Casestudy1

UNNIKRISHNANVSTATEOFANDHRAPRADESH,AIR1993217.

Factsofthecase

The college management was seeking enforcement of their right to business

throughthechargingofcapitationfeesfromstudents seekingadmission.The
courtexpresslydeniedthisclaimandproceededtoexaminethenatureoftheright
toeducationspecificallythefollowingarticlesoftheconstitution:

Article45:TheStateshallendeavourtoprovide,withinaperiodoftenyearsfrom
thecommencementofthisConstitution,forfreeandcompulsoryeducationforall

childrenuntiltheycompletetheageoffourteenyears.

Article 41: The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and
development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, to
education...

Article 21:No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
accordingtoprocedureestablishedbylaw.

Article46:TheStateshallpromotewithspecialcaretheeducationalandeconomic
interestsoftheweakersectionsofthepeople,and,inparticular,oftheScheduled
CastesandtheScheduledTribes,andshallprotectthemfromsocialinjusticeand
allformsofexploitation.

Judgement

TheCourtheldthattherighttobasiceducationisimpliedbythefundamentalright
to life (Article 21), when read in conjunction with the directive principle on
education(Article41).TheCourtheldthattheparametersoftherightmustbe
understood in the context of the Directive Principles of State Policy, including

1
Article45whichprovidesthatthestateistoendeavourtoprovide,withinaperiod
oftenyearsfromthecommencementoftheConstitution,forfreeandcompulsory
educationforallchildrenundertheageof14.

Article41indicatesthataftertheageof14,therighttoeducationissubjecttothe
limitsofeconomiccapacityanddevelopmentofthestate.

Indeed it was found that there is no fundamental right to education for a

professionaldegreethatflowsfromArticle21.

QuotingArticle13oftheInternationalCovenantonEconomic,SocialandCultural
Rights, the Court stated that the state's obligation to provide higher education
requiresittotakestepstothemaximumofitsavailableresourceswithaviewto
achieving progressively the full realization of the right of education by all
appropriatemeans.

Effectofcase

Thestaterespondedtothisdeclarationnineyearslaterbyinserting,throughthe
NinetythirdamendmenttotheConstitution,Article21A,whichprovidesforthe
fundamentalrighttoeducationforchildrenbetweentheagesofsixandfourteen.In
addition,severalStatesinIndiahavepassedlegislationmakingprimaryeducation
compulsory.

AlthoughtheCourtinUnniKrishnanstatedspecificallythatitwasnottransferring
Article41fromPartIVtoPartIII,inthesubsequentcaseofM.C.MehtavStateof
TamilNadu&Ors(1996)6SCC756;AIR1997SC699,theSupremeCourtstated
that Article 45 had acquired the status of a fundamental right following the
ConstitutionalBench'sdecisioninUnniKrishnan.

Inaddition,theCourtsaidthat,inordertotreatarightasfundamentalright,itis
not necessary that it should be expressly stated as one in Part III of the
Constitution:the provisions of Part III and Part IV are supplementary and
complementarytoeachother.TheCourtrejectedthattherightsreflectedinthe

2
provisionsofPartIIIaresuperiortothemoralclaimsandaspirationsreflectedin
theprovisionsofPartIV.

Casestudy2
MohiniJainvsstateofKarnataka(1992AIR1858)

Factsofthecase

MissMohiniJain,aresidentofMeerut(intheStateofUP),appliedforadmission
to theMBBScourse in the session commencing February/March, 1991, to a
privatemedicalcollegelocatedintheStateofKarnataka.Thecollegemanagement
askedhertodepositasumofRs.60,000/asthetuitionfeeforthefirstyearand
alsotoshowabankguaranteeoftheamountequaltothefeefortheremaining
years.WhenMissJain'sfatherintimatedthemanagementthattheaskedamount
wasbeyondhisreach,themanagementdeniedMs.Jain'sadmissiontothemedical
college.MissJaininformedthecourtthatthemanagementdemandedanadditional

3
amount of Rs. four and a halflakhs, however, the management denied the
allegation?

