By Sanjay Raman Sinha
The Supreme Court has come to the aid of a poor-but-talented Dalit student Atul Kumar who missed out on his admission to the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Dhanbad because he was late in paying the online admission fee of Rs 17,500 by a few minutes. A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra while hearing the case, Atul Kumar vs the Chairman (joint seat allocation authority) and Ors, directed that the petitioner be admitted to the seat at the Electrical Engineering course at IIT Dhanbad which was allotted to him, and a vacancy be created for him to accommodate him so that his admission doesn’t disturb any other student.
The top court further ordered that the student be admitted to the same batch in which he would have been admitted and be given all attendant benefits such as hostel facility.
Batting for the beleaguered student, the bench stated: “We are affirmatively of the view that a talented student like the petitioner should not be left in the lurch. The power of the Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice is to address such situations.” After providing him relief, the CJI boosted the morale of the student, who was present in the Court, by saying: “All the best! Acha kariye!”
The student-petitioner had passed the JEE Advanced in his second and last attempt. Failing to get admission, he had approached the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, Jharkhand Legal Services Authority, as well as the Madras High Court before approaching the Supreme Court.
This is not the first time that the Supreme Court has intervened in a student’s case and delivered justice in his or her favour. In 2021, it was a bench led by Justice Chandrachud that had allowed a Dalit student to take admission in IIT Bombay despite the delay in paying the online admission fee (Prince Jaibir Singh vs Union of India).
The bench had observed: “Having regard to the facts of the case noted above, it would be a grave travesty of justice if a young Dalit student, who had to move this Court, is turned away without considering the difficulties he has encountered in acquiring the funds and to pay the fee for admission for the B.Tech Degree Course at IIT-Bombay and, thereafter, in ensuring that the payment is processed online.”
The battle for the rights of students started way back in 1992 when in the Mohini Jain case (Mohini Jain vs State of Karnataka), the Supreme Court verdict had paved the way for recognition of education as a fundamental right. In this case, Mohini Jain, a poor student was unable to get admission to a medical college due to the high fees charged by private institutions in Karnataka. The case highlighted the fact that there was crass commercialization of education, making it almost impossible for economically disadvantaged students to secure admission to private colleges imparting higher education.
In a historical judgement, the apex court stepped in decisively and held that the “right to education” is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life. The Court further remarked: “The state is duty-bound to provide education to its citizens. Charging capitation fees violates the very essence of equality and the right to education.”
The verdict laid the foundation for a more equitable education system with equal access to all policy. Later on the Right to Education Act was enacted which ensured free and compulsory education for children aged 6 to 14. The Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act of 2002 added Article 21A to the Constitution, which states that the state must provide free and compulsory education to all children between the ages of 6 and 14.
In the present case, the question of Procedural Fairness versus Substantive Justice was involved, too. The law seeks to ensure a balance between procedure and justice. While rules and deadlines are of paramount importance, the courts have repeatedly emphasized that there should be fair play especially in cases involving disadvantaged individuals. The system must bend to accommodate those from disadvantaged backgrounds, not exclude them based on technicalities, is the refrain of the courts.
In the present case, the Doctrine of Proportionality was also infringed. This legal doctrine, states that measures taken by authorities should not be more severe than necessary to achieve the intended aim. Denying admission on account of a minor delay in fee payment was deemed disproportionate by the Court. This disproportion became more pronounced when judged against the depressed socio-economic background of the meritorious student. Hence the Court resorted to Remedial Justice by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution.
Justice Chandrachud remarked: “The court cannot turn a blind eye to the socio-economic circumstances of students who come from marginalized communities. Procedural technicalities should not be allowed to defeat substantive justice, especially in cases where the future of a young student is at stake.”
Judicial intervention amidst admission disputes has been a godsend for students fighting for their rights in an unequally calibrated education system. In the Christian Medical College Vellore vs Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court dealt with issues concerning the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET). Students had approached the apex court and alleged discrepancies in the conduct of NEET and challenged the reservation policies applied during admissions. The Court observed that “students cannot be made to suffer due to administrative inefficiencies and lack of clarity in admission policies.” The Court directed the authorities to re-assess the admission process so that deserving candidates are not divested of their right to education due to faulty procedures and rules.
The common thread linking all the cases have been the judicial sensitivity for the students. The courts have recognized the fact that education is a great leveller in society and is a fit with the policy of positive discrimination. Hence the courts have been significantly proactive in meting out justice to students belonging to disadvantageous sections of the society.
The batch of verdicts have reinforced the fact that education is not a privilege of few, but an inalienable fundamental right that must be accessible to all, irrespective of their socio-economic background.
