Author:- Pallavi Raj, 3rd year Law student at Chanakya National Law University, Patna
Co- author:- Anurag Kumar, 3rd Year Law student at National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi

Abstract

The Indian Constitution explicitly recognizes education as a fundamental right through Article 21A, which guarantees free and compulsory education to all children between the ages of six and fourteen. This article examines the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) in educational contexts through an Indian constitutional lens, analyzing how AI technologies may either strengthen or undermine established educational guarantees. Through analysis of relevant case law from Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka to Society for Un-aided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India, this article articulates a framework for ensuring that AI implementation in education advances constitutional values in the Indian context. Particular attention is paid to equality rights under Articles 14 and 15, the right to dignity under Article 21, and the potential for AI to either exacerbate or remedy persistent educational inequities across socioeconomic and geographical divides. The article concludes with policy recommendations for the Indian legislature and educational institutions to ensure that AI deployment aligns with constitutional principles and advances the fundamental right to learn in the digital age.

I. Introduction

The intersection of artificial intelligence and education presents both unprecedented opportunities and novel constitutional challenges for India’s educational landscape. As AI systems increasingly permeate educational environments—from personalized learning platforms to administrative decision-making tools—questions arise about how these technologies interact with established constitutional principles governing educational access, equity, and quality. This article posits that education, enshrined as a fundamental right in the Indian Constitution through Article 21A, must be protected and enhanced as AI transforms pedagogical approaches and educational administration.

As the Supreme Court of India declared in Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992 AIR 1858), the right to education flows directly from the right to life, as “education is enlightenment and enlightenment is the light of life.” This recognition of education’s fundamental status was further codified through the 86th Constitutional Amendment in 2002, which inserted Article 21A guaranteeing free and compulsory education to all children aged six to fourteen.

The deployment of AI in educational contexts must therefore be evaluated against the backdrop of this fundamental right status. This article examines how AI technologies may either strengthen or undermine established educational guarantees through analysis of relevant constitutional doctrine, case law, and emerging AI governance frameworks in India. The central thesis maintains that without appropriate guardrails, AI implementation risks exacerbating existing educational inequities in ways that may violate constitutional principles; conversely, with thoughtful implementation, AI holds potential to advance constitutional values of equality, dignity, and democratic participation through education in the Indian context.

II. The Constitutional Status of Education in India: A Fundamental Right

A. Supreme Court Jurisprudence on Education Rights

The Supreme Court of India has consistently recognized education as a fundamental right, even before its explicit enumeration in the Constitution. In the landmark case of Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992 AIR 1858), Justice Kuldip Singh declared that “the right to education flows directly from right to life” under Article 21. The Court established that the right to education is “concomitant to the fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution” and that “every citizen has a right to education under the Constitution.”

This judicial recognition was further refined in Unni Krishnan J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993 AIR 2178), where the Court held that the right to education is fundamental up to the age of 14 years, flowing from Article 21’s right to life and personal liberty. Justice Jeevan Reddy observed that “the framers of the Constitution made it obligatory for the State to provide education for its citizens,” referring to the Directive Principles of State Policy.

The constitutional amendment of 2002 formalized this judicial interpretation by inserting Article 21A, which states: “The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine.” This was implemented through the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act).

In Society for Un-aided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 1, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the RTE Act, including its provision requiring private schools to reserve 25% of seats for economically disadvantaged students. Justice Radhakrishnan emphasized that “the fundamental right to education which has been made available under Article 21A of the Constitution should be extended to one and all.”

B. Constitutional Framework for Educational Rights

The Indian Constitution provides a robust framework for educational rights through multiple provisions. Article 21A guarantees the fundamental right to free and compulsory education for children aged 6-14 years, establishing education as an enforceable right rather than merely an aspiration. Article 14 ensures equality before law and equal protection of laws, prohibiting arbitrary discrimination in educational access and opportunities. This provision has been instrumental in challenging inequitable educational policies and practices through judicial review.

Article 15(1) further strengthens educational equality by prohibiting discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth in the educational sphere. Complementing this prohibition, Article 15(4) enables special provisions for advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, providing constitutional foundation for affirmative action in education. This provision has justified reservation policies aimed at addressing historical disadvantages and promoting substantive equality.

