What is most disconcerting in this case is not that the Division Bench cancelled the admission of the student , but the manner in which it was struck down. Before entering into the Court’s reasoning, it would be pertinent to discuss the oral proceedings that went on before the Division Bench. There are two problematic aspects I would like to point out in this regard.
First, an impartial viewer would also have been almost instantly be able to recognise the predisposition with which the Division Bench has approached the matter without even listening to the student’s side of arguments. Now, it is fairly common to see such predisposition when the case bears a settled position of law or when the case is essentially a publicity interest litigation, but that was not the case here. When a single-judge of the High Court, by using his extraordinary powers under Article 226 to do justice has delivered an order, one would expect the highest Constitutional Court of the State to have an open mind at least before hearing both the sides.
Second, in a case where a student’s life is concerned, one would not expect a Constitutional Court to act in an insensitive manner. The Division Bench has stated that if the Court grants “indulgence” to such a student, then tomorrow “anybody can do it and get away”. The Division Bench further noted that, if the student belongs to the “Other Backward Class” in the State of UP, he should, “Go back to the State of UP… Compete in UP, who stops you?”
What is most astonishing is that the Division Bench was more concerned that if the student in question would not have applied for admission in the SEBC category, that seat would have gone to another candidate and, in fact, the actions of this student has done injustice to that another candidate. The Court went on to note that, “You took away seat of another student who is from humbled background”.
The Division Bench’s second primary concern was that if indulgence was given to one person, tomorrow many others who have been given this type of caste certificate would appear before it. Now, even a preliminary reading of the facts makes it clear that it was not the case that the student belonged to the general category and obtained the caste certificate through unlawful means. The student’s father conducted a roadside business and it was left undisputed that the student belonged to the ‘Teli’ sub-caste in UP.
Source: Barandbench
