9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Is there a 'right to education' guaranteed under the Constitution, and does the concept of 'capitation fee' infract the same? 2. Whether the charging of capitation fee for admissions to educational institutions is arbitrary, unfair, unjust, and violates Article 14 of the Constitution? 3. Whether the impugned notification permits Private Medical Colleges to charge capitation fee in the guise of regulating fees under the Act? 4. Whether the notification is violative of the provisions of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984, which prohibits the charging of capitation fee? Summary: 1. Right to Education and Capitation Fee: The Court examined various constitutional provisions, including Articles 21, 38, 39(a)(f), 41, and 45, and concluded that the "right to education" is implicit under the Constitution. The preamble promises "Justice, social, economic and political," and the directive principles mandate the State to provide education. The Court held that education is essential for the dignity of an individual and that the "right to education" flows directly from the right to life under Article 21. The Court declared that charging capitation fee is a denial of this right. 2. Arbitrariness and Violation of Article 14: The Court held that charging capitation fee is arbitrary, unfair, and unjust, thus violating Article 14 of the Constitution. It emphasized that education should not be confined to the richer sections of society, and the practice of charging capitation fee creates a class bias, enabling the rich to secure admissions while the poor are excluded due to financial constraints. The Court cited earlier judgments to support the view that equality is opposed to arbitrariness and that capitation fee is inherently unequal. 3. Notification Permitting Capitation Fee: The Court examined the Karnataka Government's notification dated June 5, 1989, issued u/s 5(1) of the Act, which fixed different tuition fees for different categories of students. It found that the fee of Rs. 60,000 per annum for "Indian students from outside Karnataka" and Rs. 25,000 per annum for "Karnataka students" (other than those admitted against "Government seats") was not tuition fee but capitation fee. The Court held that the notification was beyond the scope of the Act and contrary to Section 3, which prohibits the collection of capitation fee. 4. Violation of the Act: The Court held that the notification allowing the collection of Rs. 60,000 and Rs. 25,000 per annum as fees was violative of the Act, which aims to curb the practice of collecting capitation fee. The Court struck down paragraphs 1(c) and 1(d) of the notification, declaring them as capitation fee and not permissible under the law. Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed, and paragraphs 1(c) and 1(d) of the Karnataka Government notification dated June 5, 1989, were quashed. However, the petitioner was not granted admission as she was not admitted on merit, and the course had already commenced. The judgment was made operative prospectively, and existing students admitted under the notification were not affected. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
|
