Article 142: Supreme Court Says Extra Seats Can Be Created to Remedy Wrongful Admission Denial

The Supreme Court has held that in exceptional circumstances where a meritorious candidate is illegally or irrationally denied admission for no fault of her own, the Court may exercise its plenary powers to do complete justice by creating an additional seat or accommodating the candidate against an alternative vacancy within the same institution.

The Supreme Court’s plenary power, derived from Article 142 of the Constitution, gives it wide-ranging authority to pass any decree or order necessary to do “complete justice” in a pending matter.

A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Sanjeev Sachdeva invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to convert a vacant NRI seat in another discipline into a seat in M.S. Obstetrics-Gynecology, thereby accommodating two candidates, Malyavi Gupta and Rushali Singhal, in postgraduate medical admissions.

The matter concerned admission to a postgraduate M.S. Obstetrics-Gynecology seat at Maharishi Markandeshwar College of Medical Science and Research, Sadopur, Ambala, under Maharishi Markandeshwar University, Sadopur, Ambala.

Following a notification issued by Haryana on November 18, 2025, both candidates participated in the selection process for a seat reserved under the NRI quota.

Gupta was initially allotted the subject seat under the NRI quota. However, her allotment was cancelled on the ground that she had initially deposited the fee from a domestic/Indian account and subsequently deposited the amount from an Indian NRI account.

Similarly, Singhal's candidature was rejected on the ground that she was not eligible to participate in the selection process for the NRI quota.

Both candidates approached the high court through writ petitions. The high court, in the impugned order, held that Singhal was not eligible to compete for an NRI seat as she did not qualify under the applicable definition of an NRI candidate.

However, the high court found that Singhal had better merits than Gupta and allowed her writ petition, directing the authorities to admit her to the subject postgraduate seat.

Why did the Supreme Court find injustice in Gupta's denial of admission?

During the pendency of the appeal, the Supreme Court, on June 10, 2026, permitted Gupta to deposit the entire required fee from an NRI account through RTGS.

Court was informed that the payment had been made by Gupta and accepted by the concerned college. Court thereafter allowed her to attend classes for the PG Obstetrics-Gynecology seat at Maharishi Markandeshwar College of Medical Science and Research. She was also admitted to the hostel.

After hearing the parties, the Bench noted that the high court had recorded a finding that denial of Gupta's claim to participate in the stray round was not in accordance with law.

Court noted that Gupta had never been allotted a seat for the stray round, as the earlier allotment had already been cancelled before the stray round counselling could take place. Therefore, the subsequent allotment of the same seat to Singhal in the stray round was not proper.

"The denial of the college to allow the appellant to participate in the stray round counselling having been found to be improper, we are of the view that the appellant has been meted out with injustice inasmuch as if Singhal would not have been allowed to participate in the stray round for the same seat for which the dispute has arisen, the appellant would have succeeded in her place," the Bench held.

However, Court also took note of the fact that Singhal had been admitted to the course on April 16, 2026, and had continuously attended classes for about three months.

Can the Supreme Court create an additional seat to rectify wrongful denial of admission?

In these peculiar circumstances, Gupta's counsel urged the Supreme Court to exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to accommodate both candidates.

The counsel relied on Atul Kumar v. Chairman (Joint Seat Allocation Authority) & Ors. (2024), where the Supreme Court had directed creation of a supernumerary seat at IIT Dhanbad so that no existing student would be disturbed.

Reliance was also placed on Om Rathod v. Director General of Health Services & Ors. (2024), where the Supreme Court, exercising its powers under Article 142, directed creation of a supernumerary seat at AIIMS, Nagpur.

The Bench said these decisions show that whenever the court finds that injustice has been caused to a candidate by wrongful denial of admission, it has exercised its powers under Article 142 to compensate the candidate by creating an additional seat or accommodating the candidate in another manner.

"In the case at hand, the high court has found that the appellant was wrongly denied participation in the stray round counselling. Thus, the appellant had a better claim for the subject seat and has been denied the admission in a wrongful manner," the Bench said.

Court was then informed that an NRI seat was available in M.D. Community Medicine in the same college where the subject seat had been allotted to Singhal.

The National Medical Commission, however, strongly opposed creation of a supernumerary seat, submitting that such a direction could set a wrong precedent and lead to a flood of litigation seeking similar relief in subsequent academic years.

Supreme Court limits relief to exceptional cases

The Bench said it was conscious that creation of a supernumerary seat cannot be ordered in every case and should be reserved for extreme situations where an apparent injustice has been caused to a candidate.

Court further said that even in such cases, it must first examine whether a vacancy is available in another discipline in the same university. If such a vacancy exists, the candidate can be accommodated against that seat while being allowed to continue studying in the subject seat over which there are competing claims.

"In the case at hand," the Bench noted, an NRI seat was available in a different discipline in the same college.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court exercised its powers under Article 142 and directed that the vacant NRI seat in M.D. Community Medicine be converted into an M.S. Obstetrics-Gynecology seat in the same category as a one-time measure.

This allowed both Gupta and Singhal to pursue their M.S. course in Obstetrics-Gynecology at the same college.

Court allowed the civil appeals while clarifying that the order should not be treated as a precedent.

Case Title: Malyavi Gupta Vs State of Haryana & Ors Etc

Bench: Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Sanjeev Sachdeva

Date of Judgment: July 14, 2026