Asperthenotification,thedenialofadmissionofMissJainduetoherfailureto
submittheyearlytuitionfeeofRs.60,000/wasavalidsteptakenbythecollege
management.Inthissituation,MissJainfiledapetition(Writpetition(Civil)No.
456 of 1991) under Article 32 (1) ("The right to move the Supreme Court by
appropriateproceedingsfortheenforcementoftherightsconferredbythisPart
(Part III: Fundamental Rights) is guaranteed")of the Constitution of India
challengingthenotificationissuedbytheGovernmentofKarnataka.

AtwomemberbenchconsistingJusticeKuldipSinghandJusticeR.M.Sahaigave
thejudgmentofthecaseon30July1992(1992AIR1858).Forthefirsttimeinthe
post independent India, right to education of the Indian citizens and the State
obligationtosecuretherightcameunderscrutinyatthepremisesoftheapexcourt.
Itisimportanttonotethatthiswasthetimewhenneoliberaleconomicpolicywere
knockingatthedoorofIndia.

Issues

Inthelieuofabovesituationseveralcrucialquestionsappearedbeforethecourt.
Now,thecourthadtoanswerthefollowingmajorquestions:

o Wastherea'righttoeducation'guaranteedtothepeopleofIndiaunderthe
Constitution?

o Iftherightisguaranteedtothepeoplethen,doesapplyingcapitationfee
violatetheguaranteedrighttoeducation?

o Whether charging capitation fee in educational institutions is arbitrary,

unjust, unfair and violated Article 14 ("The State shall not deny to any
personequalitybeforethelawortheequalprotectionofthelawswithinthe
territoryofIndia")oftheconstitution?

4
Judgement

The Supreme Court inMohini Jain v. State of Karnatakaheld that the right to
educationisafundamentalrightunderArticle21oftheConstitutionwhichcannot
bedeniedtoacitizenbycharginghigherfeeknownasthecapitationfee.Theright
toeducationflowsdirectlyfromrighttolife.TherighttolifeunderArticle21and
thedignityofanindividualcannotbeassuredunlessitisaccompaniedbytheright
to education.

SignificanceoftheCase:
Themorenotablepartofthejudgmentwasitsinsistencethattherighttoeducation
bereadasanintegralpartoftherighttolifeguaranteedunderArticle21,PartIII.
ThedecisionoftheCourtthatthefulfillmentoftherighttoliferequiresalifeof
dignity,andthereforemustbeinterpretedtoincludeeconomicandsocialrights,has
beenextendedbytheIndianCourtstoensurerightstofood,water,andhealth.

Casestudy3
T.M.A.PaiFoundationv.StateofKarnataka,AIR2003SC355

Factsofthecase

5
ThisisacasedecidedbyaConstitutionBenchof11JudgesoftheSupremeCourt
mainlyonthequestionofscopeofrightofminoritiestoestablishandadminister
educationalinstitutionsoftheirchoiceunderArticle30(1)readwithArticle29(2)
of the Constitution. This judgment deals with the rights of and permissible
restrictionsuponminority(aidedandunaided)institutions.Themajorityopinionis
onbehalfofsixJudgeswithonemoreJudgeconcurringwiththemajoritybya
separateopinion.RemainingfourJudgesgavethreeseparateopinionsinwhichthey
partydissentedfromthemajorityopinion.

TheSupremeCourtheldasunder:

1. WithregardtoaStatelaw,theunittodetermineareligiousorlinguistic
minoritycanonlybetheState.
2. EvenforaCentrallaw,forthepurposeofdeterminingtheminority,the
unitwillbetheStateandnotthewholeofIndia;thus,religiousand
linguisticminorities,whohavebeenputonaparinArticle30,haveto
beconsideredStatewise.
3. Thequestion,whetherfollowersofasectordenominationofaparticular
religioncanclaimminoritystatuseventhoughfollowersofthatreligion
areinmajorityinthatState,wasleftunansweredtobedecidedbya
regularBench.
4. The question as to what are the indicia for treating an educational
institutionasaminorityeducationalinstitution,whetherthefactthatit
was established by or is administered by person(s) belonging to a
religiousorlinguisticminorityisdeterminativeofitscharacter,wasalso
leftunansweredtobedecidedbyaregularBench.
5. The minorities rights under Article 30(1) coverprofessional
educationasindicatedbytheuseofthewordsoftheirchoice.
6. Anyregulationframedinthenationalinterestmustnecessarilyapplyto
alleducationalinstitutions,whetherrunbythemajorityortheminority.
Suchalimitation mustnecessarily beread intoArticle 30.Theright
underArticle30(1)cannotbesuchastooverridethenationalinterestor

6
 topreventtheGovernmentfromframingregulationsinthatbehalf.Itis,
ofcourse,truethatgovernmentregulationscannotdestroytheminority
characteroftheinstitutionormaketherighttoestablishandadministera
mereillusion;buttherightunderArticle30isnotsoabsoluteastobe
abovethelaw.
7. EventhoughthewordsofArticle30(1)areunqualified,atleastcertain
otherlawsofthelandpertainingtohealth,moralityandstandardsof
educationapply.TherightunderArticle30(1)isnotabsoluteorabove
other provisions of the law. Regulations or conditions concerning,
generally,thewelfareofstudentsandteachersmaybemadeapplicable
inordertoprovideaproperacademicatmosphere,assuchprovisionsdo
notinanywayinterferewiththerightofadministrationormanagement
underArticle30(1).
8. Article 30(2) only means that a minority institution shall not be
discriminatedagainstwhereaidtoeducationalinstitutionsisgranted.If
anabjectsurrenderoftherighttomanagementismadeaconditionof
aid, the denial of aid would be violative of Article 30(2). However,
conditionsofaidthatdonotinvolveasurrenderofthesubstantialright
ofmanagementwouldnotbeinconsistentwithconstitutionalguarantees,
eveniftheyindirectlyimpingeuponsomefacetofadministration.The
implicationofArticle30(2)isalsothatitrecognizesthattheminority
natureoftheinstitutionshouldcontinue,notwithstandingthegrantof
aid.
9. Although the right to administer includes within it a right to grant
admissiontostudentsoftheirchoiceunderArticle30(1),whensucha
minority institution is granted the facility of receiving grantinaid,
Article29(2)wouldapply,andnecessarily,therefore,oneoftherightsof
administrationoftheminoritieswouldbeerodedtosomeextent.Aslong
as the minority educational institution permits admission of citizens
belongingtothenonminorityclasstoareasonableextentbasedupon
merit, it will not be an infraction of Article 29(2), even though the
institutionadmitsstudentsoftheminoritygroupofitsownchoicefor

7
 whom the institution was meant. What would be a reasonable extent
woulddependuponvariablefactors,anditmaynotbeadvisabletofix
anyspecificpercentage.Thesituationwouldvaryaccordingtothetype
ofinstitutionandthenatureofeducationthatisbeingimpartedinthe
institution.Evenifitispossibletofillupalltheseatswithstudentsof
the minority group, the moment the institution is granted aid, the
institutionwillhavetoadmitstudentsofthenonminoritygrouptoa
reasonableextent.Observingthataceilingof50%wouldnotbeproper,
theSupremeCourtheldthatitwillbemoreappropriatethat,depending
upontheleveloftheinstitution,whetheritbeaprimaryorsecondaryor
highschooloracollege,professionalorotherwise,andonthepopulation
andeducationalneedsoftheareainwhichtheinstitutionistobelocated,
theStateproperlybalancestheinterestsofallbyprovidingforsucha
percentageofstudentsoftheminoritycommunitytobeadmitted,soas
to adequately serve the interest of the community for which the
institutionwasestablished.
10. Forunaidedschoolsandundergraduatecolleges,wherescopeformerit
basedselectionispracticallynil,StateorUniversitycanprovideforthe
qualificationsandminimumeligibilityconditions.Admissionhastobe
onatransparentbasisandmeritconsidered.
11. Righttoadministerisnotabsoluteandsoregulatorymeasurescanbe
imposedforensuringeducationalstandardsandmaintainingexcellence
thereofespeciallyinprofessionalinstitutions.
12. Anaidedminorityinstitutionremainssodespitereceivinggrantinaid
fromtheGovernment.Ithasarightoveradmittingitsminoritystudents
onmeritbasis.Itmustalsoadmitareasonablenumberofnonminority
students.WhatisareasonablenumberistobedecidedbyStateGovt.on
considerationoftypeofinstitution,thecoursesofeducation,population
andeducationalneedsetc.
13. Rightofminoritiesincludesrighttodeterminetheprocedureandmethod
ofadmissionandselectionofstudentswhichmustbefairandtransparent
andbasedonmeritforprofessionalandhighereducationcolleges.Even

8
 unaided minority institution cannot ignore merit. In case of aided
institution, for nonminority students, the State can regulate the
admissionwhichhastobemeritbasedsubjecttoreservationpolicyof
theState.Merittobedeterminedbyanentrancetestorbyanyother
methodwithconsiderationforweakersections.
14. In case of unaided minority institutions, the regulatory measure of
controlbytheStateshouldbeminimalthoughconditionofrecognition
and of affiliation have to be complied with, and though matters of
appointment of teaching and nonteaching staff and administrative
controloverthemwouldbebeyondregulation.Feeschargedbyunaided
institutionscannotberegulatedbuttheycannotchargecapitationfee.
15. Incaseofaidedminorityinstitutions,regulationscanbeprovidedfor
conditionsofserviceofteachingandotherstaffwithoutinterferingwith
theoveralladministrativecontrol.
16. But,bothinaidedandunaidedminorityinstitutions,managementmust
evolvearationalprocedureforselectionofteachingstaffandfortaking
disciplinaryaction.Stateorcontrollingauthoritycanalwaysprescribe
theminimumqualification,experienceandotherconditionsbearingon
themeritofanindividualforbeingappointedasateacheroraprincipal
ofanyeducationalinstitution.

9
 Casestudy4
BandhuaMuktiMorchav.UnionofIndiaandothers(1983)

FACTSOFTHECASE
&twouldbeinstructivetobrieflydiscussthefactsofthecasebeforedelvinginto
thelegalissuesarosetherein.Thepetitionermadeasurveyofsomeofthestone
6uarriesinfaridabaddistrictnearthecityofdelhiandfoundthattherewerealarge
number of labourers from Maharashtra, Madhya pradesh, uttar pradesh and
rajasthanwhowereworkinginthesestoneuarriesunderinhumanandintolerable
conditions and many of whom were bonded labourers. The petitioner therefore
addressedalettertooneofusfebruarypointingoutthatintheminesofhriharma,
urukulandrarastha,host'mar8agarfaridabad,ristrict,alargenumberoflabourers
werelanguishingunderab5ectconditionsofbondageforlastabouttenyears,and
thepetitionergavethenamesofbondedlabourerswhowerefromvillagesarha,
Banner district of rajasthan, bonded labourers who were from village Bharol,
districtjhansiofMadhyapradeshandbondedlabourers whowerefromvillage
Barodia, Bhanger, Tehsilhurai, district nagar. The petitioner also annexed to its
letter,statementsinoriginalbearingthethumbmarksorsignaturesasthecasemay
be of these bended labourers referred to in the letter. The court laid down
comprehensivemeasuresfortherehabilitationandsupportiveworkingenvironment
ofthelabourersworkinginmineleases.Thecourtalsodirectedthattheassistant
1abourcommissionerandthedeputy1abourcommissionershouldverifywhether
theninemininglesseestowhomnoticehadbeenissuedwerepayingthelabourers
wagesthatwascommensuratewiththeprovisionsoftheMinimumAagesct.
Accordingtothefactsstatedbeforethecourttheminelesseeshadbeenrepeatedly
andcontinuouslycommittedgrossviolationoflabourlawsincludingnonpayment

10
ofminimumwagesandthestateofharyanamustconsidercancellationtheleasesof
thedefaulters.
Issues
A whether article of the constitution is attracted to the instant case as no
fundamentalrightofthepetitionersoroftheworkmenreferredtointhepetitionare
infringed..Analetteraddressedbyapartytothiscourtbetreatedasawritpetition
andintheabsenceofanyverifiedpetitionthiscourtcanbemovedtoexerciseits
writjurisdiction.duringaproceedingunderarticle0)oftheconstitution,canthis
courtbeempoweredtoappointanycommissionoraninvestigatingbodytoenquire
into the allegations made and makes a report to this court on the basis of the
enquirytoenablethiscourttoexerciseitspowerandjurisdictionunderarticleof
theconstitution

TheReasoningEmployedByTheCourtAndItsDecision
Thesubstanceofthegrievanceofthepetitionersinthispetitionisthattheworkmen
referredtointhecommunicationaddressedtothiscourtarebondedlabourers,the
parliamentenactedtheBonded1aboursystemabolition"act,andbyvirtueofthe
provisionsofthesaidact,thebondedlaboursystemhasbeendeclaredtobeillegal
inthiscountry.Anypersonwhoiswrongfullyandillegallyemployedasalabourer
inviolationoftheprovisionsoftheact,isinessencedeprivedofhisliberty.bonded
labourertrulybecomesaslaveandthefreedomofabondedlabourerinthematter
ofhisemploymentandmovementis moreorless completelytakenawayand
forcedlabouristhrustuponhim.Awhenanybondedlabourerapproachesthis
court,therealgrievancethathemakesisthatheshouldbefreedfromthisbondage
andhepraysforbeingsetatlibertyandlibertyisnodoubtafundamentalright
guaranteedtoeverypersonundertheconstitution.Therecannotbeanymannerof
doubtthatanypersonwhoiswrongfullyandillegallydetainedandisdeprivedof
his liberty can approach this court under article 20) of the constitution for his
freedom from wrongful and illegal detention, and for being set at liberty. The
secondgroundwhichraisesthe6uestionwhethertheletteraddressedbyapartyto
thiscourtcanbetreatedasawritpetitionandintheabsenceofanyverifiedpetition
thiscourtcanbemovedtoexerciseitswrit5urisdiction,isessentiallyanob5ection

11
to the procedure to be adopted by this court in the matter of entertaining a
proceedingunderarticle20forenforcementoffundamentalrightsoftheparties.
Article20oftheconstitutionwhichhasbeenearliersetoutguaranteestherightto
move this court by an appropriate proceeding for the enforcement of the
fundamentalrights.Article20"conferswidepowersonthiscourtinthematterof
grantingreliefagainstanyviolationofthefundamentalrights.Article20orforthat
matteranyotherarticledoesnotlaydownanyprocedurewhichhastobefollowed
tomovethiscourtforreliefagainsttheviolationofanyfundamentalright.article
20onlylaysdownthattherighttomovethiscourtbyappropriateproceedingsfor
enforcement of fundamental rights is guaranteed. The fundamental rights are
guaranteedbytheconstitutionandforTheenforcementofthefundamentalrights
verywidepowershavebeenconferredonthiscourt.Beforethiscourtproceedsto
exercise its powers under article 20 of the constitution for enforcing the
fundamentalrightsguaranteed,thiscourthastobesatisfiedthattherehasbeena
violationofthefundamentalrights.Thefundamentalrightsmaybeallegedtohave
beenviolatedundervariouscircumstances.Thefactsandcircumstancesdifferfrom
case to case. A whenever, however, there is an allegation of violation of
fundamentalrights,it becometheresponsibilityandalsothesacreddutyofthis
court to protect such fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution
providedthatthiscourtissatisfiedthatacaseforinterferencebythiscourtappears
primafacietohavebeenmadeoutveryoftentheviolationoffundamentalrightsis
notadmittedoraccepted.:naproperconsiderationofthematerialsthecourthasto
cometoaconclusionwhethertherehasbeenanyviolationoffundamentalrightsto
enablethecourttograntappropriatereliefsinthematter.&nvariouscases,because
ofthepeculiarfactsandcircumstancesofthecasethepartyapproachingthiscourt
for enforcement of fundamental rights may not be in a position to furnish all
relevantmaterialsandnecessaryparticulars.

