Private professional college admissions must follow statutory reservation and merit; self-defined source restrictions are impermissible.

The Delhi Professional Colleges Act, 2007 was treated as a complete code for admissions in unaided non-minority professional institutions in Delhi, so executive action could not displace its statutory reservation and merit scheme; the Government's exemption for wards of army personnel was therefore ultra vires. A non-minority unaided professional institution could not confine admissions to a self-defined private source and had to keep non-reserved admissions open to the general pool on inter se merit. Clause (5) of Article 15 was held to be a valid enabling provision that does not violate the basic structure and supports constitutionally valid reservations in private unaided educational institutions, other than minority institutions.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Delhi Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-Exploitative Fee And Other Measures to Ensure Equity And Excellence) Act, 2007 governed admissions to the institution and whether the Government of Delhi could exempt it from the statutory reservation and merit scheme; (ii) whether a non-minority unaided professional institution could confine admissions to a self-defined source consisting only of wards of army personnel; (iii) whether clause (5) of Article 15 violates the basic structure of the Constitution.

Issue (i): whether the Delhi Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-Exploitative Fee And Other Measures to Ensure Equity And Excellence) Act, 2007 governed admissions to the institution and whether the Government of Delhi could exempt it from the statutory reservation and merit scheme.

Analysis: The Act was held to be a complete code for admissions in unaided non-minority professional institutions in Delhi. Its reservation provisions applied across the seat matrix and could not be suspended by executive action. The Government of Delhi had no power under the Act, or under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, to override a legislatively mandated policy of reservations and merit-based admission. The exemption granting 100% seats to wards of army personnel was therefore inconsistent with the statute and its scheme.

Conclusion: The Act applied, and the exemption granted by the Government of Delhi was invalid and ultra vires.

Issue (ii): whether a non-minority unaided professional institution could confine admissions to a self-defined source consisting only of wards of army personnel.

Analysis: The freedom of a non-minority unaided professional institution under Article 19(1)(g) is subject to regulatory control under Article 19(6) and to constitutionally valid reservation requirements. The distinction drawn in earlier precedent between minority and non-minority institutions did not confer on non-minority institutions a right to carve out a private source from within the general pool and exclude other qualified candidates. For non-minority professional institutions, the permissible source remained the general pool, and admissions in the non-reserved category had to follow inter se merit based on the common entrance test.

Conclusion: The institution had no right to restrict admissions to a self-defined source of wards of army personnel.

Issue (iii): whether clause (5) of Article 15 violates the basic structure of the Constitution.

Analysis: Clause (5) was treated as an enabling constitutional amendment designed to strengthen the egalitarian content of the equality code and to further social justice in higher education. It was held not to destroy constitutional identity or abrogate the basic structure. The proper constitutional balance was found to permit special provisions for disadvantaged classes in private unaided educational institutions, other than minority institutions.

Conclusion: Clause (5) of Article 15 does not violate the basic structure.

Final Conclusion: The statutory reservation scheme was upheld, the executive exemption and the institution's admission policy were struck down, and the appellants obtained relief with directions for admission against supernumerary seats while past admissions were protected.

Ratio Decidendi: A non-minority unaided professional institution cannot exclude qualified candidates by creating a private source of admissions; admissions in the non-reserved category must remain open to the general pool and be governed by merit, while constitutionally valid statutory reservations under Article 15(5) prevail.

---