Delhi High Court
Dr. Sonal Jain vs Director, Aiims on 6 December, 2010
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 6th December, 2010.
+ W.P.(C) 7529/2010
% DR. SONAL JAIN ..... PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Pramod Kumar, Adv.
Versus
DIRECTOR, AIIMS ..... RESPONDENT
Through: Mr. Sandeep Mittal, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petitioner had applied for appearance in the Entrance
Examination to be held by the respondent on 14th November for admission
to the Post Graduate courses. The respondent rejected the application of the
petitioner on the ground of the petitioner though having filed an undertaking
as required to be filled of being not an accused in any offence having also
intimated to the respondent that she had been charged with the offence of
impersonation in the Medical Entrance Examination. Aggrieved therefrom,
this Writ Petition was filed. This Court vide order dated 9 th November,
2010 while issuing notice of the writ petition permitted the petitioner to
appear in the Entrance Examination, the result whereof was however
directed to be withheld till further orders.
2. The counsels today inform that the result of the petitioner though has
not been declared but her name finds mention in the list of candidates called
for counselling scheduled for 10th and 16th December, 2010.
3. The question which thus arises is whether the petitioner inspite of
being an accused in an offence of impersonation is entitled to pursue Post
Graduate course. It is informed that a Revision Petition preferred by the
petitioner against framing of the charge against her has since been
dismissed.
4. The counsel for the respondent has fairly stated that there are no rules
of the respondent in this respect. It is however stated that if the petitioner is
arrested or punished, she would not be entitled to pursue the course.
5. The guilt of the petitioner is still to be adjudicated upon. There does
not seem to be any reason to prevent the petitioner from pursuing further
education particularly when there is no rule of the respondent prohibiting so.
Though the respondent had desired an undertaking aforesaid from the
applicants but it is informed that there is no rule prohibiting accused persons
from gaining admission or pursuing the Post Graduate course. When the
accused persons are permitted to even contest elections, there seems to be no
reason to prevent them from pursuing higher education. A convict even has
a right to pursue further studies provided the same do not interfere with the
punishment. The approach of modern penologists is rehabilitative rather
than retributive. In the present case there is nothing to suggest that the
charge against the petitioner will interfere with the studies which she intends
to pursue. Moreover, if the petitioner is so prevented and is ultimately
acquitted, the denial of further education cannot be compensated in any way.
6. The Supreme Court in D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal 1997 (1)
SCC 416 held that the precious right guaranteed by Article 21 cannot be
denied to convicts, undertrials, detenus and other prisoners in custody except
according to the procedure established by law by placing such reasonable
restrictions as are permitted by law. It was held that it cannot be said that a
citizen "sheds off" his fundamental right to life the moment a policeman
arrest him-nor it can be said that the right to life of a citizen can be put in
abeyance on his arrest. The petitioner is a qualified MBBS. The charge
against her is of impersonation to assist another gain entry to Medical
College. Even if the petitioner is convicted, her MBBS degree shall remain
intact. There is no law restricting the right of petitioner to further education,
which is her natural and fundamental right.
7. In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with
the following directions:-
(i) the result of the petitioner of the Entrance Examination be
declared forthwith and the petitioner if found eligible be permitted to
participate in the counselling scheduled for 10th and 16th December,
2010 or for any other dates.
(ii) the petitioner if admitted, shall be allowed to pursue her course
unless in default of any of the other rules of the respondent and/or
prevented therefrom owing to arrest or otherwise.
(iii) the petitioner through counsel undertakes to this Court that no
benefit of the said admission shall be taken in the criminal trial
against the petitioner.
The writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.
Copy of this order be given Dasti under the signature of the Court
Master to the counsels for the parties.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
6th December, 2010
bs
