FARZANA BATOOL versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2021] 4 S.C.R. 388 · Decided: 09-04-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
388
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
   [2021] 4 S.C.R. 388
388
FARZANA BATOOL
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 364 of 2021)
APRIL 09, 2021
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
389
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
FARZANA BATOOL v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
390
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
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 constraint

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.