Question Description
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The right to education was produced under Article 21, read with Article 19(1)(a),(b) and (c) in 1978 in the case of Ananda Vardhan Chandel vs. Delhi University[6]. The judge observed that the mere disparity in the nature of the rights under Part III and IV of the Constitution is that the Fundamental Rights are 'natural rights', which people forever enjoyed and which do not need definite socio-economic conditions to be produced by the State before they can be imposed as is the case with the DPSP which are 'man-made rights'.The question of right to free and compulsory education was elevated in the case of Mohini Jain, in 1992, popularly known as "capitation fee case". The division bench of the Supreme Court held that the 'right to life' is the compendious phrase for all those rights which the Courts must implement as they are indispensable to the dignified enjoyment of life. Court stated:"The right to education flows directly from right to life. The right to life under Article 21 and the dignity of an individual are not being assured unless it is accompanied by the right to education. The state is under an obligation to make endeavour to provide educational facilities at all levels to its citizens".Judges declared that the education in India has never been a commodity for sale. It further settled that "We hold that every citizen has a 'right to education' under the Constitution. The State is under an obligation to establish educational institutions to enable the citizens to enjoy the said right. The State may discharge its obligation through State-owned or State-recognised educational institutions. When the State Government grants recognition to the private educational institutions it creates an agency to fulfil its obligation under the Constitution. The students are given admission to the educational institutions - whether State-owned or State recognised in recognition of their 'right to education' under the Constitution. Charging capitation fee in consideration of admission to educational institutions is a patent denial of a citizen's right to education under the Constitution."Court considered that the Constitution made it compulsory to give education to all its citizens. This interpretation alone, said the court, would assist the people to differentiate the objectives of dignity, political economic, and social justice. They found that charging capitation fee of large sums by institutions of higher education is a disavowal of the right to education.The Supreme Court observed the accuracy of the verdict given by the court in Mohini Jain in the case of Unnikrishnan.The five Judges bench by 3-2 majority partially agreed with the Mohini case decision and held that right to education is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution as it directly flows from "right to life". As consider its content, the court partially overruled the Mohini Jain's decision and held that the right to free education is available only to children until they complete the age of 14 years, then the responsibility of the State to provide education is subject to the limits of its economic capacity and development. The duty created by Articles 41,45&46 can be executed by the State either by establishing its own institutions or by aiding, recognising or granting affiliation to private institutions.Court held that children of the nation are an extremely important asset. Their nurture and attentiveness are our responsibility, children's program should find a noticeable part in our national plans for the development of human resources, so that our children grow up, to become healthy citizens, physically fit, mentally alert and morally healthy; endowed with the skills and enthusiasms needed by society. Equal opportunities for development to all children during the period of development should be our aim, for this would serve our larger purpose of reducing inequality and ensuring social justice.Therefore, in the concluding remarks, it is expected that mare passing an act is not sufficient. The need of the hour is to keep a proper check on the functioning of the act. The constant monitoring and strong political will is a must to make it effective. As per the UNESCO's "Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2010'', about 135 countries have constitutional provisions for free and non-discriminatory education for all. The much awaited Right to Education (RTE) Act which has been passed by the parliament of India should play a significant role in attaining universal elementary education in India. The victory and defeat of RTE would largely depend on consistent political care. Financial allocation of funds should be adequate in this respect. The youth in India should come forward and spread the utility of education to illiterate parents who are unable to appreciate the significance of education in limiting the social evils. Social differences and monopolization by any group should not be accepted at any cost. Education which is free of cost up to a certain age must be accessible to each and every one.Q. In the case of Mohini Jain, the supreme court ordered the State to provide free education to its citizen by which type of educational institutions?a)Government schoolsb)Private schoolsc)Private schools recognized by the stated)Both (a) and (c)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The right to education was produced under Article 21, read with Article 19(1)(a),(b) and (c) in 1978 in the case of Ananda Vardhan Chandel vs. Delhi University[6]. The judge observed that the mere disparity in the nature of the rights under Part III and IV of the Constitution is that the Fundamental Rights are 'natural rights', which people forever enjoyed and which do not need definite socio-economic conditions to be produced by the State before they can be imposed as is the case with the DPSP which are 'man-made rights'.The question of right to free and compulsory education was elevated in the case