Supreme Court Reaffirms Right to Education up to Age 14, Strikes Down Unrestricted Management Admissions in Andhra Pradesh Private Colleges

Landmark Judgment Clarifies Constitutional Right to Free Education, Limits Private Institution Rights, and Declares Section 3-A of Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions Act Ultra Vires

In a landmark judgment delivered on February 4, 1993, the Supreme Court of India, in a Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice Lalit Mohan Sharma and Justices S. Ratnavel Pandian, S. Mohan, B.P. Jeevan Reddy, and S.P. Bharucha, delivered a comprehensive ruling on the fundamental right to education and the regulation of private professional educational institutions, particularly medical and engineering colleges.

The case arose from a batch of writ petitions and special leave petitions filed by private educational institutions and the State of Andhra Pradesh challenging the earlier Supreme Court decision in Miss Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, which had held that the right to education flows from Article 21 of the Constitution and that collection of capitation fee is illegal.

The Supreme Court examined three core questions:

• 1. Does the Constitution guarantee a fundamental right to education to its citizens?
• 2. Is there a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to establish and run an educational institution?
• 3. Does the grant of recognition or affiliation by a University impose an obligation on private educational institutions to act fairly in admissions?

Right to Education up to Age 14 as a Fundamental Right

The Court reaffirmed that the right to education is implicit in the right to life under Article 21. However, this right is not absolute or unlimited. The Court held that every child has a fundamental right to free education up to the age of fourteen years, as mandated by Article 45 of the Constitution, which directs the State to endeavor to provide free and compulsory education within ten years of the commencement of the Constitution—a timeline that had long lapsed. Beyond the age of 14, the right to education is subject to the State’s economic capacity and development, in line with Articles 41 and 46.

The Court emphasized that education is a vital facet of life and dignity and that denying education or allowing commercialisation through capitation fees undermines this fundamental right. The judgment stressed the need for the State to prioritize elementary education and condemned the inversion of priorities where higher education was favored over primary education.

Private Educational Institutions: No Absolute Right to Recognition or Affiliation

The Court clarified that while citizens may have a right to establish educational institutions, this right does not extend to an absolute right to recognition or affiliation by the State or Universities. Recognition and affiliation are privileges granted by the State subject to compliance with statutory conditions, including adherence to merit-based admissions and prohibition of capitation fees.

It was further held that running a private educational institution is not a "trade," "business," or "profession" under Article 19(1)(g), but a mission and public duty. Therefore, private institutions are subject to reasonable restrictions and regulatory control aimed at preventing commercialisation and ensuring quality and fairness.

Striking Down Section 3-A of Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions Act

The Court struck down Section 3-A of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983, which allowed private unaided professional colleges to admit up to 50% of students at their discretion, irrespective of merit, and to charge capitation fees. This provision was declared violative of Article 14 (right to equality) as it permitted arbitrary and unfair admissions, thus enabling exploitation and commercialisation.

The Court ordered that students admitted under this provision could continue their education to avoid injustice but directed that the excess fees collected over the Government-prescribed fees be deposited in the Government account within six weeks. Failure to comply would lead to automatic disaffiliation and derecognition of the institution.

Comprehensive Scheme for Admission and Fee Regulation

The Court proposed a detailed scheme for regulating admissions to professional colleges commencing from the academic year 1993-94. Key features include:

• - Professional colleges must be run by registered societies or charitable trusts; individuals or companies cannot establish such colleges.
• - At least 50% of seats must be filled by Government or University nominees strictly on merit through a common entrance examination.
• - The remaining 50% of seats (“payment seats”) can be filled by students who pay higher fees but must also be allocated on merit basis without any quota or reservation for management or families.
• - Fees charged must be transparent, subject to a ceiling fixed by a Committee constituted by the State, including representatives from the University and Government.
• - Institutions must issue official receipts and cannot demand any fees beyond the prescribed amount.
• - Admission processes must be centralized and transparent, with public notifications and merit-based allotments.

The scheme also called upon Central bodies like the University Grants Commission, Indian Medical Council, and All India Council for Technical Education to frame uniform regulations on fee structures and admissions.

Impact and Significance

This judgment profoundly impacts the landscape of higher education in India by safeguarding the right to free education for children up to 14 years, curbing the commercialisation of professional education, and ensuring merit-based admissions in private unaided institutions. It balances the necessity of private educational institutions in supplementing State efforts with the imperative to prevent exploitation through capitation fees and arbitrary admissions.

The Supreme Court upheld the principles of fairness, equality, and dignity in education while recognizing the economic realities and need for private participation under strict regulatory frameworks.

Statutory provisions: Article 14, Article 19(1)(g), Article 21, Article 32, Article 37, Article 41, Article 45, Article 46, Article 136 of the Constitution of India; Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983, Section 3-A; University Grants Commission Act, 1956, Sections 12, 12-A, 22, 23; Indian Medical Council Act, 1956; All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987; , Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984; Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1987; Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitation Fee) Act, 1992.

This judgment stands as a pivotal judicial pronouncement on the constitutional right to education and the regulation of private professional educational institutions in India.

Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of A.P., (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 26388