SC reminds students that Article 32 is not a shortcut, advises petitioner to seek remedy under Article 226 before High Court. Reinforces judicial hierarchy in education-related disputes.
New Delhi: Today, on 8 July 2025, the Supreme Court of India refused to hear a petition filed directly by an MBBS student who was challenging the cancellation of their admission to a medical college.
The Court made it clear that the student should first go to the High Court, which is the proper authority to hear such matters.
The case was heard by a division bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice R Mahadevan.
The student had approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, claiming that their admission was wrongly cancelled, and that this action violated their fundamental rights, especially the Right to Education under Article 21.
However, the Supreme Court firmly told the student that they had chosen the wrong forum. The bench questioned the petitioner’s decision to approach the Supreme Court directly, saying,
“Why have you come under Article 32? You have an effective remedy under Article 226. Go to the High Court.”
This short yet strong comment from the Court reflects a key legal principle: the Supreme Court should not be approached as the first option when alternative remedies are available.
ALSO READ: NEET Row | 56 Gujarat Students Approach Supreme Court Against RE-NEET
Article 32 allows people to directly approach the Supreme Court when their fundamental rights are seriously and directly affected. But in many situations — like disputes over college admissions — the High Courts have the full power to deal with such matters under Article 226 of the Constitution.
In this case, the exact reasons behind the student’s disqualification were not clearly stated in open court, but it seemed to involve some issues with eligibility or the documents submitted during the admission process.
The student claimed that the termination was unfair and violated their basic rights. Still, the Supreme Court did not go into the details of the complaint because it believed the High Court was the right place to deal with it.
The bench reminded the petitioner that the Supreme Court cannot be used to skip proper legal procedure. It noted that High Courts are well-equipped to handle cases involving college admissions, academic disputes, and administrative decisions.
The Court emphasized that its role under Article 32 is meant for exceptional cases involving serious and undeniable violations of fundamental rights, not for routine grievances.
This order once again shows the Supreme Court’s consistent view that litigants should respect the judicial system’s structure and first approach the relevant High Court for relief when such options are available.
As the Court noted,
“You have an effective remedy under Article 226. Go to the High Court.”
CASE TITLE:
HARSHIT AGRAWAL vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.W.P.(C) No. 609/2025
Click Here to Read Our Reports on MBBS
