Exclusion From Education On Medical Grounds Is Discrimination: MP High Court Orders Admission Of Type-1 Diabetic B.P.Ed Candidate; Cites Global Sporting Icons
Deekshitha Sharmile
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Division Bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Pushpendra Yadav held that the respondent university must admit a candidate who had been refused entry to the B.P.Ed. programme due to Type-1 Diabetes. The Court found that denying access to education solely on medical grounds, in the absence of statutory disqualification or an individualized assessment, constitutes discriminatory exclusion. The case concerned a candidate who had cleared all written, physical, and skill evaluations but was declared medically unfit at the final stage. Noting that basic accommodations—such as flexible dietary needs and appropriate insulin storage—could be arranged without institutional hardship, the Bench directed immediate admission and allowed the candidate to continue studies and take upcoming examinations.
The matter concerned denial of admission to a candidate in the B.P.Ed course for the academic session 2025–26 on the ground of Type-1 Diabetes. The petitioner had cleared the written examination on 02 June 2025 and the physical and skill test on 18 June 2025, opting for badminton as his specialized sport. He was issued an allotment letter dated 08 August 2025 and directed to report for document verification and medical examination between 11–14 August 2025. During the medical examination, the respondent university declared him medically unfit solely due to Type-1 Diabetes.
The petitioner contended that he had participated in State and District level badminton tournaments under the same physical standards as required in the course. He submitted that the university brochure did not disqualify candidates with Type-1 Diabetes. He produced medical opinion from AIIMS, Jodhpur, which stated that he only required extra snacks during prolonged physical activity. He also filed an affidavit taking responsibility for his health during the course. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Anmol v. Union of India.
The respondents argued that the institute being residential with a common mess could not provide customized food or facilities. They submitted that refrigeration of insulin was required, which was unavailable. They relied on precedents including State Bank of India v. G.K. Deshak and Indian Council of Agricultural Research v. Shashi Gupta, asserting the right of institutions to determine medical fitness.
Addressing the institution’s concerns regarding accommodation, the Bench recorded that “every Indian mess contains basic food items like Roti, Dal, Sabji, Rice and Curd which are medically suitable for a diabetic patient.” It further noted the petitioner’s willingness to independently manage insulin requirements, stating that he undertook “to manage insulin injection by keeping it either in mini refrigerator in his hostel room at his own cost, without any financial or logistical burden to the Institute or to keep equipment in Refrigerator of mess.”
Clarifying the distinction between employment and educational access, the Court recorded: “It is an admission given to the student to pursue B.P.Ed. course. Therefore, right to pursue education cannot be hindered on pretext of Type -1 diabetes. No person be subjected to forfeiture of his claims to education or other similar pursuits of life (occupation/profession) on account of his disability.” It added that a functional, individualized assessment was necessary rather than blanket exclusion.
The Court also took note of the medical opinion indicating that “petitioner only requires extra snacks prior to extended physical activities, it is simple and manageable precaution…” and that the institute possessed a fully functional health centre and ambulance services.
The Bench referred to celebrated athletes who succeeded despite Type-1 Diabetes. It noted that the petitioner’s counsel had cited examples including cricketer Wasim Akram, hockey player Max Domi, Olympic swimmer Gary Hall Jr., footballer Nacho Fernández, and skier Kris Freeman, recording that these athletes reached “acme in their career by their hard work, skill and sheer determination.” The Court added: “All these examples indicate that ‘if there is a will, there is a way’. If those players overcome their disease, then one chance deserves to be given to petitioner also to fight and overcome.”
The Bench stated:“Respondents' refusal to provide minimal dietary flexibility or safe insulin storage, both of which petitioner volunteered to manage at his own cost, constitutes denial of reasonable accommodation and hence discrimination per se. Even otherwise, Type -1 diabetes is not recognized disability, therefore, exclusion of petitioner on this ground is arbitrary and discriminatory.”
The Court directed: “Respondents are directed to give admission to the petitioner immediately without any delay and if petitioner is pursuing education, then he is permitted to pursue the education.”
“Respondents shall cooperate if required for storage of insulin or intake of extra snacks by the petitioner. Petitioner shall take due care in relation to extra snacks and physical activities.”
“He shall be permitted to appear in coming examination also.” The petition was accordingly allowed and disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri Prashant Sharma – Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri Praveen Kumar Newaskar – Deputy Solicitor General
Case Title: Pragyansh Tak v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 32896 of 2025
Bench: Justice Anand Pathak, Justice Pushpendra Yadav
