|Citation||Writ petition (C) No. 416 0f 2012|
|Date of Judgement||06.05.2014|
|Court||Supreme court of India|
|Petitioner||Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust.|
|Respondent||Union of India.|
|Bench||R.M. Lodha, A, K, Patnaik, Sudhanshu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, Dipak Misra, Fakkir Mohammed Kalifulla.|
Introduction of the case: –
This case is based on the right to education in unaided non-minority schools. This case generally deals with Article 19(g) against Article 21A along with Article 15(5).
Facts of the case: –
- In this case the unaided non-minority schools’ approach the supreme court and demand unconstitutional three provisions which are made by the state government.
- Provisions that are demanded to make unconstitutional were first is right to education act 2009, second is Article 21A and Third is Article (15) (5).
- In this case it was asked to decide validity of article 21 A which was previously inserted by 86th amendment of the constitution.
- In this case it was also referred that decision on the validity of clause 5 of Article 15 of the Indian Constitution by 93rd amendment act of 2002.
Issues raised in this case: –
- Whether the insertion of Article15(5) should be altered or not by 2005 amendment?
- Whether the Article 21A of the constitution has altered the basic framework or the basic structure of Indian Constitution or not?
Contentions of the case: –
- The petitioner stated that the three provisions that are mentioned in the facts are violating Article 14 and Article 19(1) (g) (right to do business).
- The portioner also stated that Article 15(5) had destroyed the basic features of the constitution.
- The respondent stated that the right to run a private educational institution under Article 19(1)(g) should never affect the petitioners.
- The respondent also stated that Article 15(5) is not an obligation on the part of the state, it is just an enabling provision.
Judgement of the case: –
The supreme court held that by declaring that Article 15 clause 5 is valid and provided three grounds to show its validity. The first ground is Article 15(5) provides the power to state governments that they can direct private unaided minority educational institutions to admit socially and economically backward class students. Article 15(5) provides the opportunity to socially and economically backward classes to take admission in educational institutions. Third ground is if Article 15 (5) draws a distinction between the minority and non-minority school, it does not violate the principle of right to equality.
The supreme court also stated that Article 21A is valid because according to Article 21A the state has a primary obligation to provide free and compulsory education. So that Article 21A is justified or Article 21A does not violate Article 19 (1)(g). The supreme court also stated that Article 21 A and Article 19(1)(g) should maintain harmonious construction. It also stated that Right to Education Act 2009 is made on the ground of Article 21A. So, if Article 21A is valid, the Right to Education Act 2009 is also Valid and constitutional.
To conclude here, in this case basically the question is put on whether the Right to Education Act 2009 is valid or not. so, it is valid or constitutional and the state has also the power to decide free and compulsory education.
This Case Analysis is written by SOMYA RAJAWAT student of Maharani Laxmi Bai Arts and Commerce College, Gwalior Madhya Pradesh.
Intern at legal Vidhiya.