Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992) – Landmark Case on Right to Education and Capitation Fees

 

      Mohini Jain   

                                v.

                       State of Karnataka 1992                                                                      1992 AIR 1858; 1992 SCC (3)

 

Landmark judgement which addressed charging of capitation fee by medical colleges .

Author- Nishita yadav, B.A.LLB(Hons), University of Allahabad, Prayagraj

Case Number	456 of 1991
Court	Supreme Court of India
Date of judgement	30/7/1992
Bench	Justice Kuldeep Singh , Justice R. M. Sahai
Petitioner	Miss Mohini Jain
Respondent No.01 Respondent No.03	State of Karnataka Sri Sriddhartha Medical College ( Private Medical College )
Legal provisions involved	Article 14 , 21 , 38 , 39 (a)(f) , 41 , 45 Right to education act 2009 Karnataka Educational Institutions ( Prohibition of Capitation Fee ) Act , 1984 : section 3

 

 

Abstract

 

Background of case

            During the period of 1990s , the country saw a surge in private educational institutional . These educational institutions demanded an additional fee called “CAPITATION FEE ” for admission in professional courses . These fee were subject to fluctuate on basis of demand and supply i.e. high demand for admission to a course , higher fee was to be paid for admission .

 

Facts of the case

MissMohini Jain , a resident of Meerut , Uttar Pradesh , sought admission to Sri Sriddhartha Medical College , Agalokote , Tumkur , Karnataka that she could be admitted to MBBS course in the session commencing February/March 1991.[1]

The college management demanded a tuition fee of ₹60,000 for the first year and required the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee for the fees payable for the remaining years of the MBBS course. The petitioner's father informed the college that he was financially unable to afford such a steep amount, following which her admission was revoked. The petitioner further alleged that the management had also demanded a capitation fee of ₹4.5 lakhs, a claim which was firmly refuted by the college authorities.

 

Issues raised

·        Whether charging capitation fees by private medical colleges is violative of the Right of Equality (Article 14) and the Right to Education.

 

·        Is Right to Education a basic right under Article 21 of the Constitution?.

 

·        If and how education can be commodified on a commercial level.

 

Legal provisions involved

·        Article 14 – Equality Before Law

The Indian State is prohibited from denying any individual equality before the law or equal protection under the laws throughout the country's territory.

·        Article 21 – Protection of Life and Personal Liberty

No individual shall be deprived of their life or personal freedom unless in accordance with a procedure that is established by law.

·        Article 38 – Social Order for People's Welfare

The State is responsible for establishing and maintaining a social structure that promotes the well-being of the people, ensuring that social, economic, and political justice influences all aspects of national life.

·        Article 39 – Directive Principles of State Policy

The State is required to guide its policies with the aim of achieving specific objectives.

39(a): It should ensure that every citizen, regardless of gender, has access to sufficient means of livelihood.

39(f): It must guarantee that children are provided with proper opportunities and facilities for healthy growth in an environment of freedom and dignity, while also being protected from exploitation and neglect, both morally and materially.

·        Article 41 – Rights to Work, Education, and Support

Within its financial and developmental capacity, the State must make provisions to ensure access to work, education, and assistance in cases such as unemployment, illness, old age, disability, or any other situation of unjustified need.

·        Article 45 – Early Childhood Education and Care

The State is expected to strive toward offering free and compulsory education for all children up to the age of fourteen within ten years from the adoption of the Constitution.

·        Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984

The Government of Karnataka enacted legislation in 1984 to prevent private educational institutions from charging students additional fees (capitation fees) beyond the standard tuition.

o   On June 5, 1989, the State Government released a notification in accordance with Section 5(1) of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984.

§  By way of this notification they fixed different types of fees charged by medical institutions in the state .

§  Fee was fixed after categorization of students .

·        Students admitted on “ government seats ” were to pay Rs. 2000 as tuition fee.

·        Students from Karnataka admitted under non-government quota seats were required to pay a tuition fee capped at ₹25,000.

·        Students who belong to a category of “ Indian students outside of Karnataka ” were to pay a tuition fee not exceeding  Rs. 60,000 .

 

 

Arguments

 

Petitioner

The petitioner,Mohini Jain invoking Article 32 challenged the aforementioned notification by respondent state that allowedprivate medical institutions in the state of Karnataka to charge ridiculous amount in two categories tuition fee andcapitation fee from students in exchange of admissions to the said institution .

