https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125152 SC held that minority educational institutions have constitutional protection under Article 30(1) when self-funded, allowing preferential admission to their community members. However, once state aid is accepted, Article 29(2) applies, requiring non-discriminatory admission regardless of religion, race, caste or creed. The court determined minority status state-wise rather than nationally. Unaided minority institutions retain administrative autonomy with minimal regulatory oversight, while aided institutions face greater regulation. Admissions must be merit-based and transparent, though minorities can maintain their own selection procedures. The court struck down the Unnikrishnan scheme as unconstitutional while affirming prohibition on capitation fees and profiteering. en-us Thu, 31 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Jul 2025 18:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125152 SC held that minority educational institutions have constitutional protection under Article 30(1) when self-funded, allowing preferential admission to their community members. However, once state aid is accepted, Article 29(2) applies, requiring non-discriminatory admission regardless of religion, race, caste or creed. The court determined minority status state-wise rather than nationally. Unaided minority institutions retain administrative autonomy with minimal regulatory oversight, while aided institutions face greater regulation. Admissions must be merit-based and transparent, though minorities can maintain their own selection procedures. The court struck down the Unnikrishnan scheme as unconstitutional while affirming prohibition on capitation fees and profiteering. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 31 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125152