Miss Mohini Jain, a medical aspirant student filed a petition in Supreme Court challenging this notification.

The apex Court raised an important question that "whether right to education is guaranteed to the Indian citizen under the Constitution of India?"

[2] As per the notification, the denial of admission of Miss Jain due to her failure to submit the yearly tuition fee of Rs.

The Government of Karnataka issued a notification dated 5 June 1989 under section 5(1) of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of capitation fee) Act, 1984, which fixed the tuition and other fees to be charged from the students by the private medical colleges in the state.

Hence, the tuition fee was not excessive and there was no question of profit making by the private medical colleges in the State of Karnataka.

[2] Moreover, both the intervener and the third respondent mentioned that there were no provision either in the constitution of India or under any other law which prevented the charging of capitation fee.

Guided by that hope, Article 41 ("The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of underserved want") and Article 45 ("The State shall endeavour to provide, within a period of ten years from the commencement of this Constitution, for free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen years") were included in the Chapter IV of the Constitution.

Article 39 of Part IV was about directing the state policies to secure adequate means of livelihood of citizen and offering opportunities to children to facilitate their healthy al-round development.

The concept of "teaching shops" was not at par with the constitutional scheme and was entirely opposing character to the Indian culture and heritage.

[2] Court made one significant remark in stating that if government recognises or approve a professional institution to run a professional course, it is State responsibility to ensure that the Institute should charge the government rates only and right to education is preserved.

The judgment of the Supreme Court has huge significance in a context of state's failure to maintain the endeavour set by Article 45 of the Constitution, even after 73 years of independence.

[6] Others noted the judgment as the expression of judicial activism because only a two-judge bench had made a substantial change in constitution.

[7] The decisionappeared while liberalisation was a government policy looking for Indian soil to sprout, and commercialisation of education was not as rampant as it is now.

However, the question arose whether the right to education at all level is essential for citizens for living a descent life.

[9] According to some critics, private educational institutions do not get any government grants and so should not be interpreted under the purview of Article 12.

[9] The Supreme Court later modified its judgment and to limit the right to free and compulsory education up to 14 years of age.

[10] This case, revisited the traditional ritualistic approach towards Directive Principles and provides a solid base of pragmatism.