Madras High Court | Provisions of Right to Education Act and Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act Held Inapplicable to Sainik Schools | Upholds Eye-Standard Requirement in 2025 Admission SOP
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Madras Single Bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan dismissed a writ petition challenging the prescribed eye standards under the Standard Operating Procedure for All India Sainik School Admission Counselling 2025. The Court held that the Right to Education Act and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act do not apply to Sainik Schools, as they are administered by the Sainik School Society under the Ministry of Defence. Finding no infirmity or illegality in the SOP mandating ocular fitness, the Court upheld the rejection of a qualified 12-year-old candidate whose visual acuity exceeded the permissible limit for admission.
A 12-year-old student, represented by his mother, applied for admission to Class VI at Sainik School, Amaravathi Nagar, Tiruppur District. He scored 227 out of 300 marks in the entrance examination, meeting the cut-off for the Scheduled Caste category. Following the admission process, he was directed to undergo a medical examination at Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, where he was declared medically unfit due to his visual acuity exceeding the prescribed limit for Eye Standard-II.
The petitioner sought a review of this finding and underwent a second medical examination at the Military Hospital, Chennai, which confirmed the earlier assessment. His visual acuity was recorded at 6/18 in both eyes, above the permissible threshold under the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for All India Sainik School Admission Counselling 2025. Consequently, his admission was rejected by the school authorities.
The petitioner challenged the rejection, contending that the prescription of eye standards in the SOP was discriminatory and violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as well as Sections 3, 4, and 16 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. It was argued that denying admission on the basis of visual impairment undermined the principles of equality and non-discrimination and that educational institutions were obligated to provide inclusive opportunities.
The respondents, including the Union of India and the school principal, submitted that Sainik Schools operate under the administrative control of the Sainik School Society and the Ministry of Defence. They emphasized that the schools are designed to prepare students for entry into the National Defence Academy and the Indian Naval Academy, making stringent medical standards essential. They further argued that the Right to Education Act and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act do not apply to Sainik Schools.
The Court upheld the respondents’ position, finding no illegality in the SOP and dismissing the petition.
Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan reviewed the submissions and observed that “all Sainik Schools function under the administrative control of the Sainik Schools Society and the Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, and are residential institutions commencing from Class VI, with the primary aim to act as a feeder institute for the National Defence Academy and the Indian Naval Academy.” The Court stated that a medical examination was “non-negotiable before getting admitted into the Sainik School, and it is mandated by the Sainik Schools Society.”
The Court recorded that though the petitioner had scored 227 marks and was within the cut-off for his category, admission was “subject to meeting the eligibility requirements, rank, medical fitness, and verification of requisite documents.” The Court further noted that the petitioner had been examined twice by two independent medical boards, first at the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital and later at the Military Hospital, Chennai, and both reports concluded that his visual acuity exceeded the prescribed limits.
Justice Ilanthiraiyan referred to the medical standards stipulated under the SOP, which required that candidates for admission must meet Standard-I (6/6 and 6/6) or Standard-II (uncorrected VA 6/18 and 6/18; BCVA 6/6 and 6/6; Myopia < -1.25D Sph; Hypermetropia < +1.25D Sph; astigmatism < +/-0.5 D Cyl; no LASIK or equivalent procedures permitted; and Colour vision – CP II). The Court noted that the petitioner’s visual acuity was 6/36, rendering him medically unfit as per these mandatory requirements.
On the contention regarding applicability of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the Court observed that “the provisions under Section 12(c) of the Right to Education Act and Sections 3, 4, and 16 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, are not applicable to these kinds of schools.” It recorded that Sainik Schools are specifically designed to “groom students for future roles as military officers, focusing on their mental and physical readiness.” Therefore, stringent medical standards could not be diluted.
Justice Ilanthiraiyan further stated that once the petitioner had accepted the SOP conditions and participated in the admission process, he could not subsequently challenge those very standards. The Court recorded that “after having accepted the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for All India Sainik School Admission Counselling (AISSAC) 2025 issued by the second respondent and appearing for the entrance examination, the petitioner cannot challenge the very Standard Operating Procedure itself, especially after receipt of the medical report.”
Justice Ilanthiraiyan stated: “Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for All India Sainik School Admission Counselling (AISSAC) 2025 issued by the second respondent, and this Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.”
“In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. R. Saseetharan
For the Respondents: Mr. K. Ramanamoorthy, Senior Panel Counsel
Case Title: M.R. Yajith Krishna v. Union of India and Another
Neutral Citation: 2025: MHC:2272
Case Number: W.P. No. 29225 of 2025
Bench: Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