of Mohini Jain, in 1992, popularly known as "capitation fee case". The division bench of the Supreme Court held that the 'right to life' is the compendious phrase for all those rights which the Courts must implement as they are indispensable to the dignified enjoyment of life. Court stated:"The right to education flows directly from right to life. The right to life under Article 21 and the dignity of an individual are not being assured unless it is accompanied by the right to education. The state is under an obligation to make endeavour to provide educational facilities at all levels to its citizens".Judges declared that the education in India has never been a commodity for sale. It further settled that "We hold that every citizen has a 'right to education' under the Constitution. The State is under an obligation to establish educational institutions to enable the citizens to enjoy the said right. The State may discharge its obligation through State-owned or State-recognised educational institutions. When the State Government grants recognition to the private educational institutions it creates an agency to fulfil its obligation under the Constitution. The students are given admission to the educational institutions - whether State-owned or State recognised in recognition of their 'right to education' under the Constitution. Charging capitation fee in consideration of admission to educational institutions is a patent denial of a citizen's right to education under the Constitution."Court considered that the Constitution made it compulsory to give education to all its citizens. This interpretation alone, said the court, would assist the people to differentiate the objectives of dignity, political economic, and social justice. They found that charging capitation fee of large sums by institutions of higher education is a disavowal of the right to education.The Supreme Court observed the accuracy of the verdict given by the court in Mohini Jain in the case of Unnikrishnan.The five Judges bench by 3-2 majority partially agreed with the Mohini case decision and held that right to education is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution as it directly flows from "right to life". As consider its content, the court partially overruled the Mohini Jain's decision and held that the right to free education is available only to children until they complete the age of 14 years, then the responsibility of the State to provide education is subject to the limits of its economic capacity and development. The duty created by Articles 41,45&46 can be executed by the State either by establishing its own institutions or by aiding, recognising or granting affiliation to private institutions.Court held that children of the nation are an extremely important asset. Their nurture and attentiveness are our responsibility, children's program should find a noticeable part in our national plans for the development of human resources, so that our children grow up, to become healthy citizens, physically fit, mentally alert and morally healthy; endowed with the skills and enthusiasms needed by society. Equal opportunities for development to all children during the period of development should be our aim, for this would serve our larger purpose of reducing inequality and ensuring social justice.Therefore, in the concluding remarks, it is expected that mare passing an act is not sufficient. The need of the hour is to keep a proper check on the functioning of the act. The constant monitoring and strong political will is a must to make it effective. As per the UNESCO's "Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2010'', about 135 countries have constitutional provisions for free and non-discriminatory education for all. The much awaited Right to Education (RTE) Act which has been passed by the parliament of India should play a significant role in attaining universal elementary education in India. The victory and defeat of RTE would largely depend on consistent political care. Financial allocation of funds should be adequate in this respect. The youth in India should come forward and spread the utility of education to illiterate parents who are unable to appreciate the significance of education in limiting the social evils. Social differences and monopolization by any group should not be accepted at any cost. Education which is free of cost up to a certain age must be accessible to each and every one.Q. In the case of Mohini Jain, the supreme court ordered the State to provide free education to its citizen by which type of educational institutions?a)Government schoolsb)Private schoolsc)Private schools recognized by the stated)Both (a) and (c)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The right to education was produced under Article 21, read with Article 19(1)(a),(b) and (c) in 1978 in the case of Ananda Vardhan Chandel vs. Delhi University[6]. The judge observed that the mere disparity in the nature of the rights under Part III and IV of the Constitution is that the Fundamental Rights are 'natural rights', which people forever enjoyed and which do not need definite socio-economic conditions to be produced by the State before they can be imposed as is the case with the DPSP which are 'man-made rights'.The question of right to free and compulsory education was elevated in the case of Mohini Jain, in 1992, popularly known as "capitation fee case". The division bench of the Supreme Court held that the 'right to life' is the compendious phrase for all those rights which the Courts must implement as they are indispensable to the dignified enjoyment of life. Court stated:"The right to education flows directly from right to life. The right to life under Article 21 and the dignity of an individual are not being assured unless it is accompanied by the right to education. The state is under an obligation to make endeavour to provide educational facilities at all levels to its citizens".Judges declared that the education in India has never been a commodity