LexMISS MOHINI JAIN versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A MISS MOHINI JAIN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. JULY 30, 1992 B [KULDIP SINGH AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.) Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 41, 45-Right to education- ::>--- Whether a constitutional right-Capitation fee-Whether unconstitutional. C Kamataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984-Preamble--Object of. Kamataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984-Sections 3, 5(1)-Notification under-M.B.B.S: Course-Admis- sion-Tuition fee-Different rates for the three categories of students-Legality D of-Excess Tuition fee other than Rs.2,000 per annum-Whether Capitation fee-Whether permissible in /aw-Held, Notification ultra vires. The respondent ~o.1 - State Government issued a notification dated June 5, 1989 under section 5(1) of the Kamataka Educational Institutions E (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 fixing the tuition fee, other fees and deposits to be charged from the students by the Private Medical Colleges in the State. The tuition fee per year for the candidates admitted against "Government seats" was Rs.2,000, whereas for the Kamataka students (o~er than those admitted against "Government seats") the tution fee was not exceeding Rs.25,000 and for the students belonging to F the category of "Indian students from outside Kamataka" were to pay the tuition fee not exceeding Rs.60,000 per annum. The petitioner, who came under the category of "Indian students from outside Kamataka", was informed by the respondent No.3 - Private Medical College, that she could be admitted to the MBBS Course in the G session commencing February/March 1991, provided she would deposit Rs.60,000 as the tuition fee for the first year and furnish a bank guarantee in respect of the fees for the remaining years of the MBBS Course. When the father of the petitioner informed the respondent No.3 that he could not · pay the exorbitant annual tution fee of Rs.60,000, the petitioner was denied H admission. 658 . ....- -- MOillNI JAIN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 659 The petitioner has, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, · 'A challenged the notification dated S.6.1989 issued by the respondent No.1, '. permitting the Private Medical Colleges to charge exorbitant tuition fees 1 from the students other than those admitted to the "Government seats". Respondent No.3 contended that the students from whom higher tuition fee was charged belong to a different class; that those who were B admitted to the "Government seats" were meritorious and the remaining non-meritorious; that classification of candidates into those who pos- sessed merit and those who did not possess merit was a valid classification and as such the college-management was 'Nithin its right to charge more fee from those who did not possess merit; that the object sought to be t achieved by the said classification was to collect money to meet the expen- ses incurred by the college in providing medical education to the students. The intervener-Karnataka Private Medical Colleges Association ar- gued that the Private Medical Colleges in the State of Karnataka did not receive any financial aid from either the Central or the State Government; D that the Private Medical Colleges would incur about Rs.S lakhs per student as expenditure for S year MBBS course; that 40% of the seats in the colleges were set apart as "Government seats" to be filled by the Govern- ment; that the students selected and admitted against Government seats would pay only Rs.2,000 per annum as such the rest of the burden was on E those who were admitted against management quota; that the tuition fee was not excessive and as such there was no question of making any profit by the Private Medical Colleges in the State of Karnataka. Respondent No.3 and the intervener submitted that in order to run the medical colleges the managements were justified in charging the F capitation fee; that apart from the Act, there was not provision under the Constitution or under any other law which would forbid the charging of capitation fee. On the questions: (1) Was there a 'right to education' guaranteed to the people of India under the Constitution? If so, did the concept of 0 'capitation fee' infracts the same?; (2) Whether the charging of capitation fee in consideration of admissions to educational institutions was ar- bitrary, unfair, unjust and as such violated Article 14 of the Constitution?; (3) Whether t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.