12
 Casestudy5

M.C.MehtaVs.StateofTamilNadu&Ors[1990]INSC335(31October
1990)

Factsofthecase
ThePetitionerwasanindividualconcernedaboutthehighrateofemploymentof
childrenintheMatchfactoriesofSivakasiinKamarajDistrictoftheStateofTamil
Nadu. Petitioner contended that such employment was hazardous and
unconstitutional. He filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
seekingeducational,medicalandhealthfacilitiesforthechildren.TheRespondent
Government did not deny the existence of child labour, but instead offered
suggestionstoamelioratetheproblem.
Issues
On the issue of employment of children directly involved in the process of
manufacturinginthefactories,theCourtheldthatitshouldnotbepermitted.The
Courtheldthatsuchemploymentwasunconstitutionalandthatchildrenshould
spendtheirformativeyearsbeingeducated.However,theCourtheldthatchildren
couldbeemployedinthepackingprocessbutinanareaawayfromtheplaceof
manufacturetoavoidexposuretoaccident.

On the issue of the provision of medical facilities, the Court held that it was
statutorily mandated by the Factories Act 1948. The Court directed the State

13
Government to enforce this provision. The Respondent Government was also
directedtoprovideadditionalmobilemedicalvansregularly.TheCourtheldthat
the Respondent Government should make provisions for basic diet during the
workingperiodandmedicalcarewithaviewtoensuringsoundphysicalgrowth.

Judgement

1.Employmentofchildrenwithinthematchfactoriesdirectlyconnectedwiththe
manufacturingprocessuptofinalproductionofmatchsticksorfireworksshouldnot
atallbepermitted.Theycan,however,beemployedintheprocessofpacking
whichshouldbedoneinanareaawayfromtheplaceofmanufacturetoavoid
exposuretoaccident.[520DG]

2.Theyshouldbegivenatleast60percentoftheprescribedminimumwageforan
adultemployeeinthefactoriesdoingthesamejob.[521A]

3.UndertheFactoriesAct,thereisastatutoryrequirementforprovidingfacilities
forrecreationandmedicalattention.TherespondentStateisdirectedtoenforce
thesetwoaspectssothatthebasicrequirementsareattendedto.Attentionmayalso
begiventoensure519provisionofabasicdiettothesechildrenduringtheworking
period with a view to ensuring sound physical growth. Facilities for general
educationasalsojoborientededucationshouldbemadeavailabletothemandthe
schooltimeshouldbesoadjustedthatemploymentisnotaffected.[521GH]

4.TheStateshalltakeappropriatestepsinthematterofcreatingthewelfarefund
and finalising themethodofcontribution andcollectionthereofby1stJanuary,
1991sothattheconsolidatedmoneywouldbeavailableforimplementingwelfare
schemes.[521EF]

5. The State shah also ensure that every employee work ing in these match
factories iscompulsorilyinsuredforasumofRs.50,000.Thepremiumforthe
insurancepolicyshouldbetheliabilityoftheemployertomeetasaconditionof
service.[522AB]

6.AcommitteeconsistingoftheDistrictJudgeofthearea,theDistrictMagistrate
of the District, a public activist operating in the area, a representative of the

14
employees and local labour officer to oversee all the direct ions of the Court.
[522D]

15