YEAR OF THE CASE: 9th April 2021
APPELLANT: Farzana Batool and Mohammad Mehdi Waziri
RESPONDENTS: Union of India and Others
BENCH: Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice M.R. Shah
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO: 375 of 2021 and 364 of 2021
INTRODUCTION
Learning is the path to enlightenment. It encourages a man to grow. It is a development for both the nation and the developed society. It is a potent tool for someone who is socially and economically behind in order to help them break out of their rut and advance to the top echelons of society. Despite the fact that many people in India lack access to this powerful tool due to a variety of factors, including caste, class, race, gender, and place of birth, the Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act of 2002 placed Article 21-A[1] into the Indian Constitution to guarantee all children between the ages of six and fourteen the basic right to free and mandatory schooling in a manner that the State may, by law, decide. According to the court’s ruling in the Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka[2] caseThe right to education “flows directly from the right to life”. Without the right to education, the right to life and the dignity of a person cannot be guaranteed.
However, the Indian Constitution lacks such provisions for further or professional schooling, which causes many students to distress. This specific issue is apparent in Farzana Batool v. Union of India. In this instance, the Administration of Ladakh nominated two Ladakh-based applicants for admission to MBBS courses under the “central pool” seats. The students arrived to the apex court’s door after the admittance request was denied, and the court ordered the authorities to admit the selected students within a week of the court’s ruling.
FACTS OF THE CASE
On 9th April, 2020, the Government of India published a missive that was disseminated by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, in which general pool allocation instructions for the MBBS/BDS program for the 2020–2021 academic year were provided. At Maulana Azad Medical College (MAMC), identical one-vacancy assignments were also created. Through its notice on November 23, 2020, the Department of Health and Family Welfare designated one vacant seat from the central pool for the Lady Hardinge Medical College and one seat for the Maulana Azad Medical College to the Union Territory of Ladakh. The list of candidates for admission to the central pool of medical seats for the academic year 2020–2021 was published by the Director of Health Services, Ladakh, on February 19, 2021.
These actions began under Article 32 by two Ladakhi students. They have been proposed for admission to the MBBS degree program through the ‘central pool’ seats of the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. In order to accommodate one of them, a seat at Lady Hardinge Medical College (“LMHC”) has been alloted. Maulana Azad Medical College (“MAMC”) has been given the other. Unfortunately, despite being duly nominated by the Administration of the Union Territory of Ladakh and in accordance with the vacancies announced by the Central Government, these students have still not been allowed to their course of study.
On March 26, 2021, a notice in these proceedings was released. The Administration of the Union Territory of Ladakh is represented by Mr. K M Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General, and the Union of India is represented by Mr. Rupinder Singh Suri, Additional Solicitor General. The Administration of the Union Territory of Ladakh is represented by the Director of Health Services, Ladakh (“DHSL”). according to the office report, LHMC and MAMC have reportedly been served.
ISSUES RAISED
1. Whether the right to higher education falls under the purview of fundamental rights?
2. Whether caste, class, gender, religion, disability and geographic region affect access to a high-quality education?
3. Is it correct to prevent students from pursuing professional education even after funding has been allocated?
4. Whether indigenous people have access to higher education from a professional standpoint?
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
1. The petitioners were denied admission to their chosen colleges despite being nominated by the Ladakh administration and following the rules established by the Indian government.
2. According to the petitioner, she was denied the opportunity to pursue further education and careers due to her caste, class, race, place of birth, etc.
3. It was further stated that additionally chosen scholars had already been accepted to their designated colleges.
4. Additionally, the petitioner contended that, even if it is not explicitly stated in the Indian Constitution, the right to professional education should nevertheless be regarded as a fundamental right for all citizens.
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
1. The financial circumstances of the petitioners prevented them from being accepted into their specified colleges.
2. The Respondents contended that the right to higher schooling cannot be categorized as a fundamental right.
3. It was said that there is no legitimate rationale for refusing to admit the students who were nominated in accordance with the guidelines.
4. It was further claimed that the pupils’ inability to maintain a stable financial situation precluded admission to their chosen universities.
RATIONALE
Professional education is not explicitly stated as a basic right in Part III of the Indian Constitution, which also discusses Articles 14[3], 15[4], and 16[5].
It is crucial to understand that government liberality has nothing to do with access to higher education. In lieu, the state has a duty to promote accessible doors to education at all stages, and a student’s inability to pay their tuition shouldn’t prohibit them from being admitted in regards with the allocation that was made in their favor.
In this case of Farzana Batool v. Union of India (UOI) and Others, the Apex Court decided that:
“Although Part III of the Constitution does not explicitly provide that the opportunity to seek higher education is a fundamental right, it is vital to stress that access to professional schooling is not a largesse from the government. The State is alternatively required to actively promote access to education at all levels.”
The bench further ruled that there was no reason or justification to deny both the appellants, Ms. Farzana Batool and Mr. Mohammed Mehdi Waziri, the aid of acceptance to the programs for which the management officials of Ladakh had made an issuance since seats from the “central pool” reserved by the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare had already been allocated to them.
The Supreme Court also cited Article 26(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which has the persuasive value of requiring each State Party to take steps to ensure that higher education is equivalently attainable to all based on capability and that practical and professional education is extensively and easily reachable.
The Supreme Court arrived at its decision based on the notion that ” Financial difficulty should not be a barrier to admission for students, provided their seats have been properly allocated under the central pool.”
DEFECTS OF LAW
In order to ease the load on both the court and the students, the Supreme Court recognized the difficulties that students encountered. The court guaranteed that similar issues would be immediately rectified if any students encountered them.
The Supreme Court noted that it is highly fundamental to approach education on a professional level. There was a focus on enabling students to pursue professional education. According to the Supreme Court, the term “accessibility” is included in fundamental rights and extends to all levels of education.
Initiatives should be taken to ensure that students are not denied access to such education due to financial difficulties. Such education shall be accessible to all on a merit basis. The court stipulated that the petitioner’s acceptance procedure must be finished within seven days of the date of the Apex Bench’s order.
INFERENCE
The Supreme Bench ruled in this case that professional-level education cannot be cited as a basic right to education, despite the fact that education is now crucially important. A violation of their rights occurs when admission is denied to students for reasons other than their merit, such as financial hardship.
Ultimately, the Supreme Bench ruled that the appellants must be conceded to LHMC and MAMC as promptly depending on their selection, that the admission procedure must be finished in no more than the time limit of 7 days from the judgment date, and that 7 additional students who had been selected and assigned seats in the Central Pool must also be admitted to the designated institutions in accordance with the Ladakh UT Administration’s notice dated February 19, 2021.
By granting this adjudication, the bench not only assists the scholars in getting into the institutions into which they were delegated by the central pool, apart from it in addition also poses a precedent for the community, showing that the court recognizes the value of education for all students and that it has provided justice to not only the two petitioners but also to all other students who were having a problem similar to theirs. The court places additional attention on the financial difficulties and prejudice that limit the development of the student. The court has taken the required actions in this instance to achieve its goal of persuading the students to pursue their studies. Since students are our future, it is our moral obligation to ensure that they have access to an education in order to create a strong educational system.
Barnali Das
National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam.
[1] The Constitution of India, 1950.
[2] Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka 1992 AIR 1858.
[3] INDIA CONST. art. 14.
[4] INDIA CONST. art. 15.
[5] INDIA CONST. art. 16.