Article 29(2) governs admissions; women-student facility requirements upheld as non-discriminatory in aided universities.
A statutory university, though aided by the State, was treated as outside Article 12 because it was not maintained by the State and did not perform governmental functions, so Article 15(1) did not directly govern its regulations. For admissions to educational institutions, Article 29(2) was treated as the specific controlling provision rather than Article 15(1), with the omission of sex regarded as deliberate. Regulations requiring prior sanction and adequate facilities before women students could be admitted were held to regulate co-education and educational conditions, not to impose sex-based exclusion, and were upheld as non-discriminatory.
Issues: (i) whether the University, being a corporate body created by statute and receiving aid from the State, was "State" or "other authority" within Article 12 so as to be bound by Article 15(1); (ii) whether admission to colleges was governed by Article 15(1) or by the special rule in Article 29(2); and (iii) whether the regulations requiring prior sanction and adequate facilities for women students were discriminatory on the ground of sex.
Issue (i): whether the University, being a corporate body created by statute and receiving aid from the State, was "State" or "other authority" within Article 12 so as to be bound by Article 15(1).
Analysis: Article 15(1) operates only against the State. The expression in Article 12 was construed as referring to authorities exercising governmental functions. A statutory university established to promote education, though aided by Government, was not maintained by the State and did not perform governmental functions. The distinction between State action and individual action was applied, and the University was held outside the constitutional definition of State.
Conclusion: The University was not State or other authority within Article 12, and Article 15(1) did not directly control its regulations.
Issue (ii): whether admission to colleges was governed by Article 15(1) or by the special rule in Article 29(2).
Analysis: Article 29(2) deals specifically with admission to educational institutions and differs in language from Article 15(1). Applying the principle that a special provision governs over a general one, the omission of sex from Article 29(2) was treated as deliberate. The scheme of Part III, including Articles 28 and 29, was read as recognising both State-maintained and State-aided educational institutions.
Conclusion: Admission to colleges was governed by Article 29(2), not by Article 15(1).
Issue (iii): whether the regulations requiring prior sanction and adequate facilities for women students were discriminatory on the ground of sex.
Analysis: The regulations were not a prohibition against women students but a control on the colleges seeking to admit them. They were designed to secure proper educational conditions and to regulate co-education in the light of practical and social considerations. The requirement of facilities before permission to admit women could be granted was treated as comparable to other affiliation conditions and not as sex-based exclusion.
Conclusion: The regulations were not discriminatory on the ground of sex.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, and the writ petition stood dismissed because the impugned regulations were upheld as valid.
Ratio Decidendi: A State-aided but non-State-maintained educational institution is not subject to Article 15(1), and in matters of admission to educational institutions Article 29(2) is the controlling provision; regulations requiring suitable facilities before women students are admitted are not per se discriminatory.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
