Holding

Since due allocations were made, there is no justification to deny admission; the admission formalities must be completed and the State must facilitate access to professional education.

Summary

Two students from the Union Territory of Ladakh were allocated central pool MBBS seats at Lady Hardinge Medical College and Maulana Azad Medical College but were not admitted despite the allocations. They filed writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking directions for admission. The Court observed that the right to pursue professional education, while not a fundamental right, imposes an affirmative state obligation to ensure access, drawing on international instruments such as the UDHR and ICESCR. Since the allocations were duly made, there was no justification to deny admission, and the Court ordered immediate completion of admission formalities for the petitioners and issued general directions for similarly placed students. The judgment also directed the creation of a nodal officer to coordinate admissions for central pool seats, emphasizing non‑discrimination and economic accessibility.

Issues considered

Whether denial of admission to students allocated central pool MBBS seats violates constitutional rights enforceable under Article 32.
Whether the right to pursue professional education is enforceable as a fundamental right or creates a state obligation under the Constitution and international law.
Whether the Court can issue systemic directions to ensure admission and prevent similar hardships for other students.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 32

Subjects

AdmissionMBBSCentral pool seatsProfessional educationArticle 32LadakhState obligationRight to educationInternational Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural RightsUniversal Declaration of Human RightsNon‑discriminationEconomic accessibility

Judgment

388 [2021]
SUPREME COURT 4 S.C.R. 388
REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R.

A FARZANA BATOOL
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 364 of 2021)
B 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
C 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
D 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 –
E
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
F 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
G
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
H
388
FARZANA BATOOL v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 389

the courses for which the allocation has been made. It is directed A
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
B
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 C
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 D
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 E
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 F
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 G
guarantee of non-discrimination, in relation to which it notes that,
“education must be accessible to all, especially the most

H
390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R.

A 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 constraints do not come in the way of accessing education.
The ICESCR Committee pertinently notes that disparities in
spending policies that result in differing qualities of education
B
for persons residing in different geographic locations may
constitute discrimination under the Covenant. Each state party
is required, inter alia, to fulfill the right to education, by facilitating
and providing for its realization. Pursuant to these obligations
which India has undertaken by being a signatory to the Covenant,
C the Union MHFW and the DHSL shall ensure proper co-
ordination so that students allocated colleges under the central
pool seats are not put to hardship in enrolling once they have
been duly allocated their seats. Specifically, the Union MHFW
and the DHSL can consider appointing a nodal officer tasked with
the responsibility of ensuring that students who are duly
D
nominated under the central pool seats are in fact admitted in
their chosen course of study. Such an officer can serve as a one-
point contact for students who may otherwise face numerous
difficulties in securing their admission, even after they have been
allocated the seat. The details of such officer can be widely
E publicized on the websites of the aforesaid two authorities. Such
an institutional framework will ensure that students are not left
in the lurch due to lack of help in securing their legitimate
admission to the appropriate course. [Paras 9-12][394-B-D,
E-G; 395-A-D]
F ICESCR Committee, ‘General Comment No. 13: The
right to education (Article 13)’ (8 December 1999) Un
Doc E/C.12/1999/10, para 1 – referred to.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.364
of 2021
G (Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
With
Writ Petition (Civil) No.375 Of 2021
Neeraj Shekhar, Rohit Kumar Singh, Advs. for the Petitioner.
H
FARZANA BATOOL v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 391

K. M. Nataraj, Rupinder Singh, ASGs, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Ranjan A
Kumar Chaurasia, B. V. Balram Das, Anmol Chandan, Ms. Priyanka
Das, P. V. Yogeshwaran, G. S. Makker, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
B
1. These proceedings under Article 32 have been instituted by
two students from Ladakh. They have been nominated by the
Administration of the Union Territory of Ladakh for admission to the
MBBS degree course under the ‘central pool’ seats set apart by the
Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. One of them has been
allocated against a seat at Lady Hardinge Medical College (“LHMC”). C
The other has been assigned to Maulana Azad Medical College
(“MAMC”). Unfortunately, these students have not yet been admitted
to their course of studies despite due nomination by the Administration
of the Union Territory of Ladakh and in terms of the seats notified by
the Union Government. We have been constrained to take up the issue D
under Article 32, since the fundamental rights of students from Ladakh
to pursue professional education are implicated. We will in the course of
this judgment deal of course with the grievance of the two students. But
we intend to deal with the issue on a systemic basis so that other students
who may lack resources, or simply the knowledge about legal remedies,
are not deprived of education. E

2. Notice was issued in these proceedings on 26 March 2021. In
pursuance of the order, Mr Rupinder Singh Suri, Additional Solicitor
General appears for the Union of India while Mr K M Nataraj, Additional
Solicitor General appears on behalf of the Administration of the Union
Territory of Ladakh through the Director of Health Services, Ladakh F
(“DHSL”). The Office Report indicates that LHMC and MAMC have
been served.
3. By a Memorandum dated 9 April 2020, the Government of
India through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (“MHFW”),
issued guidelines for the allocation of the general pool MBBS/BDS seats G
for 2020-2021. By a Notification dated 23 November 2020, the MHFW
(Department of Health and Family Welfare) allotted, inter alia, one
seat at LHMC to the Union Territory of Ladakh from the central pool. A
similar allocation of one seat was made at MAMC. These allocations
were made for the Ladakh central pool medical seats for the year 2020-
H
2021.
392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R.

