INTRODUCTIONThe right to equality is the most fundamental right available to a man. It is the law which occupies its place in almost all constitutions. It is the right to equality in which all freedoms are guaranteed. Reservation is one of many tools used to preserve and promote the essence of equality, so that disadvantaged groups can be brought to the forefront of civil life. It is the duty of the State to promote positive measures to eliminate barriers of inequality and enable diverse communities to enjoy the freedoms and share the benefits guaranteed by the Constitution. But can the State extend this duty and obligation to the private sector? Therefore, the general question is whether the horizontal application of laws extending to unsubsidized private educational institutions violates the basic structure of the Constitution? This question arises with regard to the 86th and 93rd Amendment Acts. The 86th Amendment inserted Article 21A which provided for free and compulsory education for all children aged 6 to 14 years. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 was enacted to enforce the right under Article 21A. The Act provided for horizontal affirmative action by reserving 25% of seats in all schools (i.e. state-run, state-funded or privately run) in favor of Scheduled Castes, Tribes listed and socially and educationally backward classes. It further provides that private schools cannot charge any fees, tuition or otherwise, to those admitted within the framework of this 25% quota. Instead, the state would reimburse private schools for those 25 percent of students. The 93rd Amendment inserted Article 15 (5) which confers on the State the right to legislate for social and educational progress...... middle of paper ...... obstacle to the realization of social rights -economic on the way to a constitutional amendment. Justice Radhakrishnan held that clause (5) was inserted in Article 15 to overcome the obstacle that the State cannot impose reservation in unaided private professional educational institutions, a rule laid down in the Pai Foundation as well as in Inamdar. He therefore considers that the reservation provision is constitutionally valid. The standard of review used by Justice Radhakrishnan was that Article 19(1)(g) was not a facet of the basic structure of the Constitution and, therefore, the repeal of Article 19( 1) (g) does not alter the basic structure of the constitution. and is therefore not unconstitutional. The question of whether the reservation provision is constitutionally valid when it horizontally imposes reservation of seats in an unaided private school remains unanswered in both cases..