Constitutional challenge querying whether the “right to life” in Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees a fundamental right to education to citizens of India; role of economic resources in limiting right to education; interplay between Directive Principles and State Policy in the Constitution and Fundamental Rights; whether the right to education includes adult professional education.
The state responded to this declaration nine years later by inserting, through the Ninety-third amendment to Constitution, Article 21-A, which provides for the fundamental right to education for children between the ages of six and fourteen. In addition, several States in India have passed legislation making primary education compulsory. These statutes “have however remained un-enforced due to various socio-economic and cultural factors as well as administrative and financial constraints. There is no central legislation making elementary education compulsory.” (see Kothari below).
The Court in Unni Krishnan expressed its disagreement with the finding in the earlier case of Mohini Jain v State of Karnataka 1992 AIR 1858 that the right to education at all levels is guaranteed by the Constitution. In the subsequent case of M.C. Mehta v State of Tamil Nadu & Ors (1996) 6 SCC 756; AIR 1997 SC 699, the Supreme Court stated that Article 45 had acquired the status of a fundamental right following the Constitutional Bench’s decision in Unni Krishnan.
In addition, the Court said that, in order to treat a right as fundamental right, it is 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 complementary to each other”. The Court rejected that the rights reflected in the provisions of Part III are superior to the moral claims and aspirations reflected in the provisions of Part IV.