Back
1998 Supreme(Bom) 459
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(AURANGABAD BENCH)
A.D. Mane R.J. Kochar, JJ.
Kwane Onyango Nkrumah ..... Petitioner.
Versus
The Union of India others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 2921 of 1997, decided on 19-8-1998.
Advocates appeared :
S.K. Shelke, for the petitioner.
P.G. Godhamgaonkar, S.C., for the Union of India respondent No. 1.
V.D. Sapkal, A.G.P., of the State respondent No. 2.
S.C. Bora, for the respondent No. 3.
N.L. Jadav, for the respondent No. 5.
A.B. Naik, for the respondent No. 6.
Headnote:Article 14-Fixation of tuition fees in law faculty-Prescribing of higher fees for foreign students not violative of Article 14.-The petitioner, Secretary of Kenya African Students Association at Aurangabad, challenged hike in tuition fees of law courses from the academic year 1997-78, alleging discriminatory treatment in the matter of hike of tuition fees between the Indian students and the foreign students.
Held, that the matter of classification of students while fixing the tuition fees in case of Indian and Foreign students is rational and reasonable and does not in any way offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The principle of equality as underlined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not mean that every law must have a universal application for all persons, who are not by nature, attainment of circumstances in the same position, as the varying needs of different classes of persons often require separate treatment. The principles does not take away from the State its power to classify the persons for legitimate purposes. It is well-settled that the classification is in some degree likely to produce some inequality and mere production of inequality is not enough. In other words, differential treatment does not per se constitute violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It denies equal protection only when there is no reasonable basis for the differentiation. The students who graduate from the Law faculty of the University will be under an obligation to serve the State in fulfilment of the desire of the framers of the Constitution. Large number of persons trained in law are essential in the present day situation, when there is a cry for the speedy justice. Therefore, keeping in view the necessity of law graduates, properly trained and equipped in all branches year after yeal~ for service to the society, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the students coming from Kenya or any other foreign country would render such services to Indian people at large. Therefore, on this consideration, it cannot be said that the classification of students, Indiem, foreigner, has no relation to the purpose of impugned resolution or circular or the object thereof. The matter of classification of students while fixing the tuition fees in case of Indian and foreign students is rational and reasonable and does not in any way offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
2.The petitioner submits that there are about 700 students of Kenya and African countries taking education in the various faculties of the Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad (for short, "the Univeristy"). These students are the members of the Association. It is further submitted that there are 250 students from Kenya who are either studying in Dr. Ambedkar Law College or the M.P. Law College at Aurangabad. The present petition is, therefore, filed for the benefit of 250 Kenyan Law students at Aurangabad.
3.The petitioner states that till the academic year 1991-92 the tuition fees structure was common for the Indian students and foreign students studying in the Law faculty. It is submitted that from the academic year 1992-93, as per the directives of the State Government, the students other than the Indian students were given differential treatment in charging the tuition fees. It is submitted that in the academic year 1992-93 Indian students were charged Rs. 600/- whereas the foreign students were charged Rs. 1000/- towards tuition fees. In the year 1993-94 Indian students were charged Rs. 700/- whereas the foreign students were charged Rs. 2,000/-. In the year 1994-95 it was increased to Rs. 800/- and Rs. 4,000/- respectively. Considering the ratio, there was hike of 14.3% in case of Indian students, whereas it was 100% in case of students other than Indians. It is further submitted that in the year 1996 the respondent No. 2 State of Maharashtra directed to charge fees five times of the Indian students, in case of foreign students. This hike came into operation from the year 1997-98. The petitioner further submits that the tution fees in respect of L.L.M. Part I and Part II were also raised to Rs. 15,000/- from Rs. 3,000/- in case of foreign students. It is therefore, submitted that the hike in tuition fees was without any reasonable justification and it is exorbitant and unreasonable.
4.The petitioner further submits that the Government has issued the Resolution regarding hike in tuition fees some time in the month of November, 1996 and the Vice Chancellor issued circular in January 1997. The Government Resolution and the Circular were not made known to the foreign students till 10th July, 1997. But when the notices were published on the notice board of the college, on 10th July, 1997 they came to know about the said hike. The foreign students of Law were taken by surprise by the said notice.
5.It is further submitted that 95% of the Kenyan students studying in India are coming from an economically backward and downtrodden suppressed peasant class. They have to come to India for the purpose of education on the basis of the treaty which provided equal treatment to Kenyan students and Indian students. It is submitted that since 1970 to 1992 the Kenyan students were required to pay tuition fees equal to the Indian students. When there was hike, for the first time, in tuition fees in the year 1992-93 there was strong protest made by the foreign students and the Honourable Chief Minister intervened and promised not to raise fees for foreign students exceeding Rs. 4,000/-. It is also submitted that a writ petition was filed when there was hike in tution fees to Rs. 4,000/- but in view of the settlement between the members of the said Association and the Honourable Chief Minister, State of Maharashtra in the year 1991-92, the writ petition was withdrawn.
6.It is further submitted that section 12-A of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (for short, "the Act of 1956") lays down certain guidelines for regulating fees structure in dif
