Unni Krishnan vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Case Name: Unni Krishnan J.P. vs State of Andhra Pradesh (1993)- Unni Krishnan Case

Equivalent Citation: 1993 AIR 2178, 1993 SCR (1) 594

Date Of Judgment: 4th February 1993

Case No.: (1993) 1 SCC 645

Petitioner: Unni Krishnan J.P.

Respondent: State Of Andhra Pradesh

Bench:

• Sharma, L.M. (Cj)
• Bharucha S.P. (J)
• Pandian, S.R. (J)
• Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J)
• Mohan, S. (J)

Statutes Referred:

• Article 21
• Article 41
• Article 45
• Article 46

In the case of Unni Krishnan, the Court disagreed with the earlier judgment in Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992 AIR 1858) that asserted that the Constitution guaranteed the right to education at all levels. However, in the subsequent case of M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors (1996) 6 SCC 756; AIR 1997 SC 699, the Supreme Court declared that Article 45 had attained the status of a fundamental right following the Constitutional Bench’s decision in Unni Krishnan.

Furthermore, the Court clarified that to consider a right as a fundamental right, it is not necessary for it to be explicitly mentioned in Part III of the Constitution. The Court emphasised that the provisions of both Part III and Part IV are supplementary and complementary to each other. It rejected the notion that the rights outlined in the provisions of Part III take precedence over the moral claims and aspirations reflected in the provisions of Part IV. This signifies the interdependence and equal importance of both sets of provisions in the Indian Constitution.

Facts of Unni Krishnan vs State of Andhra Pradesh

The case of Unni Krishnan vs State of Andhra Pradesh challenged the Supreme Court’s decision in Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, 1992 AIR 858, 1992 SCR (3) 658. In this case, Mohini Jain, a non-Karnataka student, sought admission to a private medical college in Karnataka for the M.B.B.S. program. She was asked to pay Rs. 60,000 for the first year’s fees and provide a bank guarantee for the remaining years. Due to her inability to afford the tuition, she was denied admission.

The college management insisted that she pay a capitation fee of Rs. 4,50,000 as a condition for admission. In response, Mohini filed a petition with the Supreme Court under Article 32, challenging the notification issued by the Karnataka Government and requesting admission on the same terms as Karnataka students admitted under “Government Seats.”

The Court in Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka emphasised that Parts III and IV of the Constitution are interrelated and unless the right to education outlined in Article 41 is actualised, the fundamental rights in Part III will remain beyond the reach of the illiterate majority. Article 21, which includes the right to live in dignity, was interpreted to imply that “the right to education flows directly from the right to life.” In simpler terms, the right to education is linked to the fundamental rights in Part II of the Constitution and the state bears the responsibility of providing free education at all levels.

The Court in Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka concluded that the Karnataka Government’s notification exceeded its legal authority. Mohini’s appeal was successful. Private institutions subsequently presented their case in court, arguing that following the Mohini Jain judgment would compel them to close their doors.

Issues Raised in Unni Krishnan Case

The issues raised in Unni Krishnan v State of Andhra Pradesh were:

• Does a citizen have a fundamental right to pursue a degree in medicine, engineering or another professional field?
• Does India’s constitution guarantee its citizens a fundamental right to education?
• Is it a fundamental right for a citizen to establish and manage an educational institution under Article 19(1)(g)?
• Does the authorisation to establish an affiliation by a university impose an obligation on an educational institution to ensure fair treatment in student admissions?

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioners in Unni Krishnan vs State of Andhra Pradesh argued that it is the state’s duty to provide education to all residents, regardless of their social or financial background. They cited the Mohini Jain case, which had broadened the scope of the right to education.

The petitioners contended that the state lacked the necessary educational infrastructure. They argued that developing such infrastructure could be seen as a violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which considers education as a business operation. They claimed that the state had inappropriately interfered in market dynamics, affecting supply and demand.

According to the petitioners, establishing an educational institution is akin to launching any commercial venture, whether for profit or not. They believed that schools should have the freedom to independently collect fees and funding from students, with varying agreements like development, removal and diversity among institutions.

The petitioners further emphasised in Unni Krishnan versus State of Andhra Pradesh that affiliating with or recognising public authority does not automatically transform educational institutions into state instruments.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents in Unni Krishnan Case presented an affidavit outlining the state’s efforts to fulfill the obligations under Article 45 of the Constitution. They claimed that only children aged 14 or younger were covered by the state’s responsibility to provide free and compulsory education.

The state’s decision to extend this obligation to higher education was questioned, especially considering that the cost of higher education is significantly higher than that of primary education.

Judgement of Unni Krishnan vs State of Andhra Pradesh

In Unni Krishnan vs State of Andhra Pradesh, certain private professional educational institutions challenged the constitutionality of state laws that regulated capitation fees charged by such institutions. The Supreme Court made the following key rulings:

• The Court in Unni Krishnan vs State of Andhra Pradesh held that the right to basic education is implicit in the fundamental right to life (Article 21) when considered in conjunction with the directive principle on education (Article 41).
• It was emphasised that the parameters of the right to education must be understood in the context of the Directive Principles of State Policy, particularly Article 45, which mandates that the state should strive to provide free and compulsory education for all children under the age of 14 within ten years from the commencement of the Constitution.
• The Court in Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh ruled that there is no fundamental right to education for a professional degree derived from Article 21. However, it acknowledged that after 44 years since the Constitution’s enactment, the non-justiciable right to education of children under 14 had become enforceable under the law. Beyond the age of fourteen, the right to education is subject to the state’s economic capacity and development, as specified in Article 41.
• Quoting Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Court in Unni Krishnan Case stated that the state’s obligation to provide higher education requires it to take steps, to the extent of its available resources, to progressively realise the right to education through appropriate means for all.

Summary

In the Unni Krishnan vs State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court of India addressed the constitutionality of state laws regulating capitation fees in private professional educational institutions. The Court ruled that while there is no fundamental right to education for professional degrees under Article 21, the right to basic education is implied under the right to life (Article 21) when considered with the directive principle on education (Article 41).

The Court in Unni Krishnan vs State of Andhra Pradesh rejected the idea that the rights in Part III (fundamental rights) take precedence over those in Part IV (directive principles). It noted that Article 45 had evolved into a fundamental right and that the state must progressively work toward realising the right to education at all levels based on its available resources. This Unni Krishnan case had a significant impact on education-related rights in India.