―94. Aid and affiliation or recognition, both by the State, bring in some amount of regulation as a condition of receiving grant or recognition. The scope of such regulations, as spelt out by a six-Judge Bench decision in Rev.Sidhajbhai case [Rev. SidhajbhaiSabhai v. State of Gujarat, (1963) 3 SCR 837 : AIR 1963 SC 540] and a nine-Judge Bench case in St. Xavier's [(1974) 1 SCC 717] must satisfy the following tests: (a) the regulation is reasonable and rational; (b) it is regulative of the essential character of the institution and is conducive to making the institution an effective vehicle of education for the minority community or other persons who resort to it; (c) it is directed towards maintaining excellence of education and efficiency of administration so as to prevent it from falling in standards. These tests have met the approval of Pai Foundation [(2002) 8 SCC 481] . However, Rev. Sidhajbhai case [Rev. SidhajbhaiSabhai v. State of Gujarat, (1963) 3 SCR 837 : AIR 1963 SC 540] and St. Xavier's [(1974) 1 SCC 717] go on to say that no regulation can be cast in ―the interest of the nation if it does not serve the interest of the minority as well. This proposition (except when it is read in the light of the opinion of Quadri, J.) stands overruled in Pai Foundation [(2002) 8 SCC 481] where Kirpal, C.J., speaking for the majority has ruled (vide SCC p. 563, para 107) — Any regulation framed in the national interest must necessarily apply to all educational institutions, whether run by the majority or the minority. Such a limitation must necessarily be read into Article 30. The right under Article 30(1) cannot be such as to override the national interest or to prevent the Government from framing regulations in that behalf. (Also see, paras 117 to 123 and para 138 of Pai Foundation [(2002) 8 SCC 481] where Kirpal, C.J. has dealt with St. Xavier's [(1974) 1 SCC 717] in detail.) No right can be absolute. Whether a minority or a non-minority, no
