LAW OF EDUCATION NCP 1 ASSIGNMENT

CASE ANALYSIS OF
MOHINI JAIN V. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
OTHERS

Name: MOHAMMED ASIF

Enrollment No. 19FLICHH020061
Course: BA.LLB (Hons)
Section: E
 CASE ANALYSIS
MOHINI JAIN V. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

SUPREME COURT CASE

S.C. 1992

TWO JUDGES BENCH

JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH AND JUSTICE R.M.SAHAI DELIVERED THE

JUDGEMENT

LEGAL PROVISIONS:
1. Article 12, 14, 19, 21, 32, 38, 39(a) and (f), 41, 45 and Part III & IV of the Constitution
2. Constitutional Assembly Debates (CAD Vol. VII, p.4761) and Preamble of Indian
Constitution
3. Section 2(b) & (e), 3, 4 and 5 of Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of
Capitation Fee) Act, 1984.
PRINCIPLE PART OF THE JUDGEMENT:
Charging of capitation fee in consideration of admission to educational institutions was held
illegal and impermissible as it amounts to denial of citizen’s right to education and is arbitrary
and violative of Article 14. And denial of admission to those who are unable to pay capitation fee
is patently unreasonable, unfair and unjust.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

The government of Karnataka, to curb the system of collecting capitation fee from students to
enter into educational institutions, passed the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of
Capitation Fee) Act, 19842.

To regulate the charging of tuition by the Private Medical Colleges, the government of
Karnataka released a notification for fixing the tuition fee and other fees which can be charged
by the private medical colleges from the students in the state of Karnataka under Section 5(1) 3.
1
Constitutional Assembly Debates Vol. VII, p.476
2
Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 (Act No.37 of 1984)
3
Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 (Act No.37 of 1984), Section 5(1)
As per the notification issued the students admitted against "Government seats" are to pay Rs
2,000 per year as tuition fee.

i. The Karnataka students (other than those admitted against "Government seat") are
to be charged tuition fee not more than Rs 25,000 per annum.
ii. Other is "Indian students from outside Karnataka", from whom tuition fee not
more than Rs 60,000 per annum is allowed to be charged.
Miss Mohini Jain was asked by Sri Siddharatha Medical College, Agalokote, Tumkur in the
State of Karnataka that she could be permitted to the MBBS course in the session commencing
February/March 1991. As per to the medical college she was asked to pay Rs 60,000 as the
tuition fee for the first year and submit a bank guarantee for the fee for the remaining years of the
MBBS course.

The father of the petitioner asked the medical college that it was beyond his ability to pay the
excessive fee of Rs 60,000 and because of that she was denied admission to the medical college.

Under Article 324 of the Constitution of India Miss Mohini Jain has challenged the notification
of the government of Karnataka allowing the Private Medical Colleges in the State to pay such
excessive tuition fees from the students other than those admitted to the "Government seats".

ISSUES PREPARED BY THE COURT:

ISSUE 1: Whether the Right to Education was guaranteed under Indian Constitution to
the people of India? If yes, does the 'capitation fee' violates the same?

ISSUE 2: Whether the charging of capitation fee amount in consideration of admissions

to educational institutions is arbitrary, unfair and unjust and as such breaches the equality
under Article 14 of the Constitution?

ISSUE 3: Whether the impugned notification allows the Private Medical Colleges to
charge capitation fee in the form of regulating fees under the Act?

ISSUE 4: Whether the notification is violative of the Act which stops the charging of
capitation fee by any educational institution in Karnataka?

4
The Constitution of India, Article 32
ANSWERS TO THE ISSUES:
ISSUE 1: The Preamble envisages "equality of status and of opportunity" and protect the
dignity of an individual. Articles 21 5, 38, 39(a) and (f), 41 and 45 of the constitution.
Under Part III the right to education has not made as a fundamental right but the drafters
of the Indian Constitution made it obligatory for the State government to make sure
education for its citizens. It is just selling of the education when the private educational
institutions are asking to pay the capitation fee for the sake of admission.
ISSUE 2: As held in E.P. Royappa V. State of Tamil Nadu case, the capitation fee brings
clear class discrimination. It allows the rich class to take admission into the educational
institutions but not to the poor class as they don’t have enough financial capability which
is unreasonable, unfair and unjust. Hence, the levying of capitation fee in consideration of
admissions is completely arbitrary and as such provisions disobeys Article 14 of the
Indian Constitution.

ISSUE 3: the notification is ultra vires to the Act because it goes against to Section 3 of
the Act and as such has to be set aside thereby we can say that the impugned notification
does not allow the Private Medical Colleges to levy capitation fee under the statute as the
notification is made for the sake of the capitation fee but not a tuition fee. Therefore the
court stated that it is not legal for any educational institution to levy capitation fee as a
consideration for the student admission to the educational institution.

ISSUE 4: The prescribed notification is against to the provisions of the Act which stops
the levying of capitation fee by any institution in Karnataka

ANALYSIS:
 The Preamble of Indian Constitution guarantees to secure to all citizens of India “Justice,
social, economic and political” and “liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and
worship”. The Preamble assures and provides "equality of status and of opportunity" and
assures individual’s dignity.
 Articles 21- Protection of life and personal liberty6

5
The Constitution of India, Article 21, 38, 39(a) & (f), 41, 45

6
The Constitution of India, Article 21
  Article 38- State to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people7
 Article 39(a) & (f) - Certain principles of policy to be followed by the state8
 Article 41- Right to work, to education and to public assistance in certain cases9
 Article 45- Provision for free and compulsory education for children10

Statutory provisions of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee)

Act, 1984 and the notification11:
 Section 2(b) & (e): Definition of Capitation fee and Government seats
 Section 3: Collection of Capitation fee prohibited
 Section 4: Regulation of admission to educational institutions etc-
 Section 5: Regulation of fees etc-
Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948 highlighted that education shall
be directed to the full development of the human personality 12. The state is under a constitutional
obligation to make conditions where the fundamental rights guaranteed to the individuals under
part III could be enjoyed by all. The fundamental rights shall be far from reach of the larger
majority whom are poor and illiterate if we don’t make the right to education a truth under
Article 41.

The Court’s interpretation of Article 21 in the case of Francis Coralie Mullin V.

Adminsitratior, Union Territory of Delhi where it was asked that “whether the right to life is
just limited to protection of limb or faculty or does it even protect more. The right to live with
human dignity, was included in the right to life and the minimum necessaries such as sufficient
nutrition, clothing and shelter and amenities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in
diverse forms, freely moving and communicating with other fellow human being.”

In the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha V. Union of India13 it was stated that “in Article 21 right
to live with human dignity was brought up which was originated from the Part IV of directive
7
The Constitution of India, Article 38
8
The Constitution of India, Article 39(a) & (f)
9
The Constitution of India, Article 41
10
The Constitution of India, Article 45
11
Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 Section 2(b) & (e), 3, 4, 5
12
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948
13
Bandhua Mukti Morcha V. Union of India 1984 AIR 802 1984
Principles14 and specifically Article 39(e)(d) and Articles 41 and 42 therefore, it must include
protection of the health and strength of workers, opportunities and amenities for children which
helps to develop them in a healthy way and in conditions of freedom and dignity with
educational facilities, just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief.”

A new facet of Article 14 was laid down in E. P. Royappa V. State of Tamil Nadu 15 in which it
was pointed out that the Article 14 has more activist significance and it lays down a guarantee
against arbitrariness. From a positivistic point it was stated that, equality is antithesis to
arbitrariness. Because equality and arbitrariness are adversarial in nature; equality belongs to the
rule of law, whereas arbitrariness belongs to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarchy.
Where an act is arbitrary it is absolute that it is unfair to both as per constitutional law and is
therefore violative of Article 14”

The Counsel appearing for the medical college states that it is the valid classification where
the candidates i.e., students are classified into those who has merit and those who do not have
merit and so that the college is within its right to ask excessive fees from those who do not have
merit. The counsel further said that the aim of the classification is to collect money to meet the
expenses accrued by the management in providing education. Counsel appearing for the
private medical college states that the private medical colleges in Karnataka do not receive any
financial aid from either of the government. Both the counsels then rested upon D.P.Joshi V.
State of Madhya Bharat16 where the classification of candidates for admission to medical
colleges which is on the basis of residence is allowed. Here the point was whether the
classification on the ground of residence is justified or not. The Supreme Court stated that the
aim of the classification was to help resident students of Madhya Bharat in perusing of their
education hence it cannot be questioned as it is a legitimate and laudable objective for a state
government of Madhya Bharat to encourage and allow education within its state. Education is a
state subject as per Article 41 and directive principles made it clear that the state should make
provisions for education within the country.

14
The Constitution of India, Directive Principles of State Policy
15
E. P. Royappa V. State of Tamil Nadu 1974 AIR 555 1974 SCR (2) 348 1974 SCC (4) 3
16
D.P.Joshi V. State of Madhya Bharat 1955 AIR 334 1955 SCR (1)1215
Why the Impugned Notification is struck down?
It was seen that the Government of Karnataka was accomplishing its duty to provide medical
education to the citizens and has fixed Rs 2000 per annum as tuition fee for the students who are
selected on the basis of merit for admission and even against "Government seats" in Private
Medical Colleges. It is the State government duty to see that any private medical college which
is recognized by the government is prohibited from charging more than Rs 2000 from any
student who may be resident of any part of India if the State Government already fixes Rs 2000
per annum as the tuition fee in Government colleges and for "Government seats" in Private
College.

The private college is already performing a function which under the Constitution has been
assigned to the State Government if the Government of state allows a Private College to be set
up and recognizes its curriculum and degrees. Hence Rs 60,000 per annum allowed to be charged
from those students who are from outside the state of Karnataka is not tuition fee but a capitation
fee which cannot be sustained and levied and is liable to be struck down.

In this I appreciate the various contentions that were made by the both the counsels with respect
to the Right to Education and the way the judges responded to their contentions in their
judgment. The private medical colleges in Karnataka do not receive any financial aid from either
of the government. Both the counsels then rested upon D.P.Joshi V. State of Madhya Bharat
where the classification of candidates for admission to medical colleges which is on the basis of
residence is allowed. Education is a state subject as per Article 41 and directive principles made
it clear that the state should make provisions for education within the country.

The way Justice Kuldip Singh interpreted various Landmark judgments with respect to the
constitutional provisions can be appreciated and brought a very significant impact on the policies
that were brought after this judgment in the areas of educational institutions and Right to
Education. A new facet of Article 14 was laid down in E. P. Royappa V. State of Tamil Nadu17
in which it was pointed out that the Article 14 has more activist significance and it lays down a
guarantee against arbitrariness. From a positivistic point it was stated that, equality is antithesis
to arbitrariness.

17
E. P. Royappa V. State of Tamil Nadu 1974 AIR 555 1974 SCR (2) 348 1974 SCC (4) 3
JUDGEMENT BY THE COURT:

The Supreme Court has not accepted the definition of capitation fee which was provided by the
legislature or the classification of students into separate categories for payment of separate
amounts of fees. According to the court the amount fixed for a tuition fee for the Government
seat alone is tuition fee and any amount above it, irrespective of its name, is capitation fee.

The Court's dictum: "We therefore hold and declare that it is not legal for any educational
institution to charge capitation fee as a consideration for any admission.”