Mohini Jain v.
State of Karnataka
In 1989, the Government of Karnataka issued a notifi-
cation that permitted the private medical colleges in the
State of Karnataka to charge exorbitant tuition fees from
the students admitted other than the 'Government seat
quota'. Miss Mohini Jain, a medical aspirant student
filed a petition in Supreme Court challenging this notifi-
cation. The apex Court raised an important question that
'whether right to education is guaranteed to the Indian
citizen under the Constitution of India?'
The Supreme Court of India observed that mention
of 'life and personal liberty' in Article 21 of the
Constitution[1] automatically implies some other rights,
those are necessary for the full development of the per-
sonality, though they are not enumerated in Part III of the
Constitution. Education is one such factor responsible for
overall development of an individual and therefore, right
to education is integrated in Article 21 of the Constitu-
tion.
1 A brief on the Case
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 Rs.
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
the management that the asked amount was beyond his
reach, the management denied Ms. Jain’s admission to
the medical college. Miss Jain informed the court that
the management demanded an additional amount of Rs.
four and a half lakhs, however, the management denied
the allegation (?).[2]
As per the notification, the denial of admission of Miss
Jain due to her failure to submit the yearly tuition fee
of Rs. 60,000/- was a valid step taken by the col-
lege management. In this situation, Miss Jain filed a
petition (Writ petition (Civil) No. 456 of 1991) un-
der Article 32 (1) (“The right to move the Supreme
Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement
of the rights conferred by this Part (Part III: Fundamen-
tal Rights) is guaranteed”)[1] of the Constitution of India According to the intervener, Karnataka Private Medical
challenging the notification issued by the Government of Colleges Association, the private medical colleges in the
Karnataka.[2]
A two-member bench consisting Justice Kuldip Singh and the State or Central Government. The expenditure per
Justice R. M. Sahai gave the judgment of the case on 30
July 1992 (1992 AIR 1858).[2] For the first time in the
post independent India, right to education of the Indian
citizens and the State obligation to secure the right came
under scrutiny at the premises of the apex court. It is
important to note that this was the time when neo-liberal
economic policy were knocking at the door of India.
2 The notification
It is relevant to know in this context that what was the no-
tification issued by the Government of Karnataka. The
Government of Karnataka issued a notification dated 5
June 1989 under section 5(1) of the Karnataka Edu-
cational Institutions (Prohibition of capitation fee) Act,
1984, which fixed the tuition and other fees to be charged
from the students by the private medical colleges in the
state. As per the notification, the tuition fee for the can-
didates admitted against:[2]
1. “Government seat” was Rs. 2,000 per year,
2. For the students from Karnataka but not falling under
“Government seat” was not to be exceeding Rs. 25,000/-
per year, and
3. For the Indian students not residing in Karnataka was
not to be exceeding Rs. 60,000/- per year.
3 Responses from the respondents
First respondent was the State of Karnataka. The sec-
ond (the intervener) and the third respondent were the
Karnataka Private Medical Colleges Association and the
private medical college respectively. According to the
third respondent, the private medical college, those stu-
dents who were admitted under “Government seat quota”
were meritorious and those who were admitted under
the “Management quota” (other than “Government seat”)
were not meritorious; the classification was valid and
hence, in such situation, the college-management had the
right to charge more fee from non-meritorious students to
meet the expenses in order to provide medical education
to the students.[2]
state of Karnataka received no financial aid either from
1
2 5 RESPONSES FROM THE COURT

