Farzana Batool v. Union of India
Background
Two students from Ladakh were nominated by the Union Territory's Health Administration for MBBS seats under the central-pool quota, one allotted to Lady Hardinge Medical College and the other to Maulana Azad Medical College, but despite valid nomination and seat allocation, their admissions were not being confirmed, even though other similarly-placed nominated students had already been admitted. They approached the Supreme Court directly under Article 32, since their ability to pursue professional education was at stake.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court directed that admission formalities for both petitioners be completed within a week, and, to prevent other affected students from having to separately approach the Court, extended the same relief to all students named in the relevant nomination list who had not yet been admitted. The Court emphasized that access to professional education, while not an enumerated fundamental right, is not government largesse either: the State has an affirmative obligation to facilitate access to education, especially for students facing social, economic or geographic disadvantages, drawing on international instruments such as the ICESCR. It recommended that the Union Health Ministry and the Ladakh administration appoint a nodal officer to help nominated students navigate admission processes so they are not left without recourse.
Lesson Learnt
When a government authority has validly allocated a seat or benefit to someone, administrative delay or inaction in giving effect to that allocation can be challenged in court, and courts may grant relief not just to the individual petitioner but to an entire similarly-placed group to avoid repeat litigation.