Administration of Minority Education

Evidence 1 and Inference 1 are coherent. This is the direct textual mandate of Article 30. Evidence 2 and Inference 2 are coherent. The Supreme Court has upheld the right of minority institutions to reserve a percentage of seats for their own community to preserve their character. Evidence 3 and Inference 3 are contradictory. Article 30 empowers administration and allows reservations; it does NOT enforce absolute segregation or forbid the admission of outsiders. The correct counterpart is the permissibility of inclusive admissions.

The Assertion is correct. Minority schools can admit outside students. Reason (R1) is true and explains the assertion. The right to administer includes the flexibility to admit others while still preserving community seats. Reason (R2) is factually false. Admitting outside students does not force the institution to abandon its cultural curriculum; the purpose of Article 30 is to conserve that culture. The correct counterpart is the preservation of cultural autonomy.

Statement 1 is incorrect. There is no such segregationist mandate in Article 30. The correct counterpart is the legal option to maintain diverse admission pools. Statement 2 is correct. Judicial interpretations of Article 30 confirm that reserving seats for the community does not preclude admitting general merit students. Statement 3 is incorrect. Article 30 applies equally to BOTH linguistic and religious minorities.

Statement 1 is incorrect. It applies to BOTH religious and linguistic minorities. The correct counterpart is the dual applicability of Article 30. Statement 2 is correct. Seat reservation for the community is a recognized administrative right. Statement 3 is incorrect. They are allowed, but not forced, to be exclusive. They can admit outsiders. The correct counterpart is the lack of mandatory segregation. Statement 4 is correct. Cultural preservation is the core intent. Thus, exactly two statements are correct.