Imprisonment Doesn’t Restrict Right To Pursue Further Education, Denying College Admission Is Violation Of Fundamental Rights: Bombay HC
|The Bombay High Court has observed that imprisonment does not restrict an individual’s right to pursue further education and denying the opportunity to take admission to a College despite a seat being allotted is a violation of fundamental rights.
The Court allowed the petitioner, who was imprisoned when he appeared for the Maharashtra Common Entrance Test (CET) law examination pursuant to permission granted to him by the Special Court, to take admission to the LL.B. course he had applied for.
A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Neela Gokhale observed, “Imprisonment does not restrict an individual’s right to pursue further education. Denying the opportunity to take admission in the College despite a seat being allotted by following the due process as prescribed, is a violation of the fundamental right of the Petitioner. In these circumstances, we are inclined to allow the Petitioner to take admission in the LL.B. course in the Siddharth Law College for the AY 2024-25 for the batch of 2024-2027.”
Senior Advocate Mihir Desai appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate Chintan Shah represented the respondents.
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) had filed charge sheets against the petitioner under Sections 153-A, 505(1)(B), 117, 120-B, 34 of the IPC and Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA). The case was pending before the Special Court.
The petitioner submitted that he passed the CET law examination. He participated in the CAP round process through his sister and his application was provisionally accepted. He was provisionally allotted a seat at Siddharth Law College. It was further submitted that his sister paid the required fee to freeze the seat allotted to the Petitioner.
According to the petitioner, the State CET Cell informed the Petitioner’s sister that the College was responsible for the admission of the candidates and that the CET Cell had no role to play in the verification of documents for admission. The petitioner contended that he was required to remain physically present for verification of his documents for admission to the said College. Since the Petitioner was detained in prison, he was unable to remain physically present for the same.
However, Mumbai University and the law college opposed the petition arguing that LL.B. was a professional course and the University Rules required a candidate to have a compulsory minimum attendance of 75% during every Academic Year and the petitioner being in jail would be unable to fulfill the requisite attendance requirement.
The High Court noted that the petitioner was granted permission to appear for the CET examination by the Special Court. “We perused the Order and find that no objection was raised by the Respondents before the Special Court,” the Court remarked.
“The purpose of appearing for the CET examination was obviously to seek admission for the LL.B. course in a law college. He has passed the examination and is allotted a seat in the Siddharth Law College. There is no gainsaying at this stage in objecting to him being admitted in the College pursuant to having passed the CET examination and being allotted a seat in the College,” the Court observed.
Consequently, the Court allowed the Petitioner to take admission to the LL.B. course in the Law College.
The Court clarified, “Since the College requires physical presence of a candidate for verification of documents, we leave it to the College to consider permitting the authorized representative/next of kin of the Petitioner to physically attend the College and verify the documents or in the alternative, to take the signature of the Petitioner on the documents from the Taloja Central Prison.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Mahesh Sitaram Raut v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:37323-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Mihir Desai; Advocates Pritha Paul and Rishika Agarwal
Respondents: Advocates Chintan Shah, Sandesh Patil, Muzaffar Y. Patel and Rui Rodrigues; APP Vinod Chate