The post appeared first on .
The Supreme Court has come to the aid of a poor-but-talented Dalit student Atul Kumar who missed out on his admission to the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Dhanbad because he was late in paying the online admission fee of Rs 17,500 by a few minutes. A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra while hearing the case, Atul Kumar vs the Chairman (joint seat allocation authority) and Ors, directed that the petitioner be admitted to the seat at the Electrical Engineering course at IIT Dhanbad which was allotted to him, and a vacancy be created for him to accommodate him so that his admission doesn’t disturb any other student.
The top court further ordered that the student be admitted to the same batch in which he would have been admitted and be given all attendant benefits such as hostel facility.
Batting for the beleaguered student, the bench stated: “We are affirmatively of the view that a talented student like the petitioner should not be left in the lurch. The power of the Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice is to address such situations.” After providing him relief, the CJI boosted the morale of the student, who was present in the Court, by saying: “All the best! Acha kariye!”
The student-petitioner had passed the JEE Advanced in his second and last attempt. Failing to get admission, he had approached the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, Jharkhand Legal Services Authority, as well as the Madras High Court before approaching the Supreme Court.
This is not the first time that the Supreme Court has intervened in a student’s case and delivered justice in his or her favour. In 2021, it was a bench led by Justice Chandrachud that had allowed a Dalit student to take admission in IIT Bombay despite the delay in paying the online admission fee (Prince Jaibir Singh vs Union of India).
The bench had observed: “Having regard to the facts of the case noted above, it would be a grave travesty of justice if a young Dalit student, who had to move this Court, is turned away without considering the difficulties he has encountered in acquiring the funds and to pay the fee for admission for the B.Tech Degree Course at IIT-Bombay and, thereafter, in ensuring that the payment is processed online.”
The battle for the rights of students started way back in 1992 when in the Mohini Jain case (Mohini Jain vs State of Karnataka), the Supreme Court verdict had paved the way for recognition of education as a fundamental right. In this case, Mohini Jain, a poor student was unable to get admission to a medical college due to the high fees charged by private institutions in Karnataka. The case highlighted the fact that there was crass commercialization of education, making it almost impossible for economically disadvantaged students to secure admission to private colleges imparting higher education.
In a historical judgement, the apex court stepped in decisively and held that the “right to education” is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life. The Court further remarked: “The state is duty-bound to provide education to its citizens. Charging capitation fees violates the very essence of equality and the right to education.”
The verdict laid the foundation for a more equitable education system with equal access to all policy. Later on the Right to Education Act was enacted which ensured free and compulsory education for children aged 6 to 14. The Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act of 2002 added Article 21A to the Constitution, which states that the state must provide free and compulsory education to all children between the ages of 6 and 14.
In the present case, the question of Procedural Fairness versus Substantive Justice was involved, too. The law seeks to ensure a balance between procedure and justice. While rules and deadlines are of paramount importance, the courts have repeatedly emphasized that there should be fair play especially in cases involving disadvantaged individuals. The system must bend to accommodate those from disadvantaged backgrounds, not exclude them based on technicalities, is the refrain of the courts.
In the present case, the Doctrine of Proportionality was also infringed. This legal doctrine, states that measures taken by authorities should not be more severe than necessary to achieve the intended aim. Denying admission on account of a minor delay in fee payment was deemed disproportionate by the Court. This disproportion became more pronounced when judged against the depressed socio-economic background of the meritorious student. Hence the Court resorted to Remedial Justice by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution.
Justice Chandrachud remarked: “The court cannot turn a blind eye to the socio-economic circumstances of students who come from marginalized communities. Procedural technicalities should not be allowed to defeat substantive justice, especially in cases where the future of a young student is at stake.”
Judicial intervention amidst admission disputes has been a godsend for students fighting for their rights in an unequally calibrated education system. In the Christian Medical College Vellore vs Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court dealt with issues concerning the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET). Students had approached the apex court and alleged discrepancies in the conduct of NEET and challenged the reservation policies applied during admissions. The Court observed that “students cannot be made to suffer due to administrative inefficiencies and lack of clarity in admission policies.” The Court directed the authorities to re-assess the admission process so that deserving candidates are not divested of their right to education due to faulty procedures and rules.
The common thread linking all the cases have been the judicial sensitivity for the students. The courts have recognized the fact that education is a great leveller in society and is a fit with the policy of positive discrimination. Hence the courts have been significantly proactive in meting out justice to students belonging to disadvantageous sections of the society.
The batch of verdicts have reinforced the fact that education is not a privilege of few, but an inalienable fundamental right that must be accessible to all, irrespective of their socio-economic background.
The post appeared first on .