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 | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | None |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all courts and regulatory authorities |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms that only Central Government may lower NEET percentiles in consultation with DCI |
| Type of Law | Medical/Dental education admission regulations |
| Questions of Law | Whether a State Government may lower NEET qualifying percentiles for BDS admissions absent express Central Government delegation |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The proviso to sub-regulation 5(ii) of Regulation II in the Revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007 vests the power to lower NEET cut-off marks exclusively in the Central Government in consultation with the DCI. Administrative communications directing “necessary action as deemed fit” cannot confer statutory power on a State. Admissions under unauthorized relaxations are void, but degrees of students who completed the course under interim orders are regularised via Article 142, subject to pro bono service conditions. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
In 2016-17 Rajasthan lowered NEET UG cut-off by 10% and then 5% to fill BDS seats; private colleges admitted students including zero/negative percentiles; DCI and Centre later held these relaxations void; High Court regularised admissions up to 10+5% and discharged others with costs; Supreme Court heard consolidated appeals. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts, medical/dental regulatory bodies, universities conducting NEET‐based admissions |
| Persuasive For | High Courts, State Governments, medical and dental colleges on admission policy interpretation |
| Follows | Harshit Agarwal v. Union of India; Sankalp Charitable Trust v. Union of India |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that only the Central Government, in consultation with DCI, may lower NEET qualifying percentiles; state directives are void.
- Administrative letters suggesting “necessary action as deemed fit” cannot be construed as statutory delegation of power.
- Supreme Court can regularise degrees under Article 142 for students who completed courses under interim orders, subject to lifetime pro bono service conditions.
- Students failing to finish BDS within nine years remain ineligible for relief.
- Strict punitive costs (Rs 10 crore per college, Rs 10 lakh by State) may be imposed for flagrant breaches of DCI Regulations.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- NEET is the sole unified entrance for MBBS/BDS (Sankalp Charitable Trust; CMC Vellore Association).
- Proviso to Reg II(5)(ii) of 2007 Regulations vests cut-off reduction power only in Central Government with DCI consultation (Harshit Agarwal).
- State of Rajasthan misread a forwarding letter as delegated authority; its 10% + 5% relaxations lacked statutory basis.
- Private colleges exceeded even state relaxations, admitting zero/negative‐percentile students, violating DCI Regulations and fundamental merit norms.
- Unauthorized admissions are void; Article 142 permits regularisation of degrees for those who completed the BDS course under interim orders, with conditions.
- Future compliance: strict adherence to NEET eligibility, timelines and DCI Regulations; punitive costs deter future violations.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners (Students)
- Admissions valid under State and DCI/Central communications; interim High Court orders.
- Many completed BDS, earned degrees, now practicing or pursuing PG studies; cancellation now causes irreparable harm.
- Occupied vacant seats; no meritorious candidate displaced; equity warrants regularisation.
Respondent (DCI)
- Only Central Government may lower NEET marks; State lacked authority; such admissions void ab initio.
- Students accepted backdoor admissions with knowledge of irregularity; cannot claim equity (Abdul Ahad v. Union of India).
- Nine‐year completion cap under 2007 Regulations requires discharge of non‐completing students.
Colleges
- Acted in good faith per State directives to fill seats after counseling; promissory estoppel applies against administrative assurances.
- Relied on State of H.P. v. Himachal Institute on filling vacancies post-counseling; punitive costs disproportionate given no malice.
State of Rajasthan
- Bona fide compliance with Central Government letter to address vacant seats; believed delegation conveyed.
- Sought post-facto approvals; no malice or arbitrariness.
Factual Background
In 2016-17, Rajasthan lowered NEET UG cut-offs by 10% then 5% to fill vacant BDS seats, contrary to DCI Regulations, leading private colleges to admit candidates with zero or negative percentiles. The DCI and Central Government later deemed those relaxations unauthorized and directed cancellations. The High Court regularised admissions up to 10+5% and discharged others with costs. The Supreme Court heard consolidated appeals.
Statutory Analysis
- Revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007, Reg II(5)(ii): 50th percentile general, 40th reserved, 45th disabled; proviso vests cut-off reduction power only in Central Government in consultation with DCI.
- Dentists (Amendment) Act, 2016, §10D: NEET mandatory; proviso exempts non-opting States for 2016-17.
- Article 142 Constitution: Supreme Court’s power to pass orders necessary for complete justice, including regularisation of degrees.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate opinions recorded.
Procedural Innovations
- Conditioning degree regularisation on lifetime pro bono service in public health emergencies.
- Imposition of large punitive deposits by educational institutions and State for regulatory violations.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
- 📅 Time-Sensitive
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions