FATHER THOMAS SHINGARE AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 636 · Decided: 14-12-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
FATHER THOMAS SHINGARE AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 14, 2001 
[K.T. THOMAS AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Education : 
Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) 
Act, 1987. 
Sections 2(a), 3, 4 and 7-Capitation Fee-Minority unaided Educa-
tional institution-Amounts collected under the heads "School Maintenance" 
and "Capitation Fee" -Complaint filed against Principal and six others alleg-
ing the said collection as demand or collection qf "Capitation Fees"-Held, 
D 
State cannot impose any restriction on the right of minorities to administer 
Educational institutions, unaided by State except to the limited extent.for ensur-
ing excellence in education-However, {f the institution indulges in ne.filrious 
activities by collecting money.for making huge profit, legislature is empowered 
to curb such activities-In the instant case, State having not.fixed any upper limit 
E 
of fees for any unaided minority institution, no offence could be made out-
Criminal complaint quashed-Constitution qf India, 1950-Article 30. 
Section 2(a)-Capitation Fee-What a'!'ounts to-Held, any demand or 
collection of amount in cash or kind in excess of the pre.scribed rates of fees. 
F 
Words and Phrases: 
G 
"Capitation Fee"; "Prescribed"-Meaning of-In the context of Section 
2( a) of the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation 
Fee) Act, 1987. 
Appellant, a minority unaided school, collected Rs. 120 in the month 
of July, 1993 and Rs. 180 in the month of November, 1993 as "School 
Maintenance'' and Rs. 600 in the account of "Computer Fees'' in the 
month of July, 1993. Respondent No. 2, father of a student tiled a criminal 
complaint under Section 7 of the Maharashtra Educational Institutions 
H 
(Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1987 against the school. Magistrate 
636 
... 
j 
,. 
FATHER THOMAS SHINGARE v. STATE 
637 
took cognizance of the offence and ordered process to be issued against the 
A 
Principal and six office bearers of the school. The accused persons 
unsuccessfully filed appeals before the Sessions Court and the High Court. 
Thereafter, they filed appeal before this Court. During the pendency of the 
appeal, the Principal of the school alongwith other office bearers filed a 
writ petition before this court for a declaration that the provisions of the 
B 
Act in so far as they applied to the unaided educational institutions run by 
religious minority were ultra vires to Article 30 of the Constitution. 
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that no restriction can 
be imposed by the Government on the strength of any statutory provision 
on the functions of unaided minority educational institutions because any 
C 
such restriction would be violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of 
India; fee being one of the approved means for raising funds to meet the 
expenses of the educational institutions including payment of salary to the 
teaching and non-teaching staff of the school, fixation of any ceiling re-
garding the amount of fees to be collected from students can amount to 
D 
scuttling the right envisaged in Article 30(1) of the Constitution which 
itself was a fundamental right. 
Disposing of the appeal and writ petition, the Court 
HELD : 1. The complaint instituted by respondent No. 2 cannot be 
E 
sustained as no offence under Section 7 of the Maharashtra Educational 
Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fees) Act, 1987 could be estab-
lished. Thus, the criminal proceedings lodged against the accused persons 
are quashed. [646-CJ 
2. The State cannot impose any restriction on the right of the minori-
ties to administer educational institutions so long as such institutions are 
unaided by the State, except to the limited extent that regulations can be 
made for ensuring excellence in education. It is a question of fact in each 
case whether the limit imposed by the Government regarding approved 
F 
fees would hamper the right under Article .30(1) of the Constitution in so 
G 
far as they apply to any unaided educational institution established and 
administered by the minorities. If the legislature feels that the nefarious 
practice of misusing school administration for making huge profit by 
collecting exorbitant sums from parents by calling such sums either as fees 
or donations, should be curbed, the legislature would be within its powers 
H 
638 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
to enact measures for that purp

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.