Case Summary: FARZANA BATOOL V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

• TITLE: FARZANA BATOOL V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
• DATE OF THE CASE: 9 April 2021
• APPELLANT: Farzana Batool
• RESPONDENT: Union of India and others
• BENCH/JUDGES: Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice M.R. Shah
• LEGAL PROVISIONS: Article 32 of the Constitution of India

FACTS:

In 2021, two writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India were filed before the Supreme Court. The petitioners, Ms. Farzana Batool and Mr. Mohammad Mehdi were seeking redressal from the apex court so that they could pursue their higher education in two reputed educational institutions after being duly selected as candidates therein.

On April 9, 2020, The Government of India, through its Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MHFW), published a Memorandum outlining specific guidelines for the allocation of MBBS/BDS seats by general pool for the academic year 2020–2021.

Following that, on November 23, 2020, the MHFW (Ministry of Health and Family Welfare) approved allocations for medical seats in the Ladakh central pool for 2020–2021 in accordance with the aforementioned standards. As a result, two 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. In accordance with this, the Administration of the Union Territory of Ladakh published a communication on February 19, 2021, and the Director of Health Services, Ladakh (DHSL) provided a list of chosen candidates who were to be admitted in the designated colleges.

Candidate No. 4 on the mentioned list, Ms. Farzana Batool, and No. 1 on the list, Mr. Mohammad Mehdi Waziri, respectively, are the petitioners in Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 364 and 375 of 2021. The petitioners’ lack of admission to their designated colleges, LHMC and MAMC, although being lawfully appointed by the DHSL, gave rise to the complaint and prevented them from pursuing their higher education. The petitioners were forced to turn to the Apex Court since their right to education was being violated in these circumstances. In these writ petitions, the Supreme Court was urged to ensure that all chosen students were admitted to the colleges that had been assigned to them by the central pool.

The Supreme Court issued a notice on March 26, 2021, after taking the petitioners’ situation into account. Mr. Rupinder Singh Suri, a learned additional solicitor general, then appeared on behalf of the Union of India, and Mr. K. M. Nataraj, a learned additional solicitor general, spoke on behalf of the administration of the Union Territory of Ladakh through the DHSL. Since the petitioners were legitimately nominated by the DHSL in this instance, neither of the Learned ASGs contested the fact that they shouldn’t have been denied admission to their respective colleges.

ISSUES RAISED:

1. Whether the right to higher education can be considered as a Fundamental Right or not? 
2. Whether accessibility of higher education in one’s professional domain is indigenous or not?
3. Whether it is justified for students to be deprived from pursuing a professional education even after allocation has been made? 
4. Whether the access to quality education is being infringed on the basis of caste, class, gender, religion, disability or geographical location of a person?

CONTENTION:

ARGUMENTS FROM THE APPELLANT’S SIDE:

1. The petitioners were refused admission to their chosen colleges despite being nominated by the Ladakh administration and following the rules established by the Indian government.
2. The petitioner complained that she had been denied access to further education and professional training due to her caste, class, race, and location of birth, among other factors.
3. It was further stated that other chosen students had been admitted to their designated colleges already.
4. The petitioner also contended that, despite not being explicitly stated in the Indian Constitution, the right to professional education should be regarded as a fundamental right of the people.

ARGUMENTS FROM THE RESPONDENT’S SIDE:

1. The right to higher education was refuted as not being a fundamental right.
2. It was also noted that the students lacked the necessary financial stability to be accepted into their chosen universities.
3. However, it was acknowledged that there is no legitimate reason for refusing to admit the students who were recommended in accordance with the rules.

RATIONALE:

In the case of Farzana Batool v Union of India (UOI) and Ors, the Supreme Court held that: “While the right to pursue higher (professional) education has not been spelled 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.” Although professional education has not been specifically mentioned as a Fundamental Right in the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court unanimously decided that Part III of the Indian Constitution does mention the Right to Equality, which includes equality before the law, the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, and equality of opportunity in matters of employment. 

In this case, the State has a positive duty to its citizens to guarantee access to education at all levels and to ensure that a person’s financial situation or status does not bar them from admission under the allocations that have already been made in their favor under the central pool seats. The Supreme Court ordered that the admission processes for the petitioners, Ms. Farzana Batool and Mr. Mohammed Mehdi Waziri, be finished at LHMC and MAMC, respectively, within a week of the date of the ruling in order to support such reasoning with action.

In addition, the Supreme Court ordered that all applicants whose names appeared in Annexure A of the notification (dated February 19, 2021) be admitted to the relevant institutions. It further stated that because having access to a great education is a fundamental human right, this decision should be seen as a broad precedent for students facing similar challenges to petition the Supreme Court. According to the court, every student should have access to a nurturing environment where they can flourish because professional education is a crucial part of student life. 

The court made sure to emphasize the word “accessible,” which is a crucial part of the educational environment, in the ruling. In this case, the court agreed with the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights’ (ICESCR Committee’s) assertion that there are two parts to “accessibility.” First, is the guarantee of non-discrimination, in relation to which it notes that “education must be accessible to all, especially the most vulnerable groups, in law and fact, without discrimination on any of the prohibited grounds”. The second, economic accessibility, meaning that the state party must take steps to ensure that financial constraints do not come in the way of accessing education. A student’s future cannot be jeopardized or hindered in any way because of their caste, class, color, economic standing, location, etc.

 The petitioners, Ms. Farzana Batool and Mr. Mohammed Mehdi Waziri, were ordered by the Supreme Court to finish the necessary admissions procedures at LHMC and MAMC, respectively, within one week of the decision date. The Supreme Court further stated that because education is a Fundamental Right and is extremely important, all students whose names were listed in Annexure A to the notification dated February 19, 2021, should be admitted to the relevant institutions, if they have not already done so. The court issuing the order as a general directive to avoid the possibility that each student who is in a similar situation will need to come to this court.

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 made sure that similar difficulties would be immediately rectified if any pupils encountered them.

The Supreme Court noted that it is highly fundamental to approach education at a professional level. The emphasis was on enabling students to pursue professional education. According to the Supreme Court, the concept of “accessibility” is a part of fundamental rights and is relevant 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.

INFERENCE:

Ms. Farzana Batool and Mr. Mohammad Mehdi Waziri, the two petitioners in this case, had filed a petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, which addresses the right to a constitutional remedy, in order to seek relief from the apex court. Their sole motivation was to gain admission to the institutions, LHMC and MAMC, respectively, so they could continue pursuing their dream of earning an MBBS degree. However, the Supreme Court did make it clear in this decision that professional education does not fall under the Fundamental Right to Education provided by the Indian Constitution. However, it is a major infringement of a student’s rights if they are refused the chance to enroll for any reason other than merit, such as their financial situation. Through this decision, the Supreme Court not only makes it easier for students to enroll in colleges where seats have been reserved for them, but it also establishes a precedent for the society that it is possible to appeal to the Supreme Court if someone is being denied admission to a school for unfair reasons. The Supreme Court sought to inspire other students in similar circumstances to speak up in favor of their own educational rights by establishing such a precedent in addition to providing justice to the petitioners. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice M.R. Shah correctly noted during their delivery of the ruling that it is the moral and civic duty of the State to provide a long-lasting educational ecosystem in order to uphold students’ fundamental right to an education because they are the nation’s and the world’s future.