for sale. It further settled that "We hold that every citizen has a 'right to education' under the Constitution. The State is under an obligation to establish educational institutions to enable the citizens to enjoy the said right. The State may discharge its obligation through State-owned or State-recognised educational institutions. When the State Government grants recognition to the private educational institutions it creates an agency to fulfil its obligation under the Constitution. The students are given admission to the educational institutions - whether State-owned or State recognised in recognition of their 'right to education' under the Constitution. Charging capitation fee in consideration of admission to educational institutions is a patent denial of a citizen's right to education under the Constitution."Court considered that the Constitution made it compulsory to give education to all its citizens. This interpretation alone, said the court, would assist the people to differentiate the objectives of dignity, political economic, and social justice. They found that charging capitation fee of large sums by institutions of higher education is a disavowal of the right to education.The Supreme Court observed the accuracy of the verdict given by the court in Mohini Jain in the case of Unnikrishnan.The five Judges bench by 3-2 majority partially agreed with the Mohini case decision and held that right to education is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution as it directly flows from "right to life". As consider its content, the court partially overruled the Mohini Jain's decision and held that the right to free education is available only to children until they complete the age of 14 years, then the responsibility of the State to provide education is subject to the limits of its economic capacity and development. The duty created by Articles 41,45&46 can be executed by the State either by establishing its own institutions or by aiding, recognising or granting affiliation to private institutions.Court held that children of the nation are an extremely important asset. Their nurture and attentiveness are our responsibility, children's program should find a noticeable part in our national plans for the development of human resources, so that our children grow up, to become healthy citizens, physically fit, mentally alert and morally healthy; endowed with the skills and enthusiasms needed by society. Equal opportunities for development to all children during the period of development should be our aim, for this would serve our larger purpose of reducing inequality and ensuring social justice.Therefore, in the concluding remarks, it is expected that mare passing an act is not sufficient. The need of the hour is to keep a proper check on the functioning of the act. The constant monitoring and strong political will is a must to make it effective. As per the UNESCO's "Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2010'', about 135 countries have constitutional provisions for free and non-discriminatory education for all. The much awaited Right to Education (RTE) Act which has been passed by the parliament of India should play a significant role in attaining universal elementary education in India. The victory and defeat of RTE would largely depend on consistent political care. Financial allocation of funds should be adequate in this respect. The youth in India should come forward and spread the utility of education to illiterate parents who are unable to appreciate the significance of education in limiting the social evils. Social differences and monopolization by any group should not be accepted at any cost. Education which is free of cost up to a certain age must be accessible to each and every one.Q. In the case of Mohini Jain, the supreme court ordered the State to provide free education to its citizen by which type of educational institutions?a)Government schoolsb)Private schoolsc)Private schools recognized by the stated)Both (a) and (c)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The right to education was produced under Article 21, read with Article 19(1)(a),(b) and (c) in 1978 in the case of Ananda Vardhan Chandel vs. Delhi University[6]. The judge observed that the mere disparity in the nature of the rights under Part III and IV of the Constitution is that the Fundamental Rights are 'natural rights', which people forever enjoyed and which do not need definite socio-economic conditions to be produced by the State before they can be imposed as is the case with the DPSP which are 'man-made rights'.The question of right to free and compulsory education was elevated in the case of Mohini Jain, in 1992, popularly known as "capitation fee case". The division bench of the Supreme Court held that the 'right to life' is the compendious phrase for all those rights which the Courts must implement as they are indispensable to the dignified enjoyment of life. Court stated:"The right to education flows directly from right to life. The right to life under Article 21 and the dignity of an individual are not being assured unless it is accompanied by the right to education. The state is under an obligation to make endeavour to provide educational facilities at all levels to its citizens".Judges declared that the education in India has never been a commodity for sale. It further settled that "We hold that every citizen has a 'right to education' under the Constitution. The State is under an obligation to establish educational institutions to enable the citizens to enjoy the said right. The State may discharge its obligation through State-owned or State-recognised educational institutions. When the State Government grants recognition to the private educational institutions it creates an agency to fulfil its obligation under the Constitution. The students are given admission to the educational institutions - whether State-owned or State recognised in recognition of their 'right to education' under the Constitution. Charging