How the Indian Constitution Defines Centre-State Relations in Education

Who gets to decide how children in India are educated – the central government in New Delhi, or the state government closer to home? This isn’t just an administrative question. It sits at the heart of India’s constitutional design. The Indian Constitution lays out a detailed framework for how legislative power over education is distributed between the Union and the states – and that framework has evolved significantly over the decades. Understanding it is essential for anyone involved in education policy, school administration, or teacher training.

The Seventh Schedule: dividing legislative power 🔗

The Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution (under Articles 245-246) divides legislative subjects into three lists: the Union List, the State List, and the Concurrent List. Parliament has exclusive authority to legislate on subjects in the Union List. State legislatures hold that power for subjects in the State List. The Concurrent List, however, allows both Parliament and state legislatures to make laws – with Union law prevailing in case of any conflict (Article 254).

At the time the Constitution came into force in 1950, education was placed firmly in the State List. This reflected a foundational principle: education is deeply connected to local language, culture, and community, and states were considered better positioned to legislate on it. Each state government had the primary authority to run its schools, set curricula, and manage educational institutions within its territory.

The 1976 Amendment: a turning point for education 🔗

This changed fundamentally in 1976. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 was one of the most far-reaching amendments to the Indian Constitution. Enacted during the Emergency period, it transferred five subjects from the State List to the Concurrent List. Education was one of them – the others being forests, weights and measures, protection of wild animals and birds, and administration of justice.

By moving education to the Concurrent List, the amendment allowed both the Union Government and state governments to legislate on educational matters simultaneously. The central government could now play a more active role in shaping national education policy, setting standards, and coordinating efforts across states – while states retained full power to legislate on the subject as well.

What the shift meant in practice 🔗

Before 1976, the Centre’s role in education was largely advisory and financial. After the amendment, Parliament could directly enact education legislation with nationwide effect. This paved the way for landmark laws such as the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) and the Forest Conservation Act. The shift was driven by a desire for greater uniformity in educational standards across a vast and diverse country. However, it also sparked debates about state autonomy – critics argued that it concentrated too much legislative power at the Centre, reducing the flexibility states needed to address local educational realities.

The current position of education in the lists 🔗

Today, education at all levels – from primary schooling to university – falls under the Concurrent List (Entry 25). Vocational and technical training of labour falls under Entry 26 of the same list. The Union List retains some education-related entries, including institutions of national importance (Entry 63), coordination and maintenance of standards in higher education and research (Entry 66), and scientific and technical education (Entry 64 and 65). States continue to manage day-to-day administration of schools and colleges, but Parliament can – and does – set binding national standards.

Directive Principles and the constitutional commitment to education 🔗

Beyond the Seventh Schedule, the Constitution embeds a moral and policy commitment to education in Part IV – the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP). These are contained in Articles 36 to 51. Although not enforceable in courts, the Constitution explicitly states that these principles are “fundamental in the governance of the country” and it is the duty of the State to apply them in making laws.

Article 45: free and compulsory education for children 🔗

In its original form, Article 45 directed the State to endeavour to provide, within ten years of the Constitution’s commencement, free and compulsory education for all children up to the age of fourteen years. This was an ambitious target for a newly independent nation where, as of 1951, the literacy rate stood at just 18.3%. The article placed a time-bound obligation on the State – though as a Directive Principle, it could not be enforced through a court of law.

The substance of Article 45 was significantly altered by the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2002, which inserted Article 21A into Part III of the Constitution – converting the right to free and compulsory elementary education for children aged 6 to 14 into a Fundamental Right. The revised Article 45 now directs the State to provide early childhood care and education for children below the age of six. The RTE Act, which came into force on 1 April 2010, operationalised Article 21A, making India one of 135 countries to recognise elementary education as a legally enforceable right for every child.

Article 46: protecting the educational interests of weaker sections 🔗

Article 46 directs the State to promote, with special care, the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people – particularly Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and other weaker sections – and to protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. This provision recognises that access to education is not just a matter of building schools; it requires active state intervention to dismantle the social and economic barriers that have historically kept marginalised communities out of the education system.

Together, Articles 45 and 46 form a coherent constitutional vision: universal access to education on one hand, and targeted support for those most likely to be excluded on the other. These directives are fundamental in the governance of the country and have guided major policy decisions – from the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan to reservations in educational institutions – even when they lacked direct legal enforceability.

Centre and state: a shared but contested responsibility 🔗

The constitutional arrangement that exists today – education on the Concurrent List, guided by Directive Principles, and anchored by a Fundamental Right under Article 21A – creates a layered system of shared responsibility. The Central Government, through the Ministry of Education, sets national policy frameworks, disburses funds, establishes regulatory bodies like the UGC and AICTE, and enacts legislation such as the RTE Act. State Governments are responsible for implementing these frameworks on the ground: managing government schools, appointing teachers, setting the medium of instruction, and adapting policy to local needs.

In practice, the division is rarely clean. Financial dependence of states on central transfers, the reach of centrally sponsored schemes, and the binding force of national legislation all mean that the Centre’s influence on education extends well beyond what the lists alone might suggest. At the same time, India’s linguistic and cultural diversity means that states retain – and exercise – significant discretion in how they run their education systems. The gaps between constitutional promise and ground reality in enrolment rates, learning outcomes, and infrastructure are reminders that constitutional provisions set the framework, but implementation remains a shared challenge requiring cooperation at every level.

From directive to right: the evolution of constitutional thinking 🔗

The journey of education in the Indian Constitution – from a state subject, to a Concurrent List item, to a Fundamental Right – reflects how constitutional thinking about education has evolved over seven decades. What began as a policy aspiration in 1950 is today a legally enforceable right. The 1976 amendment enabled the Centre to build national educational standards. The 2002 amendment transformed the aspiration of Article 45 into a justiciable entitlement under Article 21A. And the RTE Act gave that right a concrete, operational form.

This evolution also illustrates a broader tension in Indian federalism: the pull between national uniformity and state autonomy. Education is one of the clearest sites where that tension plays out – and where constitutional design has direct consequences for millions of students, teachers, and schools every day.

What do you think? Given that education sits on the Concurrent List, how should Centre-state disagreements over curriculum or medium of instruction be resolved – should Parliament have the final say, or should states retain overriding authority in matters of local language and culture? And do you think the move from a Directive Principle to a Fundamental Right has made a meaningful difference to access and quality of education at the ground level?

References

1. https://testbook.com/ias-preparation/seventh-schedule-of-indian-constitution
2. https://padhai.ai/blogs-padhai/7th-schedule-of-indian-constitution
3. https://prepp.in/question/education-was-brought-into-the-concurrent-list-by-642ab35b608c092a4caa79f0
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_Children_to_Free_and_Compulsory_Education_Act,_2009
5. https://www.mea.gov.in/Images/pdf1/Part4.pdf
6. https://www.gktoday.in/article-45/
7. https://dsel.education.gov.in/en/rte
8. https://www.constitutionofindia.net/parts/part-iv/
9. https://legalaffairs.gov.in/sites/default/files/IV.CONSTITUTIONAL%20PROVISIONS%20FOR%20SOCIO-ECONOMIC%20CHANGE%20FUNDAMENTAL%20RIGHTS%20AND%20DIRECTIVE%20PRINCIPLES%20OF%20STATE%20POLICY.pdf
10. https://www.ijllr.com/post/article-21a-and-the-right-to-education-evaluating-implementation-and-gaps