right to education legal essay

Essay On Right To Education

500 words essay on right to education.

Education enables individuals to put their potentials to optimal use. Moreover, it makes them a thinker and correct decision-maker. This is possible because of getting access to knowledge from the external world. Thus, education opens new windows to the outside world. Through an essay on right to education , we will discuss its importance and benefits.

Importance of Right to Education

Education is an essential condition to free individual development. It is what can make a person fit for the tasks of citizenship. Moreover, when you are not educated, you will hardly understand politics or stay vigilant about national interests.

Thus, participation in state affairs is going to be negligible only. In other words, a citizen like that will be no less than a slave to others. This will prevent them from rising in the stature of their personality. Usually, others will make decisions for that person.

Consequently, it will be a failure of democracy. The right to education is a civil right that safeguards individuals from all this. While it does not guarantee an identical intellectual training of everyone nonetheless, it does provide provisions for that type of education.

Without the right to education, people won’t be able to get live their life as they wish to, especially those who cannot afford it. It ensures that everyone gets an equal right to education so that we all can develop as a society without leaving anyone section out.

Thus, the right to education can be life-changing for people who wish to change their lives and break the old-age cycle. It helps individuals to get equal access to education like any other citizen without any discrimination.

Benefits of Right to Education

There are many benefits which the right to education provides us with. Firstly, it has brought many changes in society in terms of ease of education. Further, it ensures a consistent fee structure for all.

In other words, schools cannot make any sudden hikes in fees so people don’t suffer from it. After that, it also ensures that everybody gets an education easily by making it available to everyone.

A lot of underprivileged students cannot find ample resources despite having talent. Thus, it ensures that they can rightfully pursue their education. Consequently, it increases the literacy rate of a nation.

This is without a doubt a great advantage for any country. Moreover, it removes any kind of discrimination especially for people belonging to different economic backgrounds. Similarly, it applies to disabled people as well.

Most importantly, it ensures that schools offer seats to those who cannot afford to pay their fees. Thus, it helps the underprivileged people to partake in it thereby making education reach all sectors of society.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Conclusion of Essay on Right to Education

All in all, every citizen must get a chance to get access to education which will enable them to judge, weigh and make decisions for themselves. It is a life-changer for many people all over the world especially those belonging to the underprivileged sector to outshine.

FAQ of Essay on Right to Education

Question 1: Why is education important for child development?

Answer 1: Education offers children to learn with diversity. Thus, children will develop healthy social interaction by blending in with other kids belonging to different cultures and backgrounds. Moreover, it can boost their self-esteem and self-confidence.

Question 2: Why is the right to education important?

Answer 2: The right to education is essential as it is a human right and indispensable for the exercise of other human rights. Quality education strives to guarantee the development of a fully-rounded human being. Similarly, it is one of the most powerful tools which can lift socially excluded children and adults out of poverty.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

5 Must-Read Essays on the Right to Education

When the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, Article 26 asserted that all people have the right to education. That right appears in other documents such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) and in treaties about women and girls, refugees, migrants, and others. Many constitutions around the world also list education as a right. However, the right to education isn’t always upheld. To understand more about education as a human right, and where and why it’s often not a reality, here are five must-read essays:

“ Girls Can Change The World – But We Have To Invest In Them First ” – Malala Yousafzai

Writing for Time Magazine in 2018, Malala Yousafzai’s essay details the importance of educating girls. It’s short, but like all of Malala’s writing, it’s impactful. She opens with the sobering statistic that 130 million girls are not in school. Despite promises at the United Nations to guarantee that every girl will get 12 years of education by 2030, donor countries either halted or decreased their giving for education. Malala expresses her discouragement, but remains hopeful, drawing attention to the Malala Fund and impact of local activists and educators.

The youngest Nobel Prize laureate, Malala is a Pakistani human rights activist, with a special focus on female education. In 2012, the Taliban attempted to assassinate her since she was already a well-known activist, but she survived. The attack and recovery made her a household name, and she won the Nobel Prize two years later. She is a writer and current student at Oxford University.

“ Is Education a Fundamental Right? ” – Jill Lepore

A relatively-unknown Supreme Court Case from 1982, Plyler v. Doe addressed questions about education, immigration, and if schooling is a human right. In her essay, Jill Lepore writes that this case could become much better known as various lawsuits filed on behalf of immigrant children enter the court system. These are the children who are separated from their parents at the border and deprived of education.  Using Plyler v. Doe as a guide along with the other cases both past and present, Lepore explores the issue of education as a fundamental right in the United States.

This essay appeared in the print edition of The New Yorker in September 2018 under the headline “Back to the Blackboard.” Jill Lepore is a professor of history at Harvard University and a staff writer for the New Yorker. Publications include the book These Truths: A History of the United States and This America: The Case for the Nation.

“ How to Improve Access to Education Around the World ” – Jan Lee

In this piece on the Triple Pundit platform, Lee takes a look at how Pearson, an education publishing and assessment service company based in the UK, is making an impact on education access around the world. In the United States, Pearson works on finding solutions for the social and economic problems that lead to low high-school graduation rates. Pearson also invests in low-cost private education around the world. The essay highlights how access to education can be improved through new educational technology for students with disabilities and outreach to underserved communities. Since this article was sponsored by Pearson, it doesn’t look at what other companies or organizations are doing, but it provides a good model for the kinds of actions that can help.

Jan Lee is an award-winning editorial writer and former news editor, whose work can be found Triple Pundit, JustMeans, and her blog The Multicultural Jew. On Triple Pundit, she’s written stories on a variety of topics, such as Leadership & Transparency, Data & Technology, and Energy & Environment.

“ Higher Education Is A Human Right ” – Heidi Gilchrist

It’s established that primary education is a human right, but what about higher education? In her essay, Heidi Gilchrist argues that it is. Looking specifically at the United States, her reason is that in order to access the American dream- which she calls the “ideal it [the country] was founded on” – people need higher education. As global society starts to depend more on technology and other complex systems, more and more jobs will require advanced degrees. In order to truly succeed and achieve their dreams, people will need higher education. Gilchrist offers another perspective on the issue, as well, writing that countries need people with advanced degrees to protect national security. Having higher education remain a luxury means only the wealthy can access it, and that harms a society in every regard.