capitation fee in consideration of admission to educational institutions is a patent denial of a citizen's right to education under the Constitution."Court considered that the Constitution made it compulsory to give education to all its citizens. This interpretation alone, said the court, would assist the people to differentiate the objectives of dignity, political economic, and social justice. They found that charging capitation fee of large sums by institutions of higher education is a disavowal of the right to education.The Supreme Court observed the accuracy of the verdict given by the court in Mohini Jain in the case of Unnikrishnan.The five Judges bench by 3-2 majority partially agreed with the Mohini case decision and held that right to education is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution as it directly flows from "right to life". As consider its content, the court partially overruled the Mohini Jain's decision and held that the right to free education is available only to children until they complete the age of 14 years, then the responsibility of the State to provide education is subject to the limits of its economic capacity and development. The duty created by Articles 41,45&46 can be executed by the State either by establishing its own institutions or by aiding, recognising or granting affiliation to private institutions.Court held that children of the nation are an extremely important asset. Their nurture and attentiveness are our responsibility, children's program should find a noticeable part in our national plans for the development of human resources, so that our children grow up, to become healthy citizens, physically fit, mentally alert and morally healthy; endowed with the skills and enthusiasms needed by society. Equal opportunities for development to all children during the period of development should be our aim, for this would serve our larger purpose of reducing inequality and ensuring social justice.Therefore, in the concluding remarks, it is expected that mare passing an act is not sufficient. The need of the hour is to keep a proper check on the functioning of the act. The constant monitoring and strong political will is a must to make it effective. As per the UNESCO's "Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2010'', about 135 countries have constitutional provisions for free and non-discriminatory education for all. The much awaited Right to Education (RTE) Act which has been passed by the parliament of India should play a significant role in attaining universal elementary education in India. The victory and defeat of RTE would largely depend on consistent political care. Financial allocation of funds should be adequate in this respect. The youth in India should come forward and spread the utility of education to illiterate parents who are unable to appreciate the significance of education in limiting the social evils. Social differences and monopolization by any group should not be accepted at any cost. Education which is free of cost up to a certain age must be accessible to each and every one.Q. In the case of Mohini Jain, the supreme court ordered the State to provide free education to its citizen by which type of educational institutions?a)Government schoolsb)Private schoolsc)Private schools recognized by the stated)Both (a) and (c)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The right to education was produced under Article 21, read with Article 19(1)(a),(b) and (c) in 1978 in the case of Ananda Vardhan Chandel vs. Delhi University[6]. The judge observed that the mere disparity in the nature of the rights under Part III and IV of the Constitution is that the Fundamental Rights are 'natural rights', which people forever enjoyed and which do not need definite socio-economic conditions to be produced by the State before they can be imposed as is the case with the DPSP which are 'man-made rights'.The question of right to free and compulsory education was elevated in the case of Mohini Jain, in 1992, popularly known as "capitation fee case". The division bench of the Supreme Court held that the 'right to life' is the compendious phrase for all those rights which the Courts must implement as they are indispensable to the dignified enjoyment of life. Court stated:"The right to education flows directly from right to life. The right to life under Article 21 and the dignity of an individual are not being assured unless it is accompanied by the right to education. The state is under an obligation to make endeavour to provide educational facilities at all levels to its citizens".Judges declared that the education in India has never been a commodity for sale. It further settled that "We hold that every citizen has a 'right to education' under the Constitution. The State is under an obligation to establish educational institutions to enable the citizens to enjoy the said right. The State may discharge its obligation through State-owned or State-recognised educational institutions. When the State Government grants recognition to the private educational institutions it creates an agency to fulfil its obligation under the Constitution. The students are given admission to the educational institutions - whether State-owned or State recognised in recognition of their 'right to education' under the Constitution. Charging capitation fee in consideration of admission to educational institutions is a patent denial of a citizen's right to education under the Constitution."Court considered that the Constitution made it compulsory to give education to all its citizens. This interpretation alone, said the court, would assist the people to differentiate the objectives of dignity, political economic, and social justice. They found that charging capitation fee of large sums by institutions of higher education is a disavowal of the right to education.The Supreme Court observed the accuracy of the verdict given by the court in Mohini Jain in the case of Unnikrishnan.The five Judges bench by 3-2 majority