MOHINI
JAIN VS STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND ORS
JUDGES
KULDIP SINGH
SAHAI,RM
CITATION
1992 AIR 1858 1992 SCR (3) 658
1992 SCC (3)
666 JT 1992 (4) 292
1992 SCALE (2) 90
FACTS
Miss MohiniJain
was a resident of Meerut,Uttar
Pradesh and she was seeking admission in Karnataka State Medical College.Thefee
for candidates admitted by ‘government seats’ was Rs.2000,whereas fee for other
students from Karnataka was 25,000 and for students from outside Karnataka it
was 60,000 per year.
The college asked Miss Mohini to pay the sum of
Rs.60,000 at the beginning of session in March and the management board asked
her to provide a bank assurance for the remaining 4 years of MBBS course as she
was a student from outside Karnataka.
When her father told that he could not afford the above mentioned
amount,she was denied admission .
Miss Mohini Jain filed a petition under Article 32
of the Indian Constitution which
challenged the notification of
Karnataka Government permitting the Private Medical Colleges in
Karnataka
To charge exhorbitant fee from students who are not admitted through Government seats.
ISSUES
1) Does
the Indian Constitution guarentees the right to education?
2) Should
private colleges charge capitation fee?
3) Does
capitation fee violates article 14?
JUDGEMENT
The
honorable court said that even though Right to Education is not a
Fundamental right,Article 21,article 38,39(a),(f),41 and 45 were
included to by framers of the Constitution to provide state a sense of
responsibility towards providing education to its citizens.The court held that
Right to life under Article 21 cannot be assured unless right to education is
provided.Fundamental rights like right to freedom of speech and expression are
of no use if education is not developed and promoted.
Education is a basic human right,which assures
dignity and prosperity,minimizes
inequality and promotes welfare which is a basic Directive Principle of
State Policy under Article 38 Part( IV).
Article 39 of
part IV directs state to secure adequate means of livelihood ,which
cannot be achieved if state does not promote adequate means of education.
The capitation
fee was abolished by the court ,it found capitation fee exhorbitant and
since they are income based and not merit based,they were found to be
unconstitutional and in violation of the
right to equal protection under Article 14 of the Constitution.The court held
that fee charged by Medical College was not tutionfee,but capitation fee ,hence
it was a violation of Karnataka Educational Institutions (Capitation Fee
Prohibition )Act.
The SC relied on various cases like EP Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and
Anr,Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, D.P Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat and
others to arrive at a decision.
The writ petition was accepted,but the petitioner
was not provided any relief related to enrolment,as she was not admitted to
college on merit and the course had already begun in March 1991,so it found no
basis in directing the State Government of Karnataka to grant her admission.
CONCLUSION
This judgement was the an important step taken by
the SC to promote equality in education by prohibiting colleges from charging
exhorbitantfee.Education is a basic human need which ensuresself growth ,equality of
oppurtunities,ability to grow into best version of himself/herself.It paved way
for the 86th Constitutional Act,2002 which incorporated Article 21 –A
to provide free and mandatory for all children in the age group from 6 to 14
years .It was a Fundamental Right. In 2009 Right to Children
to Free and compulsory Education (RTE) Act,2009 was enacted to give teeth to Article 21-A.
0 Comments