A Critical Analysis Of The Selective Enforcement Of DPSPs Through Right To Education
- IJLLR Journal
- Dec 23, 2025
- 2 min read
Arihara Chinnayan Ravichandran, B.A.LL.B.(Hons), Tamil Nadu National Law University
ABSTRACT
What is unique about the Constitution of India is the dynamism between justiciable Fundamental Rights (Part III) and non-justiciable Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP). It has been noted in this paper that instead of being enforced directly, transformation of Right to Education (RTE) as a DPSP to a fundamental right, instead, provided a framework of selective enforcement. This is analysed by the paper by noting the Constituent Assembly Debates which begin with the pragmatic move by the framers to place under Article 45 education as a time-limited aspiration because of economic limitations.
To which would extend the so-called judicial alchemy, which elevated education as a set right starting with anything like a broad interpretation in Mohini Jain and onwards to a harmonious one at Unni Krishnan which constrained the role of the state to those children who had not yet attained the age of fourteen. This judicial activism led to the legislature responding to provide to the 86th Amendment (Article 21A) and the RTE Act, 2009.
Much of the discussion in the analysis concerns the constitutional tension between welfare interests of the state and the independence of private institutions. It is argued in the paper that the Supreme Court established an implicit hierarchy of rights in Society for Un-aided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India. It held that the 25% quota was a reasonable restriction on non-minority schools in the national interest. However, it was an unacceptable violation of the unique right of autonomy granted to unaided minority schools under Article 30. The paper ends with the statement that this selective enforcement is not an exception, but, rather, the product of a dialogic model of constitutionalism where socio-economic rights are traded off against established private rights; it therefore leads to a haphazard and winding implementation process.
