Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-014875-014880 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 20809/2023 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI |
| Bench |
|
| Precedent Value | Binding precedent |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms that only Central Government in consultation with DCI may lower NEET percentile; overrules delegation-of-power view of High Court |
| Type of Law | Administrative and Education Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The proviso to Regulation II(5)(ii) of the Revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007, vests discretion to lower the minimum NEET-UG qualifying percentile solely in the Central Government in consultation with the Dental Council of India when sufficient candidates fail to secure prescribed cut-offs. The State of Rajasthan’s letters lowering the percentile by 10% and an additional 5% were ultra vires and void. Private colleges that admitted beyond those relaxations compounded the illegality. Admissions granted under those relaxations are invalid, but the Court under Article 142 protects the degrees of students who have already completed the course, subject to a pro-bono service undertaking. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The State of Rajasthan, on its own, lowered NEET-UG cut-offs for BDS admissions by 10% (30.09.2016) and by another 5% (04.10.2016), without Central Government/DCI authority. Private colleges admitted students—some with zero or negative percentiles—beyond those relaxations. The DCI and Central Government declared those orders void ab initio and directed cancellation. High Court had regularised admissions up to 10%+5% but ordered discharge beyond; also imposed costs. The Supreme Court held state- and college-granted relaxations invalid, protected degrees of completed students under Article 142, and imposed costs and service undertakings. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All courts, regulatory bodies and authorities conducting NEET-UG admissions in medical/dental courses |
| Persuasive For | High Courts, university authorities, medical/dental councils when adjudicating unauthorized relaxations or delegation questions |
| Overrules | Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court’s interpretation of delegation of power to State of Rajasthan under Central Government letter |
| Distinguishes | Rishabh Choudhary v. UOI (2017) 3 SCC 652—state-conducted CGMAT invalid; here state lowered percentile rather than conducting exam |
| Follows | Harshit Agarwal v. UOI (2021) 2 SCC 710—only Centre/DCI can lower NEET percentile |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Sub-regulation 5(ii) proviso of Regulation II (Revised BDS Regulations, 2007) reserves NEET-UG cut-off adjustments exclusively to Central Government in consultation with DCI.
- State or college relaxations beyond prescribed cut-offs are ultra vires and admissions under them void ab initio.
- Private colleges admitting students with zero or negative percentiles breach dental-education standards and face heavy costs.
- Supreme Court may use Article 142 to protect degrees of those who have completed courses despite admission irregularities, but only subject to a lifetime pro-bono service undertaking.
- Doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot validate statutory contraventions.
- Authorities must act on representation for cut-off changes, not by unilateral orders; clear delegation rules in regulations are binding.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Regulatory framework: Dentists Act 1948 empowers DCI to frame BDS regulations under Section 20; sub-regulation 5(ii) of Regulation II (2007) establishes NEET cut-offs and vests modification power only in Central Government in consultation with DCI.
- Literal interpretation: Proviso’s text does not allow further delegation to states or institutions.
- Illegality of state action: Rajasthan’s letters of 30.09.2016 and 04.10.2016 lacked statutory authority; Central Government’s letter and DCI’s position confirm invalidity.
- College admissions: Private dental colleges exceeded even state-granted relax; students with sub-minimum or negative percentiles admitted—unlawful.
- Article 142 remedy: Completed-course students’ degrees regularised, conditioned on a pro-bono service undertaking; incomplete-course students not entitled to relief under 9-year rule.
- Precedents applied: Harshit Agarwal (cut-off power); Rishabh Choudhary (state-exam invalid); Deepa Thomas & Saraswati Trust (Article 142 rescue).
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Students):
- Bona fide belief in validity of admissions under state and DCI/Centre recommendations.
- Completed BDS, invested years/time/money; degrees must be protected under Article 142.
- No meritorious candidate was displaced—seat vacancies existed.
Respondent–State of Rajasthan:
- Acted on Central Government’s letter to take “necessary action as deemed fit.”
- Relaxations were academic-year limited, aimed at filling seats via transparent counselling.
Respondent–Dental Council of India:
- Power to adjust NEET cut-offs exclusively with Central Government + DCI consultation.
- State’s relaxations void ab initio; DCI’s subsequent withdrawal and cancellation directives valid.
Respondent–Private Colleges:
- Participated in centralised counselling; admitted only after rounds completed and seats remained vacant.
- Good faith reliance on state communications; punitive costs disproportionate.
Respondent–RUHS:
- Colleges and students knew admissions bypassed mandatory NEET cut-offs; no equity can be claimed.
Factual Background
In the AY 2016-17, Rajasthan lowered NEET-UG cut-offs for BDS seats by 10% (30.09.2016) and an additional 5% (04.10.2016) without statutory authority. Private colleges admitted students—some with zero/negative percentiles—beyond those relaxations. DCI and Central Government declared state orders void and directed cancellation. High Court regularised up to 10%+5% relax and discharged beyond; also imposed costs. Supreme Court held state/college relaxations unlawful, protected degrees of those who completed under Article 142, and imposed costs and service undertakings.
Statutory Analysis
- Dentists Act, 1948 § 20: Empowers DCI to make regulations for dental education.
- Revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007 (5th Amendment, 2012):
- Regulation II(5)(ii): NEET-UG cut-off at 50th percentile (gen), 40th (SC/ST/OBC), 45th (PwD);
- Proviso: Central Government in consultation with DCI may lower cut-offs only for academic year when sufficient candidates fail to qualify.
- Dentists (Amendment) Act, 2016 § 10D: Uniform entrance test (NEET) for UG/PG dental courses; proviso exempts non-opting states for AY 2016-17.
Procedural Innovations
- Article 142 utilised to regularise degrees subject to a lifetime pro-bono public-health service undertaking.
- Mandatory service condition as quid pro quo for protecting completed-course degrees.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – confirms exclusive cut-off power with Central Government + DCI
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – overturns Rajasthan High Court’s delegation-of-power interpretation