LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a student with a learning disability, specifically Dyscalculia, is entitled to relief under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.
CASE TYPE: Education Law, Disability Rights.
Case Name: Naman Verma vs. The Director, The Indian Institute of Technology Bombay & Ors.
Judgment Date: May 11, 2022
Date of the Judgment: May 11, 2022
Citation: Civil Appeal No.3886 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.24683 of 2018)
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., S. Ravindra Bhat, J., and Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Can a student who has completed a course under interim orders be denied a degree because their initial claim was not fully accepted? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case involving a student with a learning disability. The core issue revolved around the interpretation of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and the subsequent Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, in the context of a student’s admission to a Master’s program. The Supreme Court, while upholding the High Court’s view on the legal issues, exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant relief to the student. This judgment highlights the balance between legal technicalities and the practical realities of a student’s academic journey.
Case Background
The appellant, claiming to suffer from Dyscalculia, a learning disability, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay seeking admission to the Master of Design program at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay. Under interim orders from the High Court, her candidature was considered, and she was admitted to the course. Subsequently, she successfully completed the course. However, when the writ petition was taken up for final disposal, the High Court did not accept her entitlement under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Despite this, the High Court recognized that the student had completed the course under interim orders and was unable to grant her any further relief due to a lack of necessary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| N/A | Appellant claimed to suffer from ‘learning disabilities’ known as “Dyscalculia”. |
| N/A | Appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay seeking admission to the Master of Design program at IIT Bombay. |
| N/A | High Court passed interim orders directing consideration of her candidature. |
| N/A | Appellant was admitted to the Master in Design course. |
| N/A | Appellant successfully completed the course. |
| 17.04.2018 | High Court passed the judgment, not accepting her entitlement under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, but acknowledging completion of the course. |
| 11.05.2022 | Supreme Court passed the judgment, upholding the High Court’s view on legal issues but granting relief to the appellant under Article 142 of the Constitution. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellant initially approached the High Court of Judicature at Bombay with a writ petition seeking admission to the Master of Design program at IIT Bombay, claiming to suffer from Dyscalculia. The High Court passed interim orders directing the consideration of her candidature, and she was subsequently admitted to the course. After the appellant completed the course, the High Court, upon final disposal of the writ petition, did not accept her entitlement under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. However, the High Court acknowledged that the appellant had completed the course under interim orders and expressed its inability to grant further relief due to a lack of necessary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (referred to as “1995 Act”) and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (referred to as “2016 Act”). The 1995 Act was the primary legislation in force at the time the appellant filed her writ petition. The 2016 Act replaced the 1995 Act and introduced significant changes in the understanding and protection of the rights of persons with disabilities.
The High Court considered the provisions of the 1995 Act while deciding the writ petition. The Supreme Court noted that the 1995 Act has been replaced by the 2016 Act, but did not delve into the specific provisions of either act, as the primary issue was the relief to be granted to the appellant who had already completed the course.
Arguments
The appellant argued that considering the provisions of the 2016 Act, her entitlement to relief was clearly made out. The appellant contended that the 2016 Act provides a broader framework for the rights of persons with disabilities, and that this should be taken into account.
The respondent, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, did not specifically contest the appellant’s claim under the 2016 Act but focused on the legal correctness of the High Court’s judgment. The respondent argued that the High Court’s view on the legal issues was correct and should be upheld.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission |
|
| Respondent’s Submission |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues but addressed the following:
✓ Whether the High Court’s view on the legal issues was correct.
✓ What relief should be granted to the appellant, who had completed the course under interim orders, given that her entitlement under the 1995 Act was not accepted by the High Court.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court’s view on the legal issues was correct. | The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s view on the legal issues. |
| What relief should be granted to the appellant, who had completed the course under interim orders. | The Supreme Court, exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, declared that the appellant had successfully completed the course and that the qualification shall hold good for all practical purposes. |
Authorities
The judgment does not explicitly cite any specific cases or books. The primary focus of the court was on the interpretation and application of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
| Authority | How Considered |
|---|---|
| Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 | The High Court did not accept the appellant’s entitlement under this Act. The Supreme Court did not express a view on the interpretation of this act. |
| Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 | The appellant argued that her entitlement was made out under this Act. While the Supreme Court did not delve into the specifics of this act, it noted its existence and that the appellant’s case should be considered under this act in future. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated It |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s claim under the 2016 Act. | The Court did not explicitly rule on the merits of this claim but acknowledged the existence of the 2016 Act and stated that the appellant’s entitlement should be considered under this Act in the future. |
| Respondent’s submission that the High Court’s view on the legal issues was correct. | The Court affirmed the High Court’s view on the legal issues. |
The Supreme Court, while affirming the High Court’s view on the legal issues, exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to provide relief to the appellant. The Court declared that the appellant had successfully completed the Master in Design course and that the qualification would hold good for all practical purposes. This was done to ensure that the appellant’s academic qualification would not be jeopardized, given that she had completed the course under interim orders.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the appellant had already completed the Master in Design course under the interim orders of the High Court. The Court was of the view that while the High Court’s decision on the legal issues was correct, the appellant should not be penalized given her successful completion of the course. The Court’s decision reflects a balanced approach, upholding the legal principles while also ensuring that the appellant’s academic progress is not adversely affected.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Completion of Course | 60% |
| Upholding High Court’s Legal View | 20% |
| Relief under Article 142 | 20% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 70% |
| Law | 30% |
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was as follows:
✓ The High Court’s view on the legal issues was affirmed.
✓ The appellant had completed the course under interim orders.
✓ The Court did not want to jeopardize the appellant’s qualification.
✓ The Court exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant relief.
The Supreme Court stated, “Though we affirm the view taken by the High Court on the issues of law which came up for determination by the High Court, considering the fact that the appellant has completed the course, we are not persuaded to cancel her candidature so as to put her qualification in jeopardy.”
The Court also clarified, “We, therefore, exercise our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and declare that the appellant has successfully completed the course of Master in Design and that the qualification shall hold good for all practical purposes hereafter.”
Further, the Court noted, “However, at the cost of repetition we make it clear that the judgment rendered by the High Court on questions of law is affirmed and as and when the entitlement of the appellant under the provisions of the 2016 Act is to be considered, the same shall be considered purely in accordance with law.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s view on the legal issues related to the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.
- ✓ The Supreme Court exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant relief to the appellant, ensuring her academic qualification was not jeopardized.
- ✓ The judgment emphasizes that while legal principles must be upheld, the practical realities of a student’s academic journey should also be considered.
- ✓ Future cases involving the rights of persons with disabilities should be considered under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the appropriate steps, including handing over of the degree and all other testimonials to the appellant, shall be completed within four weeks from the date of the judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that while the High Court’s view on the legal issues was correct, the Supreme Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, can grant relief to ensure that the academic qualification of a student is not jeopardized.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Naman Verma vs. The Director, IIT Bombay, while affirming the High Court’s view on the legal issues, provided significant relief to the appellant by declaring her successful completion of the Master in Design course. This decision highlights the Court’s willingness to use its constitutional powers to ensure justice and equity, especially in cases involving students with disabilities. The case also underscores the need to consider the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in future cases.