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

1. Introduction: 

Unni Krishnan v State of Andhra Pradesh 1is a landmark judgment delivered by the Supreme  Court of India in the year 1993, which is considered as a historic ruling in relation to establishing that, right to education is a fundamental right and all the children under the age of 14 are  entitled to free and compulsory education. While the right to free education is considered as a  human right under the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights2, and the  Constitution of India, prior to 86th Constitutional Amendment under Article 45 speaks about free  and compulsory education, it took India nearly 44 years after independence to consider  implementing the right to education as a fundamental right throughout the country. The  significance of the ruling includes, explaining the nuances of the right to free education and  made the government responsible for providing free and compulsory education with subjective  satisfaction of the State government. 

The case revolves around petitioners including Unni Krishnan and other educational institutions  who are challenging the previous ruling of Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka3 which declared  that the right to education is a fundamental right under Article 21 of Constitution of India,  extending to professional education like engineering and medicine and the Acts made by the  government of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and respondents including  State of Andhra Pradesh, State of Tamil Nadu, State of Maharashtra, State of Karnataka. 

The judgment was delivered by Constitutional bench of Supreme Court of India headed by Chief  Justice Sharma, L.M and Bharucha S.P (J), Pandian, S.R (J), Jeevan Reddy, B.P (J), Mohan, S  (J) on 4th of February 1993. 

2. Facts of the case: 

In the year of 1983, State of Andhra Pradesh constituted the Andhra Pradesh Educational  Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983, prohibiting collection of capitation fee and regulating procedure for admission into educational institution, which was amended in 1992 by inserting section 3-A, making it lawful for the management of unaided educational institutions to admit students into such educational institutions to the extent  of 50 % of their total number of seats from among those who have qualified in the common  entrance test, irrespective of the ranking assigned to them in such test or examination. In  meantime, government issued a notification on 25. 05.1992, inviting applications for permission  to establish colleges and on 27.07.1992, a G.O was issued granting permission to 12 medical  colleges and 8 dental colleges after the report submitted by appropriate committee. 

Due to protest regarding permission granted as well as the 1992 amendment, the government  ordered the institutions to not to follow the newly made regulation, but the institutions opposed,  as they already made admissions while contenting that, the actions of the government were  against the institution’s autonomy. A number of Writs were filed in the High Court challenging the grant made by the government as well as section 3-A. 

The High Court in Kranti Parishad vs. N.J.Reddy4, declared that, the grant of permission to institutions made by the government, the sec 3A of the Act & the admissions made on the new  amendment were invalid. It was against this decision, the State of Andhra Pradesh, certain  educational institutions and the students admitted at the choice of the managements have filed Special leave petitions before the Supreme Court of India. 

The State of Karnataka in the year 1984, enacted the “Karnataka Educational Institutions  (Prohibition of Capitation fee) Act” and the Maharashtra’s Legislature enacted the “Maharashtra  Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1987” with the objects of  prohibiting the collection of capitation fee for admission to educations institutions, to prevent the  commercialization of education and to maintain the standard of education. 

In the midst of this, the division bench of Supreme Court delivered the Mohini Jain vs. State of  Karnataka5ruling declaring that, right to free education extends to higher education as well,  leading to further turmoil. 

After the decision in Mohini Jain, the Governor of Tamil Nadu promulgated the “Tamil Nadu  Educational Institutions (Prohibition of collection of capitation fee) Ordinance, 1992” which was substituted by Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of collection of capitation fee) Act, 1992, designed to prohibit the collection of capitation fee for admission to educational  institutions. 

The educational institutions in the various States filed petition before the Supreme Court about  the validity of the Acts passed by the respective State governments, the State’s role in the affairs  of the management and the admission procedure, including the obligation of the private  educational institutions in following Article 14 and 15 in admission procedure and their right to  establish educational institutions under Constitution. 

The Supreme Court clubbed the cases and placed for arguments before it. 

3. Legal issues and arguments: 

3.1.Legal issues: 

The case mainly deals with the correctness of Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka 6and also on i. Whether the Constitution of India guarantees a fundamental right to education to its citizens?  And whether the right to education is implicit under Article 21 and flows from right to life  and personal liberty and what are the extent and content of the right? 

1. Whether a citizen of India has the fundamental right to establish and run an educational  institution under Article 19(1) (g) or any other provision in the Constitution? iii. Whether the grant of permission to establish and the grant of affiliation by a University  impose an obligation upon an educational institution to act fairly in the matter of admission  of the students under Article 14 and 15? 
2. Whether the private unaided recognized affiliated educational institutions running  professional courses like engineering and medical course are entitled to charge a fee higher  than that charged by government institutions? 
3. Whether sec 3A of A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of  Capitation Fee) Act 1983 which gives power to the institution to grant admission to students  who qualified in entrance examination irrespective of their ranking in the examination and to  charge any amount in addition to tuition violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India? 

3.2.Arguments: 

• On behalf of the petitioners: 

As the case includes different matters, the arguments of the petitioners ranges from State control  in education, to, right to establish education institution. 

The petitioners contented against the State’s monopoly over establishing education institutions and disturbing the citizens’ right under the Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India to  establish institution, making free market, to meet the demand and supply. And they rebutted  against the judgment made in the case of Mohini Jain v State of Karnataka7over the decision that every person have the right to free education including the professional education. Further they argued that, education is like starting a business and the profit motive is immaterial,  also the establishing educational institution is to be considered as an “occupation” under Article  19 (1) (g) of the Constitution as occupation includes all human activity, in turns include the right  to establish the educational institution in any forms either as a self-financing or cost based  private educational institutions. 

Furthermore, it was argued that while the government funded institutions receive aids and grants  from the government, the private, unaided institutions were not subsidized by the State and the  private institutions have the right to establish the self financing institution and to charge fees  higher than the government colleges from the willing parties for efficient functioning of the management without leading to shut down of institutions. 

The petitioners urged that the private institutions did not become instruments of the State under  Article 12 of the constitution, once they were affiliated or approved by the government and as  the Article 21 is in negative connotation, no person was deprived of their personal life and liberty  and the Article 21 was not attracted. 

• On behalf of the respondents: 

It was contented on behalf of the respondents that imparting education is considered as a  charitable function and not a trade or business to be profited. It was argued that educating the  citizens is a State’s function and the private institution on recognition acts as an instrument of the State to ensure the meritorious student get an opportunity to education. 

Further it was provided that capitation, collected in different name as “cost based education” is  exploitation and opposed to Constitutional philosophy. And the recognition to the private  educational institution was to be granted on the basis of fairness, merit, maintenance of standard  of education including the admission of students, by the State or the University and not to be  claimed as a fundamental right of every citizen. The parties contented that, private educational  institutions were performing State’s functions impliedly. 

It was argued by the government of India that, the government lacks resources to provide  financial aid to the private institutions and the private institution can collect fees according to the  norms prescribed by the regulatory authorities. It was insisted that the admission to be based on  the merit to every category with reservation for the meritorious students form less privileged  community. 

4. Court’s decision and reasoning: 

4.1. Judgment: 

The Court held that, 

• Every citizen have a fundamental right to education which flows from Article 21, but not  absolute and it is to be interpreted in relation to Articles 41 and 45. In other words, every  person has the right to free education up to the age of 14 and thereafter based on the  economic capacity of the respective States. 
• Every citizen has the right to establish educational institutions but does not have right to  recognition or financial assistance as it would be granted on the basis of condition set by  the scheme provided by the Court.
• The institutions receiving the aids should subject to the terms and condition set out by the  authorities. 
• Obligation of the State to impart education can be discharged to the private educational  institution, and the private educational institution may collect higher fees not exceeding  the ceiling limit fixed by the appropriate authorities. 
• Sec 3A of Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and  Prohibition of Capitation Fee), Act 1983, to be void for the violation of the right to  equality under Article 14 of the constitution. 

