The Allahabad High Court has overturned a prior judgment, directing Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Sant Kabir Nagar, to admit a student, Km Sakshi, whose admission was previously denied due to a disputed age assessment.

A bench consisting of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar ordered the school to admit Sakshi into a class appropriate for her age. Sakshi’s admission was revoked after a medical board assessed her age to be above the limit for Class VI entry, despite her birth certificate showing otherwise.

In November 2022, Sakshi filed a writ petition after the school rejected her admission despite her selection based on merit. School authorities had questioned her age and referred her for a medical evaluation. The Chief Medical Officer’s report claimed she was over 15 years old, exceeding the school’s age limit. As a result, her admission was canceled.

Sakshi’s counsel, Ashutosh Diljun, argued that under the Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009, age should be determined by official documents such as birth certificates, Aadhaar cards, or vaccination records. Section 14 of the Act specifies that documentary evidence should be used to establish a child’s age, which the petitioner had provided. Her rejection based on a medical assessment was deemed unnecessary by her counsel.

The respondents, represented by Additional Solicitor General of India Rajesh Tripathi, defended the school’s actions, stating that in cases of doubt, the school’s rules allowed for a medical examination to be conducted to determine eligibility.

Initially, the single-judge bench had dismissed Sakshi’s petition in March 2024, prompting her to file a special appeal. Upon review, the division bench ruled that the school’s reliance on the medical report was improper, as her birth certificate, which had been independently verified, should have been the primary determinant of her age. The court also noted that medical assessments are merely estimates and cannot override documentary evidence.

The court further criticized the school’s decision to subject Sakshi to a medical examination, calling it unjustified and excessive. It also found that Sakshi had lost two academic years due to the admission denial, making the situation even more unjust.

Citing a previous ruling from the Bombay High Court, the division bench emphasized that students wrongly denied admission are entitled to placement in age-appropriate classes. The court, therefore, set aside the earlier judgment and instructed the school to admit Sakshi within two weeks