The petitioner contended that such practices are unjust and infringe upon an individual’s essential right to education. She argued that such actions by educational institutions makes education which originally is meant to be a tool for self empowerment , a commercial commodity to be sold at whatever price and benefit from that . She further claimed that these actions are irrational, lack fairness, and are inconsistent Part IV of the Indian Constitution which outlines Directive Principles Of State Policy . these principles place various kinds of responsibilities on state’s shoulders.

Therefore , she urged the court to declare the notification invalid and protect the right of free and fair education for all .

 

Respondent

Mr. Santosh Hegde, legal representative for respondent no. 3, the medical college contended that fee is charged from students is based on merit . he stated that those students who are admitted on government seats are meritorious and all others are non-meritorious and such a classification is valid and reasonable on part of the medical college . the counsel also reasoned that college management is in right to charge extra fee from non- meritorious children.

Mr. C. S. Vaidyanathan , counsel for the intervener Karnataka private medical colleges association ; argued in defense of capitation fee charged by such institutions . He explained that these colleges don’t receive any financial support neither from central government nor the state government and spends approximately Rs. 5 lakhs per student over a 5 year MBBScourse. However, 40% of seats are reserved as "Government seats," for which students pay only Rs. 2,000 annually, leaving a significant financial burden on students in the management quota. Mr. Vaidyanathan and Mr. Hegde argue that charging capitation fees is necessary to sustain the colleges and that there is no constitutional or legal provision explicitly prohibiting such charges.

 

Judgement

           Judgement in this case was delivered by Justice Kuldeep Singh

1.The right to education is considered an essential aspect of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court said that the right to education is included in the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Without education, a person cannot live with dignity or make full use of other rights. So, education is not just the government's duty—it is a constitutional right for every citizen.

 2. Capitation Fees Violate the Right to Equality (Article 14): The Court held that demanding capitation fees for admission goes against Article 14, as it creates unfair treatment and violates the principle of equality. This is because students who can't afford the fee are denied admission, even if they are equally capable. Such fees create economic discrimination and go against the idea of social justice.

3. Education Should Not Be Treated Like a Business: The Court strongly criticized the idea of making money from education. It said education is a public service, not something to be sold for profit. Charging high fees goes against the equal and fair values of the Constitution.

 4. Directive Principles Help Explain Fundamental Rights: Although Directive Principles of State Policy (like Articles 41 and 45) are not enforceable in court, they help interpret other rights like Article 21. These principles show that the State has a duty to provide free education, especially for children up to 14 years of age. They help give a broader meaning to the right to life in a welfare society.

 5. Education Reduces Inequality: The Court said that education empowers people, helps society grow, and reduces inequality. If poor students are blocked from getting an education, it increases the gap between rich and poor. Everyone should have equal access to education, no matter their financial background.

          

 

Conclusion

 

Supreme court in Miss Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka passed a landmark judgement, which serves an important role in field of education. The court firmly stated that right to education is a person’s fundamental right and is considered a part of fundamental right to life under Article 21 of Indian Constitution . It further held that charging of Capitation Fee by educational institution is a discriminatory practice and violates right to equality under Article 14. The court while rejecting the idea of commercialization of education stated that students shouldn’t be discriminated on financial basis and a person’s access to education should also not be restricted on this basis.

This judgment laid the foundation for the ruling in Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), where the Court recognized the right to education as a fundamental right for children up to the age of 14. It also played a key role in the incorporation of Article 21A, which made the right to education a directly enforceable fundamental right.

 

 

 

References

·       https://indiankanoon.org/doc/40715/

·       https://blog.ipleaders.in/miss-mohini-jain-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-1992/

·       https://legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-13876-mohini-jain-v-s-state-of-karnataka.html

 

[1]Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1992 SC 1858, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/40715/.

 

✅  Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992) – Landmark Case on Right to Education and Capitation Fees

Explore the Supreme Court judgment in Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992) that declared education a fundamental right under Article 21 and struck down capitation fees as discriminatory under Article 14. A crucial case in India's education and constitutional history.

• Mohini Jain vs State of Karnataka
• Right to Education Article 21
• Capitation fee Supreme Court case
• Education fundamental right in India
• Article 14 Right to Equality in Education

• Landmark judgment on education rights
• Capitation fee illegal in India
• Commercialization of education case
• Right to education before 2009 Act
• Directive Principles and Article 21.