Unnikrishnan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993)

Case Name- Unni Krishnan, J.P. and Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors

Parties Name- Petitioner Unnikrishnan, J.P.,  Respondent State of Andhra Pradesh

Court- Supreme Court

Bench- Hon’ble Chief Justice Of India L.M. Sharma

Hon’ble Justice S.P. Bharucha

Hon’ble Justice S.R. Pandian

Hon’ble Justice B.P. Jeevan Reedy

Hon’ble Justice J.S. Mohan

Date of Judgement: 4^th February,1993

Education plays a very important role in everyone’s life. It is a basic fundamental right for everybody. Everyone has a right to get a free and compulsory education,  so for that reason, our constitution provides it as a fundamental right. The landmark case of Unnikrishnan v State of Andhra Pradesh points out that it is the state’s duty to provide education.

Background of the case

In the Unnikrishnan v State Of Andhra Pradesh, the main question is that every citizen has a right to get education in various courses like engineering, medicine. The honourable Apex Court did not discuss Article 45, this article talks about free and compulsory education for all children from 6 to 14 years, and Article 21, this article speaks about the right to life and personal liberty.

The facts of the case

Firstly, the case came from the state of Andhra Pradesh, and after that, various other petitions were filed against other states.

In the Unnikrishnan v State of Andhra Pradesh, the main issue raised against the high amount of exercise fees collected by the various private educational institutions, along with the tuition fees, is also raised by this institution. These are the main reasons this everyone does not get proper education. This is the main obstacle to our education system.

Initial Challenge

Many private educational institutions challenged the various state laws regarding the high amount of exercise fees. These institutions debated that these rules violate our basic fundamental right, Article 19(1)(g)  of our Indian constitution.

Legal  Issues Involved

       In the present case, there were many legal issues involved related to our basic right to education. With these, there were various basic legal issues also. these were-

• Whether the verdict set out in the Mohini Jain case is right depends on the merit.
• Is the idea of issuing a much higher amount of capitation fees possible with the entitlement of our basic fundamental rights that are granted to the citizens by our constitution?
• Is it fair to demand such capitation fees for admission to various educational institutions, and also does it disobey Article 14, which deals with the equality before the law or the equal protection of law of our constitution?

Contentions Of the Party

              Petitioners

 In this case, the petitioner competed with the various points, and these points were.

The first point is that the state has no authority over education.  Everyone has an equal right to get an education. It is a basic fundamental right for everybody. under Article 19(1)(g) of the constitution. .under this article, it provides that the right to start and run an educational institution, with the establishment of the educational institution, the main motive behind this is also to create profit in the business.

• By establishing private educational institutions, the main problem is not addressed, but they have unnecessary control under the state.  However, the important topic is to establish such an institution where people can get affordable education, and they can also get admission to the course that they want to study.
• In the present scenario, educational institutions are established with the motive to gain profit. So for that reason, to gain profit, they establish educational institutions for all. But there is a very small group of people who can establish educational institutions not with the purpose of making a profit but to provide qualitative education with the aim of providing education for all.
• If the Apex court upholds the fact that nobody has a right to open an educational institution to gain profit, but they can collect the amount of fees from the parties that they can afford. these fees are like normal expenditure and are used to maintain the educational institution.
• The judgment in the Mohini Jain case was not right when it pointed out that charging an amount beyond of fees by the state government is a capitation fee.  For the private institutions this suggestion creates an impracticable situation because it is not possible for them to maintain the institution at this amount.
• Even if the court upholds the suggestion that under Article 19(1)(g) educational institutions do not come under the trade or business.

Respondents

The respondents competed with the various points and these points are-

• The defendant contended that in our country education is for everybody. It is treated just like a duty.everyone has a right to get education without any discrimination .it is a goal to get education so by treating education as a business is goes against the goal. It is to be pointed out that it is the state’s function to impart education.they can perform their duty by various private educational institutional.it is the main duty of the state to give admission on their merit basic not on the priority basis.
• A capitation fee can not be named as non capitation fee because it is unethical to the interest of the general public.it also violates the constitutional guidelines and iby this all people are not able to get education .
• If for any reason the Apex court pointed out that citizen or an individual has a right to open educational institutional but it is not necessary to get recognition from the government.
• It is the principal function to provide education .it is also very important that they provide education in a fair manner.

Ratio decidendi of the judgement

In the present case the various points are raised by the honourable Supreme Court and these are-

• Under the indian constitution every one has a right to get free and compulsory education from six to fourteen years of age.
• Under Article 41,45, and 46 discharge can be created directly by the state .
• Every citizen has a right to open educational institution but without recognition .there is no right of recognition .but without recognition there is no value.
• The decision of the Mohini Jain was reversed by the decision givien in the case of Unnikrishnan v. State Of Andhra Pradesh .private educational institution can charge higher fee but such higher fee must be fixed by the government and the fee limit must be fixed.
• Fundamental rights and Directive principle of state policy are harmonious to each other.There is no difference between the Fundamental rights and Directive principle of state policy but the only difference is Fundamental right is justiciable but the directive principle of state policy is non justiciable.

Issues  raised in Unnikrishnan v. state of Andhra Pradesh

There are various issure pointed out in the case of Unnikrishnan v. State Of Andhra Pradesh regarding  the interpetation of the right to education.the main issue is whether the right to education involves professional degree or

Fundamental right to purse professional degree

The honourablr Supreme Court asked about whether the right to education includes the right to higher education. The main disagreement was if education provides a secure life then the professional education should be regarded fundamental aspect of this right.

Right to education under the indian constitution

Education plays a very vital role in everyone’s life .so it is very important to provide education toall.under the indian constitution Article 21 provides right to life and personal liberty.the petitioner debated that the right to education also should be read together with the Article 21.

Provisions addressed in Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh

• Under Article 19(1)(g) the petitioner claimed that the right to manage and administer educational institution was preserved under this Article .but they are unable to carry their profession because of the unreasonable restriction imposed by the state for the regulation of the capitation fee.
• Article 21 was played a very important role in Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh .in this case it was discussed about to include right to education under this Article .because in everyone’s life education plays a very vital role.

Obiter dicta and rationale behind the judgement

The judgement expressed that the writ petitions filed by the private educational institution with the intend to transmit engineering  and medical education with the challenge to the correctness of the verdict given in the case of Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka .

In this case the petitioners who started engineering and medical colleges in the states of Tamilnadu,Maharashtra,Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh they claimed that in the Mohini Jain case if the verdict was regarded to be correct and after that in various state governments were executed this ,all the institutions would be bound to colse theie operation and for them no other option would be left.so it is vary necessary to know what actually tha decision of the Mohini Jain case stated said Apex Court.

Issue: Correctness of Mohini Jain case

The statte legislature of the Karnataka Government passed the Karnataka Educational Institution (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act,1984.the main motive of this act is to prevent the commercialisation in the educational field because it is a main barrier because of that it is not at all possible to maintain the standard of the education.

Section 3 of this Act forbided to collect the capitation fees not only by any educational institution but also by any person related to the management of this institution.

Conclusion

This landmark judgement making various rules regarding the right to education.it not ony acknowledges the importance of education but also it is the state’s duty to provide education.education plays a very important role in everyone’s life .so it is very essential to provide affordable education to all without any discsrimination.

References

Kapoor, V. (2024) Unnikrishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), iPleaders. Available at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/unnikrishnan-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-1993/ (Accessed: 23 January 2025).

Unnikrishnan vs State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) – case analysis (no date) Testbook. Available at: https://testbook.com/landmark-judgements/unnikrishnan-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh (Accessed: 23 January 2025).