Dismissed¶73

Bhavana Chandragupta Belagali v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Aug 2025WP/24916/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jain community religious minority; Article 30 Constitution of India; minority-reserved MBBS admission Karnataka; cross-minority entitlement rejected; minority status determined State-wise; institution must cater primarily to the minority that established it; P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 6 SCC 537 relied on; NEET UG-2024; Karnataka Examination Authority; Department of Minority Welfare; Department of Medical Education; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The submission that it is irrelevant whether the student belongs to one minority or the other for the purpose of minority-seat reservation in institutions of other minorities was considered and found absolutely incorrect. ¶46

Bhavana Chandragupta Belagali Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶73

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, a Jain (religious minority) NEET UG-2024 candidate, is entitled to admission against seats reserved for minorities in medical institutions established and managed by other minority communities in Karnataka, there being no MBBS college established and managed by the Jain community in the State. +1 more

¶39

Court's answer

¶46

Ratio / Principle

A minority community may be a minority in one State and a majority in another; therefore, the minority status of the community has to be seen in respect of the State where it has established an educational institution of its choice.

¶47

Key takeaways

The primary objective of the right under Article 30 is to cater to the needs of the minority that establishes and administers the educational institution; an institution established by one minority community cannot be opened to other minorities merely because the candidate belongs to a different minority community.ratio¶52
Since no educational institution imparting MBBS course has been established by the Jain Minority Community in the State of Karnataka, the petitioner cannot claim reservation as a person belonging to the Jain Minority Community in educational institutions established and administered by other minority communities in Karnataka.ratio¶72

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India) by a NEET UG-2024 candidate belonging to the Jain community — notified as a religious minority by Government of India notification dated 27.02.2014 — seeking quashing of an order of transfer (No. MED 37 RGU 2024 dated 02/09/2024, Annexure-G) passed by respondent No. 2 and admission against minority-reserved MBBS seats in institutions established and managed by other minority communities in Karnataka, there being no medical college established and managed by the Jain community in the State. Held (per D K Singh, J.), relying on P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 6 SCC 537 (paras 96 and 102): (i) a community may be a minority in one State and a majority in another, so minority status must be determined with reference to the State where the educational institution is established; (ii) the primary objective of the Article 30 right is to cater to the needs of the minority that establishes and administers the institution, and an institution established by one minority community cannot be opened to candidates of other minority communities merely because they belong to a minority; (iii) accordingly, absent any MBBS institution established by the Jain community in Karnataka, the petitioner cannot claim reservation as a Jain minority candidate in institutions of other minority communities. Writ petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:32798-DB WP No. 24916 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T WRIT PETITION NO. 24916 OF 2024 (EDN-RES)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

BHAVANA CHANDRAGUPTA BELAGALI D/O CHANDRAGUPTA BELAGALI

¶12

AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS

¶13

R/AT JAMAKHANDI BAGALKOT DISTRICT 587 301

¶14

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRASANNA DESHPANDE., ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER;

¶15

VIDE ORDER DATED:04.08.2025 WP IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED FOR P-1)

¶16

AND:

¶17

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶19

REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MINORITY WELFARE M S BUILDING

¶20

BENGALURU 560001

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION VIDHANA SOUDHA

¶22

BENGALURU 560001

¶23

THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY 18TH CROSS SAMPIGE ROAD

¶24

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:32798-DB WP No. 24916 of 2024

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

MALLESWARAM BENAGALURU 560023

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI.N.K.RAMESH FOR R-3)

¶30

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE ORDER OF TRANSFER/PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.MED 37 RGU 2024 DATED 02/09/2024 HEREWITH PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G, ETC.

¶31

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶35

The petitioner, Ms. Bhavana Chandragupta Belagali

¶36

claims that she belongs to Jain Community which is a religious minority not only in the State of Karnataka, but in the entire country. In fact, the Department of Minority Affairs, Government of India, has issued a notification dated 27.02.2014 notifying the Jain Community as a minority community in addition to five other communities

¶37

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:32798-DB WP No. 24916 of 2024

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

which were notified as minority communities vide notification dated 23.10.1993. The petitioner had appeared in NEET UG-2024 for taking admission to MBBS course. It appears that the petitioner could not secure admission as per her ranking in the result of the NEET examination 2024 in the general merit. The petitioner now claims that she should be treated as a candidate belonging to the religious minority in the State of Karnataka and she should be given admission against the seat reserved for the minorities in the medical colleges / institutions as per her merit in the institutions established and managed by other minority communities in the State of Karnataka.

