Team Number _____5_________ SECTION 4

AHMEDABAD UNIVERSITY
AMRUT MODY SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT
Monsoon Semester 2021- 2022
MGT136– Indian Legal System
ASSIGNMENT - 1 : Research Note and Awareness through Creative Total Marks: 30
This page should be the first page of your assignment submission
Team 5
Number :

Section : 4

Topic : Right to Education and

Its Legal Implications
Team Name Enrollment Number Contribution to the
Members project

1) Happy Panjwani AU2010092 Case Study, Issues

and Conclusion
2) Priyanshi Mittal AU2010200 Introduction and
Features of RTE
3) Kashish Agarwal AU2010194 Making of a Hard
Copy Poster for RTE
4) Pavitra Patel AU2010118 Making of a Soft
Copy Poster for RTE
5)
The assessment rubrics (to be filled by Instructor)
Team Number : _______________________
Marks out of 30 _______________________
Concept Note Language Concept Clarity Timely Submission
(6 marks) (6 marks) (3 marks)

Creatives Innovative Idea of Clear communication Team work

Presentation (7 marks) (5 marks) (3 marks)
 Right to Education and its legal implications
INTRODUCTION
“Education’s purpose is to replace an empty mind with an open one”, said Malcolm
Forbes. Right to Education Act of the Indian Parliament was enacted on 4 August 2009.
The eighty-sixth Amendment Act, inserted Article 21-A in the constitution of India to
provide free and compulsory education of all children in the age group of six to fourteen
years as a Fundamental Right in such a manner as the State may, by law, determine. It
also requires all private schools to reserve 25% of seats to children (to be reimbursed by
the state as part of the public-private partnership plan). Under this article every child has
the right to a full-time elementary education of acceptable and equitable quality in a
formal school that meets certain essential norms and standards.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The right to education legislation has been subjected to numerous rounds of heated
debate and philosophical and semantic alterations. The Constituent Sub-Committee on
Fundamental Rights included the right to primary education as a fundamental right. The
first official recommendation for the inclusion of a fundamental right to education was
made in 1990 by the Acharya Ramamurti Committee. The country witnessed an
increased international focus on its initiatives regarding free and compulsory education
after its participation in the World Conference on Education for All in 1990.
 The Supreme Court first recognized the right to education as a fundamental right
in Mohini Jain v. Union of India (1992) 3 SCC 666.
 In 1993 the Supreme Court narrowed the ambit of the fundamental right to
education as propounded in the Mohini Jain case in the case of J P Unnikrishnan
vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1993 SCC (1) 645.
The Right to Education Act provides for the following-

 It clarifies that ‘compulsory education’ means obligation of the appropriate

government to provide free elementary education and ensure compulsory
admission, attendance and completion of elementary education to every child in
the six to fourteen age group. ‘Free means that no child shall be liable to pay any
kind of fee or charges or expenses which may prevent him or her from pursuing
and completing elementary education.
  It also prohibits all unrecognized schools from practice and makes provisions for
no donation or capitation fees and no interview of the child or parent for
admission.
 The act also provides that no child shall be held back, expelled, or required to pass
a board examination until the completion of elementary education.
  There is also a provision for special training of school drop-outs to bring them up
to par with students of the same age.
 It provides for rational deployment of teachers by ensuring that the specified pupil
teacher ratio is maintained for each school, rather than just as an average for the
State or District or Block, thus ensuring that there is no urban-rural imbalance in
teacher postings. It also provides for prohibition of deployment of teachers for
non-educational work, other than decennial census, elections to local authority,
state legislatures and parliament, and disaster relief.
 It prohibits (a) physical punishment and mental harassment; (b) screening
procedures for admission of children; (c) capitation fee; (d) private tuition by
teachers and (e) running of schools without recognition,
 It provides for development of curriculum in consonance with the values enshrined
in the Constitution, and which would ensure the all-round development of the
child, building on the child’s knowledge, potentiality and talent and making the
child free of fear, trauma and anxiety through a system of child friendly and child
centered learning.
 It provides for rational deployment of teachers by ensuring that the specified pupil
teacher ratio is maintained for each school, rather than just as an average for the
State or District or Block, thus ensuring that there is no urban-rural imbalance in
teacher postings. It also provides for prohibition of deployment of teachers for
non-educational work, other than decennial census, elections to local authority,
state legislatures and parliament, and disaster relief.

