Correct Option
The correct option is (c) 1 and 3 only.
Explanation
Prior to the insertion of Article 21A by the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act (2002), the Supreme Court of India recognized the Right to Education as a fundamental right derived from Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). The Court established that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity, which is impossible without education.
Statement-wise Analysis
- Statement 1 is Correct: The Right to Education was judicially interpreted as flowing from the Right to Life under Article 21. In the Mohini Jain (1992) and Unnikrishnan (1993) cases, the Supreme Court declared that the fundamental right to life encompasses the right to education, as education is essential for the enjoyment of other rights.
- Statement 2 is Incorrect: The judicial recognition and subsequent constitutional amendment did make school education (specifically elementary education) a fundamental right. The Unnikrishnan judgment explicitly stated that every child/citizen has a right to free education up to the age of 14 years. Therefore, claiming it has "not made school education a right" is factually wrong regarding elementary education.
- Statement 3 is Correct: The Supreme Court in the Unnikrishnan case distinguished between primary and higher education. It held that while the right to primary education (up to age 14) is absolute and fundamental, the right to higher or professional education is not absolute. It is subject to the limits of the economic capacity and development of the State.
Key Takeaway: The Right to Education is intrinsic to the Right to Life (Article 21). However, as a fundamental right, it guarantees free and compulsory education only up to the age of 14 (elementary level); access to higher education is subject to the State's economic capacity.