Law Maker

Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India

Supreme Court of India · 6 May 2014 · 5 judges

Article 15(5) and Article 21A do not violate the basic structure and are valid; the Right to Education Act, 2009 is valid against private unaided schools but cannot apply to minority schools, aided or unaided.

Facts

A three-Judge Bench, in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India, referred to a Constitution Bench the validity of Article 15(5), inserted by the Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005, and Article 21A, inserted by the Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002. Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India had upheld Article 15(5) for State and aided institutions but left open its validity for private unaided institutions. Private unaided educational institutions filed writ petitions contending that these amendments and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, particularly the 25% admission requirement in Section 12(1)(c), destroyed their rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21. An association of Muslim minority schools contended that the 2009 Act could not apply to minority schools, aided or unaided, under Article 30(1).

Questions before the Court

  1. Did the insertion of Article 15(5) by the Ninety-third Amendment alter the basic structure of the Constitution so far as private unaided educational institutions are concerned?
  2. Did the insertion of Article 21A by the Eighty-sixth Amendment alter the basic structure of the Constitution?
  3. Is the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 valid against private unaided schools, and can it apply to minority schools, aided or unaided?

What the Court held

  • Article 15(5) is an enabling provision to make equality of opportunity real, not an exception to Article 15. It affects the voluntary element of the Article 19(1)(g) right only to a limited extent and is a guided power, so it satisfies both the identity and width tests.
  • None of the rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 is abrogated by Article 15(5). Excluding minority institutions from it does not violate Article 14 or secularism. Bhandari, J.'s view in Ashoka Kumar Thakur that it abrogated Article 19(1)(g) is not correct.
  • The obligation under Article 21A is on the State, but it gives the State a new power, distinct from Article 19(6), to make a law requiring private unaided schools to admit a small percentage of children from weaker sections. Section 12(1)(c), with reimbursement under Section 12(2), does not violate Article 19(1)(g).
  • Forcing admission of children not belonging to the minority community may destroy the minority character of a school. The 2009 Act, so far as it applies to minority schools under Article 30(1), aided or unaided, is ultra vires; the contrary majority view in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan on aided minority schools is not correct.

Why it matters

A Constitution Bench upholds both the Ninety-third and Eighty-sixth Amendments against a basic structure challenge, applying the identity and width tests to Article 19(1)(g). It confirms the 25% quota for disadvantaged children in private unaided schools under the Right to Education Act, while holding that the Act cannot apply to any minority school protected by Article 30(1), departing from the three-Judge majority in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan on aided minority schools.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“We accordingly hold that none of the rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution have been abrogated by clause (5) of Article 15 of the Constitution and the view taken by Bhandari, J. in Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (supra) that the imposition of reservation on unaided institutions by the Ninety-third Amendment has abrogated Article 19(1) (g), a basic feature of the Constitution is not correct.”
Page 48 of the judgment
“These provisions of the 2009 Act, in our view, are for the purpose of providing free and compulsory education to children between the age group of 6 to 14 years and are consistent with the right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, as interpreted by this Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) and are meant to achieve the constitutional goals of equality of opportunity in elementary education to children of weaker sections and disadvantaged groups in our society. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the submissions made on behalf of the non-minority private schools that Article 21A of the Constitution and the 2009 Act violate their right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.”
Page 70 of the judgment
“In our view, if the 2009 Act is made applicable to minority schools, aided or unaided, the right of the minorities under Article 30(1) of the Constitution will be abrogated. Therefore, the 2009 Act insofar it is made applicable to minority schools referred in clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution is ultra vires the Constitution.”
Page 73 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Related judgments

Case and bench

Parties
Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust (R) & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case
Writ Petition (C) No. 416 of 2012, with connected writ petitions
Decided
6 May 2014
Bench
R.M. Lodha, A.K. Patnaik, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, Dipak Misra, Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla
Opinions
Unanimous. Judgment of the Constitution Bench delivered by A.K. Patnaik, J.

Questions on this case

2 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.