4.2.Court’s reasoning: 

1. Life and liberty: The Court was of opinion that, in order to attain the dignified life,  education is to be available to all and significance of right to education constitutes the  betterment of individual life and in turn, national development. Right to education flows  from Article 21 and it is essential to attain the objectives inscribed in the Preamble of the  Constitution, as it was held in Bandhua Mukti Morch v Union of India8that right to life  guaranteed under Article 21 takes in educational facilities. 
2. Means to an end: Even though the Constitution does not include the right to education as a  fundamental right, the Directive principles of State Policy (DPSP) under Article 45 provided  that, every child up to the age of 14 shall have free and compulsory education. As provided  in the cases of Minerva Mills vs. Union of India 9and Kesavananda Bharathi vs. State of  Kerala10, the fundamental rights and the DPSP were to be constructed harmoniously, as they  supplement and complement each other. 
3. Prohibition of commercialization of education: The Court vehemently against the  commercialization of the education. It contented that education is not a “trade”, “business” or  “occupation” under Article 19 (1) (g), rather a charitable object. The Parliament was of same  opinion on prohibition of commercialization of education and providing education to  meritorious person. It is not a matter of commerce, rather a State’s duty to its citizen for  protecting the interest of the public. 
4. Scheme for the admission: The Court provided the scheme for admission of students in the  private educational institution by reserving 50% of seats which is to be filled by the  government on merit and remaining to be filled by management on merit, by collecting fees  from the willing students. It was also provided that the admission is to be based on common  application made by the students and the ceiling limit for the fee which would be collected by  the management was to be fixed by the appropriate regulatory authority. 
5. No right to affiliation and recognition: It was reaffirmed that, the citizens has the right to  establish institution for imparting education but did not have the fundamental right to  affiliation or recognition as observed in the case of Ahmedabad St Xavier’s college v State of  Gujarat11, though it can be obtained by the institution on following the condition imposed by  the State or University on fulfilling such and after it was granted the intuition must act in  accordance thereof. 
6. Critical analysis and conclusion: 

5.1.Analysis: 

While the case was hailed for its merits, there was certain limitation associated with the  judgment. The Court provided the scheme for the admission of individuals in the institution, as   9 AIR 1980 SC 1789. 

the 50% seats will be reserved for the admission, called “free seats” and the remaining to be  filled by the management, called “payment seats” by collecting fees from the willing parties for  admission. This distinction was not positive and prejudices the interest of the students at the  same time, against the autonomy of the educational institution in their administrative affairs. 

The decision the Court was questioned in the case of T.M.A. Pai foundation v State of  Karnataka12. The 11 judges’ bench of Supreme Court decided against the scheme provided by  the Court, declaring it as unconstitutional, while upheld that right to free education as a  fundamental right and capitation fees were not permissible. The Court held that the unaided  educational institutions have the right to fix their own rules in administration and admission but  aided institution should follow the regulation made by the authority, for transparency. 

As a result of Unni Krishnan case, Article 21A was inserted on 86th Constitutional amendment in  the year 2002, provided that every child up to14 years of age shall entitled to free and  compulsory education, amended Article 45, providing education to children under 6 years of age  and inserted Article 51A (k) which is a fundamental duty to parents to provide educational  opportunity to children. 

And to counter the judgment made in T. M. A. Pai foundation case, the Parliament in 93rd Constitutional amendment inserted Article 15(5), giving States, the power to make laws for the  admission of the educationally and socially backward classes, SC and ST in private educational  institution except in case of minority institution. 

In 2009, the Parliament enacted the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,  2009, paving the way for the access of education to the all the children in India up to 14 years of  age. 

Access to education is not only essential for the development of the nation, it acts as a form of  social control for developing self control. The school education provides a primary source of  socialization, playing cruel role in development of social personality of the children. Education plays a role in juvenile delinquency as children lacking proper educational program tend to  involve in delinquent act13. Not only that, access to education provides the social mobility for  women and individuals in weaker section. It was indentified that relationship between poverty and education is both complex and multifaceted and education helps in breaking the cycle of  poverty.14 

From 2001 to 2011 the literacy rate gradually increases15, and as per the reports the literacy rate  of the country in age group 7 years and above is 80.9% as of 2023-2416, establishing that the  RTE Act, 2009 played an important role in India for the country’s development.

5.2.Conclusion: 

The Unni Krishnan case played a key role in customizing the education system that is sustaining  to an extent. The recent growing trend in India is the need to reform education as to be fair and  transparent. India’s academic freedom is lowest in Indian educational institutes and university according to Academic Freedom Index Update 2026, where the freedom to research and teach is  1.29, institutional autonomy is 1.12, academic and cultural expression is 1.01 on the scale of 0 to  4, placing India at the bottom 10-20% of 179 countries17. For the betterment of the country, there  need to be changes in institution in the method of imparting education. 