¶40

Admittedly, there is no medical college imparting MBBS education which has been established and managed by the Jain Community in the State of Karnataka. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that, it is irrelevant whether the student / candidate belongs to one minority or the other

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:32798-DB WP No. 24916 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

for providing benefit of the reservation for admission in

¶44

respect of the minority (linguistic or religious) institutions.

¶45

He further submits that, even if the Jain Community which is a religious minority in the State of Karnataka has not established and managing an institution imparting MBBS course, the petitioner being the candidate belonging to a religious minority should be given admission in any other religious minority institution subject to her merit.

¶46

We have considered the said submission and find absolutely incorrect.

¶47

Article 30 of the Constitution of India confers right on religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice subject to the statutory prescriptions. A minority community may be minority in one State but it may be majority in other State. Therefore, the minority status of the community has to be seen in respect of the State where it has established an educational institution of its choice.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:32798-DB WP No. 24916 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

The primary objective of the right conferred under

¶52

Article 30 is to cater the need of that minority which establishes and administers the educational institution. An educational institution established by a minority community cannot be opened to the other minorities merely on the ground that the candidate belongs to minority community other than which has established and administered the educational institution.

¶53

Article 30 of the Constitution of India reads as under:

¶54

30. Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions

¶55

(1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

¶56

(1A) In making any law providing for the compulsory acquisition of any property of an educational institution established and administered by a minority, referred to in clause (1), the State shall ensure that the amount fixed by or determined under such law for the acquisition of such property is such

¶57

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:32798-DB WP No. 24916 of 2024

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

as would not restrict or abrogate the right guaranteed under that clause.

¶61

(2) The state shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language.

¶62

The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of P.A.INAMDAR AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS reported in (2005) 6 SCC 537 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the said judgment that to establish an educational institution is a fundamental right of a minority community which is a linguistic or religious minority. The minority educational institutions can be classified into three categories, namely, (i) those which do not seek either aid or recognition from the State; (ii) those which want aid; and (iii) those which want only recognition but not aid.

¶63

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:32798-DB WP No. 24916 of 2024

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

In Para 96, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

¶66

aforesaid judgment in the case of P.A.INAMDAR (supra), posed a question i.e., "whether a minority educational institution, though established by a minority, can cater to the needs of that minority only? The answer to the said question is in Para 102 of the said judgment. In Para 102 of the said judgment, it is specifically held that to establish a minority institution, the institution must primarily cater to the requirements of that minority of the State.

¶67

Para 102 of the judgment in P.A.INAMDAR (supra), reads as under:

¶68

"It necessarily follows from the law laid down in Pai Foundation that to establish a minority institution the institution must primarily cater to the requirements of that minority of the State else its character of minority institution is lost. However, to borrow the words of Chief Justice S.R.Das in Kerala Education Bill a "sprinkling" of that minority from the other state on the same footing as a sprinkling of nonminority students, would be permissible and would not deprive the institution of its essential character of

¶69

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:32798-DB WP No. 24916 of 2024

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

being a minority institution determined by reference to that State as a unit."

¶72

Since no educational institution imparting MBBS course, has been established by the Jain Minority Community in the State of Karnataka, we are of the considered view that the petitioner cannot claim reservation being a person belonging to the Jain Minority Community in other educational institutions established and administered by other minority communities in the State of Karnataka.

¶73

We therefore find no substance in this writ petition, which is why it is dismissed .

¶74

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶75

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶76

DHA

¶77

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Bhavana Chandragupta Belagali v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhavana Chandragupta Belagali v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Roopa a. T. Vs State of Karnataka

The Managing Director Vs Smt Rathnamma

Smt. Lakshmi. S Vs State of Karnataka

Baby Kushi Dutt Vatsa and Kushi Alias Kushi Darmendra Vatsa Vs the United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Ajay Kumar Khemka Vs the Authorised Officer

Managing Director Vs Lavanya S