Sabareesh Pillay | School of Law, University of Mumbai Thane Sub-Campus | 19th August 2020
D.P Joshi Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh
FACTS:
In this case, a third year M.B.B.S student of Delhi took admission in M.G Medical College, Madhya Pradesh in 1952. The petition was filed in the Supreme Court as the petitioner claimed that M.G Medical College charged different amount of fees for different students and that Non- residents of Madhya Pradesh had to pay more fee than the residents of Madhya Pradesh. As he was a resident of Delhi he had to pay Rs. 1,500 as extra fee, this was not charged to the residents of Madhya Pradesh who took admission in the college.
ISSUE:
Whether domicile based classification is against Article 14 and Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution.
PETITIONER CONTENTION:
The petitioner contended that the M.G medical college is charging extra fees to non-residents of Madhya Pradesh and must be prohibited to do so as it is discriminative and asked the respondents what was the reasoning behind charging different fees to different students and is it valid in the eyes of the law. Further, the petitioner asked for a refund of Rs.3, 000 which were charged as extra fees in the past two years of the college and were not charged to non-resident students.
RESPONDENT CONTENTION:
The respondent contended that several modifications were made recently regarding the fees and other matters, one of those modifications were that the students from Madhya Pradesh were exempted to pay the extra fees. This change was made after the management of the college was taken over by the state. The rule specifically stated that: “No capitation fees should be charged for all the students who are ‘bona fide residents’ of Madhya Pradesh”
BENCH OBSERVATION:
The bench of 5 Judges Justice Kr. Bijan Mukherjee, Justice Vivian Bose, Justice T.L Venkatarama Aiyar, Justice P. Bhuvneshwar Sinha and Justice B. Jagannadhadas that the rule was also not violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution because the classification was just and reasonable because it was based on a ground which was a primary duty of state i.e. to encourage education within its geographical boundaries. Further, the court said that the claim of violation of Article of the Indian Constitution is not valid as there is a difference in the resident of a state and place of birth of a person. The bench observed that the state can reserve seats for the students of their states and can impose fees and other guidelines on others according to their rules.
JUDGEMENT:
The court gave the judgement that the issue of Citizenship and domicile are two different conceptions. Citizenship is related to the political status of a person, and domicile is related to his civil rights. Thus, the Writ was dismissed and by majority it was adjudged that the rules of the state of Madhya Pradesh were not unconstitutional and were legally binding.
Leave a Reply