Mohini Jain VS State of Karnataka

MOHINI JAIN VS STATE OF KARNATAKA
(1992)
(Judgement series case- 1)
Suryansh Mishra
(BBDU)
FACTS
• Brief Statement of Facts
• The Karnataka Legislature enacted the Karnataka
Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee)
Act, 1984 .
• Following this, the Karnataka Legislature issued a
notification Section 5(1) of the Act, to regulate the
tuition fees charged by Private Medical Colleges in the
State. This notification was dated June 5, 1989, and
enlisted the tuition fee, and other fees and deposits that
the students would be charged.
• The notification stipulated that students joining through
“Government seats” were to be charged Rs. 2,000 AND for
“non government seats” those from Karnataka would be
charged not more than Rs. 25,000, and those from outside
Karnataka would be charged not more than 60,000 per
annum.
The Petitioner, Ms Mohini Jain, was a resident of

Meerut and was informed through a post that she
could enrol into the MBBS programme at Sri
Siddharatha Medical College, Agalokote, Tumkur,
Karnataka, and the session was to commence in
February/March 1991. The Respondents claimed that
she was asked to pay an amount of Rs. 60,000, and
subsequently, the Management received a call by the
Petitioner’s father who declared that he did not have
the means to pay the exorbitant amount.
• The Petitioner claimed that she was asked to pay an
additional sum of about four and a half lakhs as capitation
fee, which was denied by the Respondents vehemently.
• Ms Jain filed a petition under Article 32 of the Indian
Constitution challenging the notification of the Karnataka
Legislature that allows for demanding such exorbitant
amounts from students in the name of tuition.
• The petition claimed that the notification was violative of

Articles 12, 14, 21, and 41 of the Indian Constitution as it
blatantly denied Right to education to Indian citizens on an
arbitrary basis.
• The fee charged could easily be identified as capitation fee.
It was, therefore, violative of Section 3 of the Act and
against the virtues of Right to Equality and Right to
Education.
Government seat Students Students
student 2,000 Rs. belonging to out of
karnatka Karnataka
25,000 Rs. Rs 60,000
Mohini jain from

meerut said its not
fair and opposes
this.
EAGLE IN LEGAL
“Not as easy as you think
Also Not as difficult as you think”
- COMPLETE LLB LECTURES
- JUDGMENT SERIES
- DAILY UPDATES RELATED TO LAW
WITH AMENDMENTS
- LAW MAXIMS AND TERMS
- DOUBT SESSION
- NOTES IN PDF FORM
ISSUES
RAISED
• 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?
• Whether the charging of capitation fee is violative of

the equality clause enshrined in Article 14?
• Whether the impugned notification permitted the

charging of a capitation fee under the guise of
regulation?
• Whether the notification is violative of the

provisions of the Act prohibiting the charging of such
fees?
Judgment
• State action or inaction, which defeats
the purpose of the Constitutional
mandate is per se arbitrary and cannot
be sustained:
• Unequal educational prospects cannot
be used for profiteering.
• Charging a capitation fee on the tuition
during admission is violative of Article 14
of the Indian Constitution.
• The “Right to Education” is concomitant to the
Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of
the Constitution
• The Right to education flows directly from the
Right to life
• Charging a capitation fee in any educational
institution is not permitted by law
IMPACT OF
JUDGMENT
• The parliament in 2002 passed the constitution (eighty- sixth
amendment ) act 2002.
• It added Article 21A to the constitution and expressely recognized
‘Right to Education’ as a fundamental right in the constitution.
• SC made constitutional obligation on state to provide educational
instituions at all levels for the benefits of citizens.
• Now, in 1993
• Only for 6 to 14 yrs. Age considered GDP
• 1990
• 1992
• 1993
• Now, tapas mazumdar committee to insert ARTICLE 21 A only for
elementary education. Not for professional or secondary level
• ARTICLE 21 A- free education for 6 to 14 years.
• HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE ? SO MANY CHILDREN.
• Local gov school
• Then added school combine with gov
• Then private school.

Mohini Jain VS State of Karnataka

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mohini Jain VS State of Karnataka

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mohini Jain VS State of Karnataka

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MOHINI JAIN VS STATE OF KARNATAKA

The Petitioner, Ms Mohini Jain, was a resident of

• The petition claimed that the notification was violative of

Mohini jain from

• Whether the charging of capitation fee is violative of

• Whether the impugned notification permitted the

• Whether the notification is violative of the

You might also like