'Right To Education Can't Be Hindered': MP High Court Orders Admission Of Type-1 Diabetic Student; Cites Examples Of Global Sporting Icons

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the Laxmi Bai National Institute of Physical Education to grant admission to a student with Type 1 diabetes in the B.P.Ed course, noting that his exclusion was arbitrary and discriminatory. 

The division bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Pushpendra Yadav further emphasised that the right to pursue education cannot be hindered or forfeited due to a disability. 

The bench observed; 

"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". 

The petitioner challenged the impugned decision of the University declaring him medically unfit for admission in the course on account of his Type 1 diabetes. 

The petitioner claimed that he had cleared the written examination, physical and skill test conducted by the University. He further asserted that he had opted for badminton as his specialized sport and was issued an allotment letter on August 8, 2025. However, after the medical examination, he was denied admission. 

The counsel for the petitioner argued that he had qualified the same physical standards during State and District Level Badminton Tournaments as prescribed under the B.P. Ed course. It was alleged that the University, without receiving an expert opinion, denied his admission. 

He also relied on the medical opinion by AIIMS Jaipur, stating that in the event of rigorous physical activities, he only required extra snacks, which were manageable. 

He reportedly also submitted an affidavit taking responsibility in relation to his health during the course of the B.P.Ed. course, and thus the denial by the University clearly violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 

The counsel for the University opposing the petition claimed the course required rigorous physical training, and since the petitioner was type 1 diabetic, he required customised food and other facilities which the University lacked. 

It was further argued that the candidates, to secure admission, were also required to comply with clause 1.18.3, meaning they were required to qualify for the medical tests as well. 

Regarding the dietary restrictions of the petitioner, the division bench noted that every Indian mess contained basic food items including Dal, Roti, Sabji, Rice and Curd, which are medically suitable for a diabetic person. 

The bench further noted that the petitioner also undertook responsibility for his insulin injections by keeping a mini fridge in his hostel room at his own costs, which would not lead to any financial or logical burden upon the University. 

The bench also highlighted that it was not an appointment giving employment to the petitioner but rather an admission to the student to pursue education, and therefore, his right cannot be hindered on the pretext of type 1 diabetes. 

The court further noted the opinion of AIIMS Jaipur, clarifying that the petitioner only required extra snacks before extended physical activities, which was a simple and manageable precaution. 

The court also referred to many eminent sports personalities like Cricketer Wasim Akram, Ice Hockey Player Max Domi, Olympic Swimmer Gary Hall Jr and others who overcame their Type 1 Diabetes and reached "acme in their career by hard work, skill and sheer determination". 

"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 emphasized. 

The bench also noted that when the legislature framed the new enactment of the Rights of People with Disability (RPWD) Act to give admission to a person with disability, and therefore, the petitioner could not be denied admission in the absence of any categorisation of disability. 

Even in the case of categorical disability, the bench noted that the principle of reasonable accommodation provided under Section 2(y) of the RPWD Act is a statutory right flowing from Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. 

"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 bench highlighted. 

Thus, the bench disposed of the case and 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". 

Case Title: Pragyansh Tak v Union [Writ Petition 32896 of 2025]

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 262

For Petitioner: Advocate Prashant Sharma

For Union: Deputy Solicitor General Praveen Kumar Newaskar

Click here to read/download the Order