THE UNNIKRISHNAN CASE AND INAMDAR CASE : CONSTITUTIONAL MILESTONES ON RIGHT TO EDUCATION AND PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS

 

The Unnikrishnan and Inamdar Cases: Constitutional Milestones on Right to Education and Private Institutions

Introduction

The Indian judiciary has played a transformative role in shaping the contours of the Right to Education and the regulation of private educational institutions. Two landmark decisions—Unnikrishnan J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) and P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005)—stand out as constitutional milestones in this trajectory. These judgments not only defined the scope of Article 21 but also balanced the rights of private institutions with the larger interest of ensuring fairness, merit, and transparency in admissions.

---

The Unnikrishnan Case, 1993 (1) SCC 645

Background

The case arose from challenges against the practice of private professional colleges charging exorbitant capitation fees for admissions, leading to inequality in access to education. The petitioners contended that education, being essential to life, must be protected as a constitutional right.

Issues

1. Does the right to education form part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21?

2. Can private institutions demand capitation fees and frame admission policies without State regulation?

Judgment

The Supreme Court, in a path-breaking judgment, held that:

• The right to education is implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution.

• This right, however, is enforceable only up to the age of 14 years, making education for children a fundamental right.

• The Court devised a “scheme” for private professional institutions, whereby a certain percentage of seats were to be filled by the State based on merit, while the remaining could be filled by the management under a regulated system.

• Capitation fees were declared illegal, as they violated the equality principle under Article 14.

Impact

The decision laid the foundation for the 86th Constitutional Amendment, 2002, which inserted Article 21-A, making free and compulsory education a fundamental right for children aged 6 to 14 years. Subsequently, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 was enacted to give effect to this mandate.

---

The Inamdar Case, (2005) 6 SCC 537

Background

After Unnikrishnan, several private professional institutions challenged State interference in their admission procedures and fee structures. The case brought to the forefront the tension between institutional autonomy and State control.

Issues

1. Can the State impose its admission procedures and reservation policies on private unaided professional institutions?

2. To what extent can private institutions regulate their own fee structures?

Judgment

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held:

• Private unaided professional institutions (both minority and non-minority) have the autonomy to admit students and determine fee structures.

• However, admissions must be based on merit and carried out through a fair and transparent process such as common entrance tests.

• The State cannot impose its reservation policies or force private institutions to surrender seats for government allocation.

• Capitation fees were once again held unconstitutional.

Impact

The judgment led to the 93rd Constitutional Amendment, 2005, which inserted Article 15(5), empowering the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes in private educational institutions (aided and unaided), except minority institutions under Article 30.

---

Comparative Analysis

• Unnikrishnan (1993) focused on recognizing education as a fundamental right and curbing the menace of capitation fees.

• Inamdar (2005), on the other hand, emphasized the autonomy of private institutions, while reinforcing the need for merit-based and transparent admissions.

• Together, these cases triggered constitutional amendments (Articles 21-A and 15(5)) and subsequent legislation, reshaping the educational framework in India.

---

Conclusion

The Unnikrishnan and Inamdar judgments demonstrate the dynamic interplay between fundamental rights, State regulation, and institutional autonomy. While the former ensured that the Right to Education became an enforceable fundamental right, the latter safeguarded the freedom of private institutions from excessive State control, subject to fairness and transparency. These rulings, followed by constitutional amendments, continue to influence policy debates and judicial discourse on education in India.