1992 (7) TMI 330 - SC - Indian Laws

Court declares capitation fee unconstitutional under Article 14, quashes collection paragraphs

The Court held that the charging of capitation fee for admissions to educational institutions is arbitrary, unfair, and violates Article 14 of the ... Right to education - capitation fee - tuition fee versus capitation fee - state obligation to provide education - arbitrariness under Article 14 - ultra vires notification - prospective operation of judicial reliefRight to education - state obligation to provide education - Existence and constitutional character of a citizen's 'right to education' and the State's obligation in that regard. - HELD THAT: - Reading the Preamble and Directive Principles (Articles 21, 38, 39, 41 and 45) cumulatively, the Court held that although 'right to education' is not enumerated as a fundamental right in Part III, it flows from the right to life and human dignity under Article 21 and from the Directive Principles which are supplementary to fundamental rights. The State has a constitutional mandate to create conditions and institutions through which citizens can enjoy the right to education, and when the State recognises private institutions it creates agencies to fulfil that obligation.The Court recognised a constitutional 'right to education' as concomitant to Article 21 and as within the State's obligation to provide educational facilities.Capitation fee - arbitrariness under Article 14 - Whether charging capitation fee as consideration for admission is compatible with Article 14 and the constitutional scheme. - HELD THAT: - The Court found that capitation fee operates as a price for selling education and creates class bias by enabling the rich to obtain admission while excluding deserving poor candidates, thereby denying equality and amounting to arbitrariness. Citing the expanded conception of equality as antithetic to arbitrariness, the Court held that capitation fee is arbitrary, unfair and unjust, strikes at the root of the constitutional scheme and cannot be sustained; admissions must be on merit alone.Charging capitation fee as a condition for admission is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and is therefore illegal.Tuition fee versus capitation fee - ultra vires notification - regulation of fees by government - Whether the Karnataka Government notification dated June 5, 1989 permitting different maximum fees (paras 1(c) and 1(d)) amounted to regulation of tuition fee or authorised capitation fee and whether those provisions were intra vires the Act. - HELD THAT: - The notification fixed Rs. 2,000 per annum as the tuition fee for merit based 'Government seats' and government college seats; higher amounts permitted for other categories (paras 1(c) and 1(d)) were in substance extraction of money where merit was not the criterion. The Court concluded that permitting such differential higher charges amounted to authorising capitation fee, which section 3 of the Act prohibits. Consequently those portions of the notification went beyond the scope of the Act and were contrary to the prohibition against capitation fee.Paragraphs 1(c) and 1(d) of the notification of June 5, 1989 are not genuine tuition regulation but amount to capitation fee and are ultra vires and set aside; the remainder of the notification becomes redundant as to those parts.Prospective operation of judicial relief - Remedial consequences: temporal operation of the judgment and relief as to admissions already completed and as to the petitioner's claim to admission. - HELD THAT: - The Court directed that the declaration striking down paras 1(c) and 1(d) operate prospectively. Students already admitted under the June 5, 1989 notification will continue on the same terms and conditions and are not entitled to retrospective advantage. The petitioner, who was not admitted on merit and whose course had already commenced, was held not entitled to an order of admission into the college.The judgment applies prospectively; existing admitted students remain on original terms; no direction to admit the petitioner was issued.Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed: the Court recognised a constitutional 'right to education' flowing from Article 21 and the Directive Principles, held that capitation fee is arbitrary and violative of Article 14, struck down paras 1(c) and 1(d) of the Karnataka notification of June 5, 1989 as authorising capitation fee and ultra vires the Act, and directed that the decision operate prospectively while leaving already admitted students and the petitioner's claim to admission unaffected. Issues Involved:1. Is there a 'right to education' guaranteed under the Constitution, and does the concept of 'capitation fee' infract the sameRs.2. Whether the charging of capitation fee for admissions to educational institutions is arbitrary, unfair, unjust, and violates Article 14 of the ConstitutionRs.3. Whether the impugned notification permits Private Medical Colleges to charge capitation fee in the guise of regulating fees under the ActRs.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 feeRs.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.