A 4. Through a communication dated 19 February 2021 issued by
the Administration of the Union Territory of Ladakh, the DHSL forwarded
the list of selected candidates from Ladakh to be admitted in the central
pool medical seats for the year 2020-2021. For convenience of reference,
Annexure A to the Notification DHSL(21) of 2021 dated 19 February
2021 is extracted below:
B
Annexure - “A”
(Selected/Nominated list)
Order No:27/DHSL(21) of 2021, Dated 19/02/2021

C

D

E

F

G

(emphasis supplied)
H
FARZANA BATOOL v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 393
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

The name of the petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No 364 of 2021 A
appears at serial no 4, while the name of the petitioner in Writ Petition
(Civil) No 375 of 2021 appears at serial no 1.
5. The two writ petitions before this Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution have been instituted for seeking directions to facilitate the
students to be admitted respectively at LHMC and MAMC, so as to B
facilitate them to pursue their studies for the MBBS degree course. The
petitioner in the first of the two petitions (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 364 of
2021) is Ms Farzana Batool. The petitioner in the second writ petition
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 375 of 2021) is Mr Mohammad Mehdi Waziri.
6. The grievance is that though the petitioners have been duly C
nominated by the DHSL, the admission process of the petitioners has
not been confirmed. This is even though other similarly placed students
nominated by the DHSL, who were allotted to different institutions, have
had their admissions confirmed.
7. Having regard to the predicament of the petitioners, this Court D
issued notice and as noted above, the Government of the Union Territory
of Ladakh and the Union MHFW are represented by the Additional
Solicitor Generals, Mr Rupinder Singh Suri and Mr K M Nataraj. 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 the courses for which the allocation has been E
made.
8. In view of the above position, we direct 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 F
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, we also direct that all the students who are referred to in
Annexure A to the Notification dated 19 February 2021, as extracted
above, be granted admissions to the concerned institutions, if not already G
given so far. We are issuing these general directions 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.
H
394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R.

A 9. Given that the issue raised in this case concerns access to
education, albeit at the professional level, we would like to take this
opportunity to underscore the importance of creating an enabling
environment to make it possible for students such as the petitioners to
pursue professional education. While the right to pursue higher
(professional) education has not been spelt out as a fundamental right in
B
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.
10. This obligation assumes far greater importance for students
whose background (by virtue of such characteristics as caste, class,
C gender, religion, disability and geographical region) imposes formidable
obstacles on their path to accessing quality education. Indeed, as the
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (“ICESCR
Committee”)1 notes in General Comment 13, “As an empowerment
right, education is the primary vehicle by which economically and
D socially marginalized adults and children can lift themselves out of
poverty and obtain the means to participate fully in their
communities”2.
11. Article 26(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
which is a source of persuasive value, obligates every State Party to
E 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.
F First, 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”. Second, economic accessibility, meaning
that the state party must take steps to ensure that financial constraints
G do not come in the way of accessing education.
1
This is a committee formed to monitor the implementation of International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (the “Covenant”), which was ratified by India
in 1979. Further, it also issued ‘General Comment(s)’, which function as interpretative
tools for the various provisions of the Covenant.
2
ICESCR Committee, ‘General Comment No. 13: The right to education (Article 13)’
(8 December 1999) Un Doc E/C.12/1999/10, para 1.
H
FARZANA BATOOL v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 395
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

12. The ICESCR Committee pertinently notes that disparities in A
spending policies that result in differing qualities of education for persons
residing in different geographic locations may constitute discrimination
under the Covenant. Each state party is required, inter alia, to fulfill the
right to education, by facilitating and providing for its realization. Pursuant
to these obligations which India has undertaken by being a signatory to
B
the Covenant, the Union MHFW and the DHSL shall ensure proper co-
ordination so that students allocated colleges under the central pool seats
are not put to hardship in enrolling once they have been duly allocated
their seats. Specifically, the Union MHFW and the DHSL can consider
appointing a nodal officer tasked with the responsibility of ensuring that
students who are duly nominated under the central pool seats are in fact C
admitted in their chosen course of study. Such an officer can serve as a
one-point contact for students who may otherwise face numerous
difficulties in securing their admission, even after they have been
allocated the seat. The details of such officer can be widely publicized
on the websites of the aforesaid two authorities. Such an institutional
D
framework will ensure that students are not left in the lurch due to lack
of help in securing their legitimate admission to the appropriate course.
In this way, it will help remedy the broader problem of which the case
before us is a symptom.
13. We would also like to place on record our appreciation for the
fact that Mr Rupinder Singh Suri and Mr K M Nataraj approached these E
proceedings on behalf of the Union of India and the Administration of
the Union Territory of Ladakh in a spirit of dialogue, as opposed to
adopting an adversarial approach.
14. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Principals of the
LHMC and the MAMC for compliance. The DHSL shall also forward F
a copy of this order to all the concerned institutions, referred to in
Annexure A to the Notification dated 19 February 2021, as extracted
above, for compliance.
15. The Petitions are accordingly allowed in the above terms.
G
16. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Divya Pandey Petitions allowed.

H