Mohini Jain Case (1992)

– Right to Education and Capitation Fee

Background of the Case

The case arose from the practice of charging capitation fees by private professional colleges, particularly medical and engineering colleges in Karnataka.

Mohini Jain, a student, was denied admission because she could not pay the exorbitant capitation fee demanded.

She challenged this practice as:

• Violative of Article 14 (equality)
• Inconsistent with Article 21 (right to life)
• Contrary to the Directive Principle under Article 41 (right to education)

Core Constitutional Questions

1. Is the right to education a Fundamental Right?
2. Can education be treated as a commercial commodity?
3. Is charging capitation fee constitutionally valid?

Supreme Court’s Judgement

The Supreme Court delivered a path-breaking verdict.

(a) Right to Education Is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21

The Court held that:

• The right to life under Article 21 includes the right to education
• Life with dignity is impossible without education

It went further to declare that:

• This right extends to all levels, including:
  • Professional education (engineering, medicine)

Thus: Education was elevated from a Directive Principle to a Fundamental Right by interpretation.

(b) Link Between Article 21 and Article 41

The Court reasoned that:

• Without making Article 41 (a Directive Principle) a reality
  • Fundamental Rights under Part III would remain meaningless for the illiterate

Therefore: Right to education is concomitant to Fundamental Rights

(c) State’s Constitutional Obligation

The Court observed that:

• The State has a constitutional mandate to:
  • Provide educational institutions at all levels
• Education is a public function, not a private business

(d) Capitation Fee Declared Unconstitutional

The Court held that:

• Charging capitation fee is:
  • Wholly arbitrary
  • Violative of Article 14

It described capitation fee as:

• A price for selling education
• Creating “teaching shops”, which are:
  • Alien to the constitutional scheme

Constitutional and Social Significance

This judgment:

• Opened the door for education-based rights litigation
• Directly challenged the commercialisation of education
• Expanded Article 21 into the socio-economic rights domain
• Triggered intense debate on state capacity and feasibility

Impact of the Judgement

(a) Prelude to Unni Krishnan Case (1993)

The Mohini Jain judgment became the foundation for → Unni Krishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993)

In that case:

• The Supreme Court was asked to re-examine Mohini Jain
• States argued that:
  • Implementing this judgment would force closure of professional colleges

The Court:

• Partly upheld and partly overruled Mohini Jain
• Limited the enforceable right to education

(b) Path to the 86th Constitutional Amendment (2002)

The judicial journey that began with Mohini Jain ultimately led to:

• The 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002
  • Insertion of:
    • Article 21A – Right to free and compulsory education (6–14 years)
    • Article 45 (amended)
    • Article 51A(k) – Fundamental duty of parents

Place in Constitutional Evolution

Case	Contribution
Mohini Jain (1992)	Education as FR (broad)
Unni Krishnan (1993)	Education as limited FR
86th Amendment (2002)	Education explicitly constitutionalised

Summary

The Mohini Jain Case (1992) held that the right to education is implicit in Article 21, condemned capitation fees as unconstitutional, and laid the foundation for later judicial and constitutional developments culminating in Article 21A.