2003 (8) TMI 469 - SC - Indian Laws

The function of imparting education has been, to a large extent, taken over by the citizens themselves.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether 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.
4. Whether private unaided professional colleges are entitled to admit students by evolving their own method of admission.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether educational institutions are entitled to fix their own fee structure.
The judgment clarifies that private educational institutions that do not seek or depend on government funds must have the freedom to fix their own fee structure. The fee structure should consider the need to generate funds to run the institution, provide necessary facilities, and generate a reasonable surplus for the development and expansion of the institution. However, there should be no profiteering or charging of capitation fees. Each State must set up a committee headed by a retired High Court judge to scrutinize the proposed fee structures of educational institutions to ensure they are justified and not excessive.

Issue 2: Whether minority and non-minority educational institutions stand on the same footing and have the same rights.
The judgment emphasizes that minority educational institutions have a guarantee to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. However, it clarifies that minority institutions do not have higher or better rights than non-minority institutions. Both types of institutions must comply with the laws of the land, and any regulation that discriminates against minority institutions or gives them undue advantage over non-minority institutions is impermissible. The special protection under Article 30 ensures equal treatment between majority and minority institutions.

Issue 3: Whether private unaided professional colleges are entitled to fill in their seats to the extent of 100% and if not, to what extent.
The judgment states that private unaided professional colleges are entitled to autonomy in their administration but must adhere to the principle of merit. It is permissible for the university or the government to require these institutions to provide for merit-based selection while giving the management discretion in admitting students. A certain percentage of seats can be reserved for admission by the management from students who have passed a common entrance test held by the institution or the State/University, while the rest of the seats may be filled up based on counseling by the state agency. The prescription of the percentage of seats must be done by the government according to local needs, and different percentages can be fixed for minority and non-minority unaided professional colleges.

Issue 4: Whether private unaided professional colleges are entitled to admit students by evolving their own method of admission.
The judgment allows private unaided professional colleges to admit students by evolving their own method of admission, provided the method ensures fairness, transparency, and merit-based selection. The management can select students based on a common entrance test conducted by the State or by an association of colleges of a particular type in the State. The institutions must follow a rational and transparent method of admission to ensure that merit is adequately taken care of and that there is no undue harassment or hardship for students.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court judgment emphasizes the autonomy of private unaided educational institutions in fixing their fee structure and admitting students, subject to the principles of fairness, transparency, and merit. Minority and non-minority institutions are to be treated equally under the law, with no undue advantages or disadvantages. The government can impose reasonable regulations to ensure educational standards and prevent profiteering, but these regulations must respect the autonomy of the institutions.

← Previous Next →