partially agreed with the Mohini case decision and held that right to education is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution as it directly flows from "right to life". As consider its content, the court partially overruled the Mohini Jain's decision and held that the right to free education is available only to children until they complete the age of 14 years, then the responsibility of the State to provide education is subject to the limits of its economic capacity and development. The duty created by Articles 41,45&46 can be executed by the State either by establishing its own institutions or by aiding, recognising or granting affiliation to private institutions.Court held that children of the nation are an extremely important asset. Their nurture and attentiveness are our responsibility, children's program should find a noticeable part in our national plans for the development of human resources, so that our children grow up, to become healthy citizens, physically fit, mentally alert and morally healthy; endowed with the skills and enthusiasms needed by society. Equal opportunities for development to all children during the period of development should be our aim, for this would serve our larger purpose of reducing inequality and ensuring social justice.Therefore, in the concluding remarks, it is expected that mare passing an act is not sufficient. The need of the hour is to keep a proper check on the functioning of the act. The constant monitoring and strong political will is a must to make it effective. As per the UNESCO's "Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2010'', about 135 countries have constitutional provisions for free and non-discriminatory education for all. The much awaited Right to Education (RTE) Act which has been passed by the parliament of India should play a significant role in attaining universal elementary education in India. The victory and defeat of RTE would largely depend on consistent political care. Financial allocation of funds should be adequate in this respect. The youth in India should come forward and spread the utility of education to illiterate parents who are unable to appreciate the significance of education in limiting the social evils. Social differences and monopolization by any group should not be accepted at any cost. Education which is free of cost up to a certain age must be accessible to each and every one.Q. In the case of Mohini Jain, the supreme court ordered the State to provide free education to its citizen by which type of educational institutions?a)Government schoolsb)Private schoolsc)Private schools recognized by the stated)Both (a) and (c)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The right to education was produced under Article 21, read with Article 19(1)(a),(b) and (c) in 1978 in the case of Ananda Vardhan Chandel vs. Delhi University[6]. The judge observed that the mere disparity in the nature of the rights under Part III and IV of the Constitution is that the Fundamental Rights are 'natural rights', which people forever enjoyed and which do not need definite socio-economic conditions to be produced by the State before they can be imposed as is the case with the DPSP which are 'man-made rights'.The question of right to free and compulsory education was elevated in the case of Mohini Jain, in 1992, popularly known as "capitation fee case". The division bench of the Supreme Court held that the 'right to life' is the compendious phrase for all those rights which the Courts must implement as they are indispensable to the dignified enjoyment of life. Court stated:"The right to education flows directly from right to life. The right to life under Article 21 and the dignity of an individual are not being assured unless it is accompanied by the right to education. The state is under an obligation to make endeavour to provide educational facilities at all levels to its citizens".Judges declared that the education in India has never been a commodity for sale. It further settled that "We hold that every citizen has a 'right to education' under the Constitution. The State is under an obligation to establish educational institutions to enable the citizens to enjoy the said right. The State may discharge its obligation through State-owned or State-recognised educational institutions. When the State Government grants recognition to the private educational institutions it creates an agency to fulfil its obligation under the Constitution. The students are given admission to the educational institutions - whether State-owned or State recognised in recognition of their 'right to education' under the Constitution. Charging capitation fee in consideration of admission to educational institutions is a patent denial of a citizen's right to education under the Constitution."Court considered that the Constitution made it compulsory to give education to all its citizens. This interpretation alone, said the court, would assist the people to differentiate the objectives of dignity, political economic, and social justice. They found that charging capitation fee of large sums by institutions of higher education is a disavowal of the right to education.The Supreme Court observed the accuracy of the verdict given by the court in Mohini Jain in the case of Unnikrishnan.The five Judges bench by 3-2 majority partially agreed with the Mohini case decision and held that right to education is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution as it directly flows from "right to life". As consider its content, the court partially overruled the Mohini Jain's decision and held that the right to free education is available only to children until they complete the age of 14 years, then the responsibility of the State to provide education is subject to the limits of its economic capacity and development. The duty created by Articles 41,45&46 can be executed by the State either by establishing its own institutions or by aiding, recognising or granting affiliation to private