MISS MOHINI JAIN VS STATE OF KARNATAKA : CASE SUMMARY
The Supreme Court held in Miss Mohini Jain Vs. State of Karnataka (1992) 3 SCR 658 that right to education flows directly from right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to life and the dignity of an individual cannot be assured unless it is accompanied by the right to education.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Karnataka State Legislature enacted the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 with the object of eliminating the practice of collecting capitation fee for admitting students into educational institutions. The Karnataka Government issued notification under Section 5 (1) of the Act thereby fixing the tuition fee, other fees and deposits to be charged from the students by the Private Medical Colleges in the State.
Miss Mohini Jain was denied admission to Sri Siddartha Medical College, Tumkur due to exorbitant tution fee and capitation fee. Miss Mohini Jain filed Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the notification issued by Karnataka Government permitting the Private Medical Colleges in State of Karnataka to charge exorbitant tuition fee from students other than those admitted to government seats.
FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT
The Supreme Court considered whether right to education is a Fundamental Right. The Supreme court observed that framers of the Constitution had made it obligatory for the State to provide education for its citizens. The preamble promises to secure justice “social, economic, and political” for citizens. A peculiar feature of the Indian Constitution is that it combines social and economic rights along with political and justiciable rights. The preamble embodies the goal which the State has to achieve in order to establish social justice and to make the masses free in the positive sense. The securing of social justice has been specifically enjoined an object of the State under Article 38 of the Constitution.
Can the objective which has been so prominently pronounced in the preamble and Article 38 of the Constitution be achieved without providing education to the large majority of citizens who are illiterate. The objectives flowing form the preamble cannot be achieved and shall remain on paper unless the people in this country are educated. The three- pronged justice promised by the preamble is only an illusion to the teaming-million who are illiterate. It is only the education which equips a citizen to participate in achieving the objectives enshrined in the preamble. The preamble further assures the dignity of the individual. The Constitution seeks to achieve this object by guaranteeing fundamental rights of each individual which he can enforce through court of law if necessary. The directive principles in Part IV of the Constitution are also with the same objective. The dignity of man is inviolable. It is the duty of the State to respect and protect the same. It is primarily the education which brings-forth the dignity of a man.
The framers of the Constitution were aware that more than seventy percent of the people whom they were giving the Constitution of India were illiterate. They were also hopeful that within a period of ten years illiteracy would be wiped out from the country. It was with that hope that Articles 41 and 45 were brought in Chapter IV of the Constitution. An individual cannot be assured of human dignity unless his personality is developed and the only way to do that is to educate him. This is why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 emphasizes “ Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality”. Article 41 in Chapter IV of the Constitution recognizes an individual right “to education”. It says that “the State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to education. Although a citizen cannot enforce the directive principles contained in Chapter IV of the Constitution but these were not intended to be mere pious declarations.
The Supreme Court observed that the Directive Principles which are fundamental in the governance of the country cannot be isolated from the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III. These principles have to be read into the Fundamental Rights. Both are supplementary to each other. The State is under a constitutional mandate to create conditions in which the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the individuals under Part III could be enjoyed by all. Without making “Right to Education” under Article 41 of the Constitution a reality the Fundamental Rights under Chapter III shall remain beyond the reach of large majority which is illiterate.
The Supreme Court observed that “Right to Life” is the compendious expression for all those rights which the Courts must enforce because they are basic to the dignified enjoyment of life. It extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue. The right to education flows directly from right to life. The right to life under Article 21 and the dignity of an individual cannot be assured unless it is accompanied by the right to education. The State Government is under an obligation to make endeavour to provide educational facilities at all levels to its citizens. The Fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India including the right to freedom of speech and expression and other rights under Article 19 cannot be appreciated and fully enjoyed unless a citizen is educated and is conscious of his individualistic dignity.
The Supreme Court observed that opportunity to acquire education cannot be confined to the richer section of society. The Karnataka State has permitted opening of several new medical colleges under various private bodies and organizations. These institutions are charging capitation fee as a consideration for admission. Capitation fee is nothing but a price for selling education. The concept of “teaching shops” is contrary to the constitutional scheme and is wholly abhorrent to Indian Culture and heritage.
The Supreme Court held that charging capitation fee in consideration of admission to educational institutions, is a patent denial of citizen’s right to education under the Constitution. To establish and administer educational institution is considered as religious and charitable object. Education in India has never been a commodity for sale. The State action in permitting capitation fee to be charged by state recognized educational institutions is wholly arbitrary and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Capitation fee enables the rich to take admission where the poor, with better merit, can not take admission. Capitation fee is wholly arbitrary and violates Article 14.
The Supreme Court noted that tuition fee for government seats is only Rs. 2000 while other candidates had to pay Rs. 60,000/- under the notification. The Supreme Court held that Rs. 60,000/- per annum permitted to be charged from Indian Students from outside Karnataka is not tuition fee but a capitation fee and as such cannot be sustained and struck down the same.
___________________________________________________
Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.