‘Rules of the Game Cannot Change Midway’: SC Quashes Punjab Sports Quota Change in MBBS, BDS Admissions

The Supreme Court on January 6, 2026 held that the principle that “rules of the game cannot be altered once the game has begun” applies as much to admission processes for educational courses as it does to recruitment processes.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe said that just as the law forbids modification of recruitment norms after a recruitment process has commenced, it is equally impermissible for an admission process to be left undefined at the outset. Such lack of clarity, the bench observed, leaves room for authorities to prescribe norms later to suit their own interests or to permit nepotism. Emphasising the need for fairness, the court said transparency in such processes is paramount to prevent arbitrariness.

Court was hearing civil appeals challenging changes made midstream to Punjab’s sports quota policy for admission to MBBS and BDS courses under NEET UG-2024. The bench quashed the policy decision that permitted candidates to submit certificates of sports achievements for any class and year, instead of restricting eligibility to achievements in Classes XI and XII.

While examining the material on record, court noted that one Ramesh Kumar Kashyap, a roller-skating coach and the father of Kudrat Kashyap (respondent No.4), had submitted a representation seeking inclusion of sports achievements from Classes IX and X for admissions to MBBS and BDS courses in Punjab. As a result of this change, his daughter secured the top rank in the sports quota merit list dated August 23, 2024.

The bench said that Kashyap’s lack of probity in seeking a policy change to benefit his own daughter, while failing to disclose this personal interest to the authorities, was sufficient in itself to vitiate the modification introduced during the 2024 session. The change, court said, operated to the detriment of other candidates under the sports quota, including appellants Divjot Sekhon and Shubhkarman Singh.

Court further observed that when decisions are taken in undue haste, mala fides may be presumed, as actions taken post-haste are arbitrary and not condonable in law. This principle, the bench held, applies with equal vigour to admission processes for highly sought-after courses such as MBBS and BDS.

Coming down heavily on the Punjab government, the court criticised the State for keeping the norms elastic and failing to disclose the exact policy governing the zone of consideration. Allowing itself the leeway to alter the policy midstream, the bench said, was contrary to the principles of fair play in action. It added that lack of transparency at the outset invariably opens the door to arbitrariness and nepotism, a situation an egalitarian State must avoid.

The bench reiterated that when a policy decision is riddled with arbitrariness, or even provides avenues for it, the court would be justified in striking it down. While acknowledging that policymakers are allowed some elbow room in formulating policy, court clarified that such discretion cannot extend to permitting arbitrariness or nepotism. It stressed that under Article 14 of the Constitution, the State and its instrumentalities are duty-bound to act fairly, reasonably, and in a non-arbitrary manner.

Holding the modified admission process unsustainable, the bench said the very foundation of the change stood vitiated as Kashyap failed to disclose that his recommendation directly benefitted his own daughter. This remained the case even if the State had acted on his representation bona fide and without knowledge of his concealed interest.

Court directed the State of Punjab to formulate its admission policy in its entirety before initiating the admission process each year, if it intends to modify the policy periodically. It observed that altering norms midstream during an ongoing admission process is neither proper nor permissible.

The bench also noted that although Kashyap was not a party to the proceedings, he was present in court and was fully aware of the court’s observations against him. Despite this, he took no steps to seek impleadment or place any defence on record.

Allowing the appeals, court ordered that appellants Divjot Sekhon and Shubhkarman Singh be accommodated in the government medical college seats that had been allotted to Kudrat Kashyap and Mansirat Kaur (respondent Nos. 4 and 5). In turn, Kudrat Kashyap and Mansirat Kaur were directed to be allotted the seats vacated by the appellants at Gian Sagar Medical College, Banur.

In appeals filed by Gauranshi Dhingra, Agrima Mann and Navreet Singh, who challenged the continuation of the same policy modification during the 2025 session, the court noted that they had been non-suited by the High Court by relying on its earlier decision in Divjot Sekhon’s case. Granting them liberty, the bench permitted them to approach the High Court afresh through properly constituted proceedings, impleading all necessary and affected parties, and seek appropriate relief.

Case Title: Divjot Sekhon Vs State of Punjab And Others

Judgment Date: January 6, 2026

Bench: Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe