PRAMATI EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST VS UNION OF INDIA : CASE SUMMARY

The Supreme Court in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust Vs Union of India  (2014) 8SCC held that  Article 15 (5) of the Constitution inserted  by the Constitution (Ninety Third Amendment ) Act, 2005 and Article 21A of the Constitution inserted by the Constitution (Eighty Sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 are valid and does not violate basic structure of the Constitution.

VALIDITY OF ARTICLE 15 (5)

Article 15 (5) empowers the State to make special provisions by law for advancement of socially and educationally backward classes or SC or ST in relation to their admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions whether aided or unaided by state. The Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Thakur Vs. Union of India (2008) 6 SCC1 has held valid Article 15 (5) so far it related to institutions run or aided by State. In this matter the applicability of 15(5) to private aided institutions was challenged.

The Court noted that some classes of citizens, SC and ST have remained socially and educationally backward despite provisions made for them. They have not been able to approach educational institutions also. The Court held that Article 15 (5) is not an exception or a proviso overriding Article 15 but rather an enabling provision to make equality of opportunity promised in the preamble in the constitution a reality. The Court relied on its judgments in State of Kerala Vs. N. M. Thomas (1976) 2 SCC 310, Indra Sawhney Vs Union of India 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, Ashoka Kumar Thakur Vs Union of India   (2008) 6 SCC 1.

The Supreme Court noted that in T M A Pai Foundation Vs State of Karnatka 2002 8 SCC 481  and P A Inamdar   vs State of Maharastra ( 2005) 6 SCC 537 has held that nominating students for admissions will be unacceptable restriction under Article 19 (6). Parliament has stepped in and has inserted Article 15 (5). The Supreme Court noted that 15(5) has to a very limited extent affected the voluntary element under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution.  The Supreme Court held that the width of the power vested on the State under clause (5) of Article 15 of the Constitution by the Constitutional amendment is not such as to destroy the right under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court dispelled that argument that Article 15 (5) treats aided and unaided educational institutions in alike manner and thus violates Article 14. The Supreme Court noted that Clause (5) of Article 15 of the Constitution does not say that such a law will not comply with the other requirements of equality as provided in Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Court also rejected the argument that Article 15 (5) is violative of secularism as it excludes religious minority institutions. The Court held that none of the rights under Article 14, 19 (1) (g), and 21 have been abrogated by Article 15 (5).

VALIDITY OF ARTICLE 21A

The Court noted that Article 45 contemplated that State will provide free and compulsory examination upto age of 14 years within 10 years but the same was not achieved even after 50 years. There for Article 21A was introduced in the Constitution vide Eighty Sixth amendment. Under Article 21 constitutional obligation to provide free and compulsory education is on the State. However it empower state to decide the “manner” in which this constitutional obligation will be discharged.  The Court noted that the law made by the State should not be such as to abrogate the right of unaided private educational schools under Article 19 (1) (g) or minority schools, aided or unaided, under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court held that a new power has been vested in the State under Article 21 A of the Constitution to make a law determining the manner in which free and compulsory education will be provided to the children. This power is different from power of State under 19 (6) and has affected voluntariness of right under Article 19 (1) (g). By exercising this power admission of children belonging to poorer, weaker and backward classes of citizens would not be destructive of right of private unaided educational institutions under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court also analysed provisions of 2009 Act. Under Section 12 (1) (c) private unaided schools has to admit  children to the extent of 25% in class I from weaker sections belonging  neighborhood area.  There is provision of reimbursement against such admissions. The Supreme Court held that such admission does not violate Article 19 (1) (g).

The Court held that 2009 Act so far it is applicable to minority schools is ultra vires as it may destroy minority character of the educational institutions.

Thus the Court held 15 (5) and 21A constitutionally valid. The Supreme Court also held that 2009 Act is also not ultra vires 19 (1) (g). However,  the Court held that applicability of 2009 Act on aided or unaided minority institution ultra vires the Constitution.

_________________________________________