- Justice Kuldip SinghFavored (Authored)
- Justice R.M. SahaiFavored
- Constitution of India (Articles 21, 32, 38, 39(a), 41, 45, 46)
- Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984
- Karnataka State Notification regarding fees (Feb 1989)
- Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) (Interpreted Art 21 broadly)
- Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981) (Dignity under Art 21)
- D.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat (1955) (Re: Capitation fee definition)
This Public Interest Litigation challenged the practice of charging exorbitant "capitation fees" by private medical colleges in Karnataka. Mohini Jain, a student from Meerut, was denied admission to a private medical college in Karnataka for the MBBS course because she could not afford the high capitation fee (Rs. 60,000) demanded from students admitted outside the 'government seats' quota, despite the notified tuition fee being much lower (Rs. 2,000).
The petitioner argued that charging such fees effectively commercialized education and made it inaccessible to deserving students, violating the fundamental right to education, which she contended was part of the Right to Life under Article 21. The validity of the Karnataka government notification permitting different fee structures was also questioned.
ARGUMENTS
Petitioner's Case (Mohini Jain)
- The Right to Education is a fundamental right implicit in the Right to Life and Dignity under Article 21.
- Charging capitation fees makes education, especially higher education, inaccessible based on financial capacity, violating Article 14 (Equality) and Article 21.
- Capitation fee is essentially a disguised donation forced upon students and is contrary to the object of education as a tool for social upliftment.
- The Karnataka government notification permitting differential fees for 'government seat' students and other students (based on capitation fee) is arbitrary and discriminatory.
Respondents' Case (State of Karnataka / Private College)
- There is no specific fundamental right to education (especially higher education) guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution. It is mentioned only in Directive Principles (Article 41, 45).
- Private unaided educational institutions have the autonomy to set their fee structures to cover costs and maintain standards.
- The Karnataka Act aimed to prohibit capitation fees, but the notification allowed a higher fee structure for certain categories to manage finances.
- Classifying students into 'government seats' (merit-based, lower fee) and 'management seats' (higher fee) is a reasonable classification.
Case Progression Timeline
Karnataka Act Passed
Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 is enacted.
1984Govt Notification on Fees
State Government issues notification allowing private colleges to charge higher fees (including capitation fee component) for non-merit/management quota students.
February 1989Mohini Jain Denied Admission
Petitioner denied admission to a private medical college due to inability to pay the high capitation fee demanded.
~1991Writ Petition Filed
Mohini Jain files a petition under Article 32 in the Supreme Court challenging the practice and the notification.
~1991-1992Supreme Court Judgment
The 2-judge bench declares the Right to Education as part of Article 21 and denounces capitation fees.
July 30, 1992Unni Krishnan Judgment
A larger 5-judge bench reviews Mohini Jain, confirms Right to Education under Art 21 (up to age 14), and frames a scheme regulating private college admissions/fees.
February 4, 1993The Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment holding that the Right to Education flows directly from the Right to Life under Article 21. The Court reasoned that the right to life and dignity cannot be assured unless accompanied by the right to education, which equips individuals to lead a fulfilling life.
The Court strongly condemned the practice of charging capitation fees, calling it "wholly arbitrary, pernicious, and unethical." It held that such fees make education a commodity and deny access to meritorious but poor students, violating Article 14. The judgment declared that citizens have a fundamental right to education, and the State has an obligation to provide it at all levels (though the scope, particularly for higher education, was clarified later).
COURT'S ANALYSIS
Justice Kuldip Singh's analysis linked education directly to the ability to live a life with dignity, a core component of Article 21 as interpreted in earlier cases like Francis Coralie Mullin. The Court interpreted the Directive Principles related to education (Articles 41, 45, 46) not merely as state goals but as essential for realizing the fundamental right under Article 21. By declaring the right to education fundamental, the judgment placed a significant obligation on the State. The Court's denunciation of capitation fees was unequivocal, viewing them as a commercialization of education that undermined merit and equality. While impactful, the broad declaration of a right to education at all levels raised practical concerns, leading to a subsequent review by a larger bench.
FINAL VERDICT
- The Right to Education is a fundamental right implicit in the Right to Life and Personal Liberty guaranteed by Article 21.
- Charging capitation fees for admission to educational institutions is illegal, arbitrary, and violates Article 14.
- The State is under an obligation to provide educational facilities at all levels to its citizens.
- The Karnataka government notification permitting capitation fees was held to be contrary to the state's own Act and unconstitutional.
- The Writ Petition was allowed.
RATIO DECIDENDI
The Right to Education flows directly from the Right to Life under Article 21. The dignity of an individual cannot be assured unless accompanied by the right to education. Charging capitation fees for admission to educational institutions constitutes commercialization of education, is arbitrary, and violates Article 14.
(Note: The scope of the Right to Education under Article 21 was later clarified and limited (primarily to education up to 14 years) by the Supreme Court in Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993). Subsequently, Article 21A was inserted by the 86th Amendment Act, 2002, making free and compulsory education for children aged 6-14 a specific Fundamental Right.)