Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka

Mohini Jain, from Meerut in Uttar Pradesh, wanted admission to the M.B.B.S. course at a private medical college in Karnataka.

A 1989 notification of the Karnataka government fixed the yearly fees for these colleges:
- Rs. 2,000 per year for students on government seats;
- up to Rs. 25,000 per year for other students from Karnataka;
- up to Rs. 60,000 per year for students from outside Karnataka.

Because she was from outside Karnataka, the college demanded Rs. 60,000 per year from her. She also alleged that the management separately demanded Rs. 4.5 lakh as capitation fee. The management denied this.

Her family could not afford the amount, and she was denied admission. She then filed a petition in the Supreme Court.

The respondents were the State of Karnataka and the private medical college. An association of private medical colleges also intervened.

Karnataka already had the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984, which banned the charging of capitation fee.

1. Was the Karnataka government's 1989 notification, which allowed private medical colleges to charge heavy fees, valid, or was it unconstitutional?

2. Did the notification go against the Karnataka Capitation Fee Act, 1984, which banned capitation fee?

3. Does charging capitation fee, so that education is available only to those who can pay, violate equality under Article 14 and the right to life with dignity under Article 21?

Petitioner (Mohini Jain):

(1) Violation of law. The 1989 notification went directly against the 1984 Act. Section 3 of that Act prohibits capitation fee, and the lecture says it also provides a penalty for violation.

(2) Violation of fundamental rights. If education is available only to those who can pay, this is arbitrary and discriminatory. It violates equality before law under Article 14 and the right to life with dignity under Article 21.

Respondents: the lecture only records that the management denied demanding the Rs. 4.5 lakh capitation fee. It does not otherwise set out the respondents' arguments.

The Supreme Court declared capitation fee unconstitutional.

It held that the right to education is an integral part of Article 21, because education is necessary for a life of dignity.

It held that capitation fee is an arbitrary and discriminatory practice that violates the equality guaranteed by Article 14, because money rather than merit decides admission.

It held that the fee charged above the government-seat fee was, in substance, capitation fee under a different name.

It held that by permitting capitation fee, the State was ignoring its own duty under Article 41.

As a result, the parts of the 1989 notification that allowed fees of Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 60,000 were quashed.

According to the lecture, the judgment was made prospective. Students already admitted on these fees continued on the same terms.

Mohini Jain herself got no personal relief, because she was not selected on the merit list and the course had already begun.

Later history:
- Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), five judges: partially overruled Mohini Jain. Free education is a fundamental right up to 14 years of age, read with Article 45. Beyond that, the right depends on the State's economic capacity under Article 41.
- T. M. A. Pai Foundation case (2002), eleven judges: held that the fee and admission scheme in Unni Krishnan was wrong.

Constitution of India, Article 21; Constitution of India, Article 14; Constitution of India, Article 41 (Directive Principle); Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984, Section 3; Karnataka Government Notification of 1989 on fees in private medical colleges; Later developments: Article 45 (read in Unni Krishnan, later amended); Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 adding Article 21A and a fundamental duty in Article 51A; Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009

This is the case in which the Supreme Court first treated education as part of Article 21 and declared capitation fee unconstitutional.

Examiners often ask about what came after it:
- Unni Krishnan (1993) partially overruled it and set the fourteen-year limit;
- T. M. A. Pai Foundation (2002) held Unni Krishnan's fee scheme wrong;
- the Eighty-sixth Amendment (2002) added Article 21A, giving children aged 6 to 14 a fundamental right to free and compulsory education;
- the R.T.E. Act, 2009 reserved 25% of seats for children from weaker sections, even in private unaided schools.

The lecture advises using these keywords in answers: capitation fee is unconstitutional; education is part of Article 21; Articles 14 and 41; the fourteen-year limit set in Unni Krishnan; the Eighty-sixth Amendment; and the R.T.E. Act of 2009.

Hypothetical: Zoya, a student from another State, applies to a private medical college. The government-seat fee there is low, but the college tells Zoya she must also pay a large 'development donation' before admission. The donation has nothing to do with the actual cost of teaching her. Farhan, a richer applicant with lower marks, pays it and gets the seat instead of Zoya. Following Mohini Jain, the donation is capitation fee in substance. It is arbitrary and discriminatory under Article 14, and it is against the dignity-based right to education under Article 21. Zoya can challenge it, and money cannot replace merit as the basis of admission.