Words cannot be ever truly adequate to laud such phenomenal, progressive, pragmatic and persuasive yet powerful judgments as this one and it is well beyond the capacity of my pen to express my unending gratitude to Bombay High Court for it which is one of the most oldest, most reputed and most esteemed High Court with maximum High Court Benches among all the States in India even though it is Allahabad High Court which is the biggest High Court not just in India, not just in Asia but in the whole world and still has just one Bench so close to Lucknow and nowhere else for which the whole credit goes to Bombay High Court for never objecting to creation of more Benches even though it is Allahabad High Court which tops the States list in having maximum number of pending cases and here too it is West UP with more than 10 crores population which owes for majority of pending cases in not just UP but in any part of India and still has no Bench and for which Justice Jaswant Singh Commission headed by former Supreme Court Judge appointed by Centre itself about 50 years ago recommended permanent Bench and 3 Benches for whole undivided UP yet not one created most disgracefully and Bombay High Court which already had multiple High Court Benches at Nagpur and Panaji and still one more was allowed to come up at Aurangabad as recommended for which full marks goes to Bombay High Court because without its consent an additional High Court Bench could not have been created! It is most unfortunate that two High Court Benches were recommended by Justice Jaswant Singh Commission for hilly areas of undivided UP yet not one Bench was allowed to come up due to which hilly people had to travel thousands of kilometers all the way till not even Lucknow but right uptill Allahabad which was the main reason why people agitated hugely for separate State and since November 2000 it has separate High Court!
Coming back to the key point of this leading case, it is most refreshing, most reassuring and most rejuvenating to learn that the Bombay High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Mahesh Raut vs State of Maharashtra in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3999 of 2024 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2024:BHC-AS:37323-DB that was pronounced as recently as on September 19, 2024 in the exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction has minced just no words absolutely to hold in no uncertain terms that imprisonment of an individual does not restrict his or her right to education. How can we ever dare to gloss over what one of the most eminent jurist and so also former Supreme Court Judge – Late Justice VR Krishna Iyer had once so famously said quoted repeatedly that, “Every saint has a past and every sinner a future, never write off the man wearing the criminal attire but remove the dangerous degeneracy in him, restore his retarded human potential by holistic healing of his fevered, exhausted or frustrated inside and by repairing the repressive, though hidden, the injustice of the social order which is vicariously guilty of the criminal behavior of many innocent convicts. Law must rise with life, and jurisprudence responds to humanism?”
We need to note here that a Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice AS Gadkari and Hon’ble Dr Justice Neela Gokhale made the most crucial observation while ordering a Mumbai-based Law College to admit Mahesh Raut who was one of the accused in the Bhima-Koregaon case as a student for the LLB course for the academic year 2024-2027. It therefore, in the fitness of things most commendably and most rightly ordered the college to admit the petitioner. There can be just no denying it!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice AS Gadkari and Hon’ble Dr Justice Neela Gokhale sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The Petitioner seeks a direction to the Respondent No.3- University of Mumbai to grant him admission in the LL.B. course in the Respondent No.2-Siddharth College of Law in the Academic Year (‘AY’) 2024-25 for the LL.B. batch of 2024-2027.”
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 2 that, “The Petitioner is an accused (Original Accused No.5) in C.R.No.4 of 2018 dated 8th January 2018 registered at Vishrambaug Police Station, Pune under Sections 153-A, 505(1)(B), 117, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967. Charge-sheet is filed against the Petitioner and four other accused. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the National Investigation Agency (‘NIA’) and registered as FIR No. RC-01/2020/NIA/Mum. Two supplementary charge-sheets are filed and the case is presently pending before the Special Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai as Special Case No.414 of 2020. The Petitioner is currently detained in Taloja Central Prison, Navi Mumbai.”
