Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust ® & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
- ByPravleen Kaur --
- 06 May 2025 --
- 0 Comments
1. Constitutional Validity of Article 15(5) and Article 21A
A. Article 15(5) and the Basic Structure of the Constitution
The Court held that the provision of Article 15(5) does not alter the basic structure and framework of the Constitution and is not violative of the concept of secularism. [Paragraph 1] The purpose of Article 15(5) is to provide equal opportunity for socially and educationally backward students, as well as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, to study in educational institutions. This provision is an enabling provision to make the equality of opportunity promised in the Constitution a reality. [Paragraph 2]
The voluntary nature of the right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution can be subjected to reasonable restrictions imposed by the State to maintain academic standards and prevent maladministration. Clause (5) in Article 15 allows the State to make special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes, but this does not destroy the right of unaided private educational institutions under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. [Paragraph 3]
The Court held that Article 15(5) does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. Minority educational institutions are protected under Article 30. Laws treating private aided and unaided educational institutions alike can be challenged under Article 14. [Paragraph 5]
The exclusion of religious minority institutions in clause (1) of Article 30 does not violate secularism, as it is important for maintaining India's diverse and secular character. [Paragraph 27]
B. Article 21A and the Right to Education
The Court held that Article 21A does not conflict with the rights of private unaided schools or minority schools under Articles 19(1)(g) and 30(1) of the Constitution, but the law made under Article 21A may affect these rights. The law should not abrogate the rights of unaided private educational schools or minority schools. [Paragraph 3]
The Constitution (Eighty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 inserting Article 21A of the Constitution is constitutionally valid. [Paragraph 1]
The Court reasoned that the State's appropriation of seats for a reservation policy was not a reasonable restriction under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Parliament then inserted clause (5) in Article 15 to allow special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes, as well as the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, in educational admissions. This new power is independent of the regulatory power under Article 19(1)(g) and raises the question of whether it infringes on private educational institutions' rights under Article 19(1)(g). [Paragraph 21]
2. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
A. Applicability to Minority Schools
The Court held that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, in so far as it was made applicable to aided minority schools, was held as ultra vires the Constitution.
Mr. Ajmal Khan and Mr. T.R. Andhyarujina argued that the 2009 Act should not apply to minority schools as it would violate Article 30(1) of the Constitution. They referred to previous court decisions to support their argument. [Paragraph 35]
The Court agreed that the 2009 Act requires aided and unaided minority schools to provide free and compulsory education to children, which may violate their constitutional rights. [Paragraph 46]
B. Applicability to Private Unaided Schools
The 2009 Act requires unaided schools to admit children from weaker sections and disadvantaged groups and provide free and compulsory education. The state funds the expenses for these children. This is consistent with the right to education in the Constitution. Non-minority private schools' argument against this is without merit. [Paragraph 44]
Both Mr. Rohatgi and Mr. Nariman believe that Section 12(1)(c) of the 2009 Act violates the rights of private unaided schools under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. [Paragraph 34]
3. Conclusion
The Court held that the Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005 and the Constitution (Eighty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 are constitutionally valid, but the 2009 Act is not valid in its application to minority schools. Writ Petition (C) No.1081of2013 is allowed, and other related petitions are dismissed. [Paragraph 47]
RELATED Blog
0 comments