Admissions to MBBS, BDS Must Be Strictly on NEET Merit: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India has made it clear that admissions to MBBS and BDS courses in all government and private medical colleges must be strictly based on merit in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET). Court imposed a cost of ₹10 crore each on 11 private dental colleges in Rajasthan for what it described as blatant illegalities in admissions.

A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi said that the NEET examination plays a crucial role in maintaining high standards of medical education across the country. It not only recognises merit but also ensures a level playing field for all medical aspirants.

The bench observed that all admissions to medical institutions must strictly follow the standards and regulations governing NEET, in order to protect the primacy of merit.

Court was dealing with a batch of appeals related to the legality of Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) admissions in Rajasthan for the 2016–17 academic year. These admissions were made after the State government lowered the minimum qualifying percentile prescribed under NEET-UG.

Referring to the revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007, the bench pointed out that the minimum qualifying percentile is 50 for candidates in the unreserved category, 40 for SC, ST and OBC candidates, and 45 for candidates with locomotory disability of the lower limbs.

Court clarified that this qualifying percentile can be reduced only in exceptional circumstances, and only when a sufficient number of candidates fail to meet the prescribed cut-off in a particular academic year.

However, such a reduction can be carried out only by the Central Government, and that too in consultation with the Dental Council of India. The bench stressed that no other authority, including a State government, has the power to lower the qualifying percentile.

Court noted that in the present case, the State of Rajasthan first reduced the minimum qualifying percentile by 10, and later by an additional 5 percentile on its own.

Both the single judge and the division bench of the high court had upheld these admissions, treating the relaxations granted by the State as lawful. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with this view.

The bench said it could not accept the interpretation that the State had the power to reduce minimum marks merely because it was asked to take “necessary action as deemed fit.” According to the Court, this interpretation was incorrect and could not be approved.

It held that the reduction in percentile by the State was manifestly illegal, and the admissions made on that basis could not be treated as valid.

Court observed that, at best, the State could have made a representation to the Central Government or recommended action to the Dental Council of India due to the large number of vacant seats. Instead, the State took matters into its own hands, which the Court said was unjustifiable.

The bench further found that after the State’s action, private dental colleges in Rajasthan, driven by their desire to fill all seats, went even further. These colleges granted admissions beyond the already illegal relaxation of 10+5 percentile.

Court noted that some colleges admitted students solely on the basis of their Class 12 marks, ignoring NEET merit altogether. This resulted in students with zero or even negative NEET scores being admitted.

The bench held that admissions granted beyond the 10+5 percentile relaxation were completely unlawful and untenable. It said the entire exercise made a mockery of the rules and regulations framed by the Dental Council of India for effective dental education.

Rejecting the colleges’ argument based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the Court reiterated that this principle cannot be used to justify actions taken in violation of statutory provisions.

At the same time, court took note of the fact that many students had already completed their BDS degrees and were either practising as dentists or pursuing postgraduate studies. Some had even completed their postgraduate courses. The bench also noted that these students had paid hefty fees and spent considerable time and money in litigation.

To do complete justice in the peculiar facts of the case, court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution and regularised the admissions of students who had successfully completed the BDS course and obtained their degrees.

However, court directed that all such students must give an unconditional undertaking to render pro-bono services in Rajasthan for a cumulative period of two years during their lifetime. This would apply in exceptional situations such as natural calamities, disasters, epidemics, pandemics or other public health emergencies.

The bench clarified that students who failed to complete the BDS course would not be entitled to any relief. Under the 2007 Regulations, any student who fails to clear the course within nine years stands discharged.

Holding that the private colleges had committed blatant illegality and wilfully violated the 2007 Regulations by admitting students beyond the 10+5 percentile, the Court ordered each of the appellant colleges to deposit ₹10 crore. The State of Rajasthan was also directed to deposit ₹10 lakh with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority within eight weeks.

The amount is to be used for the maintenance and improvement of One Stop Centres, Nari Niketans, old age homes and child care institutions across the State.

Case Title: Siddhant Mahajan And Ors Vs The State of Rajasthan And Ors

Bench: Justices J K Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi