The Supreme Court has crafted a victory for a disabled student by using its special powers under Article 142 to declare the successful completion of her Master of Designs course from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT).
The student, Naman Varma, submitted to be suffering from a learning disability called dyscalculia.
A three-judge Bench led by Justice U.U. Lalit said her qualification would “hold good for all practical purposes”. The court directed that Ms. Varma should be handed over the degree and all other testimonials.
“We exercise our power under Article 142 of the Constitution and declare that the appellant has successfully completed the course of Master in Design and that the qualification shall hold good for all practical purposes,” the court held.
Ms. Varma’s battle in court started when she had moved the Bombay High Court in 2013 to direct IIT to admit her for the Masters in Design course.
The High Court, in an interim order, had asked the authorities to consider her case and she was admitted to the course.
“With the passage of time, the appellant (Ms. Varma) completed the course successfully,” the apex court noted in its recent order.
However, the Supreme Court order also noted how events turned against Ms. Varma after the High Court took up her case for final disposal. In its decision in 2018, the High Court did not accept her entitlement under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
But the High Court had also been aware that Ms. Varma had completed her course on the basis of its interim order five years ago.
Taking a middle path, the High Court had said that though Ms. Varma “may be entitled to be declared successful in the course”, it could not provide any further relief for want of power to “declare the petitioner as having passed Master of Design programme…”
It is here the Supreme Court has stepped in under Article 142 to declare Ms. Varma’s successful completion of her course for “all practical purposes”.
The court said the 1995 Act has already been replaced by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016. But the court refrained for now to go into the question of Ms. Varma’s entitlements under the 2016 law, saying that would be considered whenever it came up.