Heidi Gilchrist is a Lecturer-in-Law at Columbia Law School and an Assistant Professor of Legal Writing at Brooklyn Law. In her previous career, she served as a national security analyst in the federal government, and as a laison to the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force in New York City. She writes on national security and how it converges with human rights law and civil rights.

“ Public schools for private gain: The declining American commitment to serving the public good ” – David F. Larabee

In an essay that is both a history lesson and critical look at the pursuit of education as a “private benefit,” Larabee argues that this new view of schooling is dangerous. While in the past, school had been seen as a community where students of all backgrounds and finances mingle and receive opportunities, it’s morphing into just another capitalist arena. Wealthy parents are choosing private schools and focusing their resources there, while public schools and students struggle. School is becoming “a means of private advancement,” Larabee says, instead of a source of public good. This has serious long-term consequences.

David Larabee is a Lee L. Jacks Professor of Education, emeritus, at the Standard University Graduate School of Education. He describes himself as a “sociologically oriented historian of education.” He is also an author, most recently of 2017’s A Perfect Mess: The Unlikely Ascendancy of American Higher Education.

You may also like

Apply Now for the United Nations The Hague Immersion Programme

The UN Immersion Programme Is Open for Applications!

The UN Young Leaders Online Training Programme is Open for Applications!

Apply now: Essex Human Rights Summer School (Fully Online)

17 International Organizations Offering Early-Career Opportunities

Gender Rights Jobs: Our Short Guide

Free MOOC on Children’s Right to Education in Armed Conflict

9 Online Courses on Leading Diverse Teams

40 Top-Rated Social Issues Courses to Study in 2024

10 Courses to Prepare for Your Human Rights Job

Register now: Global Institute of Human Rights Certificate Program

NGO Jobs: Our Short Guide

About the author, human rights careers.

Human Rights Careers (HRC) provides information about online courses, jobs, paid internships, masters degrees, scholarships and other opportunities in the human rights sector and related areas.

What you need to know about the right to education

Why is it important to have the right to education formally enshrined in law and other instruments   .

Around 244 million children and youth are deprived of education worldwide as a result of social, economic and cultural factors. 98 million of whom are in Sub-Saharan Africa, the region with the highest out-of-school population. Yet only 70 per cent of the world’s countries legally guarantee 9 years or more of compulsory education. And an estimated 771 million young people and adults lack basic literacy skills, of which two thirds are women

Education is an empowering right in itself and one of the most powerful tools by which economically and socially marginalized children and adults can lift themselves out of poverty and participate fully in society. To unleash the full transformational power of education and meet international markers of progress such as those of the Sustainable Development Agenda, everyone must have access to it. Binding countries to certain standards by way of law is one way of ensuring access to quality education is widened. Legal guarantees and protection of the right to education are not time-bound (unlike policies and plans). They also ensure that  judicial mechanisms  (such as courts and tribunals) can determine whether human rights obligations are respected, impose sanctions for violations and transgressions, and ensure that appropriate action is taken.

What are the key legal documents and instruments?  

Education as a fundamental human right is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and many other international human rights instruments . UNESCO’s foremost standard-setting instrument is the Convention against discrimination in education  which dates from 1960 and has so far been ratified by 107 States. It is the first international instrument which covers the right to education extensively and has a binding force in international law. The Convention also acts as a cornerstone of the Education 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goal 4 for education adopted by the international community. SDG 4 is rights-based and seeks to ensure the full enjoyment of the right to education as fundamental to achieving sustainable development.  

How does UNESCO work to ensure the right to education?  

Through its programme on the right to education, UNESCO develops, monitors and promotes education norms and standards in relation to the right to education to advance the aims of the Education 2030 Agenda. It provides guidance, technical advice and assistance  to Member States in reviewing or developing their own legal and policy frameworks, and builds capacities, partnerships and awareness on key challenges especially in light of the  evolving education context .  

It also supports and monitors States in their application of legal instruments, conventions and recommendations through periodic consultations , its online Observatory on the right to education and the interactive tool, Her Atlas, which shows where in the world and to what extent women and girls have their educational rights protected by law. As part of the monitoring, UNESCO also works closely with the UN system and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.   

In addition, it advocates for and promotes the right to education through communication actions  as well as research and studies on specific components of this right such as on pre-primary education, higher education , and digital learning .  

UNESCO mobilises, develops and fosters global partnerships to raise awareness on key issues such as the right to education of climate-displaced persons , non-state actors in education  and the right to education of vulnerable groups .  

Who does UNESCO partner with to ensure the right to education?

UNESCO has the lead role and responsibility in the field of the right to education in the United Nations system and cooperates with the following United Nations human rights bodies in monitoring the implementation of treaties and conventions relating to that right:

• Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
• UN Human Rights Committees
• Universal Periodic Review
• UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education
• International Labour Organization

UNESCO also acknowledges the importance of non-governmental organizations (NGOS), associations and the intellectual community in international cooperation and has built a network with organizations in its fields of competence including:

• The Right to Education Initiative  promotes mobilization and accountability on the right to education and builds bridges between human rights, development and education.
• The International Organization for the Right to Education and Freedom of Education, OIDEL  - a non-profit NGO promoting and creating novel educational models and policies and financing options for schools.  

More on UNESCO's partners for the right to education .

Related items

• Right to education

The right to education

Introducing articles 28 and 29.

Home > The Rights Respecting Schools Award > The Right to Education

The Right to an Education is one of the most important principles in becoming a Rights Respecting School.

Education is a key social and cultural right and plays an important role in reducing poverty and child labour. Furthermore, education promotes democracy, peace, tolerance, development and economic growth. There are a number of articles in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child  that focus on a child’s right to education.

Articles 28 and 29 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child

Articles 28 and 29 focus on a child’s right to an education and on the quality and content of education.  Article 28 says that “State Parties recognise the right of children to education” and “should take all appropriate measures to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child’s human dignity.” Article 29 focuses on the aims of education and says that governments agree that “the education of the child shall be directed to:

• The development of the child’s personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential.
• The development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.
• The development of respect for the child’s parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate and for civilisations different from his or her own.
• The preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin.
• The development of respect for the natural environment.

The 1990 World Declaration on Education for All  described education as consisting of essential learning tools such as literacy, numeracy and problem solving combined with knowledge, skills, values and attitudes required by human beings to survive, develop potential, to improve the quality of their lives, to make informed decisions and to continue learning.

General Comment on the aims of education

In 2001, the  Committee on the Rights of the Child , the body of experts that monitors the implementation of the Convention, published a paper (called a General Comment) that explained and elaborated on the right to education.

The General Comment 1 on the aims of education provides a very clear overview of what the right to education means in practice. It said that:

• Education must be child-centred and empowering. This applies to the curriculum as well as the educational processes, the pedagogical methods and the environment where education takes place.
• Education must be provided in a way that respects the inherent dignity of the child and enables the child to express his or her views in accordance with article 12 (1) and to participate in school life.
• Education must respect the strict limits on discipline reflected in article 28 and promote non-violence in school.
• Education must include not only literacy and numeracy but also life skills such as the ability to make well-balanced decisions; to resolve conflicts in a non‑violent manner; and to develop a healthy lifestyle, good social relationships and responsibility, critical thinking, creative talents, and other abilities which give children the tools needed to pursue their options in life.

It’s important to remember that the  Convention must be seen as a whole  and so articles 28 and 29 should not be looked at or considered in isolation. Particular regard should be paid to the General Principles and other closely related articles for example: article 16 : protection of privacy, article 24 health (including health education), article 31 rest, leisure, play, recreation and culture.

Steps to the award

Getting Started

About the award

Introducing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

The Compromised Right to Education?

Joshua e. weishart *.

• Share on Twitter
• Share on Facebook
• Download the PDF

Introduction

Indiana Jones’s quest to discover the holy grail in The Last Crusade leads him to a hidden grotto lined with chalices, a Nazi, and a medieval knight. The Nazi sips from an ornate, gold chalice accented with jewels, convinced he has chosen the true grail. He is mistaken and pays for it with his life, disintegrating into a heap of ash. Jones, the archaeologist, selects a humble, dusty goblet, surely the cup of a first-century carpenter. The knight confirms that Jones has “chosen wisely,” but warns the grail cannot be taken far from the vault, for “that is the boundary and the price of immortality.” 1 Open this footnote Close this footnote 1 Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (Paramount Pictures 1989). … Open this footnote Close Oddly enough, that memorable scene replayed in my mind as I read Derek Black’s absorbing article, The Constitutional Compromise to Guarantee Education . 2 Open this footnote Close this footnote 2 Derek W. Black, The Constitutional Compromise to Guarantee Education , 70 Stan. L. Rev . 735 (2018). … Open this footnote Close

Black takes us on a quest to discover another elusive grail—a federal right to education—which has captured the imagination of the likes of Erwin Chemerinsky and Cass Sunstein, among scores of other scholars. 3 Open this footnote Close this footnote 3 See id. at 756 n.99 (citing, inter alia , Erwin Chemerinsky, The Deconstitutionalization of Education , 36 Loy. U. Chi. L.J . 111, 123 (2004)); id. at 757-61; see also Cass R. Sunstein, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More Than Ever 99-100 (2004). … Open this footnote Close Their ornate legal theories accent the right with laudatory dicta, evolving precedent, dynamic constructs of substantive due process, or refurbished equal protection doctrine, all of which Black eschews. The Supreme Court swiftly dispatched the latter equality-based theory to the ash heap of misguided precedents. 4 Open this footnote Close this footnote 4 See Black, supra note 2, at 755-56 (discussing San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973)). … Open this footnote Close And Black worries that educational adequacy- or liberty-based theories would meet the same fate. 5 Open this footnote Close this footnote 5 See id. at 756-59, 764. … Open this footnote Close So, he dusts off the pages of the congressional record circa 1866 and posits a more humble origin of the right, arising from the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically its Citizenship Clause. 6 Open this footnote Close this footnote 6 U.S. Const . amend. XIV, § 1 (“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”). … Open this footnote Close What emerges from this “originalist theory” is a compromise: education as a federal right of state citizenship. 7 Open this footnote Close this footnote 7 See Black, supra note 2, at 746-47. … Open this footnote Close That right—entailing a federal “‘process-based’ oversight” of a state guarantee—is “narrowly constrained by historical facts” and the boundary of federalism, Black admits, but such is the price for the immortality of his theory that “avoids the political and judicial skepticism other theories occasion.” 8 Open this footnote Close this footnote 8 Id. at 747-48. … Open this footnote Close

Behind his theory’s plainly historical façade is a “structural originalism” that frames the original intent and understanding of the terms of ratification around the placement of a federal right to education in state constitutions. 9 Open this footnote Close this footnote 9 Cf. Zephyr Teachout, The Anti-Corruption Principle , 94 Cornell L. Rev. 341, 401 (2009) (explaining that, when courts invoke “structural originalism,” the “structural arguments . . . have all been deeply grounded in and intertwined with history, and history has typically played the lead role in the structural interpretations”). … Open this footnote Close Though nuanced, Black’s argument here is fairly straightforward: If Congress intended to guarantee education as a federal right of state citizenship through the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, then it would have conditioned the readmission of Southern states on rewriting their state constitutions to mandate the provision of education to all children. In fact, the Southern states eventually ratified the Fourteenth Amendment and approved state constitutions with education clauses affirmatively obligating them to provide education to all children. 10 Open this footnote Close this footnote 10 See Black, supra note 2, at 788-89, 792-93. … Open this footnote Close Therefore, Congress intended to guarantee education as a federal right of state citizenship through the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.

There is a seductive force to this revisionist history, but as with any conditional argument of this sort, the truth of its premises does not ensure the truth of its conclusion.

Start with the first premise, that Congress conditioned Southern states’ readmission on rewriting their state constitutions to mandate the provision of education to all their citizens. The Reconstruction Acts of 1867 and 1868 included no such condition. An amendment to include it “failed by the narrowest margin, by a vote of 20 to 20.” 11 Open this footnote Close this footnote 11 Id. at 779. … Open this footnote Close Still, Black contends that the condition was made implicit by a belief among some senators that an educated citizenry was indispensable to preserving Article IV’s guarantee of a republican form of government—a form that the Reconstruction Acts required Southern states’ constitutions to conform to as a condition for their readmission. What’s more, Black marshals evidence from Southern state constitutional conventions that delegates well understood that education was necessary to cultivate citizenship and maintain a republican form of government.

And here is the kicker: When three holdouts, Virginia, Mississippi, and Texas, had yet to rewrite their state constitutions for readmission, Congress made the once-implicit condition explicit in statutes requiring these states to affirm that they would never amend their constitutions “to deprive any citizen or class of citizens of the United States of the school rights and privileges secured by the [state] constitution.” 12 Open this footnote Close this footnote 12 Id. at 783 (quoting Act of Jan. 26, 1870, ch. 10, 16 Stat. 62, 63; Act of Feb. 23, 1870, ch. 19, 16 Stat. 67, 68; and Act of Mar. 30, 1870, ch. 39, 16 Stat. 80, 81). … Open this footnote Close All three joined the other Southern states in adopting education clauses affirmatively obligating them to provide education to all children—the second, manifestly true premise of Black’s argument.

So then, if both premises are true, how can the conclusion possibly be false? Because the legislative history and state action are susceptible to another plausible inference that situates education as a right of both state and national citizenship. Otherwise, if education is solely a guarantee of state citizenship, I question whether its recognition as a “process-based” federal right risks the unintended consequence of devaluing the more substantive state right, rendering the right to education, in total, compromised.

I. A Federal Right of State and National Citizenship?

That Congress intended to guarantee education as a federal right of state citizenship through the Fourteenth Amendment is questionable because other facts suggest that Congress intended such a right to secure national citizenship.

Then-professor Goodwin Liu reached that very conclusion after also mining the nineteenth century congressional record, before and after ratification. Liu insisted a fair reading of the legislative history reveals that Congress vested itself with “broad authority to legislate directly to secure substantive rights of national citizenship.” 13 Open this footnote Close this footnote 13 Goodwin Liu, Education, Equality, and National Citizenship , 116 Yale L. J . 330, 363 (2006). … Open this footnote Close Among those substantive rights was education, Liu claimed, as evident from congressional debates in the decades that followed Reconstruction. “Between 1870 and 1890, members of Congress repeatedly sought to effectuate the guarantee of national citizenship through ambitious efforts to provide funding, leadership, and support for public education.” 14 Open this footnote Close this footnote 14 Id. at 369. … Open this footnote Close Although that education legislation failed to pass, despite broad bipartisan support in some instances, the congressional record is replete with references to universal education being a responsibility of the federal government to secure national citizenship. 15 Open this footnote Close this footnote 15 See id. at 375-95. … Open this footnote Close

Black cautions that Liu’s “broad conception of national citizenship” is “too bold” given the current legal and political landscape. 16 Open this footnote Close this footnote 16 Black, supra note 2, at 760 & n.122. … Open this footnote Close “It implicates the longstanding judicial reticence toward affirmative constitutional rights, implicates the doctrinal complexities that accompany the Privileges or Immunities Clause, and upsets the entire state-federal relationship with education.” 17 Open this footnote Close this footnote 17 Id. at 760 (citations omitted). … Open this footnote Close Although “none of these hurdles is fatal,” overcoming them would take a seismic doctrinal shift creating “extensive new federal power over education.” 18 Open this footnote Close this footnote 18 Id. … Open this footnote Close Significantly, however, Black does not take issue with Liu’s historical analysis nor does he take the opportunity to integrate it with his own. Committed as Black is to the theory that a compromise was forged over state citizenship, we cannot expect him to square his claims about the pre-ratification and ratification history with Liu’s claims about the pre- and post-ratification history. 19 Open this footnote Close this footnote 19 See id. at 745 (contending ratification “secured a sort of constitutional compromise” in “situating education within state citizenship—as opposed to national citizenship”). … Open this footnote Close So, assuming we have two credible interpretations of the relevant history, which are we to believe?

That question exposes the problem with vintage Robert Bork originalism. Trying to discern the collective, original intent of a diverse group of lawmakers who may have had an “indeterminate intent” or “no intent” whatsoever 20 Open this footnote Close this footnote 20 See Paul Brest, The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding , 60 B.U. L. Rev . 204, 214 (1980). … Open this footnote Close based on fragmented, contradictory records more than a century later is a dubious venture. Take, for example, Congress’s implicit condition for Southern states’ readmission. Black adduces it from ideals of citizenship and a republican form of government he attributes to a handful of senators and an unspecified group of other senators, neither of whom were sufficient in number to make that condition explicit in the first place. All of this, in turn, is based on selected statements made in response to various pieces of legislation before the Senate, only one of the two chambers of Congress.

In fairness, neither Black nor Liu advocates for old school originalism. 21 Open this footnote Close this footnote 21 See Black, supra note 2, at 747, 772, 837 (characterizing his “citizenship-based theory of education” as “originalist” and emphasizing “the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment,” but noting his theory is not “the only plausible theory” and that other “theories grounded in substantive due process, equal protection, privileges and immunities, or a republication form of government” could be supported by the relevant history); Liu, supra note 13, at 370 (“[M]y point is not to reveal a singular ‘original understanding’ of the Citizenship Clause (there likely was none), but rather to highlight a sustained and coherent constitutional perspective urged by legislators as an alternative to the judicially elaborated constitutional order of Slaughter-House and the Civil Rights Cases .”). … Open this footnote Close Although Black emphasizes Congress’s original intent , his argument seems to rely more on the original understanding of citizenship and a republican form of government shared by members of Congress and state convention delegates. Bork took a similar approach in later modifying his originalist theory: “Secret reservations or intentions count for nothing. All that counts is how the words used in the Constitution would have been understood at the time [as] manifested in the words used and in secondary materials, such as debates at the conventions, public discussion, [etc.]” 22 Open this footnote Close this footnote 22 Robert H. Bork, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law 144 (1990) (emphasis added). … Open this footnote Close Yet this move merely compounds the interpretative difficulties of original intent originalism, attempting to discern the original understanding “not of one group of Framers, but of many groupings of persons meeting in a number of ratifying conventions.” 23 Open this footnote Close this footnote 23 Ronald Turner, On Brown v. Board of Education and Discretionary Originalism , 2015 Utah L. Rev. 1143, 1154. … Open this footnote Close

To typecast Black’s argument as hinging on original understanding originalism, however, is to miss the nuance of his citizenship theory. At bottom, his argument that the federal right to education guarantees state (as opposed to national) citizenship is structural. Black argues the right “fits more accurately in state citizenship because that is exactly where Congress and the states placed it”—in state constitutions. 24 Open this footnote Close this footnote 24 Black, supra note 2, at 767. … Open this footnote Close We should therefore understand his claims about original intent and understanding in the context of the original action taken by the Southern states and Congress to advance education for citizenship while preserving federalism. 25 Open this footnote Close this footnote 25 Cf. Michael D. Ramsey, Beyond the Text: Justice Scalia’s Originalism in Practice , 92 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1945, 1947-52 (2017) (contending that adherence to structural imperatives implied from constitutional design, e.g., federalism, even when “not exclusively text-based,” is consistent with Justice Scalia’s strand of originalist methodology). … Open this footnote Close

To be sure, education was a right of state citizenship appearing in a majority of state constitutions when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868. Thirty of the thirty-seven states in 1868 required their legislatures to establish a system of public schools, according to originalists Steven Calabresi and Michael Perl. 26 Open this footnote Close this footnote 26 Steven G. Calabresi & Michael W. Perl, Originalism and Brown v. Board of Education, 2014  Mich. St. L. Rev . 429, 450-51. … Open this footnote Close They contend that number satisfies the Article V threshold to amend the Constitution, and thus, the right to education “is a strong candidate to be a Fourteenth Amendment fundamental right,” one “deeply rooted in American history and tradition.” 27 Open this footnote Close this footnote 27 Id. at 443, 560-61. … Open this footnote Close Locating the right explicitly in state constitutions therefore would not be determinative of its scope provided it otherwise emanates implicitly from “the Fourteenth Amendment [which] makes all of us both national citizens and citizens of the state wherein we reside.” 28 Open this footnote Close this footnote 28 See id. at 517. … Open this footnote Close

Southern states’ collective actions to include education clauses likewise could be viewed as an effort to constitutionalize an emerging norm of national citizenship. 29 Open this footnote Close this footnote 29 See Black, supra note 2, at 744 n.38 (“[A]ffirmative education mandates in [state] constitutions . . . creat[ed] a new national norm.”). … Open this footnote Close Although Black asserts that “no Southern state constitution affirmatively obligated the state to deliver education” before the Civil War, 30 Open this footnote Close this footnote 30 Id. at 788. … Open this footnote Close that is a matter of interpretation. Louisiana’s 1845 constitution included obligatory language. 31 Open this footnote Close this footnote 31 La. Const. of 1845, tit. VII, art. 134 (“The Legislature shall establish free Public Schools throughout the State, and shall provide means for their support by taxation on property or otherwise.”). … Open this footnote Close Arguably so did North Carolina’s 1776 constitution 32 Open this footnote Close this footnote 32 N.C. Const. of 1776, art. XLI (“That a school or schools shall be established by the Legislature, for the convenient instruction of youth . . . .”). … Open this footnote Close and Georgia’s 1777 constitution. 33 Open this footnote Close this footnote 33 Ga. Const. of 1777, art. LIV (“Schools shall be erected in each county, and supported at the general expense of the State, as the legislature shall hereafter point out.”). … Open this footnote Close The point being that “education for citizenship” had been trending steadily decades before ratification, forming a consensus among states who frequently borrowed each other’s education clause language. Black makes this point forcefully himself: “The new and revised state constitutions of the 1860s drastically reshaped the national consensus regarding education.” 34 Open this footnote Close this footnote 34 Black, supra note 2, at 790-91. … Open this footnote Close

Hence, Black’s structural originalist argument based on Southern state constitutions need not exclude recognition of education as a right of both state and national citizenship. Nor should Congress’s original action exclude that plausible construction. The one unmistakable action Congress took—not dependent on a theory of the original understanding of “citizenship” or a “republican form of government”—was to enact statutes requiring Virginia, Mississippi, and Texas to affirm that they would never amend their constitutions “to deprive any citizen or class of citizens of the United States of the school rights and privileges secured by the [state constitution].” 35 Open this footnote Close this footnote 35 Act of Jan. 26, 1870, ch. 10, 16 Stat. 62, 63 (Virginia); Act of Feb. 23, 1870, ch. 19, 16 Stat. 67, 68 (Mississippi); Act of Mar. 30, 1870, ch. 39, 16 Stat. 80, 81 (Texas). … Open this footnote Close If, as Black contends, this was Congress’s way of making the once-implicit condition for readmission explicit, then it is telling that Congress chose to characterize “the school rights and privileges secured by [the state] constitution” as being held by “citizens of the United States .” 36 Open this footnote Close this footnote 36 See supra note 35. … Open this footnote Close

II. A Federal Right that Devalues State Education Rights?

Why should it matter whether a federal right to education is a guarantee of national as well as state citizenship, so long as it is a guarantee of citizenship nonetheless? In a word, federalism.

Black sees it as a net positive for his constitutional compromise that a federal right of state citizenship “fits naturally with prevailing federalism concepts.” 37 Open this footnote Close this footnote 37 Black, supra note 2, at 796. … Open this footnote Close Still, he concedes it would mean that federal courts can police the procedural boundaries of only the state guarantee “without mandating any specific substantive policy” and “without wading into a substantive assessment of the quality or adequacy of education.” 38 Open this footnote Close this footnote 38 Id. at 803-04, 808-09, 816. … Open this footnote Close Black identifies at least three “procedural” areas for federal courts to police: (1) unstable funding mechanisms, (2) educational disadvantages targeted to certain classes or groups, and (3) systemic disadvantages in educational opportunity across time. 39 Open this footnote Close this footnote 39 Id. at 816. … Open this footnote Close Although potentially fertile ground for federal private rights of action, an unintended consequence may be that this federal, procedural, negative right to education would eventually supplant state, substantive, positive rights to education.

