State has obligation to ensure right to pursue higher professional education: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently stated that a student’s right to pursue higher or professional education is an affirmative obligation on the part of the State and cannot be curtailed lightly [Harshit Agrawal Vs National Testing Agency And Ors.]..Justice Jasmeet Singh made the observation while allowing a student to continue his MBBS course after National Testing Authority (NTA) had withdrawn his entrance exam results citing a CBI summons in relation to NEET question paper leak. “The valuable right accrued to the petitioner by clearing the entrance exam, i.e. NEET-UG needs to be protected, as the action of cancellation of admission and removal of the name of the petitioner from the MBBS course is disrupting the academic progress of the petitioner on totally unjustifiable grounds. The right to pursue higher or professional education even though not explicitly spelt out as a fundamental right in part III of the Constitution of India, it is an affirmative obligation on the part of the state to ensure this right and the same cannot be permitted to be curtailed, lightly,” the Court stated. .The petitioner Harshit Agrawal, an MBBS student, approached the Court seeking directions to the NTA to allow him to continue pursuing his degree at Bhima Bhoi Medical College and Hospital at Balangir in Odisha.The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had issued summons to the petitioner in connection with certain irregularities in NEET-UG 2024 examination. The NTA issued a show cause to the petitioner as to why he should not be debarred. The petitioner stated that though he replied to the show cause notice, the NTA withdrew his exam results. The National Medical Commission also issued a letter to the college directing it to cancel the petitioner’s admission on the basis of a CBI report wherein the petitioner was found embroiled in leaking the exam paper. Pursuant to that, the medical college cancelled his admission. .Before the Court, the counsel representing CBI stated that the petitioner is not an accused in its chargesheet and that he was only a witness. The Court noted this submission and stated that this showed that there cannot be any prima-facie findings on petitioner’s involvement. “The statement of the counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI that the petitioner is not an accused but is only a witness, makes it apparent that there cannot be any prima-facie findings of the petitioner committing any malpractices,” the Court stated. Thus, the Court allowed the petition and directed reinstatement of the petitioner. .Advocates Anuraag Mehta, Ganga Sagar Singh, Ashish Kumar Chaurasiya, Adarsh Verma, Ashish Kumar Chaurasiya, Ganga Sagar Singh, Anurag Mehta and Anjana Devi appeared for the petitioner.Advocates Abhay Mani Tripathi, Monika Tiwari and Suryans Agrrwal appeared for NTA.[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.