Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Abhiruchi Jain
Subject: Law on Education Submitted By: Stuti Baradia
(Hons. Paper II) Sem VIII (4th year)
Consti. Law Group B.B.A LL.B
Case: Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992 AIR 1858)
The Supreme Court held that although the right to education as such has not been guaranteed
as a fundamental right under the Constitution, it becomes clear from the Preamble of the
Constitution and its Directive Principles, contained in section IV, that the framers of the
Constitution intended the State to provide education for its citizens. The court then relates the
Directive Principle of Article 14 which requires that the state attempt to implement the right
to education within its economic capacity. The court then reasons that this principle creates a
constitutional right to education because education is essential to the fulfillment of the
fundamental rights of dignity and life. The court links the right to education to the right to life
by reasoning that to sustain life a human being requires the fulfilment of all the enabling
rights which create life of dignity. In doing this, the court pointed to numerous cases which
held that the right to life encompassed more than life and limb, but also dignity and the
necessities of life, such as nutrition, clothing shelter, and literacy. Without dignity, the court
explains, the right to life is not fulfilled. It was the court's opinion that one is only able to
obtain a dignified life in India through education, making education fundamental to the right
to life, and therefore an obligation of the State to fulfil.
The court also held that accessibility to education should be realized for all people, rich or
poor. If the government decides to discharge its obligation through private educational
institutions, it has created an agency-relationship, through which it can fulfil its obligations
under the Constitution. This private institution is bound by the same requirements and cannot
charge higher tuition fees than those established for "government seats". The court found that
a "capitation fee" makes education unaffordable and therefore not accessible to the poor. It
also held that such a fee is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 (Equality Clause) because it
bases admission on income, rather than merit. Finally, the court also determined this fee was
not a tuition fee as the respondents claimed, but a capitation fee, which violated the
Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act.
___________________________________