Unni Krishnan, J. P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

The Unni Krishnan, J. P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) case is a landmark judgment in Indian constitutional law that fundamentally shaped the understanding of the right to education as a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Decided by a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, the ruling marked a turning point in recognising education as a fundamental human right and influenced the subsequent enactment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). The case also dealt with the legality of capitation fees charged by private professional colleges, balancing the autonomy of educational institutions with the need for social justice and accessibility.

Background and Context

By the early 1990s, the Indian education sector was facing a serious challenge: while the demand for professional education was rapidly growing, government colleges could not meet the needs of aspiring students. This vacuum was increasingly filled by private professional colleges, many of which charged exorbitant capitation fees—a form of payment made for admission over and above the prescribed tuition fees.
The issue reached the Supreme Court through a series of writ petitions filed by Unni Krishnan, J. P., and other private educational institutions challenging the constitutional validity of state regulations that sought to control admissions and fees in private colleges. The central question was whether education could be treated as a fundamental right, and whether the State could regulate private institutions providing professional education.

Facts of the Case

The State Governments of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and others had introduced regulations restricting the manner in which private unaided professional institutions could admit students and collect fees. These included:

• Limiting the number of seats that could be filled by the management.
• Requiring a proportion of seats to be filled through government nominations based on merit.
• Restricting the collection of capitation fees.

The petitioners, consisting mainly of private medical and engineering colleges, contended that such regulations infringed upon their rights under Article 19(1)(g), which guarantees the freedom to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business.
The respondents—State Governments and regulatory authorities—argued that education was not a trade or business but a noble occupation, and therefore subject to reasonable state control to prevent commercialisation and ensure equal access to education.

Issues Before the Court

The Supreme Court considered several significant constitutional questions:

1. Whether the right to education is a fundamental right under the Constitution.
2. Whether the charging of capitation fees by private professional colleges violates Article 14 (equality before the law) and Article 21 (right to life).
3. Whether education can be treated as a trade, business, or profession protected under Article 19(1)(g).
4. What should be the extent of state regulation over private unaided educational institutions in admissions and fee structures.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners’ Arguments:

• The petitioners argued that private educational institutions had the constitutional right to establish and administer institutions under Article 19(1)(g).
• They claimed that state interference in admissions and fees violated their autonomy and economic freedom.
• They also contended that charging a reasonable fee was necessary to maintain institutional sustainability and quality, as they received little or no financial aid from the government.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The State argued that education is a welfare activity, not a commercial enterprise.
• It maintained that the right to education was inherent in Article 21, and therefore the State had a duty to regulate and ensure that it is accessible and affordable for all.
• The practice of charging capitation fees was discriminatory and violated Article 14, as it effectively limited access to the wealthy.
• The State’s regulatory measures were thus justified to prevent exploitation and promote equality of opportunity.

Judgment of the Supreme Court

Delivered in 1993, the five-judge Constitution Bench—comprising Justices B. P. Jeevan Reddy, S. R. Pandian, Mohan, N. Venkatachala, and S. Mohan—issued a split but landmark decision.
Key Findings:

1. Right to Education as a Fundamental Right:
   • The Court held that the right to education flows directly from the right to life under Article 21.
   • It ruled that every citizen has a right to education up to the age of 14 years, and thereafter, the right is subject to the limits of the State’s economic capacity and development.
   • This interpretation was derived from the Directive Principle of State Policy under Article 45, which directs the State to provide free and compulsory education for children up to 14 years of age.
2. Nature of Education as a Noble Service:
   • The Court ruled that education cannot be treated as a trade, business, or profession within the meaning of Article 19(1)(g).
   • Hence, it cannot be commercialised. While private participation is permitted, the objective must remain public welfare, not profit-making.
3. Regulation of Private Educational Institutions:
   • The Court upheld the power of the State to regulate admissions and fees in private institutions to prevent profiteering and unfair practices.
   • It formulated the “Unni Krishnan Scheme” to balance private autonomy and public interest.
4. Prohibition of Capitation Fees:
   • The Court categorically declared capitation fees unconstitutional, as they violated Articles 14 and 21 by introducing economic discrimination in access to education.

The Unni Krishnan Scheme

The judgment laid down a detailed scheme for the regulation of admissions and fees in private professional colleges, known as the Unni Krishnan Scheme, which became a model for educational policy during the 1990s.
Main Features:

• Admission Distribution:
  • 50% of seats were to be filled by the State based on merit and reservations.
  • The remaining 50% could be filled by the management, subject to the eligibility criteria and merit ranking.
• Fee Regulation:
  • Two types of seats were defined:
    • Free seats – Students admitted through the State quota paid nominal fees.
    • Payment seats – Students admitted under the management quota paid higher, but regulated, fees.
  • The total revenue had to be sufficient to cover operational costs but not aimed at profit.
• Oversight and Transparency:
  • State governments were authorised to set up committees to oversee admissions and fee structures.

The Unni Krishnan Scheme aimed to ensure a balance between private initiative and social justice, enabling access to professional education for students from all economic backgrounds.

Significance of the Judgment

The Unni Krishnan ruling had far-reaching implications for the development of educational rights and policy in India.
1. Recognition of Education as a Fundamental Right:

• The judgment was the first explicit recognition by the Supreme Court that education is a fundamental right under Article 21.
• This interpretation laid the constitutional foundation for later reforms in educational policy.

2. Influence on the 86th Constitutional Amendment (2002):

• The ruling directly influenced the enactment of the 86th Amendment, which inserted Article 21A, making education a fundamental right for children aged 6 to 14 years.
• It also amended Article 45 to focus on early childhood care and education.

3. Regulation of Private Education:

• The decision affirmed that while private institutions play an important role, they must function within constitutional and ethical limits.
• It restricted commercialisation and upheld social responsibility in education.

Criticism and Later Developments

While progressive, the Unni Krishnan Scheme faced criticism for its complexity and operational difficulties:

• Many argued that the dual fee structure (free and payment seats) was impractical and promoted inequity.
• The system was accused of encouraging underhand payments and administrative inefficiencies.
• Private institutions challenged the restrictions as excessive interference with their autonomy.

As a result, in T. M. A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002), the Supreme Court overruled parts of the Unni Krishnan judgment, holding that the right to establish and administer educational institutions is protected under Article 19(1)(g), and that while regulation is necessary, the State cannot dictate admissions and fees to the extent prescribed in the Unni Krishnan Scheme.

Legacy

Despite its partial overruling, Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) remains a milestone in Indian constitutional jurisprudence for several reasons:

• It elevated the right to education from a directive principle to a fundamental right.
• It reinforced the State’s responsibility to ensure equitable access to education.
• It catalysed policy and legislative reforms, culminating in Article 21A and the Right to Education Act, 2009.

The judgment is remembered as a transformative step towards recognising education as not merely a privilege but a right essential to human dignity, democracy, and development.