Unni Krishnan vs State of Andhra Pradesh
Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993)
1. Background
The case arose from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the Andhra Pradesh government's notification that set fee structures for private educational institutions.
The petitioners contended that the government’s regulation infringed upon the rights of private unaided educational institutions to determine fees.
The case raised fundamental questions about whether the right to education is a fundamental right and how private educational institutions can be regulated.
2. Issues before the Supreme Court
Is the right to education a fundamental right under the Constitution of India?
Can the State regulate fees charged by private educational institutions (especially unaided institutions)?
What is the extent of the State’s duty in providing education?
Can private educational institutions be allowed to operate for profit or with arbitrary fee structures?
3. Constitutional Provisions Involved
Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty, interpreted to include the right to education.
Article 41: Directive Principle of State Policy concerning the right to education.
Article 19(1)(g): Right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade, or business.
Article 30: Rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.
4. Supreme Court’s Judgment
The Court held that the right to education is part of the right to life under Article 21, thereby making it a fundamental right.
However, the Court clarified that the right to free education does not mean free education at all levels; the State is obligated to provide free primary education.
The Court ruled that private unaided educational institutions can charge fees, but the fees should be reasonable and non-exploitative.
The Court held that the State can regulate fees charged by private institutions to ensure they do not exploit students.
The Court rejected the notion that private educational institutions can operate solely for profit; they must maintain educational standards and social justice.
The State must ensure accessibility and affordability of education.
Private institutions have the right to administer their institutions, but this right is not absolute and subject to regulation.
5. Key Principles Laid Down
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Right to Education | Part of fundamental right to life under Article 21. |
| State’s Obligation | To provide free and compulsory education at the elementary level. |
| Regulation of Fees | Private unaided institutions can charge fees but must be regulated to prevent profiteering. |
| No Profit Motive | Private institutions cannot run with the sole object of making profit. |
| Autonomy of Institutions | Subject to reasonable regulations for the public interest. |
| Social Justice | Education policy must promote inclusivity and accessibility. |
6. Impact and Significance
This was the first Supreme Court judgment to read the right to education into Article 21, significantly expanding the scope of fundamental rights.
It provided the basis for State intervention in private education without completely infringing on their autonomy.
It balanced the rights of private institutions with the right of citizens to affordable education.
The judgment paved the way for the eventual enactment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act).
7. Subsequent Developments
The right to education was explicitly made a fundamental right by the 86th Constitutional Amendment (2002), inserting Article 21A, which guarantees free and compulsory education to children aged 6 to 14 years.
Regulation of fees and management of private unaided institutions continues to be an area of active judicial and legislative attention.
8. Relevant Case Law Cited in Judgment
Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992) — The Court had earlier held that the right to education is a fundamental right under Article 21.
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) — Affirmed the expansive interpretation of Article 21 to include dignity and autonomy, reinforcing the importance of education.
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) — Later refined the scope of autonomy of private educational institutions and their regulation.
9. Summary
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Right to Education | Fundamental right under Article 21. |
| State’s Role | Obligation to provide free primary education and regulate private institutions. |
| Private Institutions’ Rights | Can charge fees but under reasonable regulation; cannot be purely for profit. |
| Public Interest | Education must be accessible, affordable, and equitable. |
Conclusion
The Unni Krishnan case was a pioneering judgment that significantly expanded constitutional protections for the right to education in India. It established that while the State must ensure free and compulsory elementary education, private educational institutions have a duty to provide education on non-exploitative terms and are subject to reasonable regulation. This case laid the foundation for subsequent educational reforms and legal protections, emphasizing education as a cornerstone of fundamental rights and social justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments