English
The Supreme Court of India granted provisional MBBS admission to a 19-year-old EWS student after he argued his own case, saying policy gaps should not deny eligible candidates opportunities.
Supreme Court Grants Relief to EWS Student Denied Private Medical Seat
New Delhi: Atharva Chaturvedi, a 19-year-old student from Madhya Pradesh, fought a long legal battle on his own and finally secured admission to a medical college. Coming from the economically weaker section (EWS), Atharva was denied admission to a private medical college because he lacked reservation benefits. However, his perseverance and arguments forced the Supreme Court to reverse the decision.
Atharva passed the NEET exam twice and scored 530 marks. Despite this, he was denied admission, citing the EWS quota in private medical colleges. First, the High Court and then the Supreme Court failed to provide immediate relief, but Atharva refused to give up.
Atharva filed another petition and requested an online hearing. During the hearing, he told the court that he needed only 10 minutes to present his case. The judge was shocked to hear this, as this argument was not made by a lawyer but by a student himself. The court listened carefully and reconsidered the case.
During the hearing, Atharva stated that the state government had not implemented EWS reservations in private medical colleges, even though he was an eligible candidate. He argued that students should not suffer the consequences of this lack of policy. The case was heard by a bench headed by Justice Surya Kant, who took these arguments seriously.
Ultimately, the court, invoking the special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, directed the National Medical Commission and the Madhya Pradesh government to grant provisional MBBS admissions to eligible EWS students for the 2025–26 session. It also ordered that Atharva be allotted a college within seven days.
Atharva Chaturvedi's victory is not just a personal success, but a ray of hope for thousands of students who are deprived of opportunities due to the ambiguity of reservation policies. This decision demonstrates that determination, sound reasoning, and trust in the judicial process can overcome any obstacle.