Quick answer
No. In Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh (decided 2 May 2016), a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld a Madhya Pradesh law that required private unaided professional colleges to admit students through a common entrance test (CET) and to have their fees checked by a State committee. Running an educational institution is an "occupation" under Article 19(1)(g), but the State may impose reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) to protect merit and stop profiteering. The judgment is best known for laying down the four-part proportionality test.
The case
Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Supreme Court of India, 2 May 2016. Bench: Anil R. Dave, A.K. Sikri, R.K. Agrawal, Adarsh Kumar Goel and R. Banumathi, JJ. Main judgment by A.K. Sikri, J.; R. Banumathi, J. wrote a separate concurring opinion. Private medical and dental colleges challenged the Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavasayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 and the admission rules made under it. The Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the Act.
What the Court held
- Education is an occupation, not a business: following T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) and P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005), the right to establish and run an educational institution falls under Article 19(1)(g), but education is essentially charitable, so profiteering and capitation fees (money charged for a seat beyond the regular fee) are not allowed.
- Common entrance test upheld: admission through a State-conducted CET is a permissible regulatory measure. Its purpose is to make sure that students of merit are selected through a fair, transparent and non-exploitative process.
- Fee regulation upheld: colleges may propose their own fee, but a committee constituted by the State checks that it is not profiteering and is based on the factors listed in the Act. A reasonable surplus for the growth of the institution is allowed. The Court described this as only a regulatory measure.
- Reservation: the challenge to reservation of seats for SC, ST and OBC candidates failed, as it was in line with Article 15(5).
The four-part proportionality test
Relying on the work of Aharon Barak, Sikri, J. explained that a limit on a fundamental right is constitutionally valid only if all four parts are met:
- Proper purpose: the restriction must pursue a legitimate aim.
- Rational connection: the measure must actually help achieve that aim.
- Necessity: no alternative measure would achieve the same aim with a lesser restriction on the right.
- Balancing (proportionality stricto sensu, in the strict sense): the importance of achieving the aim must be weighed against the harm caused to the right.
For the wider doctrine, see Doctrine of Proportionality in Administrative Law.
Autonomy versus regulation
| Area | What the private college keeps | What the State may regulate |
|---|---|---|
| Admissions | Running its own institution and day-to-day administration | Selection of students through a common entrance test based on merit |
| Fees | Proposing its own fee, including a reasonable surplus for development | Checking the fee through a State committee to stop profiteering and capitation fees |
Example
Farhan runs a private dental college and wants to hold his own entrance test and charge a large "development fee" at the time of admission. Under a State law like the one upheld in this case, he must admit students through the State's common entrance test, and his proposed fee is reviewed by the fee committee. He can still recover his costs and a reasonable surplus, but not charge for a seat.
Exam point
Modern Dental College (2016): State CET and fee regulation for private unaided colleges are reasonable restrictions on Article 19(1)(g); the case states the four-part proportionality test of proper purpose, rational connection, necessity and balancing.
