unnikrishnan vs state of andhra Pradesh Case Facts
- The series of petitions challenging state laws submitted by different private educational institutions forms the basis of this lawsuit.
- These regulations mandated that the capitation fees in these specific states, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka, be regulated.
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court has already heard challenges to the same from a few institutions in each of these states.
- It additionally cleared the path for challenging the precedent established by the seminal ruling in Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka.
- Furthermore, there are challenges to the extent and reach of article 21 of the indian constitution concerning the right to education.
unnikrishnan vs state of andhra Pradesh Issues
- Is it a citizen’s fundamental right to get a degree in engineering, medicine, or another profession?
- Does India’s constitution provide a basic right to education for its people?
- Does article 19(1)(g) of the indian constitution grant a citizen the fundamental right to create and oversee an educational institution?
- Does a university’s permission to form an affiliation mean that an educational institution has to make sure that applicants are treated fairly?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The petitioners contended that regardless of social or economic status, the state has a duty to educate all of its citizens. The Mohini Jain case, which had just broadened the definition of the right to education, supported their position. The petitioners argued that there was insufficient infrastructure for training and restraint in the State.
- article 19(1)(g) of the indian constitution prohibits the state from having a training infrastructure because providing instruction could be construed as a commercial activity. For this reason, the state does not have one. Demand, supply, and free play have all been significantly impacted by the state’s unlawful use of authority over market forces.
- An educational institution can be started in the same way as any other business venture, profit or not. It should be permissible for schools to independently obtain cash and expenses from students, and foundations should have different agreements for development, removal, and variety.
- Institutions do not automatically become state instruments just by joining or understanding the public authority.
Respondent:
- In response, the respondents submitted an affidavit detailing the steps the state has taken to implement Article 45 of the Constitution. It was argued that the state’s duty to provide free and compulsory education only applies to children who are 14 years of age or younger.
- Given that advanced education is far more expensive than basic education, the state’s choice to extend this entitlement to it is equally questionable.
unnikrishnan vs state of andhra Pradesh Judgment
The case of Unni Krishnan vs State of Andhra Pradesh concerned the legitimacy of state regulations governing capitation fees levied by private professional educational institutions. The Supreme Court issued the following significant decisions:
- In the case of Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Court determined that, when seen in connection with the directive principle on education (Article 41), the right to a basic education is latent the essential right to life (as stated in Indian Constitution Article 21).
- It was emphasized that the scope of the right to education must be interpreted in light of the Directive Principles of State Policy, specifically Article 45, which requires the state to work toward offering all children under the age of 14 free and compulsory education within ten years of the Constitution’s adoption.
- In Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Court held that there isn’t a basic right to education derived from article 21 of the indian constitution for the purpose of obtaining a professional degree. Nonetheless, it recognized that the non-justiciable right to education of children under 14 had been made legally enforceable 44 years after the Constitution’s adoption. According to Article 41, the right to education is contingent upon the state’s economic development and competence after the age of fourteen.
- In the Unni Krishnan Case, the Court declared, citing Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, that the state must act to gradually realize everyone’s right to education by means of appropriate means, to the extent that resources permit, in order to fulfil its obligation to provide higher education.
The notion that the rights in Part IV (directive principles) supersede those in Part III (fundamental rights) was rejected by the court in the case of Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh. It stated that, depending on its resources, the state must gradually work toward realizing the right to education at all levels and that Article 45 has developed into a basic right. The Unni Krishnan case had a big impact on India’s rights to education.
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
