## Facts

- Private aided and unaided medical and engineering colleges, and related associations, challenged state regulation of admissions and fees in professional education.
- The dispute arose after an earlier decision recognized a broad fundamental right to education and treated amounts charged above government-college fees as impermissible capitation.
- The petitions also attacked a statutory provision permitting managements to fill a substantial portion of seats as “payment seats,” including without strict merit constraints.
- Multiple writ petitions and civil appeals from several States were consolidated to resolve (i) the scope of the constitutional right to education and (ii) permissible regulation of private professional colleges’ admissions and fee structures.
- States and regulators defended strong controls on the ground that education is a public function; private institutions seeking recognition or affiliation must comply with fairness, merit-based selection, and anti-commercialization norms.

## Issues

1. Whether the Constitution implies a fundamental right to education under the right to life, and, if so, its scope in light of directive principles.
2. Whether there is an unfettered fundamental right to establish and run self-financing private professional colleges under freedom of occupation.
3. Whether recognized/affiliated (and aided) private educational institutions must follow constitutional standards of equality and fairness in admissions and fees.
4. Whether a statutory scheme permitting management-filled “payment seats” not strictly tied to merit violates equality and related constitutional constraints.
5. What regulatory framework for admissions and fees in private unaided professional colleges is constitutionally permissible, including limits on capitation and profiteering.

## Decision

- The Court held that the right to education is implicit in the right to life but is enforceable as a right to free education only up to age 14; education beyond that is conditioned by the State’s economic capacity and development.
- The Court rejected an absolute claim that private parties have an unrestricted right to establish and operate professional colleges as a profit-making commercial activity.
- The Court held that private unaided recognized/affiliated professional institutions may charge fees higher than government institutions, but only within a regulatory ceiling and without commercialization or capitation.
- The Court held that private institutions obtaining recognition/affiliation (and especially those receiving aid) are subject to government regulation and must act fairly and consistently with equality norms in admissions and fee practices.
- The Court found the impugned “payment seat” approach incompatible with constitutional requirements of fairness and merit and prescribed an admissions-and-fees scheme requiring merit-based selection, regulated fee categories, and prohibition of capitation.

## Legal Principles

- The right to life includes a right to education: free education is constitutionally required up to age 14; beyond that, the obligation is qualified by the State’s capacity and development.
- Directive principles inform the content of the right to life in identifying the enforceable scope of education-related entitlements.
- Education is not a trade or business for profit; the State may impose reasonable restrictions on private educational activity to prevent exploitation and maintain standards.
- Recognized/affiliated (and aided) private educational institutions operate within the public education system and can be required to follow equality-based, merit-centered admissions and regulated fee structures.
- Charging higher fees in private professional education may be permitted only under ceilings and safeguards that prevent capitation and commercialization, supported by state oversight mechanisms.

## Conclusion

The Court constitutionalized a limited, enforceable right to free education up to age 14 while affirming robust state authority to regulate private professional colleges’ admissions and fees to ensure merit, fairness, and prohibition of capitation and profiteering.


Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 594 (India 1993)