Needless to say, the Division Bench states in para 3 that, “Mr. Mihir Desai learned Senior Counsel appears for the Petitioner, Mr. Muzaffar Y. Patel appears for the Respondent No.2-Siddharth College of Law and Mr. Rui Rodrigues appears for the Respondent No.3- Mumbai University. Mr. Chintan Shah represents the NIA and Mr. Vinod Chate, learned APP represents the State.”
As we see, the Division Bench then observes in para 4 that, “Mr. Desai submits that, the Petitioner appeared for the Maharashtra Common Entrance Test (CET) law examination pursuant to permission granted to him by the Special Court. He has passed the said examination and is ranked at Sr. No. 95 in the final merit list of Maharashtra State Candidates. Through his sister, he participated in the CAP round process and his application was provisionally accepted. He was provisionally allotted a seat in Siddharth Law College. His sister paid the required fee to freeze the seat allotted to the Petitioner.”
Further, the Division Bench lays bare in para 5 mentioning that, “The Petition was mentioned for urgent orders, today being the last date of the institutional round for admission of students. According to Mr. Desai, the State CET Cell informed the Petitioner’s sister that the College is responsible for admission of the candidates and the CET Cell has no role to play in verification of documents for the purpose of admission. It is his contention that, the Petitioner is required to remain physically present for verification of his documents for the purpose of taking admission in the said College. Since the Petitioner is detained in Taloja Central Prison, he obviously is unable to remain physically present for the same.”
Furthermore, the Division Bench while dwelling on petitioner’s contentions observes in para 6 that, “Mr. Desai relied upon Order dated 21st September 2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.232 of 2022 releasing the Appellant on bail in the aforesaid case on certain terms and conditions specified in the Order. He further submits that the NIA has preferred Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court assailing Order dated 21st September 2023 and the said Order is stayed pending final disposal of the SLP., Mr. Desai contends that, in the meantime, Right to Education being a fundamental right of every citizen, the Petitioner be allowed to take admission in the Siddharth Law College.”
On the other hand, the Bench then points out in para 7 that, “Mr. Rui Rodrigues learned Counsel for the Mumbai University and Mr. Muzaffar Patel, learned Counsel for the Siddharth Law College vehemently opposed the Petition. Since the matter was taken up for hearing on the prayer of Mr. Desai seeking urgent orders, there is no written reply of the Respondents. Mr. Rodrigues, reserving his right to file written reply, submitted that LL.B. is a professional course and the University Rules require a candidate to have compulsory minimum attendance of 75% during every Academic Year. Obviously, the Petitioner being in jail will undoubtedly would be unable to fulfill the requisite attendance requirement. He thus urged the Court to dismiss the Petition. He is bound to miss the oral professional lectures conducted in the College. In these circumstances, the Petitioner will not be allowed to appear for the examinations for want of minimum attendance and non-fulfillment of other requirements. Mr. Patel supported the contentions of Mr. Rui Rodrigues.”
Do note, the Division Bench notes in para 8 that, “We have heard the learned counsels and perused the record with their assistance. Admittedly, the Petitioner was granted permission to appear for the CET examination by the Special Judge vide Order dated 6th March 2024. We perused the Order and find that no objection was raised by the Respondents before the Special Court. In fact, Mr. Prakash Shetty, the learned SPP submitted that appropriate orders be passed. Thus, the Petitioner appeared for the examination with escort.”
Most significantly, most brilliantly and so also most remarkably, the Division Bench encapsulates in para 9 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment propounding that, “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. 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. 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.”
As a corollary, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 10 that, “In view of the foregoing, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
10.1) However, we make it clear that by this Order, we have not granted any exemption to the Petitioner from satisfying any of the requirements of the University and the Siddharth Law College as other candidates are ordinarily required so to do, as per prevailing rules and regulations. The University and the College are at liberty to refuse permission to the Petitioner from appearing in the examination for failure to satisfy the minimum attendance criteria or any other eligibility criteria. The Petitioner shall not claim any equity on basis of this Order.”
Finally, the Division Bench then concludes by holding in para 11 that, “Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.”
Author Bio
