Introduction
In the case of Mahin Jain vs the State of Karnataka, private educational institutions are charged extra fees for admitting students into professional courses. This matter was heard in the Supreme Court in 1992.
This case is important because it deals with the right to education and highlights the challenges the backward and economics faces.
In the 1990s, a large number of private education institutions were established in India. These institutions charge high fees for students in fields like Medicine, Law, and Engineering. These fees were very expensive for economically backward classes.
In 1983, the Karnataka Government created a law that allowed the private education institution to charge extra fees for professional courses. This fee is known as a “Capital fee”. If any professional courses have high demand means many students want to enroll in any one particular course. So, the private institutions increase their capital fee.
Facts of Mahin Jain Vs State of Karnataka
On 5 June 1989, the Karnataka government issued a notice that set fees for private medical colleges in Karnataka. According to this notice, those students given government seats pay Rs. 2000 per year, those students from Karnataka (non-government seats) pay Rs. 25000 per year and those students from outside Karnataka (non-government sets) pay Rs.60000 per year.
A student from outside Karnataka was told she could join a medical college in early 1991. If she paid Rs. 60,000 for the first year’s tuition and provided a bank guarantee for the remaining years. When her father said they could not afford it. So, she was denied admission.
The student used Article 32 of the Indian constitution to challenge the June 5, 1989 notice that allowed private medical colleges to charge high tuition fees for non-government seat students.
Issues of this case
- Is the “Right to education” guaranteed by the Indian constitution? And the idea of a “capitation fee” is against this right.
- Is charging this capitation fee for educational institution admissions against Article 14 of the Indian constitution?
- Did the notification that allowed private medical colleges to impose capitation fees hide behind regulating fees under the act?
- Did the notification break the rules of the Act? The court allowed the writ petition to remove the capitation fee.
Point of view of petitioner
In the Mahin Jain Vs State of Karnataka, the petitioner gives several arguments regarding the practice of private educational institutions is unconstitutional
- The Petitioner argued that this private institution charging capitation fees is against the fundamental right to education guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian constitution.
- Petitioner argued that there is no link between capital fees and the quality of education which are provided by private institutions. So, because of this Article 14 of the Indian constitution is violated.
- Petitioner also believes that the capitation fee policy discriminates against those students who are economically disadvantaged.
- The petitioner argued that the capitation fee policy goes against the principles in the Constitution that focus on the state’s responsibility to promote citizen’s well-being and provide equal opportunities for everyone. According to the petitioner, the policy does not support these goals.
- The Petitioner claimed that the policy is against the idea of education being a public service meant for the common good. Instead, it treats education like a product that can be bought and sold, which is not in line with the public interest or the principles of public policy.
Point of view of respondent.
The case of Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka dealt with gender discrimination in admissions to medical and dental colleges. The State of Karnataka, which was the opposing side in the case, made the following key arguments:
- They argued that admitting students based on merit was essential to maintain high standards in education and the medical profession.
- The State believed that reserving seats for women could lower the quality of education and medical standards because female candidates might not be as qualified as their male counterparts.
- They also claimed that reserving seats for women could unfairly discriminate against male candidates who might be more deserving but lose out on admissions because of the reservation policy.
- The State of Karnataka further argued that the women’s reservation policy might go against the constitutional principles of fairness and non-discrimination, as it could create bias against male candidates.
- Lastly, they contended that the policy might conflict with the Indian Medical Council Act of 1956, which did not include any provisions for reserving seats for women.
- The respondent also argued that the women’s reservation policy might harm society by leading to a shortage of doctors and dentists, which could negatively affect healthcare services
- They further claimed that the State government had the right to control admissions to medical and dental colleges, and the decision to implement the women’s reservation policy was a deliberate choice within the State’s authority.
Judgment
In the Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka case, the Supreme Court said that education is very important for respecting people’s dignity and ensuring a good life. Even though the Constitution didn’t list education as a fundamental right, the court said it’s closely related to the right to life. This idea helped lead to a change in the law in 2002 that made education a constitutional right.
The court believed that to protect people’s dignity, the state must provide education. When the Constitution was written, many people couldn’t read or write, and there was a goal to fix that quickly. Articles in the Constitution aimed to ensure that the state helps with education and that everyone has equal opportunities. Without education, people can’t fully enjoy their rights or escape poverty.
The court said that Directive Principles and fundamental rights should be seen together, not separately. The right to education is a crucial part of fundamental rights and is needed to achieve the goals of the Constitution.
