S. KRISHNA SRADHA versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [2017] 2 S.C.R. 466 · Decided: 19-01-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 14 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 466 
S. KRISHNA SRADHA 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No, I 081 of2017) 
JANUARY 19, 2017 
[DIPAK MISRA AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] 
Education: 
Admissions - MBBS Course - Wrongful deprivation of 
ad111ission - Duty of constitutional courts u!Arts. 32, 136 and 226 -
Re-consideration of decision in Jasmine Kaur's case holding grant 
of monetary compensation as the sole re111edy for non-ad111ission 
after lapse of prescribed time schedule when such lapse was a result 
of faults commitled by the counselinglad111inistrating authority -
Held: Meritorious students should not face any impedi111ent to get 
admission for so111e fault on the part of the institution or the persons 
involved with it - He/She has no other remedy but lo approach the 
Court for getting redressal of grievances - It is a grievance that 
pertains to fundamental right - When a !is ()f this nature co111es in a 
constitutional court, it beco111es the duty of the court to address 
11'hether the authority had acted within the powers conferred on it 
or deviated from the same as a consequence of which injustice has 
been caused to the aggrieved person - Redressal of a fundamental 
right cannot be weighed in ter111s of grant of compensation only -
Grant of compensation may be an additional relief - Compensation 
cannot be the adequate or sole re111edy for the wrongful deprivation 
of admission, as it affects the acade111ic career of a student -
Decision in Jasmine Kaur's case requires re-consideration by a larger 
Bench-Maxims - "Lex non intend it aliquid impossibile" - Doctrines/ 
Principles - Doctrine of restitution. 
Admissions - MBBS Course - Appellant denied ad111ission 
to MBBS course in sports quota despite being 111ore meritorious 
than the selected candidates - High Court placing reliance on Jasmin 
Kaur's case denied benefit of admission to appellant and granted 
compensation on the ground that the cut-off date for admission 
had expired, though, holding that appellant was entitled to get 
466 
S. KRISHNA SRADHA v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND 
ORS. 
priority and there were lapses on part of various authorities involved 
- Held:·Appel/ant-student approached the Court u/Art.226 in quite 
promptitude and there was no delay /aches on her part and did not 
fault in complying with procedure prescribed under the rules meant 
for the process of admission - Appellant directed to be admitted -
Constitution of India - Arts.14 and 21. 
Referring the matter to be placed before appropriate 
Lar~er Bench, the Court 
HELD: 1. Jasmine Kaur's case restricts the grant of relief 
467 
A 
B 
of admission, if it is within the time schedule prescribed, and 
then lays down if the seats are filled up and the scope for granting c 
admission is lost due to eclipse of time schedule, then under 
such circumstances, the candidate can only be granted appropriate 
compensation to off-set the loss caused. [Para 22) [485-C-D) 
Chandigarh Administration and Anr. v. Jasmine Kaur 
and Ors. (2014) 10 SCC 521 : [2014] 9 SCR 1122 -
D 
held, needs reconsideration. 
2.1 This Court has always laid stress on the merit in the 
matters of admissions as meritorious students should not face 
any impediment to get admission for some fault on the part of the 
institution or the persons involved with it. He/She has no other 
remedy but to approach the Court for getting redressal of his/ 
her grievances. It is a grievance that pertains to fundamental 
right. A right is conferred on a person by rule of law and if he 
seeks remedy through the process meant for establishing rule of 
law and it is denied to him, it would never subserve the cause of 
real justice. When a ii~· of this nature comes in a constitutional 
court, it becomes the duty of the court to address whether the 
authority had acted within the powers conferred on it or ,deviated 
from the same as a consequence of which injustice has been caused 
to the grieved person. The redressal of a fundamental right, 
cannot be weighed in terms of grant of compensation only. [Para 
26] [487-C-F] 
2.2 Grant of compensation may be an additional relief. 
Confining it to grant of compensation as the only measure would 
defeat the basic purpose of the fundamental rights which the 
Constitution has conferred so that the said rights are sustained. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
468 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20 I 7] 2 S.C.R. 
It would be inapposite to recognize the right, record a finding 
that 

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