Latest News
Back
Document:
Case Analysis: Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka
PETITIONER: MISS MOHINI JAIN
RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT30/07/1992
BENCH: KULDIP SINGH, SAHAI, R.M.
FACTS
In the case of Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, Mohini, a resident of Meerut had applied for admission for a medical course at Sri Siddhartha Medical College, Karnataka, under the quota of government seats in the year 1991. However, the college management informed her that she could only be admitted if she pays the tuition fee of sixty thousand rupees for the first year and also had to produce a bank guarantee for the remaining four. Such an amount was not feasible to be paid by Mohini and her family due to their poor economic background. Moreover, She also complained that the college management board had further asked her the capitation fee of rupee Four and a half lakhs, which was later refused by the college. Considering the facts above she took matters to the Court and filed a Writ Petition under Article 32 challenging the notification of the Karnataka Government permitting the Private Medical Colleges in the State of Karnataka to charge very high tuition fees from the students other than those admitted via “Government seats”. She also asked for an explanation of the “Right to Free Education” granted by the constitution for the citizens of India and its limitations.
ISSUES IN THE PRESENT CASE:
- Whether the Constitution of India guarantees the Right to Education?
- Whether private institutions charging higher fees violate the Right to Education?
- Whether charging a capitation fee in educational institutions violate Article 14 which guarantees equality before the law?
SUBMISSION OF ARGUMENTS OF PARTIES:
- The Petitioner contended that the imposition of such huge fees for education by the private college is against the various articles under the Indian Constitution.
- In this case, the Respondent contended at first that the criteria which have been followed in the private college regarding the capitation fees are not chargeable from those students who were qualified for the Government seats but only from those students who were from different classes.
- They also argued that as they were following such classification of seats in the college under merit list or under nonmeritorious list, which implies that Government seats for candidates who were under merit list and others who were not. Therefore, the management board of the college has the right to charge fees from those who did not come under the merit list.
- Another argument by the Respondent was that as they were a private medical college and there was no financial aid which was provided from the government Karnataka or the central government and also practically these private medical colleges used to incur 5 Lakh Rupees as expenditure for MBBS course.
- Lastly, they also contended that the private medical colleges have always followed the Rule of law and abide by all the laws for the smooth functioning of the administration and also were justified in charging the capitation fees.
JUDGMENT OF THE CASE:
After hearing the arguments from both the parties the Apex Court held that though the Right to Education is not expressly mentioned as a Fundamental Right Article 38, 39(a), (f), 41, and 45 of the Indian Constitution make it clear that the of the constitution makes it obligatory for the State to provide education for its citizens. Article 21 of the constitution reads “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law”. Under Article 21 of the constitution and an individual’s dignity cannot be assured unless he has a Right to Education and educated himself. Further, the Court took into consideration the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by the United Nations and several cases that held that the Right to Life encompasses more than “life and limb” including necessities of life, nutrition, shelter, and literacy.
Charging huge fees restricts access to education to the lower strata of society and makes it available only to the richer section of the people. Poor deserving candidates can not get admission due to the inability to pay the prescribed fees and as a consequence, in educational institutions, a citizen’s “Right to Education” gets denied. Further, allowing the charging of a very high capitation fee violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India the Court noted. The only method of admission to medical colleges should be based on merit alone. The court also said that the judgment cant is applied retrospectively and cases previous to this cant reap the benefit of the judgment.
Document:
