Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust vs Union of India.

Advertisements

Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust vs Union of India.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

In the case of Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India, it was held that Clause (5) of Article 15, which gives the State power to make provisions concerning providing admission to educational institutions, did not violate the basic structure of the Constitution and was held to be valid, but the question of the validity of clause (5) of Article 15 regarding the “private unaided” educational institutions was left unanswered since they were not before the Court. Therefore, writ petitions were filed by these “private unaided” educational institutions to decide on this matter.

 In another case of Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan vs. Union of India and others, the three-judge bench was called to discuss the validity of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 due to Article 21A, which states that free and compulsory education must be available to children from the age of six to fourteen and held that it was constitutionally valid. However, it noted that this act would not apply to unaided minority schools. Again, the validity of Article 21A and Clause (5) of Article 15 still needed to be addressed. 

Therefore, reference was drawn to the judgment passed in the Society for Unaided Private Schools case of Rajasthan vs. Union of India and Others made by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, and subsequently, the five-judge bench was called upon to decide the validity of the insertion of clause (5) of Article 15 by the Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005 and the validity of insertion of Article 21(A) by the Constitution (Eighty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 2002

ISSUES:

1. Whether by inserting clause (5) in Article 15, the Parliament has altered the Basic Structure or framework of the Constitution. 
2. Whether by inserting Article 21 in the Constitution, the Parliament has altered the Basic Structure or framework of the Constitution.

ARGUMENTS

From the Petitioners:

The Petitioner, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, drew reference to the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others vs. the State of Karnataka and others, an eleven-judge bench where the majority agreed that Article 19(1)(g) also includes the right to run and administer the private unaided educational institutions. Further, he added that in the case of Minerva Mills and Others vs. Union of India and Others held that Articles 14,19 and 21 formed the golden triangle, which ensured the people of the promise held by the Preamble; it was also stated that Section 4 of the Constitution was beyond the amending power since it violated the basic structure of the Constitution. With regards to this, the petitioner submitted that, therefore, Article 19(1)(g) is an essential feature; hence the insertion of clause (5) of Article 15 violates the basic structure of the constitution since it enables the state to make any provision in relation with the advancement of the socially and economically backward classes for admission in educational institutions notwithstanding anything contained in Article 19 (1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. 

Another argument raised from the petitioner’s side by Mr. R.F. Nariman was that clause 5 of Article 15 fails to draw a comparison between aided and unaided educational institutions and treats both as equals and hence was in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. He referred to the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others vs. the State of Karnataka and others and submitted that the difference between these educational institutions was noted.

Regarding the second issue at hand, the petitioners submitted that the State defined under Article 12 does not include private unaided educational institutions. If it did, it would violate the right given under Article 19(1)(g) and therefore does not impose any obligation on these institutions.

From the Respondent:

Mr. Mohan Parasaran for the Union of India stated that clause (5) of Article 15 does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution since it is only an enabling provision that allows the State to make special provisions for the backward classes for their advancement in the society. Referring to the same case, he added that only reserving a small percentage of the seats does not violate Article 19 (1)(g). He further submitted that under Article 30 of the Constitution, minority institutions have been excluded while taking clause (5) of Article 19 into the purview since the Constitution has given them special status. He supported this by referring to the case of Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India, where it was held that the exclusion of the private institution does not violate Article 14. Hence the insertion of clause (5) of Article 15 is not in violation of the basic structure of the Constitution.

For the second issue, the respondent submitted that after applying the functional tests, the private unaided educational institutions would fall under the category of State and consequently are obliged to perform their function and ensure access to educational institutions.

JUDGEMENT

The court held that clause (5) of Article 15’s main objective was to give the State power to ensure equal access to education for society’s socially and economically backward classes by providing seats in all educational institutions except for the minority educational institutions.  To ensure the provisions established in Article 15 and ensure equal opportunity to access educational institutions, the insertion of clause (5) has been made. The court drew reference to the case of the State of Kerala and others vs. N.M. Thomas and others where it was held that clause (4) of Article 16 which has similar wordings to clause (5) of Article 15, was not an exception or proviso to the Article but an intention to give equal opportunity to all in terms of accessing public employment, the same was held in another case of Indra Sawhney & Others. v. Union of India & Others. The court also stated that the contention made by the petitioners claiming that the insertion of clause (5) of Article 15 violated Article 19(1)(g) to establish and administer private educational institutions was dismissed, making it clear that giving out a small percentage of the seats does not hinder their ability to exercise their right. The court also distinguished between private aided and unaided educational universities by stating that private aided institutions receive funds from the State and private unaided educational institutions do not.

The second issue which was whether the insertion of Article 21 (A), which provides free and compulsory education to the backward classes of the society, violates the basic structure of the Constitution, the court held that the amendment was made to give the State a new power to ensure the establishing of Article 21 which provides free and compulsory education to the children of age six to fourteen since this goal had not been achieved since 50 years. Therefore to conclude, the court held that the insertion of clause (5) of Article 15 and Article 21A to be constitutionally valid.

REFERENCES:

A.K. PATNAIK, J. (2014) Reportable – Supreme Court of India, https://main.sci.gov.in. Available at: https://www.main.sci.gov.in/judgment/judis/41505.pdf 

www.indiankanoon.org

This article is written by Sanjana Ramesh of Himachal Pradesh National Law University Shimla, an intern at Legal Vidhiya. 

Admin