Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a writ petition filed by a student claiming visual impairment beyond 40% and seeking a seat under the disability quota. The petitioner challenged the Ocular Examination Report dated 10.07.2024 issued by a collegium of three ophthalmologists from Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute, which assessed her visual disability at 0% based on 6/18 vision in both eyes. The petitioner relied on other medical reports indicating higher impairment and urged that the impugned report was erroneous. The State and authorities opposed the petition, asserting that the official report was correct and that the petitioner had no entitlement to the quota. The core legal issue was whether the writ court could interfere with the expert medical board's report and direct admission under the visually impaired quota. The court analyzed the matter by emphasizing the deference owed to expert opinion under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It noted that the three doctors were assistant professors with glorious qualifications and experience, and their report followed due protocol. In the absence of any allegation of malafides, the court held that judges, lacking such expertise, must give due weight to the designated statutory body's opinion. The court further held that soliciting multiple reports from different experts would only create confusion and chaos, and that the line must be drawn at the report with statutory recognition. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Post Graduate Institute v. J.B. Dilawari, the court reiterated that matters involving expertise should be left to expert bodies. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the ocular examination report and refusing to grant mandamus for seat admission under the disability quota. Costs were made easy.
Headnote
A) Evidence Law - Expert Opinion - Admissibility and Weight - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 45 - The court declined to interfere with the ocular examination report prepared by a collegium of three ophthalmologists determining the petitioner's visual disability at 0%, noting that the report constitutes expert opinion under Section 45 and that judges lack expertise and must show due deference to such opinion unless malafide is alleged - Held that expert medical opinion of a designated statutory body is entitled to weight and cannot be set aside based on other private expert reports (Paras 3-4). B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of Judicial Review - Constitution of India, Articles 226, 227 - The court emphasized that a writ court cannot run a race of opinions with experts and should not solicit multiple expert reports as it would create confusion and chaos in litigation, especially when one report has statutory recognition - Held that the line must be drawn and buck stops with the recognized expert body, and entertaining contrary arguments would set a wrong precedent breeding mischief (Para 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Ocular Examination Report dated 10.07.2024 prepared by a Collegium of three doctors determining visual disability at 0% should be quashed, and whether the petitioner should be admitted under the visually impaired quota based on other medical reports showing more than 40% impairment.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Ocular Examination Report dated 10.07.2024 by the collegium of three ophthalmologists from Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute, which determined the petitioner's visual disability as 0%, and declined to direct acceptance of her candidature under the visually impaired quota. Costs were made easy.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Expert opinion under Section 45
- Indian Evidence Act
- 1872 deserves due deference
- courts are not experts in specialized fields and should not substitute their own opinion for that of designated expert bodies
- multiple conflicting expert reports should not be solicited as they breed confusion
- statutory expert bodies' opinions prevail over non-statutory ones.
