INTRODUCTION The right to equality is the most fundamental right of man. This is the right that occupies its place in almost every constitution. It is the right to equality that is why all freedoms are guaranteed. Reservation is one of the many tools used to preserve and promote the essence of equality, so that disadvantaged groups can be brought to the forefront of civic life. It is the duty of the State to promote positive measures to remove barriers of inequality and allow different 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 overall question is whether the horizontal application of laws extending to private unaided educational institutions violates the basic structure of the Constitution? This question concerns the 86th and 93rd amendment laws. The 86th Amendment inserted Article 21A which provided for free and compulsory education for all children between the ages of 6 and 14. 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) for the benefit of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and socially and educationally backward classes. It is also provided that private schools may not charge any fees, fees or otherwise to those admitted beyond this 25% quota. The state would instead reimburse private schools for this 25% of students. The 93rd Amendment inserted Article 15, Section 5, which provided for the right of the State to make laws for the advancement of any obstacle socially and... middle of paper... in the attainment of socioeconomic rights by the via constitutional revision. Justice Radhakrishnan held that clause (5) was inserted in Article 15 to overcome the obstacle that the State cannot impose reservations in private professional educational institutions without assistance, the rule laid down in Pai Foundation and Inamdar . Therefore, considering the provision of the reserve to be constitutionally valid. The standard of review used by Justice Radhakrishnan was that Article 19(1) (g) was not an aspect of the basic structure of the Constitution and therefore the abrogation of Article 19(1) (g) does not change the structure of basis of the constitution and is therefore not unconstitutional. In both cases the question remains open whether the reservation rule is constitutionally valid when it horizontally imposes the reservation of places in an unaided private school..