non-karnataka  students for admission to  the aforesaid  fifteen percent seats specified in clause  (a) above,  the following  direction is  made:  a press note shall be issued by the Government of Karnataka on or before  August 15,  1995, to  be  published  in  all  the national  dailies,   calling  for   applications  from  non- Karnataka students for admission to payment seats in private medical and dental colleges in Karnataka, to be submitted on or before  fifth day  of September,  1995. The  applications shall be  accompanied by  the Memorandum  of  marks  in  the qualifying examination, apart from other relevant documents. All the  applications so  received shall  be  tabulated  and admissions made  on the  basis of  merit determined  on  the basis of  the marks  obtained  by  them  in  the  qualifying examination. The students admitted shall remit the requisite fee, as  specified hereinbelow, within ten days of the order of allotment.  The remitting  of amount  in the student into the government  treasury, as  the  case  may  be,  shall  be treated as  acceptance of  allotment of  seat by the student and the same shall be binding upon all concerned. (c) All  free seats,  hereinafter to be called "merit seats" shall be reserved for Karnataka students. Allotments against these free/merit  seats and  the  payment  seats  meant  for Karnataka students shall be completed on or before September 16, 1995.  The allotment  of seats to non-Karnataka students shall be  completed on  or before  9th day of October, 1995. Any seats  remaining unallotted after that date or remaining unfilled as  on 30th  October, 1995  shall be  allowed to be filled by the Management on its own. FEE STRUCTURE:      So far  as fee  structure is  concerned, the  following orders are  made in  respect of  the  medical  colleges  and dental colleges for the current academic year: (A) The  fee payable  by the  students allotted against free seats which may hereafter be designated as merit seats shall be Rupees  twenty thousand per annum. The fee payable by the payment student  is fixed  at Rupees  seventy five thousand, Rupees seventy  thousand and  Rupees sixty five thousand per annum respectively.  In other  words, in respect of colleges having their  own hospitals, the fee shall be Rupees seventy five thousand per annum, in respect of colleges which partly depend upon  government hospital  and partly  upon their own facility shall  be Rupees  seventy thousand per annum and in respect of  colleges which  depend  wholly  upon  government

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12  

hospitals,the fees  shall be  Rupees sixty five thousand per annum.      So far as dental colleges are concerned, the fees shall be Rupees fifteen thousand per annum for free/merit seat and Rupees  fifty   thousand  per   annum  for   payment   seats respectively. (B) The  Central Government  shall provide  a subvention  of Rupees five  thousand per  annum in respect of every student admitted in  a private  medical  college,  whether  admitted against free/merit  seat or  against a payment seat, but not in respect  of a  student  admitted  against  N.R.I./foreign student quota  specified above. The subvention shall be made and continued until the student complete the course or for a period of  five years  whichever is  earlier. The subvention amount by  the Central  Government shall be sent directly to the concerned  college, towards  fee, every year, commencing with Academic Year 1995-96. This direction shall be subject, of course,  to the  directions that  may be  issued  by  the larger Bench. (C) The Reserve Bank of India is directed to evolve a scheme for extending  study  loans  to  the  students  studying  in medical  and   dental  colleges   in  private   professional colleges. This  direction is  made after  hearing Sri Harish salve, for the Reserve Bank of India, to whom we had given a notice for  this purpose.  For this purpose, the study loans shall be  deemed to  be in  the priority sector and shall be dealt with as a category under ‘Differential Rate Interest’. Pending  the  evolving  of  such  a  scheme,  the  following direction is  made for  this academic  year and  the Reserve Bank of  India is  requested to issue appropriate directions to Nationalised Bank forthwith, not later than ten days. So far  as free/merit  students are concerned, they shall be given a  loan of  Rupees fifteen  thousand for  the Academic Year 1995-96  on production  of (i)  a certificate  from the concerned medical/dental college that he is admitted against a free seat, (ii) an affidavit by the student and his father (in the  absence of  the father,  by mother  or  other  near relative) that  the total  annual income  of  the  students’ family does  not exceed  Rupees fifty  thousand an  year and (iii) a  bond executed  by the  student (and in case he is a minor, by  his father/mother or the guardian) undertaking to repay the  loan in  five equal annual instalments commencing from  two  years  after  completion  of  the  course  he  is studying, or  within one  year of  his obtaining employment, whichever is  earlier. No security need be insited upon. The amount of  loan shall  be remitted  directly to  the college concerned. The  free/ merit  students shall pay the fees now fixed or the difference between the existing fee and the fee now fixed within one month of their admission.      So far  as payment  students are concerned, a loan upto Rupees fifty  thousand may  be extended  to them on the same terms but  on further  condition that  they furnish adequate security to  the satisfaction  of  the  Bank  for  the  loan advanced.      So far as engineering and other colleges are concerned, the rules,  regulations and  orders made  by  the  concerned council, government  and this court shall continue to govern for this  academic year.There  shall be no change insofar as these  colleges   are  concerned.  In  short,  the  position obtaining the Academic Year 1994-95 shall apply and continue for Academic  Year   1995-96. The  allotment of  students to these colleges shall be completed by September 30, 1995. Any seats remaining unallotted - or any seats remaining unfilled on or after 16th October, 1995 shall be allowed to be filled by the Management.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12  

    Insofar as  the suggestion of Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu Governments for  uniform system  of  admissions  to  private colleges  and   for  equal  treatment  of  all  professional colleges irrespective  of the  fact whether they are M.E.Is. or not - is concerned, it involves the issue whether Article 30 stands in the way of equal treatment of M.E.Is. and other similarly placed educational institutions not established by the minorities. This question cannot be considered by us. it can be done only by the larger Bench. Similarly, the request of maharashtra  and Tamil  Nadu Governments to introduce the system of  only two  categories (free seats and N.R.I. seats in the  proportion of  80:20 or  75:25, as  the case may be) cannot be  considered by  us but  only by a larger Bench (of seven  Judges)   in  view  of  the  fact  that  decision  in Unnikrishnan was  rendered by  a Bench of five Judges. There is yet  another circumstance: the Government of India is yet to come  forward with  its suggestions  in  the  matter,  as stated above.  After the  suggestions of  the Government  of India are received, appropriate orders have to be made to be effective for the next academic year onwards. We are also of the opinion  that so  far as  the final  adjudication of the several issues  indicated hereinabove  are concerned, it has to be  done by  a  larger  bench  as  indicated  above.  The questions posed  before the  seven - Judge Bench too have to be answered. The scheme framed in Unnikrishnan may also have to be reconsidered/ modified.      The Hon’ble  Chief Justice  may consider constituting a bench of seven Judges for considering and deciding the above issues.