Landmark Judgment of Supreme Court of India on Illegal NEET Admissions

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has today delivered a landmark judgment on NEET–BDS admissions (2016–17), drawing a hard constitutional line between legality and sympathy.

Landmark Judgment of Supreme Court of India on Illegal NEET Admissions

In a significant judgment with national implications, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reaffirmed the statutory authority and regulatory responsibility of affiliating universities, decisively upholding the actions of the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (RUHS), which was represented by Mr. Pallav Shishodia, Ld. Senior Counsel briefed by Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, Advocate on Record, Supreme Court of India.

The case arose from challenges to BDS admissions made in Rajasthan for the academic year 2016–17 following unauthorized relaxation of NEET eligibility criteria by the State and private institutions.

The Hon'ble Court in its detailed judgment held that:

1. Admissions beyond authorised NEET relaxation declared invalid: The Supreme Court held that all BDS admissions made in Rajasthan for the academic year 2016–17 beyond the relaxation of 10 percentile plus additional 5 percentile were illegal and void ab initio. The Court categorically ruled that the State of Rajasthan had no authority whatsoever to relax NEET eligibility, as the power to lower cut-off percentiles vests exclusively with the Central Government, to be exercised only in consultation with the Dental Council of India. Any admission made pursuant to State-level orders dated 30.09.2016 and 04.10.2016 was held to be without jurisdiction and legally unsustainable.

   
   

2. Outcome for Students : Exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court regularized the admissions of students who had already completed the BDS course and obtained their degrees. This was done on equitable grounds, considering they had been practicing for several years. However, this relief is conditional upon each student filing an affidavit to perform two years of compulsory pro-bono (free of cost) service for the State during natural calamities or health emergencies. The Court directed that students who had not yet cleared the course be discharged immediately.

   
   

3. Heavy costs and compensation imposed on erring private colleges: The Court imposed stringent financial penalties on the private dental colleges that admitted students illegally. Each erring college was directed to pay costs of ₹10,00,00,000 (Ten Crores) to be deposited with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority. This fund's interest will be used to support One Stop Centres, Nari Niketans, and other care institutions.

   
   

4. University's Role upheld for enforcing regulatory standards: The Supreme Court unequivocally upheld the actions of affiliating universities, including Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (RUHS), in refusing enrolment, denying recognition, withholding examination eligibility, and declining to validate degrees arising from illegal admissions. The Court recognized that RUHS was acting in discharge of a statutory obligation, and not arbitrarily, and held that universities are regulatory authorities, not mere administrative bodies bound to ratify unlawful acts of States or private institutions.

Why This Judgment Goes Beyond Education Law:

This judgment transcends the domain of education law and operates as a broader statement on regulatory governance, statutory compliance, and institutional accountability in India. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that where a statute prescribes mandatory conditions, neither executive convenience, equitable considerations, nor passage of time can dilute compliance. The ruling reinforces that regulatory authorities and statutory institutions are not discretionary actors but legal gatekeepers, bound to enforce norms even when doing so attracts litigation or public pressure. By upholding severe financial penalties, rejecting post-facto regularization, and protecting institutions that enforced the law, the Court has sent a clear message applicable across all regulated sectors like telecom, infrastructure, healthcare, finance, energy, and licensing regimes i.e. illegality at the entry point contaminates all downstream rights. In effect, the judgment elevates compliance from a procedural formality to a substantive legal shield, reshaping how courts will assess regulatory violations far beyond the field of professional education.

Read the Full Text of the Judgment : Click Here