New Delhi: Nearly a year after a student pursuing Bachelors of Architecture (B.Arch) degree at IIT Kharagpur moved the Supreme Court, seeking judicial intervention to facilitate his transfer from the institution on medical grounds, the top court Wednesday asked IIT Roorkee to keep one seat vacant until it conclusively decides the petition.
A bench led by Justice B.V. Nagarathna has also directed AIIMS Delhi to medically assess the student, who suffers from Borderline Personality Disorder and is undergoing treatment at Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh.
The student had sought his transfer to IIT Delhi so as to continue his treatment at AIIMS. But on being told that the course pursued by him is a four-year programme in Delhi, unlike the five-year module in Kharagpur, he requested the court for a transfer to IIT Roorkee. He chose the said college considering its proximity to AIIMS, Rishikesh where, he said, he could avail therapy.
On learning that IIT Kharagpur had no objections to his transfer, the court issued directions to AIIMS for a medical assessment—a requirement under the students transfer policy of the institution.
The plea
Senior advocate Shobha Gupta, who appeared for the student in the apex court, told ThePrint that the current transfer policy supports the student’s request. However, without carrying out his medical assessment, IIT Kharagpur had initially declined his request for transfer on 6 August, 2025. He had, thereafter, moved the court.
In his petition, the student claimed he was diagnosed with depression and anxiety at PGIMER Chandigarh in 2019, after which he underwent specialised therapy at AIIMS Delhi and recovered substantially.
However, in 2023, after he secured admission in IIT Kharagpur, the symptoms resurfaced. Separation from family and new living conditions amplified the severity of his depression.
Since IIT transfer rules permit undergraduate students between IITs on medical grounds, the student’s parents had approached IIT Delhi. The director gave him conditional consent pursuant to which the family took up the matter with IIT Kharagpur.
However, despite initial assurances, IIT Kharagpur rejected the transfer plea for multiple reasons—low JEE rank, curriculum differences, lack of parity between B.Arch and B.Tech admission process, and inapplicability to transfer rules to architecture students.
On his choice to be transferred to IIT Delhi, the student had cited the institute’s proximity to AIIMS Delhi where he could receive treatment. The reason he said IIT Kharagpur did not work for him was that the closest hospital where he could access therapy for his condition was in Kolkata, which was private and beyond his financial means.
In October last year, when the Supreme Court agreed to hear the plea, IIT Kharagpur director had reached out to the student’s family to explore the possibility of his transfer. However, the option of IIT Delhi was dropped due to the difference in course structure. When IIT Roorkee was zeroed in on, a response was sought from the institution.
Gupta told ThePrint that IIT Roorkee had raised concerns regarding the transfer, the primary issue being that the student had already completed two years of education at Kharagpur. “However, this was a misconception. He has so far completed only one year. Due to the litigation, he could not pursue the second year in IIT Kharagpur. In fact, he is ready to join from the first year itself,” Gupta said.
What court said
During Wednesday’s hearing, Justice Nagarathna’s bench took a serious view of the request for adjournment by IIT Kharagpur’s counsel. She noticed that the institution’s lawyer had not filed the official document to mark his appearance.
“How long do you take to file your vakalatnama? What is this? You are an educational institution. You are appearing for the first time and you are seeking adjournment,” the judge said.
Though the counsel expressed reservations over the transfer, pointing to differences in the curriculum and course parity between IIT Kharagpur and IIT Roorkee, he later told the bench that in principle, the institution had no objection.
At this point, the court was also told that the last date of admission to IIT Roorkee was 17 July, upon which the bench immediately ordered the institution to keep a seat vacant.
The court asked the student to appear before the AIIMS board on 20 July, fixing 29 July to hear the matter again, after noting that the student had requested for transfer to IIT Roorkee instead of IIT Delhi, where the curriculum for the course is different from the one in IIT Kharagpur.
When IIT Kharagpur’s counsel said that the student’s entrance marks were lower than the set threshold for IIT Roorkee, the bench shot back saying marks were not relevant in the context of a transfer.
(Edited by Mannat Chugh)