Delhi High Court Quashes Arbitrary Cancellation of Siblings’ MBBS Admissions Under Defence Quota

In a pivotal ruling that reinforces the principles of natural justice, equity, and protection for students from administrative overreach, the Delhi High Court has set aside the cancellation of MBBS admissions for two siblings under the defence quota.

The case, Kumar Saurabh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.(C) 12757/2023), decided on March 18, 2024, by Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar, marks a significant triumph for advocate Vikas Kumar Pandey, who led the petitioners’ legal team.

This decision not only restores the siblings’ educational pursuits but also underscores the court’s commitment to shielding innocent students from bureaucratic flip-flops, adding another feather to Pandey’s cap in advocating for defence families and educational rights.

Case Background: A Family’s Loss and the Quest for Justice

The petitioners, Kumar Saurabh (born March 16, 2003) and Subhangi Priya (born December 28, 2000), are the younger siblings of the late Kumar Shubham, a dedicated sailor in the Indian Navy. Shubham, who served from August 9, 2019, tragically passed away on September 16, 2022, while in service—a death attributed to naval duties. As the sole breadwinner, Shubham left his family, including his siblings, in a vulnerable position.

• An Indian Navy Service Certificate (INSC) on November 11, 2022, confirming Shubham’s single status and certifying his mother and sister as dependents.
• Dependent Identity Cards for Ex-Servicemen (DICES) on March 16, 2023 (for Saurabh, valid until March 15, 2028) and May 25, 2023 (for Priya, valid until December 27, 2025), issued by the Rajya/Zila Sainik Board, GNCTD.
• A Dependency Certificate on August 31, 2023, stating that the family was entirely dependent on Shubham and that the siblings were his younger kin.
• Relationship Certificates on May 22, 2023, explicitly for higher education admissions, classifying them under Priority III of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) Circular dated November 30, 2017. This priority applies to widows/wards of defence personnel who died in service with death attributable to military service.

Armed with these certifications, the siblings appeared for the NEET UG 2023 exam on May 7, 2023. Saurabh secured an All India Rank of 318,969, while Priya achieved 863,641.

They applied to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU) under the Unreserved (Open Defence) quota, uploading all documents, including the Relationship Certificates.

Provisionally allotted seats—Saurabh at Dr. BSA Medical College & Hospital (BSAMCH) and Priya at NDMC Medical College (NDMCMC)—they commenced classes after verification.

The admissions aligned with GGSIPU’s 2023-2024 Admission Brochure (Clause 6.1.2), which mirrors the MoD Circular’s priorities.

However, on September 19, 2023, GGSIPU abruptly cancelled their admissions via a letter citing a September 13, 2023, email from Brig. S.K. Narain of the Rajya Sainik Board (RSB). Brig. Narain, reversing his earlier countersignature on their undertakings, deemed them ineligible as “wards” of defence personnel, based on a query from BSAMCH’s Nodal Officer.

Advocate of LLC Lawyer Masterful Advocacy

Representing the petitioners, advocate Vikas Kumar Pandey, alongside colleagues Hemdeep Moran, and Prateek Tiwari and others advocate, mounted a robust challenge. Pandey argued that the cancellation was arbitrary, unreasoned, and violated natural justice, as no notice or hearing was provided.

He emphasized the petitioners’ transparency—all documents were submitted upfront—and invoked Supreme Court precedents like Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) for unreasoned orders, Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University (1986), and A. Sudha v. University of Mysore (1987) to protect students from administrative errors without fault.

Pandey contended that “wards” in the MoD Circular and GGSIPU Brochure isn’t narrowly defined as “dependents” (per a February 10, 2023, Naval clarification excluding siblings), but broader, especially given the explicit Relationship Certificates for education.

He highlighted Brig. Narain’s initial satisfaction and subsequent volte-face, arguing it couldn’t retroactively deny admissions. Drawing on Charu Sharma v. Motilal Nehru College (2007), where even cousins were protected, Pandey stressed equity over semantics.

His strategic focus on fault attribution, procedural fairness, and policy interpretation swayed the court, showcasing Pandey’s expertise in defence benefits, reservation policies, and educational litigation. With a proven track record in similar cases, Pandey has become a go-to advocate for armed forces families navigating bureaucratic hurdles.

The Court’s Comprehensive Reasoning

In a 39-page oral judgment, Justice Hari Shankar quashed the cancellation, directing readmission with all benefits. Key grounds included:

Unreasoned Decision:

The September 19, 2023, letter lacked independent reasoning, relying solely on Brig. Narain’s cryptic email. Citing Mohinder Singh Gill, the court held orders must stand on their own merits, not post-hoc affidavits.

No Fault on Petitioners’ Part:

Echoing Rajendra Prasad Mathur and A. Sudha, the court noted the siblings disclosed everything; initial verification (countersigned by Brig. Narain) granted admission. Subsequent rethink couldn’t penalize them.

Violation of Natural Justice:

Cancellation without notice or hearing breached fundamental principles.

Misapplication of Terms:

Brig. Narain’s rethink confused “dependents” (from Naval clarification) with “wards” (used in MoD Circular and Brochure). The court declined to define “wards” definitively but referenced Charu Sharma for broader interpretation in equitable cases.

Equity and Precedents:

Applying actus curiae neminem gravabit, the court excused attendance shortages due to litigation, ensuring exam eligibility.

The court dismissed GGSIPU’s arguments on restricting “wards” to children/widows, noting Note 2(ii) in the Brochure doesn’t define it thus. It distinguished Dr. Megha Sugandh v. State (2023), where EWS eligibility was unambiguous and certificates were cancelled.

Broader Implications and Legacy

This ruling, delivered over a year ago, continues to resonate in 2025, setting a benchmark for protecting defence families’ rights amid policy ambiguities. It may prompt MoD and universities to clarify “wards,” potentially benefiting more siblings of fallen heroes.

For defence quota aspirants, it emphasizes transparency and challenges arbitrary reversals.

Advocate Vikas Kumar Pandey’s victory exemplifies his dedication: “This isn’t just about admissions; it’s about upholding justice for those who’ve sacrificed for the nation.” Families nationwide draw inspiration, knowing such precedents safeguard their legacies.

The full judgment is accessible on legal databases like CaseMine. As India honors its armed forces, this case reminds us that equity must prevail over technicalities.

FAQ: Delhi High Court Judgment in Kumar Saurabh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.(C) 12757/2023)

This FAQ is based on the Delhi High Court’s judgment dated March 18, 2024, delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar. It addresses key aspects of the case involving siblings seeking MBBS admission under the defence quota.

The judgment quashed the cancellation of their admissions and provided relief on grounds of natural justice, equity, and procedural fairness.

1. What is the case about?

The case involves two siblings (Kumar Saurabh and Subhangi Priya) who sought preferential admission to MBBS courses under the defence quota as “wards” of their deceased brother, a Navy sailor.

Their provisional admissions were cancelled by Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU) based on a clarification from the Rajya Sainik Board (RSB).

The petitioners challenged this cancellation via a writ petition, arguing it was arbitrary and violated natural justice. The court quashed the cancellation and ordered their readmission.

2. Who are the petitioners and what was their relationship to the deceased?

The petitioners are Kumar Saurabh (Petitioner 1, born March 16, 2003) and Subhangi Priya (Petitioner 2, born December 28, 2000). They are the younger brother and sister, respectively, of the late Kumar Shubham, an Indian Navy sailor who died in service on September 16, 2022.

The family was certified as fully dependent on Shubham, who was unmarried and the sole earning member.

3. What was the background of the deceased Kumar Shubham?

Kumar Shubham was a sailor (Ex-EM (R) I, No. 257519-Y) in the Indian Navy, serving from August 9, 2019, to September 16, 2022. He died while in service, and his death was attributed to naval duties. He was single at the time of death, with his mother and sister initially certified as dependents.

4. What documents were issued to support the petitioners’ claim?

Indian Navy Service Certificate (INSC):

Issued on November 11, 2022, confirming Shubham’s death, single status, and dependents (mother and Petitioner 2).

