Case Study 2 Submitted To: Ms.

Abhiruchi Jain
Subject: Law on Education Submitted By: Stuti Baradia
(Hons. Paper II) Sem VIII (4th year)
Consti. Law Group B.B.A LL.B
Case: Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992 AIR 1858)

Petition to challenge the constitutionality of a "capitation fee" imposed by private medical

colleges, charging higher tuition to students that are not admitted to "government seats";
Whether the Indian Constitution guarantees a right to education; Whether such fees violate
Art. 14 of the Constitution; Whether there was a violation of the provisions of the Karnataka
Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act; Relationship between the right
to life and the right to education; Relationship between the dignity of man and the right to
education; Equality Rights; Directive Principles; State Action/Agency.
Date of the Ruling: Jul 30 1992
Forum: Supreme Court of India
Type of Forum: Domestic
Summary:
This petition was brought to challenge the constitutionality of imposing a "capitation fee" (a
fee based on the number of persons to whom a service is provided, rather than the actual cost
of providing a service) on those people who wanted to enter a private medical school and
were not admitted to the "government seats". These seats are reserved by the Government of
India for members of communities that are explicitly recognized by the Indian Constitution as
requiring support to overcome historic discrimination, or other groups designated by the
government. The private medical school charged Rs. 2.000 for students admitted to
"government seats", but Rs. 25.000 for those not admitted to "government seats" from within
the state and Rs. 60.000 for students not admitted to "government seats" from a different
state. The main issues at stake were whether there is a "right to education" guaranteed to the
people of India under the Constitution and whether the charging of capitation fees violates
this right and/or the equality clause in Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court held that although the right to education as such has not been guaranteed
as a fundamental right under the Constitution, it becomes clear from the Preamble of the
Constitution and its Directive Principles, contained in section IV, that the framers of the
Constitution intended the State to provide education for its citizens. The court then relates the
Directive Principle of Article 14 which requires that the state attempt to implement the right
to education within its economic capacity. The court then reasons that this principle creates a
constitutional right to education because education is essential to the fulfillment of the
fundamental rights of dignity and life. The court links the right to education to the right to life
by reasoning that to sustain life a human being requires the fulfilment of all the enabling
rights which create life of dignity. In doing this, the court pointed to numerous cases which
held that the right to life encompassed more than life and limb, but also dignity and the
necessities of life, such as nutrition, clothing shelter, and literacy. Without dignity, the court
explains, the right to life is not fulfilled. It was the court's opinion that one is only able to
obtain a dignified life in India through education, making education fundamental to the right
to life, and therefore an obligation of the State to fulfil.

The court also held that accessibility to education should be realized for all people, rich or
poor. If the government decides to discharge its obligation through private educational
institutions, it has created an agency-relationship, through which it can fulfil its obligations
under the Constitution. This private institution is bound by the same requirements and cannot
charge higher tuition fees than those established for "government seats". The court found that
a "capitation fee" makes education unaffordable and therefore not accessible to the poor. It
also held that such a fee is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 (Equality Clause) because it
bases admission on income, rather than merit. Finally, the court also determined this fee was
not a tuition fee as the respondents claimed, but a capitation fee, which violated the
Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act.

Keywords: Equality, Non-discrimination

Enforcement of the Decision and Outcomes:
The Court granted the petition and struck down the payment of capitation fee as a condition
for entry into any educational institution, prospectively, while denying admission to the
Petitioner. In Unni Krishnan v State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), the Supreme Court confirmed
this decision that the right to education indeed flowed directly from the right to life, which
poses an obligation on the State to provide basic education to all citizens during their
childhood. However, it expressed its disagreement that this right is guaranteed at all levels,
and rather only required basic education for children under 14 years old. In the subsequent
case of M.C. Mehta v State of Tamil Nadu & Ors (1996), the Supreme Court stated that
Article 45 had acquired the status of a fundamental right following the Constitutional Bench's
decision in Unni Krishnan.
Significance of the Case:
The more notable part of the judgment was its insistence that the right to education be read as
an integral part of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21, Part III. The decision of the
Court that the fulfilment of the right to life requires a life of dignity, and therefore must be
interpreted to include economic and social rights, has been extended by the Indian Courts to
ensure rights to food, water, and health.

___________________________________