Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, 1992 (Fundamental right to equality of opportunity under Article 14 of Indian Constitution.)

CASE NAME	Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, 1992
EQUIVALENT CITATION	1992 AIR 1858, 1992 SCR (3) 658
DATE OF JUDGMENT	30 JULY 1992
Case no.	(1992) 3 SCC
Case type :	Writ petition (civil) case
Petitioner	MISS MOHINI JAIN
RESPONDENT	STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
BENCH/JUDGE	KULDIP SINGH(J), SAHAI, R.M. (J),
Referred	Fundamental right to equality of opportunity under Article 14 of Indian Constitution.

Introduction

Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka was a landmark case that was heard in the Supreme Court of India in 1992. The case was brought before the court to challenge the constitutional validity of the capitation fee charged by private educational institutions for admission to professional courses. This case was significant as it addressed the issue of access to education as a fundamental right and brought to light the problems faced by economically weaker sections of society in accessing higher education.

Background

In the early 1990s, there was a rapid growth in the number of private educational institutions in India. These institutions charged exorbitant fees for admission to professional courses such as engineering, medicine, and law. The fees charged by these institutions were beyond the reach of economically weaker sections of society, who were unable to pay the high fees.

In 1983, the government of Karnataka passed a law that allowed private educational institutions to charge a capitation fee for admission to professional courses. The capitation fee was an amount charged over and above the regular tuition fees and was based on the principle of demand and supply. The higher the demand for a course, the higher the capitation fee charged by the institution.

Facts of The case

• The Karnataka Legislature passed the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984, aimed at eliminating the practice of collecting capitation fees from students at the time of admission.
• Subsequently, the Karnataka Legislature issued a notification (the “impugned notification”) under Section 5(1) of the Act, to regulate the tuition fees charged by Private Medical Colleges in the State. The notification was dated June 5, 1989, and stipulated the tuition fees, as well as other fees and deposits that students would be charged.
• The impugned notification stated that students joining through “Government seats” were to be charged Rs.2,000, while those from Karnataka (except for those entering through government seats) would be charged no more than Rs. 25,000 per year, and those from outside Karnataka would be charged no more than Rs. 60,000 per year.
• The petitioner, Ms. Mohini Jain, a resident of Meerut, was informed via post that she could enroll in the MBBS program at Sri Siddharatha Medical College, Agalokote, Tumkur, Karnataka, with the session starting in February/March 1991. The respondents claimed that she was asked to pay an amount of Rs. 60,000. However, the petitioner’s father subsequently called the management and declared that he did not have the means to pay the amount.
• The petitioner claimed that she was asked to pay an additional amount of about Rs. 4.5 lakhs as capitation fee, which the respondents denied vehemently. Ms. Jain filed a petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution challenging the notification of the Karnataka Legislature that allowed for demanding such exorbitant amounts from students in the name of tuition.
• The petition contended that the notification violated Articles 12, 14, 21, and 41 of the Indian Constitution, as it denied the right to education to Indian citizens on an arbitrary basis. The fee charged could easily be identified as a capitation fee, and was thus violative of Section 3 of the Act and against the principles of the right to equality and the right to education.

Issues Raised

1. Whether the Right to Education is guaranteed to the citizens of India in consonance with Fundamental Rights, and whether charging a capitation fee infracts the same?
2. Whether the charging of capitation fee is violative of the equality clause enshrined in Article 14?
3. Whether the impugned notification permitted the charging of a capitation fee under the guise of regulation?
4. Whether the notification is violative of the provisions of the Act prohibiting the charging of such fees?

Contention of petitioner

In Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992), the petitioner raised several contentions in relation to the constitutional validity of the policy of collecting capitation fee by private educational institutions. These contentions can be summarized as follows:

• The policy of collecting capitation fee violates the fundamental right to education guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner contended that education is a fundamental right and a necessary condition for the full development of an individual’s personality. The policy of collecting capitation fee, which effectively restricts access to education on the basis of economic status, is therefore violative of this right.
• The policy of collecting capitation fee is arbitrary and unreasonable. The petitioner contended that there is no rational nexus between the collection of capitation fee and the quality of education provided by private educational institutions. The policy is therefore arbitrary and unreasonable, and violates the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
• The policy of collecting capitation fee is discriminatory. The petitioner contended that the policy discriminates against students from economically weaker sections of society, who are unable to pay the exorbitant fees demanded by private educational institutions. This violates the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
• The policy of collecting capitation fee violates the Directive Principles of State Policy. The petitioner contended that the policy is in direct conflict with the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution of India, which mandate that the state shall strive to promote the welfare of the people and ensure equal access to opportunities for all citizens.
• The policy of collecting capitation fee is against public policy. The petitioner contended that the policy is against the public policy of promoting education as a public good, and instead promotes education as a commodity to be bought and sold in the market. This is against the larger public interest, and therefore, violates the principles of public policy.

