Privileged Class Deviance in the Educational Field

In one line

Deviance in education is the sale of what is supposed to be earned, and the capitation fee litigation is the story of the courts trying and failing to stop it.

In the wording a student can write in an exam: privileged class deviance in the educational field covers the capitation fee, the sale of seats and of degrees, examination malpractice, fraudulent recognition and affiliation, and the diversion of institutional funds; the constitutional line runs from Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka through Unni Krishnan and T.M.A. Pai Foundation to P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra.

What the deviance consists of

The capitation fee. A payment demanded for admission over and above the prescribed fee, which converts a seat awarded on merit into a seat sold. It is the central form and the one MU names.

The sale of seats through management quotas at fees unrelated to cost.

Examination malpractice. Leaked papers, impersonation, mass copying, and the purchase of marks. The Sanhita's petty organised crime provision now names the selling of public examination question papers expressly.

Fraudulent recognition and affiliation. Institutions obtaining permission on false representations about faculty, premises and equipment, and inspection processes that do not inspect.

Diversion of funds. Trust and society funds applied to the personal purposes of those controlling the institution.

And research and academic deviance, including plagiarism, fabricated results and predatory publication, which is the professional deviance of teachers dealt with in topic 6.

The constitutional line

Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1992 SC 1858, decided on 30 July 1992.

Facts. A candidate for admission to a private medical college in Karnataka challenged a notification permitting the college to charge a capitation fee far above the fee payable by holders of government seats.

Held. The right to education is concomitant to the fundamental rights in Part III, since without education the rights in that Part remain beyond the reach of an illiterate majority, and the State is under a constitutional mandate to provide educational institutions at all levels. Charging a capitation fee was held to be arbitrary and violative of articles 14 and 21.

Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 2178, decided on 4 February 1993.

Facts. Private unaided professional colleges challenged State legislation regulating capitation fees, and the Court reconsidered how far Mohini Jain had gone in recognising a fundamental right to education.

Held. The right to education flows from the right to life under article 21, but its content must be determined in the light of the directive principles in articles 41, 45 and 46. The Court therefore held that every child has a fundamental right to free education up to the age of fourteen years and that beyond that age the right is subject to the limits of the State's economic capacity and development. It also framed a scheme regulating admissions and fees in private professional colleges.