Harish Tandon, J. - (1.) We are beleaguered between the academic aspiration of the petitioner to be admitted in a under graduate medical course after successfully completing the examination and the nature of the medical course aimed to serve the society with the recognized treatment requiring the prompt decision and corrective way of treatment to human.
(2.) We could not be detained to make a hovering scrutiny had it been a case of a low vision or prosthetic or ortho related disability, but because of the mental disability/illness to the extent of more than 40%, we feel to judge the issue not only on the parameters of the legal provisions, but also on the basis of the plight of beneficial citizen of the country in order to avoid any risk of being ill-treated. The enlightening observations of Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in one of his celebrated decision rendered in State of Kerala Vs- Kumari T.P Roshana & Anr, 1979 1 SCC 572 should be remembered wherein the author says " The dynamics of the writ jurisdiction and the potential for affirmative court action, as part of remedial jurisprudence, constitute the key thought which animates the ultimate decision and direction we give in this couple of cases which have come up by Special Leave and under Article 32 to this Court, aware as we are of a host of like proceedings which pend in the High Court. ** * * * * * * * * * A sensitive appreciation of the grievance successfully ventilated by the writ petitioners in the High Court is possible only if we unfold a fuller conspectus of the facts. Cognizance of some essential circumstances is necessitous as the first step."
(3.) What we perceive is that the rule of law runs close to the rule of life, which includes a societal life as well.;