institutions.Court held that children of the nation are an extremely important asset. Their nurture and attentiveness are our responsibility, children's program should find a noticeable part in our national plans for the development of human resources, so that our children grow up, to become healthy citizens, physically fit, mentally alert and morally healthy; endowed with the skills and enthusiasms needed by society. Equal opportunities for development to all children during the period of development should be our aim, for this would serve our larger purpose of reducing inequality and ensuring social justice.Therefore, in the concluding remarks, it is expected that mare passing an act is not sufficient. The need of the hour is to keep a proper check on the functioning of the act. The constant monitoring and strong political will is a must to make it effective. As per the UNESCO's "Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2010'', about 135 countries have constitutional provisions for free and non-discriminatory education for all. The much awaited Right to Education (RTE) Act which has been passed by the parliament of India should play a significant role in attaining universal elementary education in India. The victory and defeat of RTE would largely depend on consistent political care. Financial allocation of funds should be adequate in this respect. The youth in India should come forward and spread the utility of education to illiterate parents who are unable to appreciate the significance of education in limiting the social evils. Social differences and monopolization by any group should not be accepted at any cost. Education which is free of cost up to a certain age must be accessible to each and every one.Q. In the case of Mohini Jain, the supreme court ordered the State to provide free education to its citizen by which type of educational institutions?a)Government schoolsb)Private schoolsc)Private schools recognized by the stated)Both (a) and (c)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The right to education was produced under Article 21, read with Article 19(1)(a),(b) and (c) in 1978 in the case of Ananda Vardhan Chandel vs. Delhi University[6]. The judge observed that the mere disparity in the nature of the rights under Part III and IV of the Constitution is that the Fundamental Rights are 'natural rights', which people forever enjoyed and which do not need definite socio-economic conditions to be produced by the State before they can be imposed as is the case with the DPSP which are 'man-made rights'.The question of right to free and compulsory education was elevated in the case of Mohini Jain, in 1992, popularly known as "capitation fee case". The division bench of the Supreme Court held that the 'right to life' is the compendious phrase for all those rights which the Courts must implement as they are indispensable to the dignified enjoyment of life. Court stated:"The right to education flows directly from right to life. The right to life under Article 21 and the dignity of an individual are not being assured unless it is accompanied by the right to education. The state is under an obligation to make endeavour to provide educational facilities at all levels to its citizens".Judges declared that the education in India has never been a commodity for sale. It further settled that "We hold that every citizen has a 'right to education' under the Constitution. The State is under an obligation to establish educational institutions to enable the citizens to enjoy the said right. The State may discharge its obligation through State-owned or State-recognised educational institutions. When the State Government grants recognition to the private educational institutions it creates an agency to fulfil its obligation under the Constitution. The students are given admission to the educational institutions - whether State-owned or State recognised in recognition of their 'right to education' under the Constitution. Charging capitation fee in consideration of admission to educational institutions is a patent denial of a citizen's right to education under the Constitution."Court considered that the Constitution made it compulsory to give education to all its citizens. This interpretation alone, said the court, would assist the people to differentiate the objectives of dignity, political economic, and social justice. They found that charging capitation fee of large sums by institutions of higher education is a disavowal of the right to education.The Supreme Court observed the accuracy of the verdict given by the court in Mohini Jain in the case of Unnikrishnan.The five Judges bench by 3-2 majority partially agreed with the Mohini case decision and held that right to education is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution as it directly flows from "right to life". As consider its content, the court partially overruled the Mohini Jain's decision and held that the right to free education is available only to children until they complete the age of 14 years, then the responsibility of the State to provide education is subject to the limits of its economic capacity and development. The duty created by Articles 41,45&46 can be executed by the State either by establishing its own institutions or by aiding, recognising or granting affiliation to private institutions.Court held that children of the nation are an extremely important asset. Their nurture and attentiveness are our responsibility, children's program should find a noticeable part in our national plans for the development of human resources, so that our children grow up, to become healthy citizens, physically fit, mentally alert and morally healthy; endowed with the skills and enthusiasms needed by society. Equal opportunities for development to all children during the period of development should be our aim, for this would serve our larger purpose of reducing inequality and ensuring social justice.Therefore, in the concluding remarks, it is expected that mare passing