Miss Mohini Jain .... Petitioner Versus State Of Karnataka And Ors. .... Respondent

Facts Of The Case
The Karnataka State Legislature, enacted the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 19842 with the purpose of removing the process of charging donation fee for admission of the.

On June 5, 1989, the Karnataka Legislature announced an order to control tuition fee of private educational institutions under Section 5 (1) of the Act3.

According to notification, the candidates granted entry through “Government seats” are to pay Rs. 2,000/- per academic year as donation fee while Karnataka aspirants (apart from those who granted entry through “Government Seats”) are to be demanded maximum fee Rs. 25,000/- per academic year. An utmost fee of Rs. 60,000 would be charged from the aspirants who are not from Karnataka.

Mohini Jain, citizen of Meerut, got notification from the administration of Sri Siddharatha Medical College at Agalokote, Tumkur, Karnataka, that she could join the MBBS program sessions starting in early 1991, and she was demanded to pay Rs. 60,000 by college. Mohini’s father called the administration department and stated that he is incapable to pay. She further claimed that she was asked for an extra donation fee around Rs. 4,50,000, a charge that the respondent rejected. Ms. Jain lodged a petition under Article 324, arguing that notification violates Article 125, 146, 217, and 418 by allowing Capitation fee, through this infringe right to education.

In short, the matter included Karnataka legislature's Act9 aimed at prohibiting donation fee and a subsequently notification also control tuition fee charged by private educational institutions, challenged by Ms. Mohini Jain for the reason of unfair academic expenses.

Case Brief:
1992 (3) Scc 666; 1992 Air 1858
In The Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India
Coram: Kuldip Singh, .M. Sahai

Issues:

• Whether a ‘Right to Education’ pledged to the citizens of India under the Constitution? In this instance, does the notion of ‘capitation fee’ infringe the same?
• Whether the concept of charging donation fees by the institution for the admission of the individual is arbitrary, unfair, and unjust, thus infringing Article 14, which ensures equality?
• Whether the contested notification permits the Private Medical College to demand capitation fees in the guise of regulating fees under the Act?
• Whether the Act's provisions are infringed by the notification that forbids the collection of such fees?

Rule Of Law:
In this case, the Supreme court affirmed that every individual of the country has a ‘right to education’ under Constitution. The court pronounced that right to education is originated from Article 2112 which talk about right to life and personal liberty. It emphasized that the dignity of every human must be protected and respected under all circumstances. Individuals can only exercise their fundamental rights if there is not discrimination and can also engage in society.

Hence, the judgment of “Miss Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992)13” Case serves as reminder that ‘right to education’ must be safeguard by both the government and private educational institutions. Government was directed to take necessary steps to control the donation fees demanded by private learning institution. It was a government duty to see that education was available to all the citizens of the country there should not be discrimination between rich class people and poor class people.

Contention Of Parties

• Petitioner’s Arguments:
  The petitioner argues that imposition of capitation fee by educational institution violates his fundamental right to education guaranteed by Article 2114. Education is essential in the overall growth of the personality. ‘Right to education’ is infringe by capitation fee policy, which denies availability of education-based person's financial condition.
  
  The petitioner further argued that there is no logical connection between donation fee and the standard of education furnished by the private educational institution. This policy is inconsistent and inappropriate thus, infringes the right to equality outlined in Article 1415.
  
  Petitioner further explained that the right to equality outlined in Article 1416 violates, individual of economically weaker section of the society, because they are unable to afford high fees of educational institutions.
  
  Additionally, petitioner argued that the procedure of collecting of donation fee contradicts Directive Principle of State Policy lay down in Article 3817 and 3918, which states that "the state shall strive to promote the welfare of the people and ensure equal access to opportunities for all citizens” In the end, the petitioner argues that education is considered as good for the private parties not as public good which is against public policy. This policy is against the greater public interest.
   
• Respondent’s Argument:
  Private medical college, the third respondent, argues that candidates who are granted entry through “Government seats” are considered as meritorious and the remaining through “Management quota (excluding government seats)” are considered as non-meritorious. They believed that this classification is valid, and hence based on this classification the college charged higher fees from less qualified candidates to cover the expenditure of providing medical education.
  
  The Karnataka Private Medical Association, has argued that the lack of receiving any financial assistant from the government is major hurdle for medical colleges. According to them, as forty percentage of seats are filled through government quota, so the responsibility is placed on the students who appears from management quota because the students admitted through government seat only pay 2,000 per academic year. Hence, profitability cannot be questioned in this type of arrangement and argued that tuition fees is not excessive.
  
  Together, the third respondent and intervenor underlined that there are no such provisions in the Indian Constitution or any other laws prohibiting the collection of donation fees.

Judgement
The Supreme Court of India in the suit of Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992)19, validated the fundamental right to education and declared the accumulation of donation fees imposed by private learning institutions as unconstitutional. Right to education is guaranteed under Article 2120, which protects the right to life and personal liberty.

The court in additionally found that the capitation fee imposed by private educational institutions infringe right to equality as protected under Article 1421. The court remarked that the private educational institutions were making profit by charging donation fee and was not connected with the quality of education provided. The court pointed out that the policy of capitation fee discriminated economically weaker section of the society because they can’t afford high fees, hence denying them equal opportunities in education.

The court also directed the government to initiate actions to regulate the fees charged by private learning institutions and safeguard that they did not charge capitation fees. The court determined that it was the government’s responsibility that education was available to all and that it was not monopolized by influenced and privileged peoples. No relief was granted to the petitioner since she wasn’t admitted on merit.

Precedents Followed
The bench supported legal framework presented in their judgment on the interpretation of Article 2122 by mentioning some important precedents. In the case of Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi 23, it was upheld that Article 2124 not just contains the right to live with human dignity but also protects physical well-being. These contains availability to basic necessities such as shelter, education, nutrition, and the freedom of self-expression.

Additionally, the judge referred to the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India 25, the court held that the right to live with human dignity, as outlined in Article 2126, deeply connected with Directive Principle of State Policy, where the government has to safeguard workers, children, health, and humane working conditions. These are minimum conditions that must be achieved to qualify an individual life with human dignity, any of the government have right to prohibit anyone access to these basic needs.

Furthermore, the bench outlined the evolving interpretation of Article 1427, underline that right to equality is fundamentally opposite to arbitrariness. This doctrine was drawn from precedents like Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India28, Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India29. Both these cases act as a protection of arbitrary actions of authorities.

Current Status / Significance
Before to the Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992)30 there was no explicit mention of right to education as a fundamental right secured under Indian constitution.

Additionally, the private educational institutions were charging very high capitation fee from the individual and making profits and there was no law which directly disallowed the same.

The practice of charging high donation fee by private educational institution was a violation of right to education, which is a part of Article 2131. In this case, the Supreme Court declared a essential transformation in the landscape of high capitation fee, said that right to education is a fundamental right under Indian Constitution. The practice of charging high capitation fee violates the same. The principle of case is still binding in all Indian Courts.

Yet, there were some problems in enforcing this judgment fully, because some educational institutions find ways to charge capitation fee in diverse title, and there still stays scarcity of educational institutions in India.

Despite these challenges, the Mohini Jain judgment gives a significant transformation to Indian education system, confirming the fundamental right to education and creating it further accessible to more and more people specially to poor people.

References:

• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/40715/
• https://rb.gy/knkf93
• https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/12349.pdf

Award Winning Article Is Written By: Mr.Shadab Shakil Kashmani

Authentication No: SP424661868151-2-0924