Dependent Identity Cards for Ex-Servicemen (DICES):

Issued to Petitioner 1 on March 16, 2023 (valid until March 15, 2028) and to Petitioner 2 on May 25, 2023 (valid until December 27, 2025) by the Rajya/Zila Sainik Board, GNCTD.

Dependency Certificate:

Issued on August 31, 2023, by the Naval Pension Office, Mumbai, stating the family was totally dependent on Shubham and naming the petitioners as his younger siblings.

Relationship Certificates:

Issued on May 22, 2023, by the Naval Pension Office, Mumbai, for higher education admissions, classifying the petitioners under Priority III of the MoD Circular dated November 30, 2017. These noted the certificates were not dependent certificates but for preferential reservation.

5. Under which priority were the petitioners seeking admission?

The petitioners claimed admission under Priority III of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) Circular dated November 30, 2017, which covers widows/wards of defence personnel who died while in service with death attributable to military service. This was also reflected in GGSIPU’s Admission Brochure for 2023-2024 (Clause 6.1.2). They were allotted seats under the Unreserved (Open Defence) quota.

6. What was the process for their admission?

The petitioners appeared for NEET UG 2023 on May 7, 2023, securing All India Ranks of 318,969 (Petitioner 1) and 863,641 (Petitioner 2). They uploaded profiles and documents on the GGSIPU website.

After verification, including an undertaking countersigned by the RSB certifying Priority III eligibility, they were provisionally allotted seats: Petitioner 1 at Dr. BSA Medical College & Hospital (BSAMCH) and Petitioner 2 at NDMC Medical College (NDMCMC). They commenced classes.

7. Why was their admission cancelled?

On September 19, 2023, GGSIPU cancelled the admissions based on a September 13, 2023, email from Brig. S.K. Narain (RSB), stating the petitioners were not eligible as “wards” of defence personnel.

This followed a query from BSAMCH’s academic branch doubting their eligibility. The RSB’s rethink was based on a February 10, 2023, Naval clarification limiting “dependents” to spouses, parents, and unmarried/unemployed children (excluding siblings). No prior notice or hearing was given to the petitioners.

8. What did the court decide?

The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the cancellation letter dated September 19, 2023, and directed the petitioners’ readmission to their MBBS courses with all consequential benefits.

It excused any attendance shortage due to litigation (applying actus curiae neminem gravabit) and ensured they could appear for exams. The court did not define “wards” conclusively, leaving it for future cases.

9. What were the key reasons for the court’s decision?

• Unreasoned Order: The cancellation lacked independent reasoning and relied on a cryptic RSB email without explaining the ineligibility.
• No Fault on Petitioners’ Part: They disclosed all documents transparently; initial verification (including RSB countersignature) granted admission. Citing Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University (1986) and A. Sudha v. University of Mysore (1987), the court held students cannot suffer for administrative errors.
• Violation of Natural Justice: Cancellation occurred without notice or hearing.
• Misapplication of Terms: The RSB confused “dependents” (from Naval clarification) with “wards” (used in MoD Circular and GGSIPU Brochure), which is broader and not defined restrictively.
• Equity and Precedents: Drawing on Charu Sharma v. Motilal Nehru College (2007), the court emphasized protecting innocent parties. It distinguished Dr. Megha Sugandh v. State (2023) due to different facts (EWS certificate cancellation).

10. Does the judgment define “wards” in the context of defence quota?

No, the court explicitly clarified it did not express a final opinion on the scope of “wards” (e.g., whether limited to dependents, children/widows, or broader to include siblings).

This debate was left for a future occasion. However, it noted “wards” is not synonymous with “dependents” and cited cases where it was interpreted broadly (e.g., including cousins in Charu Sharma).

11. What is the significance of this judgment?

It reinforces protections for defence families, emphasizing natural justice and equity in reservation policies. It prevents arbitrary cancellations after initial approval and may influence future interpretations of “wards” in MoD and university guidelines. As of October 15, 2025, no reported appeals or overrulings have altered this ruling.

12. Where can I find the full judgment?

The full 39-page judgment is available on the Delhi High Court website (search for W.P.(C) 12757/2023) or legal databases like Indian Kanoon and SCC Online. For updates, check recent citations or related cases.