Author: Aditi Gautam, Asian Law College, Noida
Linkedin Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/aditi-gautam-069178290
CASE SUMMARY
BENCH AND QUORUM
In the case of Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the judgement was given Supreme Court of India.
Full bench was their constituting of 5 judges – L.M. Sharma, S.R. Pandian, B.P. Jeevan Reddy, S. Mohan, S.P Bharucha.
BACKGROUND/ FACTS
The state governments of Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh were introducing numerous laws at that time for private educational institutions, enabling them to regulate these institutions and prevent them from charging excessive fees to students. This was done in order to stop capitation fees. Additionally, the Supreme Court of India upheld a precedent in the year 1992, in the case of Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, which stated that private educational institutions must charge their students precisely the same fees as Public educational institutions does . Because of this, numerous private educational institutions have been put in danger of closing as a result of this law. Private schools are self-financed, which means that they pay for all of their costs, including the wages of its teachers, on their own; Public schools are only eligible for government assistance. Several owners of Private institutions petitioned the Supreme Court after being disappointed with the ruling in the Mohini Jain case.
ISSUES
1. Whether every citizen have a fundamental right to an education for a career in medicine, engineering, or any other professional field?
2. Whether India’s constitution upholds the basic right to education.
3. Whether Article 19 (1) (g) grant a basic right to establish an educational institution?
ARGUMENT
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT:
1. The petitioners argued that article 19 (1) (g) should be upheld and that they should be treated as an industry. They should be given the authority to earn profit.
2. Private colleges expressed their want to operate independently since they are not governed by the state (A–12). Furthermore, they contended that since government is disrupting their method of delivering education, the state shouldn’t regulate them.
3. They asked for independence so they could set their own prices and collect the fees.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT:
1. Only elementary education for children 14 years of age or younger is subject to the state’s duty to offer free and compulsory education. (A-45)
2. Rather than being a profession, teaching has always been a religious and altruistic endeavor.
3. The state lacks the financial means to offer education to everyone
JUDGEMENT
1. The court ruled that a child’s fundamental right to an education should only be granted until they were 14 years old.
2. The court held that in order for them to make money, the court grants them the right to determine the profit on their own. However, the government will control all of their costs, including tuition and other charges.
3. An affiliation is necessary for the regulation of private colleges, and this affiliation should be built on trust.
4. The court ruled that a 50% reservation should be made for seats that should only be taken by CET.
5. A committee for fixing fees ought to exist so that they can choose the maximum fees.
SIGNIFICANCE
The case of Mohini Jain and Unni Krishnan become a landmark case because they established a welfare state again.
The Unni Krishnan Judgement diluted the effect of Mohini Jain Judgement , which transferred the fundamental right to education from everyone to the age of 14.
CONCLUSION
In the case of Unni Krishnan vs State of Andhra Pradesh, The Indian Supreme Court ruled that, in accordance with Article 21, every Indian citizen has a basic right to education. However, there was no basic right to education in place in 1993. It was included to the constitution in 2002 by 86th amendment. Also in the DPSP’s article 45, “Provision for early childhood care and education to children below the age of six years.” The State will make an effort to offer all children early childhood care and education until they turn six years old.
The Supreme Court ruled that while everyone has the fundamental right to an education, professional programs like engineering and medicine are exempt. This is due to the fact that Article 45, which states that children under the age of six shall get an education from the state. Furthermore, because the government does not offer financial assistance to private educational institutions, they are free to charge exorbitant costs for professional courses.
FAQS
1. What was the main issue in Unni Krishnan vs State of Andhra Pradesh?
The key issue was whether the right to education is a fundamental right under Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution and if so, to what extent. The case also addressed the legality of private institutions charging high capitation fees for professional courses.
2. What was the case background?
The case involved challenges by private educational institutions against state regulations, particularly in Andhra Pradesh, that limited their autonomy in admissions and fee structures. The petitioners argued that such restrictions infringed on their rights to carry on an occupation under Article 19(1)(g).
3. What is the citation of Unni Krishnan’s case?
1993 AIR 2178
4. What did the Supreme Court decide about the right to education?
The Supreme Court held that the right to education is implicit in and flows from the right to life under Article 21. The Supreme Court concluded that the right to life implies implicitly the right to education.
However, this right is not absolute and is limited to free education up to the age of 14 years, aligning with Article 45 of the Directive Principles of State Policy.
5. Did the Unni Krishnan judgment lead to any constitutional changes?
Yes. The judgment influenced the 86th Constitutional Amendment in 2002, which made education a fundamental right under Article 21A for children between 6 and 14 years of age, thus giving effect to part of the Unni Krishnan ruling.
