71. Furthermore, as already stated by the Division Bench of this Court in Ridhima Singh that the exercise of correcting the jurisdictional error is undertaken not only for the convenience of the parties but also in the interest of justice, the Court, while adjudicating upon jurisdiction, cannot sit in silos without realising the magnitude of public interest involved in the cases like the present one. In such cases where future of present students and upcoming doctors would be affected, the scales of justice are balanced when the Courts recognize the intricate relationship between individual rights and the collective good, besides the fact that ends of justice would demand striking a balance between individual interest of the litigants and the public at large. Afterall, the end goal of justice is not merely resolution of disputes between private litigants but to also ensure that the societal needs i.e., access to quality medical education, the availability of qualified healthcare professionals and the ability of stakeholders to raise grievances in the present case, are met. The Courts are, therefore, reasonably expected to act as stewards of public welfare, ensuring that jurisdictional decisions reflect a balance between convenience, justice and the broader interests of society.