student for 5-year MBBS course in private medical col- stitution of India and reminded that the 'Preamble' has
leges was about 5 lakhs and forty percent of the seats were promised to secure to all citizens of India “Justice, social,
filled by the “Government Quota” under which students economic and political”, “Liberty of thought, expression,
paid only Rs. 2,000/- per year, therefore, students admit- belief, faith, and worship”. It further provided “Equality
ted under “Management quota” had to share the burden. of status and of opportunity” and assured dignity of the
Hence, the tuition fee was not excessive and there was no individual. The objectives flowing from the 'Preamble'
question of profit making by the private medical colleges cannot be achieved and shall remain on paper unless the
in the State of Karnataka.[2] people in this country were educated.[2]
Moreover, both the intervener and the third respondent The Court said that although 'right to education' had not
mentioned that there were no provision either in the con- been guaranteed as a fundamental right under Part III of
stitution of India or under any other law which prevented the constitution, the Articles 21 (in Part III of the Consti-
the charging of capitation fee.[2] tution of India), Article 38, 39(a), (f), 41 and 45 (in Part
IV of the Constitution of India) together makes it clear
that the framers of the constitution made it obligatory for
4 Issues before the Court the State to provide education for its citizens. Article 21
says “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to procedure established by law”.
In the lieu of above situation several crucial questions ap- The right to life under Article 21 and the dignity of an in-
peared before the court. Now, the court had to answer dividual cannot be assured unless it is accompanied by
the following major questions: right to education. Therefore, every citizen had a 'right
a) Was there a 'right to education' guaranteed to the peo- to education' under the constitution and thus, the state
ple of India under the Constitution? had an obligation to provide educational institutions at all
levels for the benefit of all the citizens. All educational
b) If the right is guaranteed to the people then, does ap-
institutions whether it was state owned or state recognized
plying capitation fee violate the guaranteed right to edu-
were obliged to secure the 'right to education'.[2]
cation?
In Part IV, the directive principles of the state policy, the
c) Whether charging capitation fee in educational insti-
Constitution asks the State to secure social order and min-
tutions is arbitrary, unjust, unfair and violated Article 14
imize inequalities for the promotion of welfare of citizens
(“The State shall not deny to any person equality before
(Article 38). Article 39 of Part IV talks about directing
the law or the equal protection of the laws within the ter-
the state policies to secure adequate means of livelihood
ritory of India” ) of the constitution?[2]
of citizen and offer opportunities to children to facilitate
their healthy al-round development. Reality of the fun-
damental rights under chapter III will not be realized by
5 Responses from the Court illiterate citizens unless “right to education” under Arti-
cle 41 was ensured to the individual citizen. Therefore,
The court said that the dignity of human can not be vi- “right to education” was concomitant to the fundamental [2]
olated under any situation and it is the responsibility of rights provided under Part III of the constitution.
the state to respect and protect the dignity of her citi- The fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the
zens. An individual cannot be assured human dignity un- constitution of India including the right to freedom of
less his/her personality is developed and the only way to speech and expression and other rights under Article 19
do that is to educate the individual. When the Constitu- cannot be appreciated and fully enjoyed unless a citizen
tion was framed (the Constitution was adopted in 1950), is educated and is conscious of his individual dignity. Ed-
70 percent of the citizens of the country were illiterate. ucation is instrumental to reduce the inequality, and en-
The framers of the constitution hoped to achieve 100 per- suring adequate livelihood. Illiterate people is vulnerable
cent literacy within a time period of 10 years. Guided by to exploitation. Without education the vision expressed
this hope, Article 41 (“The State shall, within the limits in the said articles of the Constitution can not be real-
of its economic capacity and development, make effec- ized. The court said that the 'Directive Principles’, which
tive provision for securing the right to work, to education were fundamental in the governance of the country, can-
and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old not be isolated from the fundamental rights guaranteed
age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of unde- under Part III. They were supplementary to each other
served want”) and Article 45 (“The State shall endeavour and have to be read into the fundamental rights.[2]
to provide, within a period of ten years from the com-
mencement of this Constitution, for free and compulsory
education for all children until they complete the age of
fourteen years”) were included in the Chapter IV of the
constitution.[2]
The court referred to the various provisions in the Con-

