Farzana Batool v Union Of India

Introduction 

The Supreme Court in this case observed the fundamental right to education for students from remote regions. Two students from Ladakh, despite being duly nominated for MBBS seats under the central pool allocation system, faced delays in securing admission to Lady Hardinge Medical College and Maulana Azad Medical College. The Court not only resolved their immediate grievance but also established systemic safeguards to ensure that geographical isolation and financial constraints do not deny students their legitimate educational opportunities. 

Facts of the Case 

• The Government of India, through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, issued guidelines on 9thApril 2020 for allocation of general pool MBBS/BDS seats for 2020-2021. 
• On 23^th November, 2020, the Ministry allocated one seat each at Lady Hardinge Medical College (LHMC) and Maulana Azad Medical College (MAMC) to the Union Territory of Ladakh from the central pool. 
• The Administration of the Union Territory of Ladakh, through the Director of Health Services, Ladakh (DHSL), nominated students for these central pool medical seats. 
• On 19th February 2021, the DHSL forwarded a list of nine selected candidates from Ladakh for admission to various medical colleges across India. 
• Farzana Batool scored 403 in NEET and was allocated to LHMC as her second preference. 
• Mohammad Mehdi Waziri scored 440 in NEET and was allocated to MAMC as his first preference. 
• Despite proper nomination by the DHSL and legitimate seat allocation by the Union Government, both petitioners had not been admitted to their respective colleges. 
• Other similarly placed students from the same nomination list who were allocated to different institutions had successfully secured their admissions. 
• The admission process for these two students remained unconfirmed, causing significant hardship and potential loss of academic year. 

Legal Proceedings: 

• Both students filed writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court of India. 
• Notice was issued on 26th March 2021, with Additional Solicitor Generals representing both the Union of India and the Union Territory of Ladakh. 
• The respondent authorities acknowledged that proper allocations had been made, and there was no justification for denying admission to the petitioners. 

Issue Raised  

• Whether students from Ladakh who have been duly nominated by the Administration of the Union Territory of Ladakh for MBBS seats under the central pool allocation system can be denied admission despite legitimate seat allocation by the Union Government.  
• Whether the denial of admission to properly nominated students from Ladakh constitutes a violation of their fundamental rights to pursue professional education under Article 32 of the Constitution.  

Court Observation  

• The Court observed that while the right to pursue higher professional education is not explicitly enumerated as a fundamental right in Part III of the Constitution, access to professional education cannot be treated as governmental largesse but represents a legitimate entitlement. 
• The Court declared that the State has an affirmative obligation to facilitate access to education at all levels, with this duty becoming paramount for students whose backgrounds create formidable barriers to accessing quality education due to caste, class, gender, religion, disability, and geographical constraints. 
• The Court invoked India's obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, emphasizing that education serves as "the primary vehicle by which economically and socially marginalized adults and children can lift themselves out of poverty" and must be accessible without discrimination. 
• The Court observed that the case represented a broader systemic problem where students who lack resources or knowledge about legal remedies are denied education, noting that disparities in educational policies based on geographic locations may constitute discrimination under international covenants. 
• The Court recommended the appointment of nodal officers by the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Director of Health Services, Ladakh, to serve as single-point contacts ensuring that students nominated under central pool seats actually secure admission to their allocated courses. 
• The Court firmly stated that financial hardship should not prevent students from securing admission when legitimate allocations have been made in their favor under the central pool seats system. 
• The Court issued general directions for all students in the nomination list to prevent the necessity of each similarly placed student having to approach the Supreme Court individually, thereby addressing the systemic nature of the problem. 
• The Court appreciated the spirit of dialogue demonstrated by the Additional Solicitor Generals representing both the Union of India and Union Territory of Ladakh, noting that such collaborative approaches facilitate effective resolution of educational access issues.