In a majority of jurisdictions, state constitutional rights to education already provide a basis for challenging the procedural areas Black identifies and the substantive educational inequities and inadequacies that would otherwise not be actionable under the federal right Black envisions. 40 Open this footnote Close this footnote 40 See generally Joshua E. Weishart, Equal Liberty in Proportion , 59 Wm. & Mary L. Rev . 215, 231-41 (2017) (summarizing history of state constitutional education rights litigation as yielding “a claim for equal liberty”). … Open this footnote Close The trouble with the state right is that too many state high courts are now reluctant to enforce that right, after decades of school finance litigation: Many encounter legislative resistance to their orders and worry that judicial remedies breach state separation of powers principles. 41 Open this footnote Close this footnote 41 See id. at 268-70. … Open this footnote Close Black proposes that state courts overcome this self-inflicted crisis of confidence through proactive interventions. 42 Open this footnote Close this footnote 42 See Derek W. Black, Averting Educational Crisis: Funding Cuts, Teacher Shortages, and the Dwindling Commitment to Public Education , 94 Wash. U. L. Rev . 423, 468 (2016). … Open this footnote Close But perhaps anticipating that state courts will continue to struggle regardless, he thinks a process-based federal right to education would at least “move litigation into a federal venue in which states are less able to resist.” 43 Open this footnote Close this footnote 43 Black, supra note 2, at 831 & n.495. … Open this footnote Close

If so, a surge in litigation under a newly-recognized federal right seems likely to deter enforcement of the state right. Legislators would probably discount the political costs of resisting state court orders, figuring they can live to fight another day in federal court. If unsuccessful in that forum, legislators could reengage their defiance, albeit in more subtle, though possibly equally effective, ways. More problematic, the restricted scope of a negative, procedural federal right to education would disempower federal courts of authority to compel any specific state action or substantive education policy. We might thus replay the history of desegregation litigation, only this time with relatively anemic federal courts. Meanwhile, a federal right to education may be just the excuse reluctant and beleaguered state judges need to stay their hands, on the prevailing view that state courts are bound to treat federal law as supreme.

Any resulting devaluation of the state right might be mitigated if a federal “citizenship-based right to education” triggered Congress’s power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. 44 Open this footnote Close this footnote 44 Id. at 832. … Open this footnote Close Black suggests that paradigm shift alone “could transform educational opportunity in a way that case-by-case litigation never could.” 45 Open this footnote Close this footnote 45 Id. … Open this footnote Close But it is difficult to see how Congress’s Section 5 remedial power—which the Supreme Court has tightly cabined to protect federalism values—could justify uniform legislation when the underlying guarantee is one of state, not national, citizenship.

Would then the constitutional compromise to guarantee education leave us with a compromised right to education? And, if the constitutional compromise really is compelled by the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification 150 years ago, are we better off leaving that history in the past? The Court in Brown v. Board of Education seemed to think so: “In approaching this problem [of educational inequality], we cannot turn the clock back to 1868 when the Amendment was adopted . . . . We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation.” 46 Open this footnote Close this footnote 46 Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483, 492-93 (1954). … Open this footnote Close

Black’s affirmative constitutional theory might be the type of originalist thinking needed to convince a court to recognize a federal right to education. I hope that court will also be pragmatic, appreciating that a federal right to education should no more be a relic of 1868 than a dogma of 2018. Rather than rely on a single, grand constitutional theory, a court should effectuate a collection of theories—based on the text, the history, first principles, doctrine from a half-century of federal and state court precedent, and, yes, even social science—all of which invariably lead to the same conclusion: An equitable and adequate education is essential to equal citizenship. If a court reaches that conclusion on its way to recognizing a federal right to education, it will be due in part to the pathbreaking work of scholars like Derek Black. And, just as Indiana Jones’s Last Crusade was not his last, The Constitutional Compromise will not be Black’s final word on this subject . 47 Open this footnote Close this footnote 47 See Derek W. Black, The Fundamental Right to Education , 94 Notre Dame L. Rev . (forthcoming 2019) (on file with author). … Open this footnote Close

*Associate Professor of Law and Policy, College of Law and John D. Rockefeller IV School of Policy and Politics, West Virginia University. My thanks to Derek Black for welcoming and encouraging this response and to the editors of the Stanford Law Review Online for their diligent editorial assistance. Thanks as well to Robert Bastress, Valarie Blake, Stephen Smith Cody, William Rhee, John Taylor, and Matthew Titolo for their comments on an earlier draft of this response.

Your Right to Equality in Education

Getting an education isn’t just about books and grades – we’re also learning how to participate fully in the life of this nation. (We’re tomorrow’s leaders after all!)

But in order to really participate, we need to know our rights – otherwise we may lose them. The highest law in our land is the U.S. Constitution, which has some amendments, known as the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights guarantees that the government can never deprive people in the U.S. of certain fundamental rights including the right to freedom of religion and to free speech and the due process of law. Many federal and state laws give us additional rights, too.

The Bill of Rights applies to young people as well as adults. And what I’m going to do right here is tell you about EQUAL TREATMENT .

DO ALL KIDS HAVE THE RIGHT TO AN EQUAL EDUCATION?

Yes! All kids living in the United States have the right to a free public education. And the Constitution requires that all kids be given equal educational opportunity no matter what their race, ethnic background, religion, or sex, or whether they are rich or poor, citizen or non-citizen. Even if you are in this country illegally, you have the right to go to public school. The ACLU is fighting hard to make sure this right isn’t taken away.

In addition to this constitutional guarantee of an equal education, many federal, state and local laws also protect students against discrimination in education based on sexual orientation or disability, including pregnancy and HIV status.

