PRIMARY DETAILS OF THE CASE:
Case Brief on Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust & another v. Union of India & Ors
Introduction:
There have been several instances where the courts of law have had to deal with conflicts of laws as well as conflicts resulting from rights of individuals. This is just one such conflict of rights which has been considered by the Supreme Court of India in this particular case. The case is particularly interesting because there are two main amendments that grant rights to one community, and these two amendments do not co-exist harmoniously. It’s article 19(1) (g) versus article 21A and also article 15(5). In brief, this is how the case was framed.
Facts of the case:
The facts of the case were that a constitution bench consisting five judges was called upon through a reference order issued by a three-judge bench in society for unaided private schools Rajasthan v Union of India & another. What happened in this case was that the three judge bench referred it for decision on the validity under clause 5 of Article 15 of Indian Constitution inserted into Indian Constitution by ninety-third amendment act in year 2002.
Further, it was asked to examine whether there has been an amendment made on Article 21A, which was introduced in the Constitution earlier through Eighty-sixth Amendment Act, 2002. The issues presented before us are as follows.
Issues:
The following are some issues framed by Supreme Court of India
Firstly does the introduction of clause 5 into Article 15 via Ninety-Third Constitutional amendment act – added up with other clauses; change the basic structure?
Secondly does inserting Article 21A into Constitution via eighty-sixth constitutional amendment changes its fundamental core or structure?
Laws involved in the case:
Article14 – Equality before Law
Article15(5)-State’s power to make reservations for Backward Classes and Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes
Article21A-Education for Children between Six and Fourteen Years (Right to Education).
Contentions:
On behalf of said petitioners, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, the learned counsel, grounded his arguments on the T.M.A. Pai case of 2002 and submitted that right to carry any profession or trade under Article 19 (1)(g) of Constitution should encompass running/starting/operating a private unaided educational institution. Secondly he went further to say that based on what the Chief Justice Chandrachud said in Minerva Mills’ case which observed that the Indian Constitution has a golden triangle comprising article 14, 19 and 21, which gives people assurance for achieving egalitarian approach at all times as is enshrined in its preamble. Lastly he argued that clause 5 added to article 15 violated basic feature of constitution because it allows the state to make any provision for the betterment or advancement of SC’s/ST’s while such enactments are also related to admissions in private educational institutions.
The other side, represented by Mr Parasaran on behalf of Union of India, argued that article 19(1)(g) must not be adversely affected by way of allocating smaller percentage seats in such educational institution for the benefit of petitioners in this instant case who have rights to run their private educational institutions thereunder. He says that Article 15(5) is an enabling clause and not a mandate upon state. In his place, he relies upon reference made by supreme court in Islamic Academy Of Education case where it was held that certain percentage seats should be filled with poor and backward people in non-minority institutions.
Decision:
Thus decided The Supreme Court of India.
Firstly, the court analysed two contradicting positions taken on application of art.15(5)of Indian Constitution as seen in T.M.A.Pai and P.A.Inamdar cases.On one hand,the apex court allowed smaller proportionate reservations for reservation category candidates specifically for persons from poorer stratums in private institutions without contravening the rights of such institutions under art.19(1)(g)of Indian Constitution.
Secondly, more importantly, the court equated the new power of state conferred by the Eighty Sixth Constitutional Amendment Act with that of private unaided institution under article 19 of the Constitution. This amendment with Article 21A in it is an embodiment of what has been envisaged in Article 45 under directive principles in the Indian Constitution for fifty years which constitutes free and compulsory education. Also, referring to this, it is made clear that if there are any laws which have been enacted by the State for this purpose alone i.e., empowering a few seats to be provided for education of weaker/poorer sections children in private unaided schools then it cannot be said as infringing upon rights guaranteed to private unaided institutions under article 19(1)(g)of the Constitution.
The conclusion:
It is clear from the above judgement that Article 21A has a higher pedestal compared to Article 19(1)(g), as long as the State’s power is not inconsistent with what is provided under Article 45 of Indian Constitution. Any failure in this can lead to such supremacy not being established within courts of law.
