JUDGMENT : In pursuance of and in continuation of the order dated March 16, 1994, questions contained in the order of reference dated October 7, 1993 are reframed as follows: (1) (a) Where a religious or linguistic minority in State 'A' establishes an educational institution in the said State, can the members of the religious/linguistic group in State 'B' claim rights flowing from Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India in respect of the above said educational institution established in State A"? (b) Whether it would he correct to say that only the members of that minority residing in State 'A' will be treated as the members of the minority vis-a-vis such institution? (2) What are the indicia for treating an educational institution as a minority educational institution? Would an institution he regarded as a minority educational institution only because it was established by a person(s) belonging to it religious or linguistic minority or it is being administered by a person(s) belonging to a religious or linguistic minority'? (3) Whether the minority's right to establish and administer educational institutions or their choice" will include the procedure and method of admission and selection of students? (4) Whether the admission of students to minority educational institution, whether aided or unaided, can he regulated by the State Govt. or by the University to which the Institution is affiliated'? (5) Whether the decision of this Court in St. Stephens is right in saying that Article 30 clothes a minority educational institution with the power to admit students by adopting its own method of selection and that the State or the affiliated University has no power to regulate admission of students to such minority educational institution even while permitting the minority educational institution to admit students belonging to the relevant minority to the extent of 50% of intake capacity. We make it clear that the percentage decided in St. Stephens case will equally be open for reconsideration. (6) What is meant by the expression "religion" in Article 30(1)? Can the followers of a sect or denomination of a particular religion claim protection under Article 30(1) on the basis that they constitute a minority in the State even though the followers of that religion are in majority in that State? (7) What is meant by the expression "language" in Article 30(1)? Can the followers of a sect or denomination of a particular religion claim protection under Article 30(1) on the basis that they constitute a minority in the State even though the followers of that religion are in majority in that State? (7) What is meant by the expression "language" in Article 30(1)? Does it include a language which is not included in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution? Any question incidental and ancillary to the aforesaid question. The Court reserved its judgment.