In fact, even though some kids may complain about having to go to school, the right to an equal educational opportunity is one of the most valuable rights you have. The Supreme Court said this in the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case when it struck down race segregation in the public schools.

If you believe you or someone you know is being discriminated against in school, speak up! Talk to a teacher, the principal, the head of a community organization or a lawyer so they can investigate the situation and help you take legal action if necessary.

ARE TRACKING SYSTEMS LEGAL?

Yes, as long as they really do separate students on the basis of learning ability and as long as they give students the same basic education.

Many studies show, however, that the standards and tests school officials use in deciding on track placements are often based on racial and class prejudices and stereotypes instead of on real ability and learning potential. That means it’s often the white, middle-class kids who end up in the college prep classes, while poor and non-white students, and kids whose first language isn’t English, end up on “slow” tracks and in vocational-training classes. And often, the lower the track you’re on, the less you’re expected to learn – and the less you’re taught.

Even if you have low grades or nobody in your family ever went to college, if you want to go to college, you should demand the type of education you need to realize your dreams. And your guidance counselor should help you get it! Your local ACLU can tell you the details of how to go about challenging your track placement.

CAN STUDENTS BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY IN PUBLIC SCHOOL BASED ON THEIR SEX?

Almost never. Public schools may not have academic courses that are just for boys – like shop – or just for girls – like home economics. Both the Constitution and federal law require that boys and girls also be provided with equal athletic opportunities. Many courts have held, however, that separate teams for boys and girls are allowed as long as the school provides students of both sexes the chance to participate in the particular sport. Some courts have also held that boys and girls may always be separated in contact sports. The law is different in different states; you can call your local ACLU affiliate for information.

CAN GIRLS BE KICKED OUT OF SCHOOL IF THEY GET PREGNANT?

No. Federal law prohibits schools from discriminating against pregnant students or students who are married or have children. So, if you are pregnant, school officials can’t keep you from attending classes, graduation ceremonies, extracurricular activities or any other school activity except maybe a strenuous sport. Some schools have special classes for pregnant girls, but they cannot make you attend these if you would prefer to be in your regular classes.

CAN SCHOOLS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST GAY STUDENTS?

School officials shouldn’t be able to violate your rights just because they don’t like your sexual orientation. However, even though a few states and cities have passed laws against sexual orientation discrimination, public high schools have been slow to establish their own anti-bias codes – and they’re slow to respond to incidents of harassment and discrimination. So while in theory, you can take a same-sex date to the prom, join or help form a gay group at school or write an article about lesbian/gay issues for the school paper, in practice gay students often have to fight hard to have their rights respected.

WHAT ABOUT STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES?

Although students with disabilities may not be capable of having exactly the same educational experiences as other students, federal law requires that they be provided with an education that is appropriate for them. What is an appropriate education must be worked out individually for each student. For example, a deaf student might be entitled to be provided with a sign language interpreter.

In addition to requiring that schools identify students with disabilities so that they can receive the special education they need in order to learn, federal law also provides procedures to make sure that students are not placed in special education classes when they are not disabled. If you believe you’re not receiving an appropriate education, either because you are not in special classes when you need to be, or because you are in special classes when you don’t need to be, call the ACLU!

And thanks to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), students who are HIV positive have the same rights as every other student. People with HIV are protected against discrimination , not only in school but in many other public places such as stores, museums and hotels.

People with HIV aren’t a threat to anyone else’s health, because the AIDS virus can’t be spread through casual contact. That’s just a medical fact. Your local ACLU can provide information on how to fight discrimination against people with HIV.

CAN I GO TO PUBLIC SCHOOL IF I DON’T SPEAK ENGLISH?

Yes. It is the job of the public schools to teach you to speak English and to provide you with a good education in other subjects while you are learning. Students who do not speak English have the right to require the school district to provide them with bilingual education or English language instruction or both.

“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” –Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972

We spend a big part of our life in school, and our voices count. Join the student government! Attend school meetings! Petition your school administration! Talk about your rights with your friends! Let’s make a difference!

Produced by the ACLU Department of Public Education. 125 Broad Street, NY NY 10004. For more copies of this or any other Sybil Liberty paper, or to order the ACLU handbook The Rights of Students or other student-related publications, call 800-775-ACLU or visit us on the internet at https://www.aclu.org .

Related Issues

• Racial Justice
• Mass Incarceration
• Smart Justice
• Women's Rights

Stay Informed

Every month, you'll receive regular roundups of the most important civil rights and civil liberties developments. Remember: a well-informed citizenry is the best defense against tyranny.

By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU’s privacy statement.

• IAS Preparation
• UPSC Preparation Strategy
• Right Education Act Rte

Right to Education Act (RTE) - Indian Polity Notes

The Right to Education Act (RTE) is important legislation that marks a watershed in the education system in India. With its enactment, the right to education has become a fundamental right in the country. In this article, you can read all about the RTE, its significance, provisions and challenges for the UPSC exam .

Read about important acts in India in the linked article.

Right to Education Act

The Act is completely titled “the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act” . It was passed by the Parliament in August 2009. When the Act came into force in 2010, India became one among 135 countries where education is a fundamental right of every child.

• “The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of 6 to 14 years in such manner as the State, may by law determine.”
• As per this, the right to education was made a fundamental right and removed from the list of Directive Principles of State Policy.
• The RTE is the consequential legislation envisaged under the 86th Amendment.
• The article incorporates the word “free” in its title. What it means is that no child (other than those admitted by his/her parents in a school not supported by the government) is liable to pay any kind of fee or charges or expenses which may prevent him or her from pursuing and completing elementary education.
• This Act makes it obligatory on the part of the government to ensure admission, attendance and completion of elementary education by all children falling in the age bracket six to fourteen years.
• Essentially, this Act ensures free elementary education to all children in the economically weaker sections of society.

A few important articles that a candidate must read to cover the notes on the topic, ‘Education,’ comprehensively are linked below:

RTE Provisions

The provisions of the RTE Act are briefly described below. The Act provides for:

• The right of free and compulsory education to children until they complete their elementary education in a school in the neighbourhood.
• The Act makes it clear that ‘compulsory education’ implies that it is an obligation on the part of the government to ensure the admission, attendance and completion of elementary education of children between the ages of six and fourteen. The word ‘free’ indicates that no charge is payable by the child which may prevent him/her from completing such education.
• The Act provides for the admission of a non-admitted child to a class of his/her appropriate age.
• It mentions the duties of the respective governments, the local authorities and parents in ensuring the education of a child. It also specifies the sharing of the financial burden between the central and the state governments.
• It specifies standards and norms for Pupil Teacher Ratios (PTR), infrastructure and buildings, working days of the school and for the teachers.
• It also says there should be no urban-rural imbalance in teacher postings. The Act also provides for the prohibition of the employment of teachers for non-educational work, other than census, elections and disaster relief work.
• The Act provides that the teachers appointed should be appropriately trained and qualified.
• Mental harassment and physical punishment.
• Screening procedures for the admission of children.
• Capitation fees.
• Private tuition by the teachers.
• Running schools with no recognition.
• The Act envisages that the curriculum should be developed in coherence with the values enshrined in the Indian Constitution, and that which would take care of the all-round development of the child. The curriculum should build on the knowledge of the child, on his/her potentiality and talents, help make the child free of trauma, fear and anxiety via a system that is both child-centric and child-friendly.

Significance of RTE

With the passing of the Right to Education Act, India has moved to a rights-based approach towards implementing education for all. This Act casts a legal obligation on the state and central governments to execute the fundamental rights of a child (as per Article 21 A of the Constitution). 

• The Act lays down specific standards for the student-teacher ratio, which is a very important concept in providing quality education.
• It also talks about providing separate toilet facilities for girls and boys, having adequate standards for classroom conditions, drinking water facilities, etc.
• The stress on avoiding the urban-rural imbalance in teachers’ posting is important as there is a big gap in the quality and numbers regarding education in the villages compared to the urban areas in the country.
• The Act provides for zero tolerance against the harassment and discrimination of children. The prohibition of screening procedures for admission ensures that there would be no discrimination of children on the basis of caste, religion, gender, etc.
• The Act also mandates that no kid is detained until class 8. It introduced the Continuous Comprehensive Evaluation (CCE) system in 2009 to have grade-appropriate learning outcomes in schools.
• The Act also provides for the formation of a School Management Committee (SMC) in every school in order to promote participatory democracy and governance in all elementary schools. These committees have the authority to monitor the school’s functioning and prepare developmental plans for it.
• The Act is justiciable and has a Grievance Redressal mechanism that permits people to take action when the provisions of the Act are not complied with.
• This provision is included in Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act. All schools (private, unaided, aided or special category) must reserve 25% of their seats at the entry level for students from the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and disadvantaged groups.
• When the rough version of the Act was drafted in 2005, there was a lot of outcry in the country against this large percentage of seats being reserved for the underprivileged. However, the framers of the draft stood their ground and were able to justify the 25% reservation in private schools.
• This provision is a far-reaching move and perhaps the most important step in so far as inclusive education is concerned.
• This provision seeks to achieve social integration.
• The loss incurred by the schools as a result of this would be reimbursed by the central government.
• The Act has increased enrolment in the upper primary level (Class 6-8) between 2009 and 2016 by 19.4%.
• In rural areas, in 2016, only 3.3% of children in the 6 – 14 years bracket were out of school.

Criticism of RTE Act

Even though the RTE Act is a step in the right direction towards the achievement of making education truly free and compulsory in India, it has met with several criticisms. Some of the criticisms are given below:

• The Act was drafted hastily without much thought or consultation being given to the quality of education imparted.
• Children below 6 years are not covered under the Act.
• Many of the schemes under the Act have been compared to the previous schemes on education such as the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, and have been plagued with corruption charges and inefficiency.
• At the time of admissions, many documents such as birth certificate, BPL certificate, etc. are required. This move seems to have left out orphans from being beneficiaries of the Act.
• There have been implementational hurdles in the 25% reservation of seats for EWS and others in private schools. Some of the challenges in this regard are discriminatory behaviour towards parents and difficulties experienced by students to fit in with a different socio-cultural milieu.
• In case a student fails in the annual exam, he/she is given extra training and made to appear for a re-exam. If this re-exam is not passed, the student can be detained in the class. 
• This amendment was made after many states complained that without regular exams, the learning levels of children could not be evaluated effectively. 
• The states which were against this amendment were six states with higher learning outcomes due to their effective implementation of the CCE system as mandated in the Act. (The six states were Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Goa, Telangana and Maharashtra.)
• It has been found that many states find it difficult to move to the CCE system of assessment. This is chiefly due to a lack of teachers’ training and orientation.
• Another criticism levelled against the Act is that instead of increasing the standards and outcomes of the public education system in India, it passes the buck to private schools with some respect.

Making the right to education a fundamental right took more than 6 decades after independence. Now, the government and all stakeholders should focus on the quality of education, and gradually move towards having a single educational system and platform across the country for all sections of society to foster equality, inclusion, and unity.

Kickstart your UPSC 2024   Preparation today!

Right to Education Act (RTE) – Indian Polity:- Download PDF Here

UPSC Questions related to the Right to Education Act (RTE)

What are the basic features of right to education act.

Some of the basic features of the RTE are:

• Free and compulsory education for all children in the age group 6 to 14.
• There will not be any detention or examination until elementary education is completed. However, there has been an amendment to this (as mentioned above in the criticisms of the Act).
• This makes providing education a legal obligation of the governments.
• It also makes it mandatory for all private schools to reserve 25% of their seats for the EWS and disadvantaged groups.

What is the age limit for RTE?

All children between the ages of 6 and 14 have the right to free education under the provisions of the Act.

What is Article 21 of the Constitution?

Article 21 deals with the right to life and personal liberty. It is a fundamental right. To know more click on Right to Life (Article 21) – Indian Polity Notes .

What is the importance of the right to education?

Leave a comment cancel reply.

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

IAS 2024 - Your dream can come true!

Download the ultimate guide to upsc cse preparation.

• Share Share

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.