Supreme Court Directs AIIMS Medical Board To Examine IIT Student Seeking Transfer On Mental Health Grounds

The Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan passed the interim directions while hearing a writ petition filed by a student pursuing Architecture at IIT Kharagpur, who sought migration on account of depression and the need for specialised therapy unavailable at Kharagpur.

Taking note of the urgency, as the last date for admissions is July 17, the Court directed IIT Roorkee to reserve one seat for the petitioner, subject to the outcome of the writ petition.

"Since the last date for admission is said to be 17th of July 2026, we direct IIT Roorkee to keep one seat vacant subject to the result of this writ petition," the Court ordered.

The Bench also directed the petitioner to appear before AIIMS on July 20 for medical evaluation.

"We direct the petitioner to appear before the AIIMS on 20th July so that he is evaluated medically and the report is submitted to this Court since we think it is not feasible to direct the petitioner to travel to IIT Kharagpur for the aforesaid purpose," the order stated.

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner argued that IIT Kharagpur had no objection in principle to the student's transfer on medical grounds and that the only dispute concerned the procedure followed.

"They have no in-principle objection to the transfer... The rules for medical transfer will completely help me. The rules are clear. A Medical Board has to be constituted and the recommendations have to be approved by the Directors of the two IITs. No Medical Board was constituted," counsel submitted.

The petitioner's counsel informed the Court that the student had been suffering from depression and required regular therapy, which was available in Chandigarh and could also be accessed from IIT Roorkee.

When Justice Nagarathna asked about the medical condition, counsel responded, "He is suffering from some kind of depression. The therapy he needs is not available at Kharagpur... It is regular and something he may be needing his whole life."

The petitioner further submitted that he was willing to undertake additional academic work to bridge any curriculum gap.

"I just need some extra classes to cope up," counsel stated.

Appearing for IIT, counsel submitted that while the institution sympathised with the student's situation, the difficulty lay in the lack of parity between the Architecture programmes offered by IIT Kharagpur and IIT Roorkee.

"We have full sympathy, but there is a difference in course parity," IIT's counsel submitted, adding that IIT Roorkee's admission cut-off was significantly higher and that any relaxation should not become a precedent.

Justice Nagarathna, however, questioned the stand taken by the institution, observing that the petition involved a transfer and not a fresh admission.

"But this is a transfer. Is there any vacancy? You take six months to appear before this Court. Even after notice you ignore. He is meritorious. He got a seat in IIT Kharagpur. The same merit must transfer," the Court remarked.

When IIT's counsel reiterated concerns over differences in closing ranks, Justice Nagarathna observed, "The fact remains that he got a seat on merits in IIT Kharagpur. It is only a transfer now."

In its order, the Court noted that migration on medical grounds requires constitution of a Medical Board before any recommendation can be made.

"For that purpose it is necessary that there should be a Medical Board constituted to examine the petitioner at the place from where the migration is sought before recommending the migration," the Bench observed.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 29, after the Medical Board submits its report.