While deciding on the question of compensation to a medical college student for loss of an academic year, the Supreme Court observed that justice should not become a victim to its prestige..The Supreme Court Bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta observed that in the case of Riya George v. Kannur Medical College, the petitioner did not disclose all the facts, owing to which the petition ought to have been dismissed..“However, justice to the petitioner should not become a victim of the prestige of this Court”, the Bench held..The petitioner had approached the Supreme Court seeking a direction to Kannur Medical College to compensate her for the loss of an academic year. The loss of a year was purportedly caused on account of the college’s non-compliance with the directions to medical institutes for admission of candidates..The Facts:.The petitioner qualified for the National Eligibility-cum entrance Test (NEET) in the year 2016-17. In 2016, the Government of Kerala directed every medical college to admit students selected by the Commissioner for Entrance Exams (CEE)..This Rule was challenged before the Kerala High Court, which directed that admissions to all medical colleges shall be made in accordance with NEET. The Court also stated that the process of the same shall be online to facilitate transparency. A direction reiterating the same was issued by Admission Supervisory Committee (ASC), which stated that admissions in contravention of the Court’s order will not be registered by the Kerala University of Health Sciences..On finding that Kannur Medical College had not complied with the requirements specified by the High Court in its order, the ASC cancelled all the admissions made to it. The petitioner was also one of the persons admitted to this college..In the following year, the petitioner began her MBBS Course in another college while her father requested a refund of the fees from the Kannur Medical College. The local police was also informed by the petitioner’s father that the dispute stood resolved since the college had refunded the money..A petition for the same had also been initiated before the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee for Medical Education in Kerala. The Chairperson of the Committee passed an order later permitting the withdrawal of the complaint filed by the petitioner as having been settled..However, another petition for claiming interest as well as the amount paid by the petitioner as special fees was filed. This petition was rejected by the Committee, which later rejected the review petition as well. The Committee did, however, note that the amount of special fees ought to have been refunded by the college..In a different case, the question of refund of fees in similar cases came up before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had directed the ASC to carry out an inquiry in the matter and pass orders accordingly. The ASC had issued notice to some students including the petitioner..Supreme Court’s Verdict:.The petitioner approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 seeking a direction for the college to compensate her for the loss of an academic year. This loss was caused on account of legal proceedings that transpired after the cancellation of admission..The college challenged the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the petitioner had concealed some material facts from the Court. The Court took cognizance of the same remarks in the judgment, and stated that this conduct of the petitioner was “unsatisfactory”..“We find this conduct of the petitioner to be unsatisfactory…While moving a writ petition before this Court, the petitioner ought to have made a full, fair and candid disclosure of all facts.”.The college claimed that the complaint was withdrawn by the petitioner’s father unconditionally. This was countered by the petitioner, who claimed that the complaint was withdrawn under duress. Despite being not happy about the concealment of facts, the Court held that its prestige must not get in the way of justice..The Court took note that the Committee has issued notice to the students and a hearing is scheduled to take place. Adding to this, the Court said that it would be inappropriate for the Supreme Court to quantify the damages in the present case..“Quantification of damages in monetary terms in the present writ petition will have a bearing on the pending proceedings before the Committee. That proceeding covers the entire batch of 150 students. Moreover, in pursuance of the order, the petitioner has received a notice from the Committee to appear in support of her claim.”.The Court left it open to the petitioner to pursue her claim before the Committee, while observing that loss of a precious year warrants compensation and that a student cannot be deprived of her studies or left in a lurch..Keeping in view that a similar case was remitted to the Committee by a coordinate bench of the Supreme Court, this case too was remitted, following the suit. The Court kept all the rights and contentions of the parties open..Read the Judgment:
While deciding on the question of compensation to a medical college student for loss of an academic year, the Supreme Court observed that justice should not become a victim to its prestige..The Supreme Court Bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta observed that in the case of Riya George v. Kannur Medical College, the petitioner did not disclose all the facts, owing to which the petition ought to have been dismissed..“However, justice to the petitioner should not become a victim of the prestige of this Court”, the Bench held..The petitioner had approached the Supreme Court seeking a direction to Kannur Medical College to compensate her for the loss of an academic year. The loss of a year was purportedly caused on account of the college’s non-compliance with the directions to medical institutes for admission of candidates..The Facts:.The petitioner qualified for the National Eligibility-cum entrance Test (NEET) in the year 2016-17. In 2016, the Government of Kerala directed every medical college to admit students selected by the Commissioner for Entrance Exams (CEE)..This Rule was challenged before the Kerala High Court, which directed that admissions to all medical colleges shall be made in accordance with NEET. The Court also stated that the process of the same shall be online to facilitate transparency. A direction reiterating the same was issued by Admission Supervisory Committee (ASC), which stated that admissions in contravention of the Court’s order will not be registered by the Kerala University of Health Sciences..On finding that Kannur Medical College had not complied with the requirements specified by the High Court in its order, the ASC cancelled all the admissions made to it. The petitioner was also one of the persons admitted to this college..In the following year, the petitioner began her MBBS Course in another college while her father requested a refund of the fees from the Kannur Medical College. The local police was also informed by the petitioner’s father that the dispute stood resolved since the college had refunded the money..A petition for the same had also been initiated before the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee for Medical Education in Kerala. The Chairperson of the Committee passed an order later permitting the withdrawal of the complaint filed by the petitioner as having been settled..However, another petition for claiming interest as well as the amount paid by the petitioner as special fees was filed. This petition was rejected by the Committee, which later rejected the review petition as well. The Committee did, however, note that the amount of special fees ought to have been refunded by the college..In a different case, the question of refund of fees in similar cases came up before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had directed the ASC to carry out an inquiry in the matter and pass orders accordingly. The ASC had issued notice to some students including the petitioner..Supreme Court’s Verdict:.The petitioner approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 seeking a direction for the college to compensate her for the loss of an academic year. This loss was caused on account of legal proceedings that transpired after the cancellation of admission..The college challenged the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the petitioner had concealed some material facts from the Court. The Court took cognizance of the same remarks in the judgment, and stated that this conduct of the petitioner was “unsatisfactory”..“We find this conduct of the petitioner to be unsatisfactory…While moving a writ petition before this Court, the petitioner ought to have made a full, fair and candid disclosure of all facts.”.The college claimed that the complaint was withdrawn by the petitioner’s father unconditionally. This was countered by the petitioner, who claimed that the complaint was withdrawn under duress. Despite being not happy about the concealment of facts, the Court held that its prestige must not get in the way of justice..The Court took note that the Committee has issued notice to the students and a hearing is scheduled to take place. Adding to this, the Court said that it would be inappropriate for the Supreme Court to quantify the damages in the present case..“Quantification of damages in monetary terms in the present writ petition will have a bearing on the pending proceedings before the Committee. That proceeding covers the entire batch of 150 students. Moreover, in pursuance of the order, the petitioner has received a notice from the Committee to appear in support of her claim.”.The Court left it open to the petitioner to pursue her claim before the Committee, while observing that loss of a precious year warrants compensation and that a student cannot be deprived of her studies or left in a lurch..Keeping in view that a similar case was remitted to the Committee by a coordinate bench of the Supreme Court, this case too was remitted, following the suit. The Court kept all the rights and contentions of the parties open..Read the Judgment: