Plea In Bombay High Court Challenges Maharashtra University of Health Science's Decision To Conduct Physical Examinations For Medical Students

In a PIL before the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court, they have also challenged the State's decision asking examinees to sign an undertaking absolving the State of any responsibility if students  test positive for the covid-19 disease, consequent to the examination.

Nearly 45,000 under-graduate, post-graduate and certificate course students across the State are likely to take these' Winter 2020' examinations.

The petitioners, NGO HERD Foundation and student Nitesh Tantarpale seek online examinations or directions for the exams to be held offline only after the students, support staff and teachers, are vaccinated.

The petition filed through Advocate Rahul Bhangde has also sought for MUHS's May 19 circular decision to be declared "arbitrary and unreasonable" as it's violative of Articles 14 (Right to equality) and 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution of India.

"The first priority must be to vaccinate the students…The petitioners submit that vaccination comes first and examination comes second. This sequence would be in conformity with Article 21 of the constitution of India as it would ensure that the students would be protected by the vaccine against the virus."

The plea says that several students and their family members tested positive after the NEET examinations undertaken last September.

"No amount of money can bring a child back from death and to sacrifice the life of the future generation of the nation is not an example the respondents should set."

The petition points out that physical examinations across boards have been cancelled owing to the imminent danger from the Covid-19 disease.

They cite the US, Singapore and Aligarh Muslim University as examples to enumerate the possibility of an online examination.

According to the examination schedule, students are likely to be exposed to the virus for nearly 20 days, the petition asserts.

"The petitioners submit that the approach of the respondents is absolutely flawed in the instant case. The respondents are giving priority to holding examinations as opposed to the life and safety of the students, the teachers, support staff and the family member of each one of them. It is submitted that the said exams can be held via online methods where the students can safely take the examination while being at home."

The petitioners add that the University didn't address their grievance, despite representations. Students are asked to sign an undertaking.

"...that the respondents owe no responsibility if any of the students appearing for the examination contracts covid-19 either during the examination or while staying at the hostel or other residence at near the examination centre."

The undertaking violates Article 21 of the Constitution, the petitioner's contend. "Further, the respondent being the State cannot within the meaning of Article 12 contract out of their fundamental duty to protect the lives of the citizen."

"Therefore, it is clear that the respondent have not applied their mind while taking the impugned decision and are trying to run away from their constitutional duty of protecting the right to life of its citizens by making their students sign the undertaking.

The petition seeks from the court to "hold and declare" that the State cannot make students sign an undertaking with the condition that they shall not be liable if any of the student's contract covid-19 pursuant to the physical examination.

The plea points out that hall tickets and admit cards have still not been issued, even though this process is usually undertaken a month in advance.

The respondents include the UOI, State, National Medical Commission and MUHS.

[HERD Foundation vs UOI]