Appellants: P.A. Inamdar and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges: (copyright Supreme Court, decided August 12, 2005)

R.C. Lahoti, C.J., Y.K. Sabharwal, D.M. Dharmadhikari, Arun Kumar, G.P. Mathur, Tarun Chatterjee and P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.

Subject: Constitution

Catch Words:

Administer Educational Institution, Aggrieved Person, Allotment, Application of Article, Appropriated by the State, Backward Area, Backward Class, Borrowing, Capitation Fee, Chief Justice of India, Concurrent List, Constitution of India, Constitutional Interpretation, Constitutional Limitation, Constitutional Validity, Definition, Directive Principle, Discharge, Disciplinary Action, Discrimination, District Judge, Domicile, Duty of the State, Educational Institution, Educational Right, Efficiency of Administration, Essential Facet, Financial Matter, Fraternity, Fraud on the Constitution, Fundamental Duties, Fundamental Duty, Fundamental Right, General Principle, Give Effect To, Guarantee, Interest of Minorities, Interest of Minority, Interest of the General Public, Interim Order, Interpretation, Judicial Officer, Jurisdiction, Legislation, Liberty, Linguistic Minorities, Linguistic Minority, Majority Judgment, Medical Council of India, Minorities, Minority Community, Minority Institution, Minority Student, National Interest, Parliament, Particular Religion, Private Institution, Privilege, Purpose of Article, Qualification, Question of Law, Ratio Decidendi, Reasonable Restriction, Regulation, Religious Minority, Reservation of Seat, Reservations, Retired Judge, Right Conferred, Right of Minorities, Right of Minority, Right to Education, Rights Conferred, Salaries, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Service Condition, Special Leave Petition, State Legislature, State List, Statutory Provision, Subject to the Provision, The Executive, Unreasonable Restriction, Violation of Article, Weaker Section

Acts/Rules/Orders:
Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 15(1) 19, 19(1), 19(6), 21, 26, 29, 29(1), 29(2), 30, 30(1), 38, 41, 46, 51A and 142; State Reorganisation Act

Cases Referred:

T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, Academy of Education and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi,; Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujarat,; In Re: Kerala Education Bill, 1957, (1958) SCR 995; P.A. Inamdar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2004) 8 SCC 139; Pushpagiri Medical Society v. State of Kerala and Ors., (2004) 8 SCC 135; Dr. Prithvi v. State of MP,; Professor Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2005) 2 SCC 61; The Sole Trustee, Lok Shikshana Trust v. C.I.T., Rev. Sidhrajbhai case, AIR 1963 SC 540; State of Kerala, Etc. v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial, Etc.

JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, C.J.

Preliminary

1. Leave granted in all SLPs.

2. A Coram of 11 Judges, not a common feature in the Supreme Court of India, sat to hear and decide T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (hereinafter 'Pai Foundation', for short). It was expected that the authoritative pronouncement by a Bench of such strength on the issues arising before it would draw a final curtain on those controversies. The subsequent events tell a different story. A learned academician observes that the 11-Judge Bench decision in Pai Foundation is a partial response to some of the challenges posed by the impact of Liberalisation, Privatisation and Globalisation (LPG); but the question whether that is a satisfactory response, is indeed debatable. It was further pointed out that 'the decision raises more questions than it has answered' (see: Annual Survey of Indian Law, 2002 at p.251, 254). The Survey goes on to observe "the principles laid down by the majority in Pai Foundation are so broadly formulated that they provide sufficient leeway to subsequent courts in applying those principles while the lack of clarity in the judgment allows judicial creativity ..." (ibid at p.256).

3. The prophecy has come true and while the ink on the opinions in Pai Foundation was yet to dry, the High Courts were flooded with writ petitions, calling for settlements of several issues which were not yet resolved or which propped on floor, post Pai Foundation. A number of Special Leave Petitions against interim orders passed by High Courts and a few writ petitions came to be filed directly in this Court. A Constitution Bench sat to interpret the 11-Judge Bench decision in Pai Foundation which it did vide its judgment dated 14.8.2003 (reported as - Islamic Academy of Education and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., "Islamic Academy" for short). The 11 learned Judges constituting the Bench in Pai Foundation delivered five opinions. The majority opinion on behalf of 6 Judges was delivered by B.N. Kirpal, CJ. Khare, J (as His Lordship then was) delivered a separate but concurring opinion, supporting the majority. Quadri, J, Ruma Pal, J and Variava, J (for himself and Bhan, J) delivered three separate opinions partly dissenting from the majority. Islamic Academy too handed over two opinions. The majority opinion for 4 learned Judges has been delivered by V.N. Khare, CJ. S.B. Sinha, J, has delivered a separate opinion.

4. The events following Islamic Academy judgment show that some of the main questions have remained unsettled even after the exercise undertaken by the Constitution Bench in Islamic Academy in clarification of the 11-Judge Bench decision in Pai Foundation. A few of those unsettled questions as also some aspects of clarification are before us calling for settlement by this Bench of 7 Judges which we hopefully propose to do.

5. Pai Foundation and Islamic Academy have set out the factual backdrop of the issues leading to the formulation of 11- Judge and 5-Judge Benches respectively. For details thereof a reference may be made to the reported decisions. A brief summary of the past events, highlighting the issues as they have travelled in search of resolution would be apposite.