an act is not sufficient. The need of the hour is to keep a proper check on the functioning of the act. The constant monitoring and strong political will is a must to make it effective. As per the UNESCO's "Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2010'', about 135 countries have constitutional provisions for free and non-discriminatory education for all. The much awaited Right to Education (RTE) Act which has been passed by the parliament of India should play a significant role in attaining universal elementary education in India. The victory and defeat of RTE would largely depend on consistent political care. Financial allocation of funds should be adequate in this respect. The youth in India should come forward and spread the utility of education to illiterate parents who are unable to appreciate the significance of education in limiting the social evils. Social differences and monopolization by any group should not be accepted at any cost. Education which is free of cost up to a certain age must be accessible to each and every one.Q. In the case of Mohini Jain, the supreme court ordered the State to provide free education to its citizen by which type of educational institutions?a)Government schoolsb)Private schoolsc)Private schools recognized by the stated)Both (a) and (c)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The right to education was produced under Article 21, read with Article 19(1)(a),(b) and (c) in 1978 in the case of Ananda Vardhan Chandel vs. Delhi University[6]. The judge observed that the mere disparity in the nature of the rights under Part III and IV of the Constitution is that the Fundamental Rights are 'natural rights', which people forever enjoyed and which do not need definite socio-economic conditions to be produced by the State before they can be imposed as is the case with the DPSP which are 'man-made rights'.The question of right to free and compulsory education was elevated in the case of Mohini Jain, in 1992, popularly known as "capitation fee case". The division bench of the Supreme Court held that the 'right to life' is the compendious phrase for all those rights which the Courts must implement as they are indispensable to the dignified enjoyment of life. Court stated:"The right to education flows directly from right to life. The right to life under Article 21 and the dignity of an individual are not being assured unless it is accompanied by the right to education. The state is under an obligation to make endeavour to provide educational facilities at all levels to its citizens".Judges declared that the education in India has never been a commodity for sale. It further settled that "We hold that every citizen has a 'right to education' under the Constitution. The State is under an obligation to establish educational institutions to enable the citizens to enjoy the said right. The State may discharge its obligation through State-owned or State-recognised educational institutions. When the State Government grants recognition to the private educational institutions it creates an agency to fulfil its obligation under the Constitution. The students are given admission to the educational institutions - whether State-owned or State recognised in recognition of their 'right to education' under the Constitution. Charging capitation fee in consideration of admission to educational institutions is a patent denial of a citizen's right to education under the Constitution."Court considered that the Constitution made it compulsory to give education to all its citizens. This interpretation alone, said the court, would assist the people to differentiate the objectives of dignity, political economic, and social justice. They found that charging capitation fee of large sums by institutions of higher education is a disavowal of the right to education.The Supreme Court observed the accuracy of the verdict given by the court in Mohini Jain in the case of Unnikrishnan.The five Judges bench by 3-2 majority partially agreed with the Mohini case decision and held that right to education is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution as it directly flows from "right to life". As consider its content, the court partially overruled the Mohini Jain's decision and held that the right to free education is available only to children until they complete the age of 14 years, then the responsibility of the State to provide education is subject to the limits of its economic capacity and development. The duty created by Articles 41,45&46 can be executed by the State either by establishing its own institutions or by aiding, recognising or granting affiliation to private institutions.Court held that children of the nation are an extremely important asset. Their nurture and attentiveness are our responsibility, children's program should find a noticeable part in our national plans for the development of human resources, so that our children grow up, to become healthy citizens, physically fit, mentally alert and morally healthy; endowed with the skills and enthusiasms needed by society. Equal opportunities for development to all children during the period of development should be our aim, for this would serve our larger purpose of reducing inequality and ensuring social justice.Therefore, in the concluding remarks, it is expected that mare passing an act is not sufficient. The need of the hour is to keep a proper check on the functioning of the act. The constant monitoring and strong political will is a must to make it effective. As per the UNESCO's "Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2010'', about 135 countries have constitutional provisions for free and non-discriminatory education for all. The much awaited Right to Education (RTE) Act which has been passed by the parliament of India should play a significant role in attaining universal elementary education in India. The victory and defeat of RTE would largely depend on consistent political care. Financial allocation of funds should be adequate in