CASE STUDY

Unni Krishnan, J.P. and Ors. Etc. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.

OVERVIEW

The petitioner in this case was Unni Krishnan, while the respondent was the state of
Andhra Pradesh.  This case consists of writ petitions filed in India's Supreme Court to
define the scope of the right to education as a component of the right to life and liberty.
The scope, regulation, and limitation of fees imposed by private educational institutions
for professional services offered by the institution, as well as the petitioner's challenge to
the constitutionality of the state of Andhra Pradesh's low rates in the past, were all issues
in the case.

The scope, regulation, and limitation of fees charged by private educational institutions
for professional services provided by the institution, as well as the petitioner's challenge
to the constitutionality of the low past fees in the state of Andhra Pradesh in this case,
were also discussed in this case. It does, however, consider the fee regulations in the
states of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka. The petitioners argued that the state
should give education to all kids, regardless of their economic or social circumstances.
The petitioner further stated that the state does not have a total monopoly in delivering
education to its inhabitants, and that the state disagrees with article 19 1(g), which states
that state educational institutions can be considered businesses. Furthermore, it grants the
right to establish self-financing educational institutions by allowing private educational
institutions that provide engineering, medical, and other professional academic courses to
collect as much as fees from students seeking admission. The respondent's argument is
that citizens have a fundamental right to education, but that this right only applies to
elementary school because the age limit is between the ages of 6 and 14.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

The case's issues are as follows:

 What is the scope of the right to education, and does it cover professional
academic programmes?
 Is there a fundamental right to study in engineering, medicine, and other
professional fields for a citizen?
 Is the court justified in allowing private educational institutions to charge higher
fees than public educational institutions?
 What does the Constitution say about private educational institutions?
 What is the scope of instrumentality after an institution is recognized or affiliated
for educational purposes?
JUDGEMENT

In the case of a private educational institution, the court states that there is a difference
between private educational institutions and government educational institutions or
government-aided educational institutions. The government educational institutions or
the government Aided educational institutions are provided with resources from the state
in form of grants. But the private educational institutions, they have to depend on their
resources. Educational institutions are not a type of business, and they serve a different
purpose in that they aid in the fulfilment of a person's fundamental rights. As a result, the
government must establish a set of laws and regulations to define the maximum amount
of fees that private educational institutions can charge.

In the case of the state of Andhra Pradesh, there was no prescribed upper limit for private
educational institutions to charge fees under the regulations stated by the government
which led to the private educational institutions in the state to charge as much amount to
fee as they wanted. The court further stated that the State government should try to Aid or
grant for the private educational institutions because the state cannot meet all the needs of
the students due to the determining factor-like population. Moreover, when the state gives
them recognition or affiliation or affiliation then the private educational institutions are
performing functions that should have been Primarily performed by the state.

CONCLUSION

Education is provided as a right to assist youngsters in developing their abilities and

realizing their full potential in order to serve their society and the country in the long
term. The right to education is a crucial first step towards overcoming poverty. Education
allows a person to make well-informed decisions for themselves while also contributing
to the advancement of society and nation.
WORKS CITED

RIGHT TO EDUCATION. (2009, January 1). Vikaspedia. Retrieved November 11, 2021, from

https://vikaspedia.in/education/policies-and-schemes/right-to-education/right-of-children-

to-free-and-compulsory-education-act-2009-right-to-education-act

Right To Education. (n.d.). RightToEducation.In. Retrieved November 11, 2021, from

https://righttoeducation.in/know-your-rte/about

Unni Krishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. (n.d.). Indian Kanoon. Retrieved November 11,

2021, from https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1775396/

10 things you need to know about the RTE Act #HaqBantaHai. (2018, December 4). Oxfam

India(OIN). Retrieved November 11, 2021, from https://www.oxfamindia.org/blog/10-

things-rte#:

Nic, L. P. (n.d.). Right to Education | School Education & Literacy. Ministry of Education.

Retrieved November 11, 2021, from https://dsel.education.gov.in/rte