6 Court’s responses on charging
capitation fee
Charging capitation fee limits the access to the education
only to the richer section of the people. Poorer person
with better merit can not get admission due to inability to
pay money and as a consequence in educational institu-
tion a citizen’s 'right to education' gets denied. Further,
allowing charging capitation fee violates Article 14 of the
constitution of India. The only method of admission to
the medical colleges should be by merit and merit alone.
The court further stated that the capitation fee was sim-
ply a price for selling education. The concept of “teaching
shops” was not at par with the constitutional scheme and
was entirely opposing character to the Indian culture and The most important thing is, there was a traditional look
heritage.[2]
Court made one significant remark in stating that if gov- istic approach towards Directive Principles and provides
ernment recognises or approve a professional institution a solid base of pragmatism.
to run a professional course, it is State responsibility to en-
sure that the Institute should charge the government rates The 86th Amendment of the Constitution, passed by Par-
only and right to education is preserved.[2]
7 Significance of the Case
The judgment is historic in its own accord. The judg-
ment of the Supreme Court has huge significance in a
context of state’s failure to maintain the endeavor set
by article 45 of the Constitution even after 40 years of
independence.[3] However, the judgment of the court re-
sulted mixed reaction. While, some critic the court’s
judgment as impractical and court’s role as unnecessar-
ily proactive,[4] others welcomed the court’s decision as
logical[5] and response to the call of hour.[6] Others noted
the judgment as the expression of judicial activism due
to the fact that only a two judge bench made a substantial
change in constitution.[7]
Mohini Jain judgment of the Supreme Court was
appeared at a time when liberalisation as a gov-
ernment policy was searching Indian soil to sprout.
Commercialisation of education was not as rampant as
it is now.[8] In the recent trend of liberalization and
privatization, the scourge of commercialization of edu-
cation looms large. It is a challenge to keep the confor-
mity with the socialist structure of Constitution and the
judgment is in the line of retaining the conformity.[5]
The most notable part of the judgment was its insistence
that the right to education be read as an integral part of
the right to life guaranteed under Article 21, Part III. The
decision of the Court that the fulfillment of the right to
life requires a life of dignity and therefore, must be in-
terpreted to include both the economic and social rights.
Education is as basic as to ensure rights to food, water,
and health. But, question arise whether right to educa-
tion at all level is essential for citizens for living a de-
scent life? Whether right to education should be limited
3
to only right to primary and basic education? Whether,
declaring right to education at higher education level ac-
tually increase status quo and unequal distribution of re-
sources results in collapsing the entire education system
in India?[9] According to some critic, the private educa-
tional institutions do not get any government grants and
therefore should not be interpreted under the purview of
article 12 of the Constitution of India.[9] Later Supreme
court had to modify its judgment and limits the right to
free and compulsory education up to 14 years of age.[3]
8 Conclusion
towards Directive Principle as idealistic preaching of the
constitution.[10] This case, revisited the traditional ritual-
liament in 2002, and which came into force on 1 April
2010, the same date as its enabling legislation (Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009),
made the Right to Education a Fundamental Right.
9 References
[1] [Constitution Of India. Available on Official Website of
Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India.http:
//lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf.]
[2] [Official Website of Supreme Court of India. Available
online at http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in]
[3] [Tilak, J. B. (1998). Available online athttp:
//www.doccentre.org/docsweb/Education/Scanned_
material/New-Folder/fre2.seminar98.646.pdf accessed
on 11 September 2011.]
[4] [Sathe, S. P. (1992). Supreme Court on Right to Edu-
cation . Economic and Political Weekly; 27 (35); 1847–
1848.]
[5] [Nagasaila, D and Suresh, V (1992). Can Right to Edu-
cation be a Fundamental Right? Economic and Political
Weekly; 27 (45); 2442–2443.]
[6] [Anand, A. S. (1997). Justice N.D. Krishna Rao
Memorial Lecture Protection of Human Rights —
Judicial Obligation or Judicial Activism. Online available
athttp://www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/articles/97v7a2.htm
accesses on 10 September 2011.]
[7] [Suchindran, B. N. (2011). An injudicious fraud. Blog
post available athttp://lawandotherthings.blogspot.com/
2011/02/injudicious-fraud.html accessed on 11 Septem-
ber 2011.]
[8] [Times on India. available onlinehttp://articles.
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-02-21/india/
4 9 REFERENCES

28130476_1_capitation-fee-private-schools-education
accessed on 10 March 2010.]

[9] [Sathe, S. P. (1992). Supreme Court on Right to Edu-

cation. Economic and Political Weekly; 27 (35); 1847–
1848.]

[10] [Times on India. available online at

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/
Schools-cant-be-allowed-to-fix-exorbitant-fees/
articleshow/5600370.cms accessed on 10 March 2010.]
 5

10 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

10.1 Text
• Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohini_Jain_v._State_of_Karnataka?oldid=706633882 Con-
tributors: Grafen, Malcolma, Racklever, Khazar, Shyamsunder, Mr Stephen, Magioladitis, R'n'B, Katharineamy, SchreiberBike, Addbot,
Ben Ben, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Shomesaurav, Klbrain, PhnomPencil, DoctorKubla, Khazar2, Lemnaminor, Evano1van, Alva123, InfernalH
and Anonymous: 1

10.2 Images
• File:Emblem_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_India.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Emblem_of_
the_Supreme_Court_of_India.svg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/courtnews/2009_issue_
1.pdf Original artist: Supreme Court of India Website

10.3 Content license

• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0