Back
S. R. PANDIAN, S. P. BHARUCHA, B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, S. MOHAN, L. M. SHARMA
Unni Krishnan J. P. – Appellant
Versus
State Of A. P. – Respondent
The provided legal document discusses the constitutional provisions related to the right to education, including the interpretation of Article 21 and its relation to the right to life and personal liberty. It emphasizes that the right to education is an integral part of the right to life and that the State has a constitutional obligation to make efforts towards providing educational facilities. However, it also recognizes that this right is not absolute and that its enjoyment is subject to reasonable regulation by the State, considering social needs, institutional capacity, and public interest (!) (!) (!) .
Specifically, the document states that while the right to education flows directly from the right to life, its realization must be balanced with the State’s capacity and social requirements. The State is expected to make efforts to provide education within its available resources and in accordance with social needs and public interest, rather than an absolute obligation to provide unrestricted access at all times. This aligns with the principle that the enjoyment of the right to education is subject to reasonable regulation by the State, taking into account the broader social and economic context.
JUDGMENT
SHARMA, C.J.I. (for himself and on behalf of S . P. BHARUCHA, J.):—We have had the benefit of going through the two judgments of our learned Brothers B. P. Jeevan Reddy and S. Mohan, JJ. We are in agreement with the judgment of Brother B. P. Jeevan Reddy, J. except to the extent indicated below.
2. The question which arose in the case of Miss Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, (1992) 3 SCC 666: (1992 AIR SCW 2100), as also in the present cases before us, is whether a citizen has a Fundamental Right to education for a medical, engineering or other professional degree. The question whether the right to primary education, as mentioned in Article 45 of the Constitution of India, is a Fundamental Right under Article 21 did not arise in Mohini Jains case and no finding or observation on that question was called for. It was contended before us that since a positive finding on that question was recorded in Mohini Jains case it becomes necessary to consider its correctness on merits. We do not think so.
3. Learned arguments were addressed in support of and against the aforesaid view which have been noticed in the judgments of our learned Brothers. It was contended by learned Counsel
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
