New Delhi, July 26 :    New Delhi, July 26:  Attorney-general Soli J. Sorabjee today both 'concurred and differed' with the Centre on the minority institutions case. Concluding his arguments before an 11-judge bench of the Supreme Court, Sorabjee said minority institutions enjoyed 'absolute' rights under Article 30 of the Constitution but added that as 'no right is absolute and that every right is a regulated right', minority institutions receiving aid could not deny admission to students of other communities. At this, the judges asked him what percentage of students from other communities could be admitted into a minority institution. Sorabjee replied that 'in St Stephen's case, the apex court has fixed the quantum at 50 per cent'. When the judges asked him to address the current issue, Sorabjee said: 'There are always two views in any matter and it is for the court to settle it.' 'Government aid granted to a minority institution could not be used by religious or linguistic minority institutions for denying admission to students of other communities,' he added. Sorabjee told the court that 'if a student of a community other than the particular minority community is not given admission because of non-availability of seats, there is no discrimination only on the ground of religion'. However, 'if seats are available but a student belonging to a community other than the minority community is denied admission because of his or her language or religion alone, then Article 29(2) is attracted', the attorney-general said. Article 29 (1) and (2) are for 'cultural and educational rights' of citizens and 'protection of interests of minorities'. While provision 1 guarantees the right to 'conserve' a 'distinct language, script or culture', provision 2 stipulates that 'no citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the state or receiving aid out of state funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them'. This, Sorabjee said, would be attracted 'if seats are available but a student belonging to a community other than the minority community is denied admission because of his or her language or religion alone'. On one hand, Sorabjee argued that the right of administration of a minority institution under Article 30 'on its terms and language is absolute'. On the other, his very next argument was that 'in a catena of discussion, it has been held that no fundamental right in our Constitution is absolute and unregulated'. But he continued to argue that a minority educational institution could 'reserve all the seats for students from its community provided the admission process was fair and transparent'. Sorabjee also pointed out that in the St Stephen's case, the apex court had held that reservation should not exceed 50 per cent. When the judges asked him about his views as attorney-general, he said: 'I am neither for the government nor for anyone in the case but as attorney-general', was only presenting the citations and various decisions to the court. But he repeatedly stressed that his view was not different from that of the Centre and that he had been misquoted. 'As regards minority educational institutions which do not receive or accept any aid or grant from the government, it was open to such institutions to reserve all the seats in their educational institution for students of their community provided that the process of admission was fair and transparent and not tainted by nepotism and other extraneous consideration,' Sorabjee said.