<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1992 (7) TMI 330 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168210</link>
    <description>The text explains that capitation fee for admission to educational institutions is constitutionally impermissible because education is treated as part of the constitutional framework and a public duty linked to human dignity and equal opportunity. It also states that admission based on financial capacity rather than merit is arbitrary and violative of Article 14, since it creates class bias and unfairly excludes meritorious students lacking means. The discussion further notes that a notification fixing higher charges for certain students was treated as capitation fee in substance and as contrary to the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984, which prohibits such collections and permits only regulated tuition fees.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2015 10:24:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=375206" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (7) TMI 330 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168210</link>
      <description>The text explains that capitation fee for admission to educational institutions is constitutionally impermissible because education is treated as part of the constitutional framework and a public duty linked to human dignity and equal opportunity. It also states that admission based on financial capacity rather than merit is arbitrary and violative of Article 14, since it creates class bias and unfairly excludes meritorious students lacking means. The discussion further notes that a notification fixing higher charges for certain students was treated as capitation fee in substance and as contrary to the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984, which prohibits such collections and permits only regulated tuition fees.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168210</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>