Author- Sanchita Maity, Sister Nivedita University

KEYWORDS:

• Civil and political rights
• Right to Life
• Directive Principles of State Policy
• Equality and Non-Discrimination
• Duties of non-state actors[1]

CASE DETAILS

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

Miss Mohini Jain, a resident of Meerut in the state of UP, applied for admission to the MBBS course in the session commencing February/march, 1991, to a private medical college located in the state of Karnataka. The college management asked her to deposit a sum of 60,000/- as the tuition fee for the first year and also to show a bank guarantee of the amount equal to the fee for the remaining years. When Miss Jain’s father intimated to the management that the asked amount was beyond his reach, the management denied Miss. Jain’s admission to the medical college. Miss. Jain informed the court that the management demanded an additional amount of 4.5 Lakhs, however, the management denied the allegation.

As per the notification, the denial of admission of Miss. Jain due to her failure to submit the yearly tuition fee of 60,000/- was a valid step taken by the college management. In this situation, Miss. Jain filed a petition under Article 32(1) of the constitution of India challenging the notification issued by the government of Karnataka.

A two-member bench consisting of Justice Kuldip Singh and Justice R.M. Sahai gave the judgment of the case on 30 July 1992.

FACTS OF THE CASE

• In the case of Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, Mohini, a residency of Meerut had applied for admission to a medical course at Sri Siddhartha Medical College, Karnataka, under quota of government seats in the year 1991.
• However, the college management informed her that she could only be admitted if she paid a tuition fee of 60,000/- 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 4.5 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 notifications of the Karnataka government permitting the private medical colleges in the state of Karnataka to charge very high tuition fees for 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.

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the constitution of India guarantee the right to education?
2. Whether private institutions charging higher fees violate the right to education
3. Whether charging a capitation fee in educational institutions violate Article 14 which guarantees equality before the law?

PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The petitioner stated that until 21 guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty. And also contended that the growth of individual personalities is their important right.
2. The petitioner argued that asking for more capitation fees from aspirants is illegal because it limits educational options for deserving people who cannot afford to pay due to their financial condition.
3. The petitioner pointed out that promoting the welfare of citizens and ensuring equal opportunities for all outlined in Articles 38 and 39 states that getting a capitation fee is violating their facilities to deserve education.
4. The petitioner questioned that this unjustifiable nature of collecting capitative fees along with tuition fees is linked with the educational quality provided to them.
5. The petitioner argued that collecting the capitation fee along with the tuition fee from the aspirant who came from the rit list is violating Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees a fundamental right to equality, by unfairly asking more fees from students who cannot afford that much amount.
6. The petitioner pointed out that Article 41 and Article 45, provide social justice and equality to all by giving them the right to education and work and mentions that education is the foundation of children’s development.
7. The petitioner highlights that the state’s responsibility is to promote well-being and ensure equal access to opportunity.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The respondents state that they believe that merit-based admission improves the academic environment and also provides reduced admission fees to meritious studenpromotingngg access to education by all indeed of economic status.
2. Respondents said that the reservation policy for women in Karnataka is leading to variation between male and female candidates it also violates the constitution of equality and nondiscrimination in the constitution.
3. Respondents stated that there should be accurate classification among merit students under government seats and also to maintain the quality of education by admitting rank holders in private educational institutions to raise the standards in medical professionals.
4. Respondents argued that capitation fees are a fair constraint on the right to education, as they allow private institutions to make revenue.
5. The respondents argued neither the state nor the central government provide financial support to private medical colleges. They mentioned that the cost of completing fa five-year program may come around lakhs per student. The government provides only a 40% quota with a minimal fee of 2000/- and then the students who are joining through the management face the burden.
6. The respondents argued that the state is not required by the constitution to offer free education to everyone and that providing education is a choice the state can make.

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Article 14, Part III of The Constitution of India: The state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India
2. Article 21, Part III of The Constitution of India: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
3. Article 38, Part IV of The Constitution of India: The state to secure a social order for the promotion of the welfare of the people.
4. Article 39(a), Part IV of The Constitution of India: It states that the citizens, men, and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood.
5. Article 39(f), Part IV of The Constitution of India: It states that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop healthily and conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and moral and material abandonment.
6. Article 41, Part IV of The Constitution of India: It deals with the right to work, education and public assistance in certain cases like unemployment, old age, sickness disablement and other cases of undeserved want.
7. Article 45, Part IV of the Indian Constitution: This provision for early childhood care and education below the age of 6 years.
8. Schools are prohibited from charging capitation fees by the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984. This rule guards against educational institutions overcharging students and their families.

JUDGEMENT

• After hearing the arguments from both parties the apex court held that the right to education is not expressly mentioned as a fundamental right.
• Articles 38, 39(a), (f), 41 and 45 of the Indian constitution make it clear that the constitution makes it obligatory for the state to provide education for its citizens.
• Under Article 21 of the constitution, 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 making it available only to the richer section of the people.
• Poor deserving candidates cannot get admission due to the inability to pay the prescribed fees and as a consequence, in educational institutions, citizens’ 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 can’t applied retrospectively and cases previous to this can’t reap the benefit of the judgment.

OVERRULING JUDGMENTS

 In “Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others (1993)”, “The Supreme Court held that every citizen of this country has a fundamental right to education granted by the constitution of India. The said right comes from Article 21 of the Indian constitution. This right is, however, not absolute. Its content and parameters have to be determined under the rights of Article 45 and Article 41 of the Constitution. Every citizen of this country has a Right to Free Education until he completes the age of 14 years. Thereafter, his Right to Education is subject to limits of economic capacity and development of the state. The court further ruled that a citizen of this country may have a right to establish an educational institution but no citizen, person, or institution has a Right much less a Fundamental Right, to affiliation or recognition or grant-in-aid from the state.”

OBITER DICTA

 “Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), It established the basic structure doctrine, limiting pparliament’spower to amend the constitution. This case helped to maintain the balance between the legislature, executive, and judiciary. It safeguards fundamental rights from being easily eroded by amendments. This case is seen as the most important step in the evolution of Indian democracy.

CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

Miss Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992) is a crucial confirmation of the right to education as a basic right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The judgment concluded that guaranteeing education to all, irrespective of economic status. This decision highlights that it’s a transformative step towards realising- the vision of providing equality in education to all children in India. It also paves the way for future generations to stand up for their right to demand constitutional acknowledgement of the right to education. Overall, the case is an important step toward the judiciary commitment to upholding constitutional principles and the RTE Act is a turning step to guarantee all the children in India have the right to equal education.

REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred

• Unni Krishnan J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) 1 SCC 645
• State of Bombay v. Bombay Education Society (1954) SCR 1042
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225
• Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) 3 SCC 625

Important Statutes Referred

• The Constitution of India Articles 21, Article 14, Article 41, Article 45.
• Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984
• Karnataka Education Act, 1983
• The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009

[1] iPleaders Blog, Miss. Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. (1992), https://blog.ipleaders.in/miss-mohini-jain-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-1992/, (Jan 21, 2025, 9:10 p.m.)