Constitution of India – Article 32 – Petition under – Admission to MBBS degree course – Two seats from central pool seats, one at Lady Hardinge Medical College (LHMC) and the other at Maulana Azad Medical College (MAMC) were allocated to the Union Territory of Ladakh – Petitioners-students from Ladakh though nominated by the administration of the Union Territory of Ladakh for admission thereto, however were not admitted – Held: Since due allocations were made in favour of the two petitioners, there is no justification to deny them the benefit of admission to the courses for which the allocation was made – Admission formalities for the petitioners be completed – General directions issued for similarly placed students.
Constitution of India – Education – Professional education – Access to – Obligation of State– Held: While the right to pursue professional education is not a fundamental right in Part III of the Constitution, however access to professional education is not a governmental largesse – State has an affirmative obligation to facilitate access to education, at all levels – Universal Declaration of Human Rights – Article 26(1).
International Convention/Treaties/Covenants– International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) – India being a signatory, obligations of – Discussed.
Allowing the petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Government of the Union Territory of Ladakh and the Union MHFW are represented by the Additional Solicitor Generals. Both the ASGs state that since due allocations have been made in favour of the two petitioners, there is no reason and justification to deny them the benefit of admission to the courses for which the allocation has been made. It is directed that the admission formalities for the petitioner, Ms Farzana Batool be completed at the LHMC immediately and, in any event, within a week from today. Similarly, the admission formalities pertaining to Mr Mohammad Mehdi Waziri at MAMC be completed immediately and, in any event, within a week from today. In order to obviate the hardship which has been caused to these students, it is also directed that all the students who are referred to in Annexure A to the Notification dated 19 February 2021 be granted admissions to the concerned institutions, if not already given so far. These general directions are being issued in order to obviate the possibility of each of the similarly placed students being required to move this Court. Financial hardship should not prevent the students from getting admission in terms of the allocation which has been made in their favor legitimately under the central pool seats. [Paras 7, 8][393-D-H]
1.2 While the right to pursue higher (professional) education has not been spelt out as a fundamental right in Part III of the Constitution, it bears emphasis that access to professional education is not a governmental largesse. Instead, the State has an affirmative obligation to facilitate access to education, at all levels. This obligation assumes far greater importance for students whose background (by virtue of such characteristics as caste, class, gender, religion, disability and geographical region) imposes formidable obstacles on their path to accessing quality education. Article 26(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is a source of persuasive value, obligates every State Party to ensure that technical and professional education is made generally available and that higher education is equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. In its General Comment 13, the ICESCR committee outlined four essential features that education at all levels must possess. Pertinently, one such feature is ‘accessibility’. Two of the components of accessibility highlighted by the ICESCR Committee bear emphasis. First, the guarantee of non-discrimination, in relation to which it notes that, “education must be accessible to all, especially the most vulnerable groups, in law and fact, without discrimination on any of the prohibited grounds”. Second, economic accessibility, meaning that the state party must take steps to ensure that financial constraints do not come in the way of accessing education. The ICESCR Committee pertinently notes that disparities in spending policies that result in differing qualities of education for persons residing in different geographic locations may constitute discrimination under the Covenant. Each state party is required, inter alia, to fulfill the right to education, by facilitating and providing for its realization. Pursuant to these obligations which India has undertaken by being a signatory to the Covenant, the Union MHFW and the DHSL shall ensure proper coordination so that students allocated colleges under the central pool seats are not put to hardship in enrolling once they have been duly allocated their seats. Specifically, the Union MHFW and the DHSL can consider appointing a nodal officer tasked with the responsibility of ensuring that students who are duly nominated under the central pool seats are in fact admitted in their chosen course of study. Such an officer can serve as a onepoint contact for students who may otherwise face numerous difficulties in securing their admission, even after they have been allocated the seat. The details of such officer can be widely publicized on the websites of the aforesaid two authorities. Such an institutional framework will ensure that students are not left in the lurch due to lack of help in securing their legitimate admission to the appropriate course. [Paras 9-12][394-B-D, E-G; 395-A-D]
ICESCR Committee, ‘General Comment No. 13: The right to education (Article 13)’ (8 December 1999) Un Doc E/C.12/1999/10, para 1 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.