Supreme Court ensures admission for Ladakh students in MBBS programs: Farzana Batool vs. Union of India (2021) INSC 178 (9 April 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 9 April 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 178
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and M R Shah, J
Can the fundamental right to education be denied to students from remote areas due to administrative hurdles? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving students from Ladakh who were nominated for MBBS seats under the central pool but faced denial of admission. The Court intervened to ensure these students were admitted and emphasized the State’s obligation to facilitate access to education, especially for marginalized groups. The judgment was authored by Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, and Justice M.R. Shah concurred.

Case Background

This case involves two students from Ladakh, Ms. Farzana Batool and Mr. Mohammad Mehdi Waziri, who were nominated by the Administration of the Union Territory of Ladakh for admission to MBBS programs under the central pool seats. Ms. Batool was allocated a seat at Lady Hardinge Medical College (LHMC), and Mr. Waziri was assigned to Maulana Azad Medical College (MAMC). Despite their nominations, they were not admitted, prompting them to seek relief from the Supreme Court of India.

The Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MHFW) had allocated one seat each at LHMC and MAMC to the Union Territory of Ladakh for the 2020-2021 academic year. The Directorate of Health Services, Ladakh (DHSL), then forwarded a list of selected candidates, including Ms. Batool and Mr. Waziri, to be admitted against these central pool medical seats. However, their admissions were not confirmed, while other students on the same list were admitted to their respective institutions.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The students filed writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking directions to facilitate their admissions at LHMC and MAMC, respectively. The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union of India and the Administration of the Union Territory of Ladakh. Both the Additional Solicitor Generals representing the Union of India and the Administration of the Union Territory of Ladakh acknowledged that the students were duly allocated seats and there was no reason to deny them admission.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to Article 26(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that “technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.” The Court also cited the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) General Comment 13, which emphasizes that education must be accessible to all, especially vulnerable groups, without discrimination, and that financial constraints should not hinder access to education.

The Court highlighted that while the right to professional education is not explicitly a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution, the State has an affirmative obligation to facilitate access to education at all levels.

Arguments

The petitioners, Ms. Farzana Batool and Mr. Mohammad Mehdi Waziri, argued that they were duly nominated by the DHSL for admission to MBBS programs under the central pool seats. They contended that despite the allocation of seats at LHMC and MAMC, respectively, their admissions were not confirmed, while other similarly placed students had been admitted. They sought the intervention of the Supreme Court to ensure their admissions were processed without further delay.

The Additional Solicitor Generals, representing the Union of India and the Administration of the Union Territory of Ladakh, acknowledged the petitioners’ claims. They stated that there was no justification to deny the petitioners the benefit of admission, as due allocations had been made in their favor. They supported the petitioners’ plea for immediate admission to the allocated courses.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues but addressed the core issue of whether the petitioners, who were duly nominated for MBBS seats under the central pool, could be denied admission despite the allocation of seats in their favor.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Court directed that the admission formalities for Ms. Farzana Batool at LHMC and Mr. Mohammad Mehdi Waziri at MAMC be completed within a week. The Court also directed that all students referred to in Annexure A of the Notification dated 19 February 2021 be granted admissions to their respective institutions.

The Court observed that access to professional education is not a governmental largesse, but an affirmative obligation of the State. The Court highlighted the importance of creating an enabling environment for students from marginalized backgrounds to pursue professional education.

The Court emphasized the need for proper coordination between the Union MHFW and the DHSL to ensure that students allocated colleges under the central pool seats are not put to hardship in enrolling. It suggested the appointment of a nodal officer to serve as a single point of contact for students facing difficulties in securing admission.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was deeply concerned about the denial of admission to the students despite their due nomination and allocation of seats. The Court’s reasoning was driven by the need to ensure access to education, particularly for students from marginalized backgrounds. The Court also emphasized the State’s affirmative obligation to facilitate education and prevent financial and administrative hurdles from hindering students’ educational pursuits. The Court’s decision was influenced by the principles of non-discrimination and equal access to education, as highlighted in international human rights instruments.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The students were duly nominated by the DHSL.
• The students were allocated seats at LHMC and MAMC.
• The State has an affirmative obligation to facilitate access to education.
• Financial hardship should not prevent students from getting admission.
• The principles of non-discrimination and equal access to education must be upheld.

The Court quoted the following from the ICESCR Committee General Comment 13:

“As an empowerment right, education is the primary vehicle by which economically and socially marginalized adults and children can lift themselves out of poverty and obtain the means to participate fully in their communities.”

“education must be accessible to all, especially the most vulnerable groups, in law and fact, without discrimination on any of the prohibited grounds.”

“Each state party is required, inter alia, to fulfill the right to education, by facilitating and providing for its realization.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• The State has an affirmative obligation to facilitate access to education at all levels, especially for marginalized groups.
• Financial and administrative hurdles should not prevent students from accessing education.
• Proper coordination between government bodies is essential to ensure smooth admission processes.
• The right to education is not a governmental largesse but a fundamental right that must be protected.
• Appointment of nodal officers can help streamline admission processes for students.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

• The admission formalities for Ms. Farzana Batool at LHMC be completed immediately, and in any event, within a week.
• The admission formalities for Mr. Mohammad Mehdi Waziri at MAMC be completed immediately, and in any event, within a week.
• All students referred to in Annexure A to the Notification dated 19 February 2021 be granted admissions to the concerned institutions if not already done.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the State has an affirmative obligation to facilitate access to education, particularly for marginalized groups, and that administrative and financial hurdles should not impede students from pursuing their educational goals. This judgment reinforces the importance of equal access to education and the State’s duty to ensure that all students, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, are not denied their right to education.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case is a significant step towards ensuring that students from marginalized backgrounds are not denied their right to education due to administrative hurdles. By directing the immediate admission of the petitioners and other similarly placed students, the Court has reaffirmed the State’s obligation to facilitate access to education and has underscored the importance of creating an enabling environment for all students to pursue their educational aspirations.