6. Reference(S): 

6.1.Cases cited and statutes referred: 

1. Kranti Parishad vs. N.J.Reddy (1992) 3 A.L.T.99. 
2. Mohini Jain v State of Karnataka (1992) 3 SCC 666.
3. Bandhua Mukti Morch V Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161. 
4. Minerva Mills vs. Union of India AIR (1980) SC 1789. 
5. Kesavananda Bharathi vs. State of Kerala (1973) SCC 225. 
6. Ahmedabad St Xavier’s college v State of Gujarat (1974) 1 SCC 717. vii. T.M.A. Pai foundation v State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481. 
7. viii. Constitution of India, arts. 14, 15, 21, 21A, 44, 45, 51 A (k). 
8. The Universal Declaration of Human rights, art. 26. 

6.2.Bibliography and journals:  

1. C. N. Shankar Rao, Sociology- Principles of Sociology with an Introduction to  Sociological Thought, (S Chand And Company Limited, New Delhi, 7th edn.,2019). ii. Shah, A.H & Mushtaq, M, “The Relationship between Poverty & Education: A  Comprehensive Analysis” 15(03) Educational Quest: An. Int. J. Edu. Appl. Soc.  Sci., 179 – 185 (2024). 

6.3.Webliography: 

1. Government of India “Women & Men in India – 2016 chapter 3: Literacy & education”  Ministry of statistics & programme implementation, 2016, available at:  https://mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/report_and_publiction/social_s (last visited on  05.08.2026). 
2. Lok sabha debates on 21.07.2025, available at:  https://sansad.in/getFile/loksabhaquestions/annex/185/AU100_a0extZ.pdf?source=pqals  (last visited on 05.08.2026). 
3. iii. Soumya Pillai “India’s Academic Freedom Lowest Since 1900- Worse Than During  Emergency”, Theprint, August 4, 2026, available at: https://theprint.in/feature/indias academic-freedom-lowest-since-1900-worse-than-during-the-emergency/30005276/ (last  visited on 06.08.2026). 
4. Centre for development policy and practice, “Juvenile Justice In India: Trends,  Challenges, And The Way Forward”, available at:  http://www.cdpp.co.in/articles/juvenile-justice-in-india-trends-challenges-and-the-way forward (last visited on 06.08.2026).  

1(1993) 1 SCC 645. 

2 The Universal Declaration of Human rights, art. 26. 

3(1992) 3 SCC 666.

4(1992) 3 A.L.T.99. 

5(1992) 3 SCC 666.

6(1992) 3 SCC 666.

7(1992) 3 SCC 666.  

8(1984) 3 SCC 161.

10 1973 SCC 225. 

11 (1974) 1 SCC 717.

12 (2002) 8 SCC 481. 

13 Centre for Development Policy and Practice, “Juvenile Justice In India: Trends, Challenges, And The Way  Forward”, available at: http://www.cdpp.co.in/articles/juvenile-justice-in-india-trends-challenges-and-the-way forward (last visited on 06.08.2026).

 14 Shah, A.H & Mushtaq, M, “The Relationship Between Poverty & Education: A Comprehensive Analysis” 15(03)  Educational Quest: An. Int. J. Edu. Appl. Soc. Sci., 179 – 185 (2024). 

15 Government of India “Women & Men in India – 2016 chapter 3: Literacy & education” Ministry of statistics &  programme implementation, 2016, available at:  https://mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/report_and_publiction/social_s (last visited on 05.08.2026).

16 Lok sabha debates on 21.07.2025, available at:  https://sansad.in/getFile/loksabhaquestions/annex/185/AU100_a0extZ.pdf?source=pqals (last visited on  05.08.2026). 

17 Soumya Pillai “India’s Academic Freedom Lowest Since 1900- Worse Than During Emergency”, Theprint,  August 4, 2026, available at: https://theprint.in/feature/indias-academic-freedom-lowest-since-1900-worse-than during-the-emergency/30005276/ (last visited on 06.08.2026).