The document summarizes the Supreme Court case Mohini Jain vs State of Karnataka. It discusses the facts of the case where Miss Mohini Jain, an Indian student, was denied admission to a medical college due to her inability to pay the capitation fee of Rs. 450,000. The court found that capitation fees violate the right to education guaranteed by the Constitution and create inequality based on wealth. As such, the court ruled that charging capitation fees by private medical colleges is wholly illegal.
Law360 - How Duty Of Candor Figures In USPTO AI Ethics Guidance
MOHINI JAIN vs STATE OF KARNATAKA AIR 1992 SC 1858
1. MOHINI JAIN vs STATE OF
KARNATAKA
AIR 1992 SC 1858
By,
MOHAMMED HAROON RASHEED
B.A.LL.B (Hons.), [BSW] & [LLM]
Advocate
Email ID: adv.mdharoon@gmail.com
1(c)2011 MD HAROON RASHEED, ADVOCATE
2. I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ILL-UNDERSTSANDING OF
THE CASE DUE TO UNNECCESARY INTERFERNCE IN LIGHT OF DOUBTS!
But , I am most honored and privileged to answer your
important, respective doubts at the end of the explanation of
the case. Such considerations and co-operation is obliged by
our beloved learned young budding Lawyers.
2(c)2011 MD HAROON RASHEED, ADVOCATE
4. • Government seats-2,000
• Karnataka students-25,000
• Indian students-60,000
4(c)2011 MD HAROON RASHEED, ADVOCATE
5. Miss Mohini Jain - student, and the petitioner
from meerut .
Sri Siddhartha Medical College - denied
admission on basis of incapability to pay the
“tuition fee” (def’d in para 2).
60,000 tuition (fee)
Capitation fee 4,50,000
Article 32of the constitution
5(c)2011 MD HAROON RASHEED, ADVOCATE
6. Is right to education guaranteed in the
constitution of India if so does the concept of
capitation fee infracts the right of education?
Is capitation fee arbitrary unfair, unjust and as
such voilate the equality clause of article 14?
According to the notification are private medical
colleges permitted to charge capitation fee.
Is notification violative of provision of the act of
educational institutions charging capitation fee.
6(c)2011 MD HAROON RASHEED, ADVOCATE
7. Para 6: says it is indirectly present
Para 7: says it is not guaranteed
Para 8: Reason for Right to Education implies
an indirect presence. By Article 38 and the
Preamble
Para 9: DSP cant be isolated from Part III of
the Fundamental Rights. They are
supplementary. “Beyond the reach of large
majority which is illiterate.”
7(c)2011 MD HAROON RASHEED, ADVOCATE
8. Para 10: According to the Directions of the
Court, Article 21 includes the Right to live
with Human Dignity and everything under it
as well.
Para 11: Scope of Article 21 in a case
Para 12 : Dignified life of Article 21
accompanied by Right to Education
Para 13: Without education Article 19 etc
cannot be enjoyed!! (Part III of the
Fundamental Rights)
8(c)2011 MD HAROON RASHEED, ADVOCATE
9. Para 14: Definition of Capitation fee (also
refer to Para 24 with respect to the State Act)
Para 15: Teaching Shops
Para 17: “ Right to education”- State’s
obligation; Non Government institutions are
agencies to the Government.
Para 18: Education no commodity for sale;
Capitation fee makes the availability of
education beyond the reach of the poor.
9(c)2011 MD HAROON RASHEED, ADVOCATE
10. Para 19: Capitation fees creates a class bias
between the rich and poor and the poor
student cannot get admission because of
high capitation fees.
Para 20, 21: Capitation fees in any form
cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Therefore charging of capitation fee by the
private education for admission is wholly
illegal.
10(c)2011 MD HAROON RASHEED, ADVOCATE
11. The court made it clear in the judgment that
this judgment shall not be applicable to non
residents of India.
And all those who were admitted in private
medical colleges before this judgment will
not enjoy the advantage of this judgment.
And the petitioner will also not get any relief
as she was not admitted under merit and the
course which she applied has already been
started for the term march-April 1991.
11(c)2011 MD HAROON RASHEED, ADVOCATE