~Miss Mohini Jain, a resident of Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, applied to Sri Siddhartha Medical College, a private medical college in Karnataka, for
admission to the MBBS programme. The college demands a deposit of Rs. 60,000 for the first year’s tuition fees and a bank guarantee for the remaining years’ fees. Since her family lacked the financial resources to pay the fee, she was refused admission to the private medical college.
~She challenged the Karnataka government’s notification authorizing the private medical college to charge a higher tuition fee to students not admitted to government seats than those admitted to government seats in the Supreme Court of India, citing Article 32 of the constitution.
The issue before the supreme court was as follows-
1.Whether a right to education is guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.
2. If so, whether allowing private schools to charge capitation fees violates this right.
3. Whether charging capitation fee in educational institutions violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equal protection of the laws.
Though the right to education is not expressly stated as a fundamental right, the Supreme Court held that Articles 38, 39(a), (f), 41, and 45 in Part IV of the Indian Constitution make it clear that the constitution’s framers made it necessary for the state to provide education to its people. “No one shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law,” says Article 21. Individual integrity cannot be guaranteed under Article 21 unless it is followed by a right to education.
Furthermore, the Court found that the framers of the Constitution specifically intended for the state to provide education to its people. The Supreme Court quoted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as a variety of precedents, to hold that the right to life includes more than just “life and limb,” such as food, shelter, and literacy.
Mohini Jain, a resident of Meerut (in the state of Uttar Pradesh), applied for admission to a private medical college in the state of Karnataka for the MBBS course beginning in February/March 1991. The college administration required her to deposit Rs. 60,000/- as the first-year tuition fee, as well as a bank guarantee for an amount equivalent to the fee for the remaining years. When Miss Jain’s father informed the management that the requested sum was out of his control, Ms. Jain’s admission to the medical college was refused. The management requested an additional sum of Rs. four and a half lakhs, according to Miss Jain, but the management denied it. According to the notice, the college administration’s rejection of Miss Jain’s admission due to her inability to pay the yearly tuition fee of Rs. 60,000/- was a correct decision.
In this case, Miss Jain challenged the notification issued by the Government of Karnataka by filing a Writ petition (Civil) No. 456 of 1991 under Article 32 (1) (“The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the protection of the rights granted by this Part (Part III: Fundamental Rights) is guaranteed”) of the Constitution of India. The case was decided by a two-member bench consisting of Justice Kuldip Singh and Justice R. M. Sahai on July 30, 1992 (1992 AIR 1858). For the first time in post-independence India, the right to education of Indian people and the state’s duty to protect the right were examined at the apex court’s premises. It’s worth noting that this was the period when neoliberal economic policies were on their way to India.
The most significant point is that there was a common understanding of Directive Principles as idealistic constitutional preaching. This case revisited the traditional ritualistic approach to Directive Principles and offers a firm basis of pragmatism. The Right to Education was made a Fundamental Right by the 86th Amendment to the Constitution, which was passed by Parliament in 2002 and came into effect on April 1, 2010, the same date as its enabling law (Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009).