Scribd
Upload
36 views5 pages

Mohini Jain Vs State of Karnataka (1992) Case Study

Uploaded by

vee.anirudh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
36 views5 pages

Mohini Jain Vs State of Karnataka (1992) Case Study

Uploaded by

vee.anirudh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

Mohini Jain vs State of Karnataka (1992)

Eighty-Sixth Amendment, 2002

Introduction
● Education is an extremely important weapon to boost the self-development as

well as development of a nation.

● It empowers the freedom of individuals and fosters awareness.

● It enlightens the concept of equality among all and social justice.

● The Right to Education is enshrined in Article 21A of the Constitution of India.

● The Article was adjoined to the Constitution by the 86th amendment act in

2002.

● The government marked this step as “The dawn of the second revolution in the

chapter of citizens' rights”.

Historical Overview

● Right to Education was enshrined in Article 45 and 39 (f) of the Constitution.

● In 1955-56, the Government gave importance to the concept of education by

spending more than 1% of the GDP on education.

● The total number of students decreased from 42 million till 2002 to 13 million in

2005.

● The campaign named Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan was launched by the government

in the year 2000.

● 2% of revenue generated through central tax was dedicated towards education.


● The gradual steps led to the stepping-stone for the 86th amendment of the

Constitution of India.

● Article 45 in the Constitution directed the state to provide free and compulsory

education to children until they reach 14 years, within ten years.

● Also, Article 39(f) before the 42nd amendment stated that “childhood and youth

are protected or guarded against exploitation or manipulation and against

moral and material abandonment”.

The Amendment

● It came in the year 2002.

● Free and compulsory education for children between the age group of 6 to 14

years was the keynote of this amendment.

● The amendment added three provisions to satisfy the above-mentioned goal.

● Article 21A states “the state shall provide free and compulsory education to all

children between the ages of 6 and 14 through a law that it may determine.”

● Modified version of Article 45 states that, “State shall work to ensure early

childhood care and free and mandatory education for all children up to the age

of six”

● Article 51A(k) made it the duty of parents and guardians to ensure the education

of their children aged between 6 to 14 years.

Series of Events

● The first step was the incorporation of Article 45 in the DPSP in the year 1950 to

ensure the presence of education in the system.

● The First National Commission was in charge of Dr. Kothari in 1968.


● the 42nd Amendment in 1976 made education a concurrent subject giving power

to both central and state governments to deal with the matter.

● Right to Education was deduced as a part of the Right to Life under Article 21 in

the cases of Mohini Jain in 1992 and Unnikrishnan in 1993.

● 86th Amendment Act brought Right to Education as a Fundamental Right under

Article 21A.

● In 2005 the report of the Central Advisory Board Committee was submitted to

bring the Right to Education Bill.

● The Right to Free and Compulsory to Children Act came in 2009.

Judgement

● Capitation Fee Prohibition: The Court in Mohini Jain vs State of Karnataka held that

charging capitation fees for admission was unconstitutional. This practice was seen as

a blatant denial of the right to education, an essential component of the right to life

under Article 21 of the Constitution.

● Arbitrary State Action: The state action permitting educational institutions to charge

capitation fees was deemed wholly arbitrary and violative of Article 14, which

guarantees equality before the law. The Court noted that this practice created a system

where only those who could afford to pay exorbitant fees had access to education,

undermining the principle of equality.

● Legal Prohibition: The Mohini Jain vs State of Karnataka judgement declared that it was

impermissible for any educational institution to charge capitation fees as a

consideration for admission. This decision effectively nullified the Karnataka State

notification dated June 5, 1989, which had allowed such fees.

● Continuing Education: The Court made a specific provision for students who had

already been admitted to private medical colleges under the capitation fee regime.
These students were allowed to continue their studies under the existing terms and

conditions, ensuring that their education would not be disrupted.

● No Relief for Petitioner: Despite the favorable judgment, Mohini Jain did not receive

any specific relief regarding her admission. The Court noted that she had not been

admitted on merit and that the course had already commenced.

Conclusion

● The right to receive basic elementary education is one of the most important

rights.

● It empowers the road toward development.

● Also, awareness is the primary goal behind providing this right.

● The journey for incorporation of Article 21A into the Constitution was extensive.

● A series of cases contributed to reaching the objective.

● Education for girls has also become an agenda of this Article.

● Although it imparts education at the basic level and not for a professional

degree.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy