Title: This is a landmark case that throws light on the disparity which was in practice regarding the Capitation fee and tuition fees by various private institutions.

Case Name: Miss Mohini Jain v State Of Karnataka And Ors

Citation: 1992 AIR 1858, 1992 SCR  (3) 658

Court: Supreme Court of India

Judge: Kuldip Singh(J), Sahai, R.M. (J)

Decided On: 30 July 1992

Case Laws:

Case Law

• Francis  Coralie  Mullin v.  The  Administrator,  Union Territory  of Delhi [1981] 2 SCR 516

• Bandhua Mukti  Morcha v. Union of India and Ors.,[1984] 2 SCR

• E.P. Royappa v. State  of  Tamil  Nadu and Anr.,[1974] 2  SCR  348

• Maneka Gandhi  v. Union of India[1978] 2 SCR 621;

• Ramana  Dayaram Shetty  v. The International Airport Authority of India  and Ors.,[1979]  3 SCR 1014;

• Ajay Hasia etc. v.  Khalid  Mujib Sehravardi  and Ors. etc.,[1981] 2 SCR 79

• Dr.  Pradeep Jain  etc.  v. Union of India Ors. etc., [1984] 3  SCR  942,[1984] 3  SCR  942,

• D.P.  Joshi v. The State of Madhya Bharat and  another[1955] SCR 1215

Brief Facts Of The Case

1. Karnataka State government issued a notification dated June 5,1989 under section 5(1) of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 fixing the tuition fee.

2.     The Tuition fees fixed per year for the students admitted on the quota of “ government seats” was Rs. 2,000, for the Students of Karnataka State who are not admitted on the Government seat tuition fees was not exceeding Rs.25000,and for the Students belonging to the category of “ Indian Students from outside Karnataka” were to pay the tuition fee not exceeding Rs. 60,000 per annum. And around 40% seats in a private college are reserved as government seats.

3.     She was a resident of  Uttar Pradesh, applied to enrol in a course at Sri Siddhartha Medical College, a private medical college in Karnataka.

4.     The petitioner Mohini singh came under the category “Indian Students from outside Karnataka” and she was asked to pay Rs. 60,000 as the capitation fee and with this she should provide for a certificate from the bank that each year she will be paying the installments of the fees until the completion of her course by the management of Sri Sriddharatha Medical College, Agalokote.

5.     When the father of the petitioner informed that he could not financially sound to pay this much exorbitant fees she was denied admission.

6.     So the petitioner under Article 32 challenged the notification dated June 5, 1989 regarding the unfair fees charged by the Private institutions.

7.     The counsel appearing on the behalf of the respondent the medical college contended that whom higher tuition fee is charged belong to a different class. According to the practice those who are admitted to the "Government seats" are meritorious and the remaining non-meritorious. In regard to this colleges have right to charge any amount of the fees.

8.     They argued that such a amount is charged because to meet the expenses incurred on the education facility provided to the students.

9.     Learned counsel appearing for the intervener Karnataka Private Medical Colleges Association has argued that the Private Medical Colleges in the State of Karnataka do not receive any financial aid from either the Central or the State Government.

10.  According to him the Private Medical Colleges incur about Rs.5 lakhs per student as expenditure for a 5 year MBBS course. 40% of the seats in these colleges are set part as "Government seats" to be filled by the Government.

11.  The students selected and admitted against Government seats pay only Rs.2,000 per annum as such the rest of the burden falls on those who are admitted against management quota and he stated that such amount of fees does not provide for any profit to the institutions.

12.  And no provision in the constitution forbids them from charging any amount of the Capitation fee.

Issue

Ø  Is there right to education under Indian Constitution

Ø  Is charging capitation fees is arbitrary under article 14

Ø  Does Karnataka government order allow capitation fee to be charged.

Ø  Whether the notification was voilative of  the provisions of the Act?

Ratio

·   The Court said that the Preamble of India ensures to all citizens of India "Justice, social, economic and political" "liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship” and it further provides for "equality of status and of opportunity" and assures dignity of the individual

·   Protection of life and personal liberty.-No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."

·   State to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people.The state should ensure to all its citizen Welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life.

·   In nutshell they provided for that all the articles of the constitution barred any kind of discrimination and always have promoted for the equal opportunity to every citizen regardless of any discrimination.

·   And the right to life does not merely provide for a life with dignity but life with dignity includes right to education because without education no one can live with dignity.

·   As such no right is guaranteed under the constitution regarding the right to education.

·   They further stated that It is only is the education which equips a citizen to participate in achieving the objectives enshrined in the preamble.

·   An individual cannot be assured of human dignity unless his personality is developed and the only way to do that is to educate him. This is why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 emphasises "Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality..."

·   Although a citizen cannot enforce the DPSP but it does not mean that DPSP are of no use.

·   These principles have to be read into the fundamental rights. Both are supplementary to each other.

·   All of the good doctors are living in abroad.

·   So there is a need of better doctors.

·   Due to high capitation fees poor people are bound to withdraw their application due to lack of financial resources.

Decision

·   The  court held that charging of capitation fee in consideration of admissions to educational institutions is wholly arbitrary and as such infracts Article 14 of the Constitution.

·   The Court declared that  charging of capitation fee by the private educational institutions as a consideration for admission is wholly illegal and cannot be permitted.