ARTICLE 19 (1)(G) OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO CARRY OUT OR RUN OR ADMINISTER ANY PRIVATE UNAIDED EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
This particular decision is upheld by the Supreme Court of India through the division bench of Justice R.M.Lodha, Justice A.K.Pathak, Justice S.J.Mukhopadhaya, Justice Deepak Misra, Justice Fakir Mohamed Kalifulla in the case of Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust & another v. Union of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 416 of 2012).
FACTS
The facts of this case were that the constitution bench, comprising five judges, was called upon through a reference order made in the case of Society for Unaided Private schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India & another, by a three-judge bench of the Supreme court of India. The essence of this order was that the three-judge bench referred the case for the holding of the decision on the validity of clause 5 of Article 15 of the Indian Constitution, which was inserted into the Indian Constitution through the ninety-third constitutional amendment act of 2002. Along with the same, it was also asked to decide the validity of the insertion of Article 21A, which was previously inserted through the Eighty-sixth constitutional amendment act of 2002.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme court of India has decided the case as follows. Firstly, the court looked into two differing views that are made on the application of article 15(5) of the Indian Constitution in the case of T.M.A. Pai and P.A. Inamdar case. In the former case, the Supreme court allowed a smaller percentage of seats to be reserved in the private institutions for the people from poorer sections of the society, and such allocation shall not affect the rights of such institutions under article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. Secondly and most importantly, the court compared the new power of the state that has been provided by the eighty-sixth constitutional amendment act to that of the right of the private unaided institution under article 19 of the Constitution. The court observed that the amendment inducing the enactment of Article 21A of the Indian Constitution embodies the goal that has been contemplated in article 45 under the directive principles of the Indian Constitution and ensures what has been not achieved for fifty years on free and compulsory education. By stating this, the court also observed that if any law has been enacted by the state for this particular purpose, that is the power to provide a few seats for the education of poorer and weaker children in private unaided schools, then such cannot be seen as a violation of the rights of the private unaided institution under article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY NAISARGIKA MISHRA