Article 29(2) extends non-discrimination principles specifically to educational institutions, prohibiting denial of admission to educational institutions maintained by the State or receiving State aid on grounds of religion, race, caste, language, or any of them. This provision has been particularly important in ensuring equitable access to publicly funded educational opportunities.

Beyond these justiciable rights, Article 46 directs the State to promote educational interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and other weaker sections as a Directive Principle of State Policy. Though not directly enforceable, this provision shapes legislative and policy priorities regarding inclusive education. Similarly, Article 350A directs provision of adequate facilities for instruction in mother-tongue at primary stage of education, recognizing linguistic diversity as essential to meaningful educational access.

This comprehensive constitutional framework establishes education not merely as a fundamental right but as an essential component of substantive equality and human dignity in the Indian context. The interconnected provisions create a holistic approach to educational rights that balances formal equality, substantive measures for disadvantaged groups, and cultural-linguistic inclusion.

III. AI in Education: Constitutional Implications

A. Equal Protection and Non-Discrimination Concerns

The introduction of AI in Indian education presents significant equal protection challenges under Articles 14 and 15. AI systems trained on historical data may perpetuate existing patterns of discrimination based on caste, religion, gender, geographical location, or socioeconomic status—all protected categories under the Constitution.

In State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952 AIR 75), the Supreme Court established that Article 14 prohibits class legislation but permits reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia having rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. AI systems that create classifications without transparent rationales or that produce disparate impacts across constitutionally protected groups may violate this standard.

The digital divide in India exacerbates these concerns. According to the National Sample Survey (NSS) 75th Round (2017-18), only 23.8% of Indian households had internet access, with stark rural-urban and socioeconomic disparities. AI-driven educational tools that require reliable internet connectivity and digital devices risk excluding substantial portions of the population, creating a “technological apartheid” that contradicts constitutional guarantees of equal educational opportunity.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) reinforces that substantive equality, not mere formal equality, is the Constitution’s mandate. Justice Chandrachud’s concurrent opinion emphasized that “equal protection of laws cannot be limited to the mere facial content of legislation” but must extend to the effects of implementation. By extension, AI systems must be evaluated not merely for facial neutrality but for their substantive impacts across diverse student populations.

B. Right to Dignity and Privacy in AI-Driven Education

Article 21’s protection of life and personal liberty encompasses the right to dignity and privacy, as affirmed in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1. AI systems in education that collect extensive student data—from academic performance to behavioral patterns—implicate these constitutional protections.

The Supreme Court in Puttaswamy established a three-part test for privacy infringements: legality (basis in law), necessity (legitimate state aim), and proportionality (means proportional to objective). AI systems in education must satisfy this test, particularly when collecting biometric data, monitoring student behavior, or making consequential decisions about educational trajectories.

The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) faced significant criticism when it implemented facial recognition technology for document access without adequate safeguards. Such applications highlight the tension between technological innovation and constitutional rights to privacy in educational contexts.

C. Directive Principles and AI’s Potential to Enhance Educational Access

Article 46 directs the State to “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.” AI technologies offer potential to advance this constitutional directive through:

1. Personalized learning platforms that adapt to diverse learning needs and styles
2. Automated translation tools that facilitate education in mother tongues (supporting Article 350A)
3. Distance education capabilities that reach remote areas and marginalized communities
4. Assistive technologies for students with disabilities

In Farzana Batool v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court emphasized that substantive equality may require different treatment of differently situated groups. AI systems designed with this principle in mind could help fulfill constitutional commitments to educational equity by providing tailored support to disadvantaged groups.

IV. Case Studies: AI Implementation and Constitutional Challenges

A. DIKSHA Platform and Language Barriers

The Digital Infrastructure for Knowledge Sharing (DIKSHA) platform, launched by the Ministry of Education, employs AI for personalized learning but initially faced challenges regarding linguistic inclusion. With content predominantly in English and Hindi, the platform initially struggled to fulfill the Article 350A directive regarding mother-tongue instruction. Recent integration of AI-powered translation capabilities has improved alignment with constitutional principles, though challenges remain in accurate translation of specialized educational content.

