ACCESS TO JUSTICE TOWARDS THE CREATION OF INCLUSIVE SOCIAL ORDER Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantees fundamental freedom to all citizens “to carry on any occupation, trade or business”. This challenge was negated by the Supreme Court by holding that Article 19(1)(g) read with 19(6) of the Constitution permits the State to impose such a condition as admitting certain percentage of students belonging to weaker sections of the society. Such a condition is absolutely reasonable, excepting in the case of minority educational institutions.80 Having reached thus far, we need to ask and ponder over the plain pragmatic question: Have we succeeded in providing free and compulsory education to all children till today, notwithstanding the transformation of the provision of education from non-enforceable directive to enforceable fundamental right? Or, to put it more candidly: Has it ceased to be the responsibility of the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children? Isn’t the concept of free and compulsory education being increasingly eroded, subsumed, or swept away by education as a tradable commodity? Hasn’t education become perhaps one of the most lucrative money-minting commercial enterprises instead of a philanthropic activity of the State? The State has denied all such allegations, albeit gently. The constitutional head of the State of Haryana, for instance, while addressing the Manthan School Leadership Summit-2021 organised by the National Independent Schools Alliance (NISA) in Ambala Cantonment has stated that “health and education sectors are not the source of money, but two important pillars of human resource development, which could neither be compromised nor traded”.81 80 81 See generally, the author’s article, “The Right of Children to free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009: A juridical critique of its constitutional perspective,” Journal of the Indian Law Institute, Vol. 55:1 (2013), 21- 44, arguing, inter alia, that the three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court had excluded minority educational institutions from the reach of children belonging to poorer section of society seemingly more on the authority of the 11-Judge bench decision in T.M.A. Pai Foundation case (2002), rather than on the authority of reason! In this respect, the author has pleaded that by virtue of seeking State recognition, even the so-called unaided minority educational institutions come within the ambit of State power to regulate the admission process. See the author’s critique of 11-Judge bench judgement of the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation case, Judgement Today 2002 (9) SC 25, published as, “Minorities’ Rights to Run Educational Institutions: T.M.A. Pai Foundation in Perspective,” Journal of the Indian Law Institute. Vol. 45, No. 2 (2003), 200-238. This case dealt with the spurt of privately managed educational institutions imparting professional education, especially in such fields as medicine, dentistry and engineering. In the state of Karnataka alone, for instance, out of 84 educational institutions, 67 were privately managed charging hefty fees, and only 17 were managed by the Government! On the basis of my analysis, I have submitted that the majority court decision by a deeply divided Court 6:5, requires reconsideration. See, The Tribune, November 28, 2021: “Governor: No compromise on education, health.” 19