Whether grant of monetary compensation can be considered as the sole and adequate remedy for a student who has been deprived of admission to the MBBS course, despite he or she being meritorious?.A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Dipak Misra and Rohinton Fali Nariman has referred this question of seminal importance to a larger Bench. In the process, the Court will re-consider its own decision in Chandigarh Administration & Anr. v. Jasmine Kaur & Ors [(2014) 10 SCC 521]..The case was an appeal filed by one S Krishna Sradha against a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh. Sradha had approached the High Court under Article 226 alleging that Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences had rejected her candidature for taking admission to the first year MBBS course for the academic Session 2015-2016 in Sports and Games quota and granted admission to the less meritorious candidates on unacceptable grounds..On that basis, she had sought issuance of a writ of mandamus to the University to consider her case by giving priority over others in Sports and Games quota..The High Court had accepted her arguments, but placing reliance on Jasmine Kaur’s case did not extend to her the benefit of admission on the ground that time for admission has expired. Instead, it offered Sradha monetary compensation of Rs. 5 lakh..Sradha chose to appeal against this decision. Advocate K Parameshwar appeared for Sradha while Senior Advocate Vikas Singh represented Medical Council of India along with advocate Gaurav Sharma. Senior Advocate PS Narasimha served as the Amicus Curiae..Even as the case was pending, the Court directed that the appellant be extended the benefit of admission and accordingly she was admitted..Amicus Curiae PS Narasimha and advocate K Parameshwar, however, submitted that this is a recurring problem and that the judgment in Chandigarh Administration v. Jasmin Kaur was an impediment to the power of Constitutional courts to grant real substantive relief in such cases..Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, however, strenuously supported Jasmine Kaur’s case submitting that the time fixed for admission by this Court has to be scrupulously followed and should never be allowed to be derailed..The Court considered a plethora of decisions and proceeded to opine that in a litigation of such nature, the redressal of a fundamental right cannot be weighted in terms of compensation alone..“When a lis of this nature comes in a constitutional court, it becomes the duty of the court to address whether the authority had acted within the powers conferred on it or deviated from the same as a consequence of which injustice has been caused to the grieved person..The redressal of a fundamental right, if one deserves to have, cannot be weighed in terms of grant of compensation only. Grant of compensation may be an additional relief. Confining it to grant of compensation as the only measure would defeat the basic purpose of the fundamental rights which the Constitution has conferred so that the said rights are sustained.”.The Court said that a young student should not feel that her entire industry to get herself qualified in the examination becomes meaningless because of the fault or design of certain authorities and they can get away by giving some amount as compensation..“As is seen, stress has always been laid on the merit in the matters of all admissions as meritorious students should not face any impediment to get admission for some fault on the part of the institution or the persons involved with it..At this juncture, we are obliged to say that when the courts have gone to the extent of saying that for the fault of the court, the litigant should not suffer, it is unimaginable that for the fault of the administrators or the counselling body or for some kind of evil designer, grant of compensation should be regarded as the lone remedy. We think not; as we are reminded of what Justinian had said “Justice is the constant and perpetual wish to render to everyone, his due”. Needless, “his due” only can mean “due in law in praesenti.””.The Bench, therefore, ruled that decision in Chandigarh Administration requires re-consideration and proceeded to refer the matter larger Bench..Read the judgment below..Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
