Unni Krishnan Case (1993)

– Right to Education Revisited

Background of the Case

After the sweeping declaration in Mohini Jain (1992) that education at all levels is a fundamental right, several State Governments argued that:

• They lacked the financial capacity to implement such an expansive obligation
• Engineering and medical colleges would be forced to shut down

This led to the reconsideration of the issue in Unni Krishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh.

Core Constitutional Questions

1. Is the Right to Education a Fundamental Right?
2. If yes, what is its scope and limits?
3. What is the role of the State and private institutions?

Supreme Court’s Judgement

The Supreme Court delivered a balanced and pragmatic ruling, partly upholding and partly overruling Mohini Jain.

(a) Right to Education Flows from Article 21

The Court reaffirmed that:

• Right to Education is implicit in Article 21
• It flows from the right to life with dignity

However, the Court limited its enforceable scope.

(b) Free Education Only up to 14 Years

The Court held that:

• Children have a fundamental right to free education up to the age of 14 years
• Beyond 14 years:
  • The State’s obligation depends on:
    • Economic capacity
    • Level of development

This interpretation was aligned with Article 45 (as it then stood).

(c) Harmonious Reading of Part III and Part IV

The Court stated that:

• Article 21 must be read in light of Articles 41, 45 and 46
• Directive Principles guide the extent and manner of enforcement

Thus: Socio-economic rights must respect constitutional realism.

(d) How the State Can Discharge Its Obligation

The Court held that:

• The State may fulfill its duty by:
  • Establishing its own institutions, or
  • Aiding, recognising, or affiliating private institutions

This recognised the mixed model of education.

(e) Private Unaided Institutions and Fees

The Court ruled that:

• Private unaided professional institutions:
  • May charge higher fees than government colleges
• However:
  • Fees must be regulated
  • Commercialisation of education is impermissible

Thus, profit-making was restrained, but sustainability was allowed.

Constitutional and Policy Significance

This judgment:

• Introduced constitutional limits on socio-economic rights
• Balanced individual rights with state capacity
• Created a workable framework for education governance
• Prevented unchecked commercialisation

Impact of the Judgement

(a) 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002

The judicial evolution from Mohini Jain → Unni Krishnan culminated in:

• Insertion of Article 21A
• Making the Right to Education → Explicit, Independent, Justiciable

Article 21A mandates: Free and compulsory education for children aged 6–14 years

(b) Right to Education Act, 2009

To operationalise Article 21A:

• Parliament enacted the RTE Act, 2009
• Provided:
  • Standards for schools
  • Teacher norms
  • 25% reservation in private unaided schools (with exceptions)

Place in Constitutional Evolution

Stage	Contribution
Mohini Jain (1992)	Broad FR to education
Unni Krishnan (1993)	Limited & structured FR
86th Amendment (2002)	Explicit FR (Art. 21A)
RTE Act (2009)	Implementation

Summary

The Unni Krishnan Case (1993) held that the Right to Education flows from Article 21, limited free education as a fundamental right to children up to 14 years, regulated private institutions, and directly led to the 86th Constitutional Amendment and the RTE Act, 2009.