Commercialization of P.G. Courses:
Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka
Supreme Court, while addressing the illegality of capitation fees in private medical colleges, quoted Dr. K.S. Chugh’s 1991 Presidential Address to the Association of Physicians of India. Dr. Chugh condemned the practice of charging huge capitation fees, which enables back door entry into medical education based on wealth rather than merit, ignores Medical Council of India guidelines, and lowers standards by prioritizing quantity over quality of doctors. He urged immediate prohibition and emphasized the need for better doctors, health education, and care over mere expansion.
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka
The Supreme Court had to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings against the Government of Maharashtra and its officers for permitting filling up of seats in NRI quota contrary to the order dt. 5-4-1994 passed by the Apex Court in private medical and dental colleges. The Supreme Court while deprecating such an act in strongest terms and holding the officers of the State guilty of contempt of Court, inter alia, observed that: “It is common knowledge that each seat under this quota is sold for huge sums not all accounted for and not all in Indian currency”.
Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the root cause of the evils in admissions is the unchecked discretion given to managements, which has led to the commercialization of education. ‘Capitation fee’ refers to any amount charged beyond what the law permits. We must create a system where no management or individual can demand or collect anything extra beyond legally allowed fees.
In response to rampant capitation fees and commercialization of education, Parliament enacted the UGC (Amendment) Act, 1984, inserting Section 12A. It empowers UGC to frame regulations prohibiting donations and ensuring no admission is secured through economic power, blocking meritorious candidates.
Legal Analysis of Issues Involved
Relevant Legislative Entries and amendments
In VII Schedule of Constitution, List I i.e. Centre list has following entry:
“66. Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions.”
Before 42nd Amendment of the Constitution, State List II had following entry:
“11. Education including universities subject to the provisions of entries 63. 64. 65 and 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III”
Before 42nd Amendment of the Constitution, Entry 25 of List III i.e. Concurrent list was as follows:
“25. Vocational and technical training of Labour”
After 42nd amendment Entry 11 of List II was deleted and Entry 25 of List III became as follows:
“25. Education, including technical education, medical education and universities subject to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of the List I: vocational and technical training of labour.”
Entry 63 of List-I is “63. The institutions known at the commencement of this Constitution as the Benares Hindu University, the Aligarh Muslim University and the 1 [Delhi University; the University established in pursuance of article 371E;] any other institution declared by Parliament by law to be an institution of national importance”
Entry 64 of List-I is “Institutions for scientific or technical education financed by the Government of India wholly or in part and declared by Parliament by law to be institutions of national importance.”
Entry 65 of List-I is “Union agencies and institutions for—
- professional, vocational or technical training, including the training of police officers; or
- the promotion of special studies or research; or
- scientific or technical assistance in the investigation or detection of crime.”
Interpretation of these Entries:
Gujarat University Case:
In Gujarat University v. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar, a 6-Judge Supreme Court Bench resolved the overlap between Entry 66 List I Union’s power over coordination and determination of standards in higher education and Entry 11 List II State’s power over education, including universities, prior to the 42nd Amendment. Key principles were
- Entries must be harmoniously construed; where they overlap, Union’s power under Entry 66 prevails over State’s under Entry 11.
- Primary/secondary education remains exclusively with States i.e. Entry 11.
- The phrase “subject to” in Entry 11 excludes matters in Entry 66 from State legislation.
- Union laws on standards have paramountcy as per Article 254(1); even without Union law, State laws encroaching on Union’s field are invalid.
The Court emphasized broad interpretation of Entry 66, extending to ancillary matters reasonably connected to standards.
Chitralekha v. State of Mysore
In Chitralekha v. State of Mysore, a 5-Judge Bench clarified that State laws under Entry 11 are invalid if they make Union’s exercise of power under Entry 66 impossible or difficult or heavily impact or wipe out the central field.
These rulings ensure Union dominance in maintaining higher education standards while preserving State autonomy in general education. Thus Entry 66 of List I prevails over Entry 11 of list II or in case of state enactment, over Entry 25 of List III.
State of T.N. v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute
In State of T.N. v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute, the Supreme Court clarified that the 42nd Constitution Amendment did not alter Parliament’s exclusive domain over “co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions” under Entry 66 List I. Even before the amendment, Entry 11 List II was subject to Entry 66 List I. Post-amendment, Entry 11 was shifted to and merged with Entry 25 List III, but the new Entry 25 remains subordinate to Entry 66 List I. Thus, Parliament’s power to legislate on higher education standards remains unchanged and supreme.
Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of MP
In Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of MP, a 5-Judge Supreme Court Bench addressed whether States could prescribe lower qualifying marks for reserved category candidates in PG medical and engineering courses. The Court examined the legislative domains under Entry 66 List I i.e. Union’s power over coordination and determination of standards in higher education institutions and Entry 25 List III i.e. Concurrent power over education, subject to Entry 66.
The Court held that both Union and States can legislate on education, including medical education, but States cannot impinge on standards in higher education institutions, which fall exclusively within the Union’s purview under Entry 66 List I. States retain control only where the field is not occupied by Union legislation and must not adversely affect standards.
The Bench overruled earlier 3-Judge decisions in State of M.P. v. Nivedita Jain and Ajay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar cases, which had held that admission and selection criteria do not impact standards interpreting that standards arise only during studies and that MCI regulations were merely recommendatory. The Court rejected this view, reasoning that selection criteria directly influence the quality of education imparted. Lower merit at entry hampers effective teaching and training, ultimately lowering overall standards.
The Court further clarified that merely requiring all candidates to pass the same final examination does not guarantee excellence or maintain standards. A pass mark ensures only minimum competence, not high quality. True standards result from the cumulative effect of student caliber, faculty quality, infrastructure, hospital facilities, and rigorous evaluation not just exit-stage uniformity.
Regarding MCI PG Regulations, the Court ruled they are binding as framed under Entry 66 List I powers. States, acting under Entry 25 List III, cannot frame conflicting rules that adversely affect these standards. Union power on higher education standards remains supreme and exclusive.
A common entrance examination is essential for postgraduate medical admissions within a State, as MBBS courses from different universities vary in curriculum, teaching quality, and evaluation standards. Some universities apply stricter assessments, requiring higher performance for passing or higher marks, while others are more lenient. A common test ensures a uniform, fair criterion to judge the true merit of candidates from diverse universities.
