Author- Sushmita  Patra Sister Nivedita University

KEYWORDS:

Right to Education, Private institution, Article 19(1)(g) , article 21,  professional Courses,  Capitation fee, Right to life and personal liberty

CASE DETAILS

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The Right to Education is a law that guarantees every child between the ages of 6-14 has the right to free and compulsory education. It was introduced in the Indian Constitution by the 86^th Amendment Act, 2002, through Article 21A, which made education a fundamental right. The Right to Education Act, of 2009, was created and implemented this right and came into effect on April 1, 2010. The government must ensure that the schools are available and maintain the quality of education.[1]

The Right to Education Act provides for the right to free and compulsory education till completion of elementary school. It clarifies that “compulsory education” means the obligation of the appropriate government to provide free elementary education and ensure compulsory admission, attendance, and completion of elementary education to every child in the 6-14 age group. “Free”  means that no child shall be liable to pay any kind of fee or charge or expenses which may prevent him or her from pursuing and completing elementary education.

It provides for the appointment of trained teachers with high qualifications and knowledge, it prohibits physical punishment, capitation fees and screening procedures for admission of children. Development of curriculum in consonance with the value enshrined in the constitution and which would ensure the all-round development of the child, building on the child’s knowledge, potentiality, and talent, and making the child free from fear, trauma, and anxiety through a system of child-friendly and child-centred learning.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Procedural Background of the Case

1. Mohini Jain filed a petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32 challenging the notification issued by the Karnataka government. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mohini Jain, declaring that the Karnataka government notification exceeded its legal authority.
2. The Andhra Pradesh High Court declared Section 3A of the Telangana Act unconstitutional and declared the admissions made by private colleges for 50% of their seats without merit as illegal. It also declared the government directive for new medical and dental colleges void. After the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s ruling, students and teachers admitted by private colleges filed petitions in the Supreme Court.
3. The Supreme Court invited other states, including Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka, to represent their views in the case, as it was of national importance.[2]

Factual Background of the Case

1. “On May 25, 1992, the Andhra Pradesh government issued a notification inviting applications to establish medical, engineering, and dental colleges in the state.” Applicants for medical colleges were required to deposit ₹1 crore and provide a bank guarantee of an additional ₹1 crore along with substantial evidence.
2. “On April 15, 1992, the Telangana Educational Institution Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee Act, 1983, was introduced”. Section 3 of the Act allowed private engineering colleges to admit students for 50% of their seats based on their choice, without regard for merit.
3. There were protests against the capitation fee and meritless admission. Despite a government order not to proceed with admissions until the regulations of the Act were clear, “private colleges disobeyed the order and began admissions for 50% of their seats”.
4. Mohini Jain, a non-Karnataka student, challenged the Karnataka government notification in the Supreme Court under Article 32, seeking admission on the same terms as Karnataka students admitted under government seats.
5. “The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mohini Jain, stating that the Karnataka government’s notification exceeded its legal authority.” The Andhra Pradesh High Court declared Section 3A of the Telangana Act unconstitutional, deeming the admissions made by private colleges for 50% of seats without merit as illegal. The government directive authorizing new medical and dental colleges was also declared void.
6. Following the High Court decision, students and teachers admitted by the colleges protested and filed petitions in the Supreme Court. “Other states, including Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka, became involved in the case due to its national implications.” The Supreme Court invited all states to represent their views in the case.

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether a citizen have a fundamental right to education in medical engineering or professional degrees?
2. Whether constitution of India guarantee the fundamental right to education?
3. Whether there is a fundamental right to establish educational institutions under Article 19(1) (g)?
4. Whether the right to education is a fundamental right under the Indian constitution?[3]

PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. It was submitted by the council for the petitioner that, According to article 19(1) (g) of the Indian constitution every citizen has the right to start and run an educational institution but there are certain restrictions imposed by the government.
2. The issue is not about setting up private educational institutions but about unnecessary control over them by the government, there is demand for such institutions by people who can afford to study according to their desired course.
3. Setting up private institutionss for profit is not wrong if it helps to regulate and maintain other colleges and schools. However, er there are only a few of them who are capable of running and maintaining such institutions.
4. In the Mohini Jain case, the court ruled that private institutions can’t charge high fees beyond the limit set by the government, private institutions face difficulties in sustaining themselves, especially for professional courses like medicine and engineering.
5. Under Article 19(1) (g) of the Indian constitution education is considered an occupation even though the article only mentions terms like trade, business and profession it also covers occupations like establishing an educational institution.
6. Ahmedabad Saint Xavier’s College v. State of Gujarat (1974) In this case Supreme Court dealt with the issue of the rights of private educational institutions under Article 30 of the Indian constitution which that the right of minorities to establish and administer education institutions allows all minorities whether based on religious or language shall have the right to establish and administer educational institution of their choice.[4]
7. Private institutions are not considered to be part of the government unless they take financial support from the government however under Article 29(2) no citizens shall be denied admission into any educational institution based on the grounds only of religion, race,c caste language or any of them.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. It was submitted by the council for Respondent tt, In India, both Hinduism and Islam considered education as a religious duty and not a commercial activity. To uphold this principle, the government enacted the University’s Grant Commission Act of 1956. It aims to prevent education from becoming a profit-driven enterprise.
2. Education is important for everybody to maintain and regulate the country. But for this, the government should support the education system and provide education to everybody, either directly or through private schools. The government must ensure that students are admitted based on their abilities, not based on their wealth or social status.
3. Charging extra fees from students under the excuse of cost-based, is unfair and it creates inequality, making it unfair and harder for the students who can’t afford professional education or other courses.
4. One can set up their school, but these schools must follow the rules which have been imposed by the government to be officially recognized. If a school does not follow these rules, the government can take away its recognition.
5. Though private schools are owned by individuals, they are part of a public education system. These schools must be fair and can’t take advantage of students by charging high fees. If they want financial support, they should look for donations or another funding source to cover the extra costs.

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

• Article 19 (1) (g), Part III Of The Constitution of India  Deals with the protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc. like to practise any profession, or carry on any occupation, trade or business.
• Article 21, Part III Of The Constitution of India states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
• Article 41, Part IV Of The Constitution of Inda: The state shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, education and public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and other cases of undeserved want.
• Article 45 Part IV Of The Constitution of India: The State shall endeavour to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years.
• Article 46 Part IV Of The Constitution of India The State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.[5]

JUDGEMENT

RATIO DECIDENDI

• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) This case significantly expanded the scope of Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.  The Supreme Court of India declared that the right to education is a fundamental right. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The Court said that education is essential for every human being and for their overall development, for their growth, and to pursue their goals.[6]
• The state has the responsibility to provide education to every citizen under Article 21A. The state is obligated to provide free and compulsory education to children aged 6 to 14 years. This provision reflects the state’s duty to ensure basic education for all. While the state may not directly educate every citizen but must create an environment where education is available to all.
• Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution states that there is a right to establish and run educational institutions, which guarantees the freedom to practice any profession or any occupation, trade, or business. However, this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) to safeguard public interest.

OBITER DICTA 

• The judgment deals with the writ petition filed by the private colleges offering professional courses like engineering and medical education. These colleges are located in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Maharashtra. “They were not satisfied with the previous judgment which was given in Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka 1992 case.”
• In the Mohini Jain case, the court made a decision that the petitioner believed would negatively impact their ability to operate. “They argued that if this decision was applied by the state government, their colleges might be forced to shut down as they wouldn’t be able to sustain their operation.” To address these concerns, the Supreme Court felt that it was necessary to carefully examine the decision made in the Mohini Jain case to understand its implications before deciding how to proceed.

CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

Unni Krishnan J.p and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh is a landmark case. In this case, the Supreme Court of India focuses on the education system. The Supreme Court of India states that while there is no right to professional education, everyone has a right to basic education, which is a part of the right to life Under Article 21, the court also said that the government must ensure that all children, especially from poor families, can get enough education. This ruling helped make education more equal and showed that education is a basic need for everyone.

In my opinion, it is still a problem in India faced by most of them. A poor education system may lead to a workforce with insufficient skills reducing productivity. A well-educated population leads to a more skilled workforce, which drives economic growth. Many schools lack basic infrastructure, skilled teachers, and up-to-date teaching materials. Strengthening laws related to education, such as ensuring the Right to Education Act is more rigorously enforced can help ensure that every child gets the opportunity to study.

ENDNOTES:

[1] National Informatics Centre (NIC), Right to Education, Department of School Education and liLiteracy Jan. 19, 2025, 2:27 pm), https://dsel.education.gov.in/rte.

[2] Indian kanoon, Unni Krishnan, J.P. And Ors. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 4 February 1993, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1775396/ ( Jan 19  2025, 11: 00 am ).

[3] ESCR-Net, Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. V. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Cited as: 1993 AIR 217, 1993 SCR (1) 594, 1993 SCC (1) 645, JT 1993 (1) 474, 1993 SCALE (1)290, https://www.escr-net.org/caselaw/2006/unni-krishnan-jp-ors-v-state-andhra-pradesh-ors-cited-1993-air-217-1993-scr-1-594-1993-2/  ( Ja20, 20255 , :47 pm).

[4] Indian kanoon , The Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College  Vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 26 April, 194 , https://indiankanoon.org/doc/703393/ , (Jan 21, 2025 , 5 pm ) .

[5] IpleadersBlog, https://blog.ipleaders.in/unnikrishnan-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-1993/,(Jan20,2025 , 12:00pm).

[6]Manupatra Academy, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, https://www.manupatracademy.com/legalpost/manu-sc-0133-1978, (Jan 19 2025, 3:3:21 pm