this respect. The youth in India should come forward and spread the utility of education to illiterate parents who are unable to appreciate the significance of education in limiting the social evils. Social differences and monopolization by any group should not be accepted at any cost. Education which is free of cost up to a certain age must be accessible to each and every one.Q. In the case of Mohini Jain, the supreme court ordered the State to provide free education to its citizen by which type of educational institutions?a)Government schoolsb)Private schoolsc)Private schools recognized by the stated)Both (a) and (c)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The right to education was produced under Article 21, read with Article 19(1)(a),(b) and (c) in 1978 in the case of Ananda Vardhan Chandel vs. Delhi University[6]. The judge observed that the mere disparity in the nature of the rights under Part III and IV of the Constitution is that the Fundamental Rights are 'natural rights', which people forever enjoyed and which do not need definite socio-economic conditions to be produced by the State before they can be imposed as is the case with the DPSP which are 'man-made rights'.The question of right to free and compulsory education was elevated in the case of Mohini Jain, in 1992, popularly known as "capitation fee case". The division bench of the Supreme Court held that the 'right to life' is the compendious phrase for all those rights which the Courts must implement as they are indispensable to the dignified enjoyment of life. Court stated:"The right to education flows directly from right to life. The right to life under Article 21 and the dignity of an individual are not being assured unless it is accompanied by the right to education. The state is under an obligation to make endeavour to provide educational facilities at all levels to its citizens".Judges declared that the education in India has never been a commodity for sale. It further settled that "We hold that every citizen has a 'right to education' under the Constitution. The State is under an obligation to establish educational institutions to enable the citizens to enjoy the said right. The State may discharge its obligation through State-owned or State-recognised educational institutions. When the State Government grants recognition to the private educational institutions it creates an agency to fulfil its obligation under the Constitution. The students are given admission to the educational institutions - whether State-owned or State recognised in recognition of their 'right to education' under the Constitution. Charging capitation fee in consideration of admission to educational institutions is a patent denial of a citizen's right to education under the Constitution."Court considered that the Constitution made it compulsory to give education to all its citizens. This interpretation alone, said the court, would assist the people to differentiate the objectives of dignity, political economic, and social justice. They found that charging capitation fee of large sums by institutions of higher education is a disavowal of the right to education.The Supreme Court observed the accuracy of the verdict given by the court in Mohini Jain in the case of Unnikrishnan.The five Judges bench by 3-2 majority partially agreed with the Mohini case decision and held that right to education is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution as it directly flows from "right to life". As consider its content, the court partially overruled the Mohini Jain's decision and held that the right to free education is available only to children until they complete the age of 14 years, then the responsibility of the State to provide education is subject to the limits of its economic capacity and development. The duty created by Articles 41,45&46 can be executed by the State either by establishing its own institutions or by aiding, recognising or granting affiliation to private institutions.Court held that children of the nation are an extremely important asset. Their nurture and attentiveness are our responsibility, children's program should find a noticeable part in our national plans for the development of human resources, so that our children grow up, to become healthy citizens, physically fit, mentally alert and morally healthy; endowed with the skills and enthusiasms needed by society. Equal opportunities for development to all children during the period of development should be our aim, for this would serve our larger purpose of reducing inequality and ensuring social justice.Therefore, in the concluding remarks, it is expected that mare passing an act is not sufficient. The need of the hour is to keep a proper check on the functioning of the act. The constant monitoring and strong political will is a must to make it effective. As per the UNESCO's "Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2010'', about 135 countries have constitutional provisions for free and non-discriminatory education for all. The much awaited Right to Education (RTE) Act which has been passed by the parliament of India should play a significant role in attaining universal elementary education in India. The victory and defeat of RTE would largely depend on consistent political care. Financial allocation of funds should be adequate in this respect. The youth in India should come forward and spread the utility of education to illiterate parents who are unable to appreciate the significance of education in limiting the social evils. Social differences and monopolization by any group should not be accepted at any cost. Education which is free of cost up to a certain age must be accessible to each and every one.Q. In the case of Mohini Jain, the supreme court ordered the State to provide free education to its citizen by which type of educational institutions?a)Government schoolsb)Private schoolsc)Private schools recognized by the stated)Both (a) and (c)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.