B. AI-Based Admissions and Article 15 Concerns

Several higher educational institutions have piloted AI-driven admissions processes, raising concerns about algorithmic bias. When IIT Kharagpur researchers analyzed a sample algorithm trained on historical admissions data, they discovered patterns that disadvantaged applicants from certain geographical regions and socioeconomic backgrounds. This case highlights the potential for AI to inadvertently perpetuate patterns of exclusion prohibited under Article 15.

C. Aadhaar-Linked Educational Services

The integration of Aadhaar (India’s biometric identity system) with educational services demonstrates the tension between technological efficiency and constitutional rights. While Aadhaar linkage has enhanced targeted delivery of educational benefits, its mandatory implementation for accessing educational services was successfully challenged in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2019) as disproportionately restrictive of privacy rights and potentially exclusionary for marginalized populations.

V. Ensuring Constitutional Compliance in AI-Driven Education

A. Algorithmic Impact Assessments

Drawing from the Supreme Court’s proportionality doctrine in Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) 7 SCC 353, educational institutions should conduct Algorithmic Impact Assessments (AIAs) before implementing AI systems. These assessments should evaluate potential impacts on constitutional rights, particularly equal protection and privacy. They must assess accessibility across diverse socioeconomic and geographical contexts, considering India’s vast disparities in digital infrastructure and literacy. Such assessments should include meaningful consultation with affected communities, including historically marginalized groups such as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and religious minorities. Finally, institutions must establish robust monitoring mechanisms for ongoing evaluation of constitutional compliance, ensuring that AI systems remain aligned with fundamental rights as they evolve and as their societal impacts become clearer.

B. Regulatory Framework for Educational AI

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 establishes important baseline protections, but India requires education-specific AI governance frameworks. A model regulatory approach should include mandatory transparency requirements for algorithms affecting educational opportunities, allowing stakeholders to understand how algorithmic decisions are made. Data minimization principles must be implemented to ensure proportionality in data collection, particularly for vulnerable populations such as minors. The framework should explicitly prohibit discriminatory impacts along constitutionally protected dimensions, regardless of whether such discrimination is intentional or inadvertent. Educational AI systems must be subject to meaningful human oversight, especially for consequential decisions affecting educational trajectories. Finally, the regulatory framework must establish accessible remedial mechanisms for individuals adversely affected by algorithmic decisions, ensuring that constitutional rights remain enforceable in the age of AI.

C. Judicial Standards of Review for Educational AI

Courts evaluating AI systems in education should apply heightened scrutiny when fundamental rights are at stake. In Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India (2008) 3 SCC 1, the Supreme Court emphasized that measures affecting fundamental rights must survive strict scrutiny. By extension, AI systems that potentially infringe educational rights should be subjected to rigorous judicial review. Such review must focus on evidence of necessity and proportionality, examining whether the AI system serves a compelling educational interest and whether its design and implementation are narrowly tailored to that interest. Courts should consider the presence of less restrictive alternatives that might achieve the same educational objectives with less impact on fundamental rights. The review should emphasize substantive rather than merely formal equality outcomes, acknowledging that facially neutral algorithms may nevertheless produce discriminatory effects. Finally, judicial evaluation must ensure compliance with core constitutional values, including human dignity, equality, and the special protections afforded to children under the Indian Constitution.

VI. Conclusion

The incorporation of AI in India’s educational landscape presents both promise and peril for constitutional educational guarantees. As the Supreme Court declared in Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241, fundamental rights must be interpreted in light of international commitments and evolving conditions. This interpretive principle calls for constitutional vigilance as technological transformation reshapes education.

The fundamental right to education enshrined in Article 21A represents not merely access to schooling but meaningful opportunity to develop knowledge, skills, and capacities essential for human flourishing and democratic participation. AI systems must be harnessed to enhance rather than undermine this constitutional promise. Through thoughtful regulation, impact assessment, and judicial oversight, India can ensure that AI becomes a tool for advancing educational equity and excellence within constitutional parameters.

The constitutional vision articulated by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar demands that technological innovation serve rather than subvert social justice. As AI transforms education, this vision must guide implementation to ensure that the fundamental right to learn is preserved and strengthened for all Indians in the digital age.