2014 (5) TMI 1109 - SC - Indian Laws

Court upholds constitutionality of Article 15(5) ensuring education equality, distinguishes aided/unaided institutions, protects minority character.

Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust ® & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors.

The Court upheld the constitutionality of Clause (5) of Article 15, finding it to be an enabling provision ensuring equality of opportunity in education ... Admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions - Validity of clause (5) of Article 15 of the Constitution inserted by the Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005 with effect from 20.01.2006 and on the validity of Article 21A of the Constitution inserted by the Constitution (Eighty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 with effect from 01.04.2010 - Held that:- Constitution (Ninety third Amendment) Act, 2005 inserting clause (5) of Article 15 of the Constitution and the Constitution (Eighty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 inserting Article 21A of the Constitution do not alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution and are constitutionally valid. We also hold that the 2009 Act is not ultra vires Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. We, however, hold that the 2009 Act insofar as it applies to minority schools, aided or unaided, covered under clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution is ultra vires the Constitution. Accordingly, Writ Petition filed on behalf of Muslim Minority Schools Managers’ Association is allowed and Writ Petition filed on behalf of non-minority private unaided educational institutions are dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Validity of Clause (5) of Article 15 of the Constitution.2. Validity of Article 21A of the Constitution.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Validity of Clause (5) of Article 15 of the ConstitutionContentions of Petitioners:1. Article 19(1)(g) Violation: Petitioners argued that Clause (5) of Article 15 violates Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution by infringing the fundamental right to run and administer private unaided educational institutions. They cited judgments in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Minerva Mills Ltd. to support that Articles 14, 19, and 21 constitute the 'golden triangle' of the Constitution, which cannot be abrogated.2. Article 14 Violation: It was contended that Clause (5) of Article 15 treats unequals as equals by failing to distinguish between aided and unaided educational institutions, thus violating Article 14.3. Article 21 and Article 51A(j) Violation: Petitioners argued that Clause (5) of Article 15 violates the right to strive towards excellence under Article 21 read with Article 51A(j) by compelling private institutions to admit students from socially and educationally backward classes, potentially compromising the quality of education.4. Discrimination Against Minority Institutions: Clause (5) was also argued to be discriminatory as it exempts minority institutions under Article 30(1) from its purview, thus violating Article 14.Contentions of Union of India:1. Enabling Provision: It was argued that Clause (5) of Article 15 is an enabling provision to ensure equality of opportunity in education, not an exception or proviso to Article 15.2. Consistency with Article 19(1)(g): The Union contended that the provision is consistent with the right to establish and administer private educational institutions under Article 19(1)(g), as interpreted in T.M.A. Pai Foundation.3. Exclusion of Minority Institutions: The exclusion of minority institutions from Clause (5) was justified on the grounds that minority institutions are a separate class with rights protected under Article 30.Opinion of the Court:1. Equality of Opportunity: The Court held that Clause (5) of Article 15 is an enabling provision to make equality of opportunity in education a reality, aligning with the objectives of Articles 15(1) and 15(2).2. Right Under Article 19(1)(g): The Court found that the right to establish and administer private educational institutions includes a charitable element, and the identity of this right is not destroyed by requiring admissions from socially and educationally backward classes.3. Width of Power: The Court concluded that the power vested in the State under Clause (5) is guided and limited, ensuring it does not destroy the right under Article 19(1)(g).4. Distinction Between Aided and Unaided Institutions: The Court noted that any law made under Clause (5) must consider the distinction between aided and unaided institutions and ensure compensation for unaided institutions, thus not violating Article 14.5. Exclusion of Minority Institutions: The Court upheld the exclusion of minority institutions from Clause (5), stating it is necessary to protect their minority character and is not violative of secularism or Article 14.6. Article 21 and Article 51A(j): The Court rejected the argument that Clause (5) compromises excellence in education, citing examples of government institutions producing excellent students despite reservations.Conclusion: Clause (5) of Article 15 does not abrogate rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 and is constitutionally valid.Validity of Article 21A of the ConstitutionContentions of Petitioners:1. Obligation on the State: Petitioners argued that Article 21A creates an obligation only on the State, not on private unaided educational institutions.2. Article 19(1)(g) Violation: They contended that if Article 21A includes private unaided institutions, it would abrogate their right under Article 19(1)(g).3. Applicability of the 2009 Act: It was argued that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (2009 Act) cannot be applied to private unaided institutions as it violates their rights under Article 19(1)(g).Contentions of Union of India:1. Functional Test: The Union argued that private educational institutions perform a function akin to the State and thus fall within the definition of 'State' under Article 12.2. Consistency with Article 19(1)(g): The Union contended that the 2009 Act's requirement for private unaided schools to admit children from weaker sections is consistent with the right under Article 19(1)(g).Opinion of the Court:1. Obligation on the State: The Court agreed that Article 21A imposes an obligation on the State, but this obligation can be fulfilled by making laws that include private unaided institutions.2. Harmonious Construction: The Court held that Article 21A should be harmoniously construed with Articles 19(1)(g) and 30(1), ensuring that laws made under Article 21A do not abrogate these rights.3. 2009 Act: The Court found that the 2009 Act's provisions for private unaided schools to admit children from weaker sections, with reimbursement from the State, are consistent with Article 19(1)(g) and aim to achieve constitutional goals of equality and social justice.4. Minority Institutions: The Court held that applying the 2009 Act to minority institutions would abrogate their rights under Article 30(1), making the Act ultra vires to this extent.Conclusion: Article 21A and the 2009 Act do not alter the basic structure of the Constitution and are valid, except for the 2009 Act's applicability to minority institutions, which is ultra vires.Final Judgment:The Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005, and the Constitution (Eighty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 2002, are constitutionally valid. The 2009 Act is valid except for its application to minority schools, which is ultra vires. The writ petition by Muslim Minority Schools Managers' Association is allowed, and the petitions by non-minority private unaided educational institutions are dismissed.