copy of judgment

ess oberoi (Querist) 29 March 2009 This query is : Resolved
I want the following two judgments :-
(a) Islamia Academy of Education & Anr Vs State of Karnataka & Ors (2003) 6 SCC 697
(b)Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65
Can you guide me ? Where Can I get free judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Courts etc. ?

Follow Query

Report Abuse

B.B.R.Goud. (Expert) 29 March 2009
CASE NO.:
Writ Petition (civil) 350 of 1993

PETITIONER:
Islamic Academy of Education and another

RESPONDENT:
State of Karnataka and others

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/08/2003

BENCH:
V. N. KHARE CJI & S. N. VARIAVA & K. G. BALAKRISHNAN & ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.B. SINHA

JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT

(With S.L.P.(Civil) Nos. 11286/2003, 11391/2003, 11189-11195/2003,

W.P(Civil) Nos. 355/1993, 174/2003, T.P.(Civil) No. 286-288/2003,

S.L.P.(Civil) Nos. 3465-3466/2003, 3942-3943/2003, 4002-4003/2003,

9253-9254/2003, 10561/2003, W.P.(Civil) Nos. 261/2003, 275/2003,

280/2003, 289/2003)

Delivered by:
V. N. KHARE, CJI
S.B.Sinha, J.

V.N. Khare, CJI for himself and for Variava, Balakrishnan and Pasayat, JJ.

207. On 31st October, 2002 eleven Judge Bench of this Court delivered the
Judgment in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of
Karnataka and Ors. , A brief history as to how a eleven
Judge Bench of this Court came to decide this case is set out in para 3 of
the judgment, which reads as under:

"3. The hearing of these cases has had a chequered history. Writ Petition
No. 350 of 1993 filed by the Islamic Academy of Education and connected
petitions were placed before a Bench of five Judges. As the Bench was prima
facie of the opinion that Article 30 did not clothe a minority educational
institution with the power to adopt its own method of selection and the
correctness of the decision of this Court in St Stephens College v.
University of Delhi was doubted, it was directed that the questions that
arose should be authoritatively answered by a larger Bench. These cases
were then placed before a bench of seven Judges. The questions framed were
recast and on 6-2-1997, the Court directed that the matter be placed before
a Bench of at least eleven Judges, as it was felt that in view of the
Forty-second Amendment to the Constitution, whereby "education" had been
included in Entry 25 of List III of Seventh Schedule, the question of who
would be regarded as a "minority" was required to be considered because the
earlier case-law related to the pre-amendment era, when education was only
in the State List..............."
After the Judgment was delivered, on 31st October 2002, the Union of India,
various Stale Governments and the educational institutions understood the
majority judgment in different perspectives. Different statutes/regulations
were enacted/framed by different State Governments. These led to
litigations in several Courts. Interim orders passed therein have been
assailed before this Court. When these matters came up before a Bench of
this Court, the parties to the writ petitions and special leave petitions
attempted to interpret the majority decision in their own way as suited to
them and therefore at their request all these matters were placed before a
Bench of five Judges. It is under these circumstances that this Bench has
been constituted so that doubts/anomalies, if any, could be clarified.

208. Most of the petitioners/applicants before us are unaided professional
educational institutions (both minority and non-minority). On behalf of the
petitioners/applicant it was submitted that the answers given to the
questions, as set out at the end of the majority Judgment, lay down the
true ratio of the Judgment It was submitted mat any observation made in the
body of the judgment had to be read in the context of the answers given. We
are unable to accept this submission. The answers to the questions, in the
majority Judgment in Pai's case, are merely a brief summation of the ratio
laid down in the Judgment. The ratio decidendi of a Judgment has to be
found out only on reading the entire Judgment. In fact the ratio of the
judgment is what is set out in the judgment itself. The answer to the
question would necessarily have to be read in the context of what is set
out in the judgment and not in isolation. In case of any doubt as regards
any