Skip to main content

Case Analysis of Mohini Jain vs State of Karnataka

 Case Analysis of Mohini Jain vs State of Karnataka


The Supreme Court first recognized the right to education as a fundamental right in Mohini Jain vs State of Karnataka on July 30th, 1992. 

Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 1858

Petitioner: Miss Mohini Jain

Respondent: State of Karnataka

Facts of the Case:

  • Karnataka State Government issued notification dated June 5,1989 under section 5(1) of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 fixing the tuition fee, other fees and deposits to be charged from the students by the private medical college in the State.

  • The tuition fee per year for the candidates admitted in “Government Seats” was Rs 2000

  • Whereas for the Karnataka students (other than those admitted against “Government seats”) the tuition fee was not exceeding Rs 25,000

  • The students belonging to the category of “Indian students from outside Karnataka” were to pay the tuition fee not exceeding Rs 60,000 per annum.

Mohini Jain

  • A Resident of Meerut had applied for admission for a medical course at Sri Siddhartha Medical College, Karnataka, under the quota of government seats

  • But she was classified under the category of “Indian students from outside Karnataka”

  • College told her she could be admitted to the MBBS Course in the session commencing February/March 1991, provided she would deposit Rs 60,000 as the tuition fee for the 1st 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 tuition fee of Rs 60,000, the petitioner was denied admission.

  • Moreover, she also complained that the college management board had further asked her the capitation fee of rupee four and a half lakhs, which was later refused by the college.

Sri Siddharth Medical College

  • Criteria which have been followed in the private college regarding the capitation fees are not chargeable from those students who were qualified for the Government seats but only from those students who were from different classes.

  • The Management board of the college has the right to charges fees from those who didn’t come under the merit list.

  • They are a private medical college and there was no financial aid which was provided from the government Karnataka or the central government and also practically these private medical colleges used to incur 5 lakh Rupees as expenditure for MBBS course.

  • Lastly, they also contended that the private medical colleges have always followed the rule of law and abide by all the laws for the smooth functioning of the administration and also were justified in charging the capitation fees.

Legal questions before the court

  • Is there any Right to Education under Indian Constitution?

  • Is charging capitation fee arbitrary under Article-14?

  • Does Karnataka government order allow capitation fee to be changed?

  • Court held that through the Right to Education is not expressly mentioned as a Fundamental Right Article 38, 39(a), 41 and 45 of the Indian constitution make it clear that the constitution makes it obligatory for the state to provide education for its citizens.

The Judgement

  • Under article 21 an individual’s dignity cannot be assured unless he has a right to education.

  • Universal declaration of human rights, by the United Nations and several cases that held that the right to life encompasses more than ‘life and limb’ and including necessities of life, nutrition, shelter and literacy.

Also,

  • Charging capitation fee makes education inaccessible

  • Charging of a very high capitation fee violates Article 14 of the constitution.

  • Court recognized imparting Education is both charity and duty

  • Article 19(1)(g) was disregarded 

  • Education at higher level was virtually nationalized.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more