Overall, the petitioner argued that the policy of collecting capitation fee is unconstitutional, arbitrary, discriminatory, and against public policy.

Contention of Respondent

Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka is a landmark case in India, which dealt with the issue of discrimination against female students in the admission process of medical and dental colleges. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of India and the following are the key contentions made by the respondent:

• The respondent, in this case, was the State of Karnataka and it argued that the system of granting admission to medical and dental colleges based on merit was necessary to ensure the quality of education and the standards of the medical profession.
• The State of Karnataka argued that the reservation of seats for women would lead to a compromise in the quality of education and the standards of the medical profession, as women candidates may not have the same level of merit as male candidates.
• The respondent further argued that the reservation of seats for women would be discriminatory against male candidates, who may be more meritorious than the female candidates and may lose out on admission due to the reservation policy.
• The State of Karnataka also argued that the reservation policy for women would not be consistent with the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination, as it would lead to discrimination against male candidates.
• The respondent further contended that the reservation of seats for women would be contrary to the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, which did not provide for any reservation of seats for women.
• The State of Karnataka also argued that the reservation policy for women would not be in the larger interest of society, as it would lead to a shortage of doctors and dentists, and would adversely affect the health care services provided to the people.
• The respondent further contended that the State government had the power to regulate admission to medical and dental colleges, and the reservation policy for women was a policy decision made by the State government, which was within its purview.

These were the key contentions made by the respondent in the Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka case.

Judgment

The Supreme Court of India, in its verdict, upheld the right to education as a fundamental right and ruled that the capitation fee charged by private educational institutions was unconstitutional. The court held that the right to education is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

The court also held that the capitation fee charged by private educational institutions violated the right to equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The court observed that the capitation fee was a fee charged by private educational institutions for the purpose of making profits and was not related to the quality of education provided by the institution. The court held that the capitation fee discriminated against economically weaker sections of society who were unable to pay the high fees and thus denied them equal access to education.

The court also directed the government to take steps to regulate the fees charged by private educational institutions and ensure that they did not charge capitation fees. The court held that the government had a duty to ensure that education was accessible to all and that it was not monopolized by the rich and the powerful.

Ratio decidendi (3:2)

• The Constitution of India guarantees the right to equality and prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth under Articles 14, 15 and 16.
• The State has the power to make laws for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes under Article 15(4) of the Constitution.
• The right to establish and administer educational institutions is also a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
• The right to establish and administer educational institutions includes the right to choose the students who will be admitted to the institution.
• Private unaided educational institutions have the autonomy to admit students on the basis of their own selection criteria.
• The reservation policy of the State cannot be applied to private unaided educational institutions as it would infringe upon their fundamental right to administer their own institutions.
• The State can make policies to encourage and persuade private unaided educational institutions to reserve seats for socially and educationally backward classes, but it cannot compel them to do so.
• Reservation in private unaided educational institutions can only be justified if the State can prove that the institution has received substantial aid from the State.
• The State can also regulate the admission process of private unaided educational institutions to ensure that it is fair and transparent.
• In the absence of any compelling reason, the State cannot interfere with the autonomy of private unaided educational institutions.
• Justice Kuldip Singh, who delivered the majority judgment, held that private unaided educational institutions have the right to administer their own institutions and cannot be compelled to follow the reservation policy of the State. He further held that the State can only regulate the admission process of private unaided educational institutions and cannot interfere with their autonomy. Justice Jeevan Reddy, in his concurring opinion, held that reservation in private unaided educational institutions can only be justified if the institution has received substantial aid from the State. He also held that the State can make policies to encourage private unaided educational institutions to reserve seats for socially and educationally backward classes, but it cannot compel them to do so.

Conclusion

The Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka case was a landmark case that had far-reaching implications for education in India. The case highlighted the issue of access to education as a fundamental right and brought to light the problems faced by economically weaker sections of society in accessing higher education. The case also established the principle that education is not a commodity that can be sold for profit but a fundamental right that must be accessible to all. The verdict in this case set an important precedent and paved the way for the government to regulate the fees charged by private educational institutions and ensure that education was accessible to all.