NEET-PG: SC Issues Slew Of Directions To Prevent Seat-Blocking

It is definitely entirely in order and in the fitness of things that while leading right from the front, the Supreme Court in a most cogent, creditworthy, courageous, composed and current judgment titled State of UP & Another vs Miss Bhavna Tiwari and others in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9298 of 2018 and cited in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 607 and so also in Neutral Citation No.: 2025 INSC 747 that was pronounced on April 29, 2025 in the exercise of its civil extraordinary jurisdiction has issued a slew of most commendable directions pertaining to the conduct of counselling for NEET-PG (National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test-Post Graduate) to tackle the malpractices of seat-blocking for admissions to post-graduate medical courses. Most significantly, the Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice JB Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr Justice R Mahadevan encapsulates in para 16 what constitutes the cornerstone and backbone of this notable judgment precisely postulating that, “As held by us in paragraph 14.4, we issue the following directions to the concerned authorities:

1. Implement a Nationally synchronized counselling calendar to align AIQ and State rounds and prevent seat blocking across systems.
2. Mandate Pre-Counselling Fee Disclosure by all private/deemed universities, detailing tuition, hostel, caution deposit, and miscellaneous charges.
3. Establish a Centralized Fee Regulation Framework under the National Medical Commission (NMC).
4. Permit upgrade windows post-round 2 for admitted candidates to shift to better seats without reopening counselling to new entrants.
5. Publish raw scores, answer keys and normalization formulae for transparency in multi-shift NEET-PG exams.
6. Enforce strict penalties for seat blocking including forfeiture of security deposit, disqualification from future NEET-PG exams (for repeat offenders), blacklisting of complicit colleges.
7. Implement Aadhaar-based seat tracking to prevent multiple seat holdings and misrepresentation.
8. Hold state authorities and institutional DMEs accountable under contempt or disciplinary action for rule or schedule violations.
9. Adopt a Uniform Counselling Conduct Code across all States for standard rules on eligibility, mop-up rounds, seat withdrawal, and grievance timelines.”
10. Set up a third-party oversight mechanism under NMC for annual audits of counselling data, compliance, and admission fairness.”                

It is definitely a no-brainer which certainly merits absolutely just no reiteration that these most commendable slew of directions that have been issued so very brilliantly by the Apex Court to seriously prevent seat-blocking must be most strictly implemented so that it serves its desired objectives! No denying or disputing it!    

At the very outset, this progressive, pragmatic, pertinent and persuasive judgment sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that, “This Special Leave Petition arises from the final judgment and order dated 19.01.2018 (For short, “the impugned order”) passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”) in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 28550 of 2017, whereby the High Court disposed of the writ petition with the following observations and directions:

“In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court no admission can be granted after the cut of date. A time schedule is required to be strictly adhered to. However, in the given circumstances the petitioners are entitled to compensation, which the Court computes at Rs.Ten lakhs each payable to the petitioners. The said amount shall be paid by the Director General of Medical Education and Training, …within four weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order. Before we part with the case, we are of the opinion that there is a need to issue further directions as we have found that there has been a large-scale blocking of seats. 80% of the seats were filled up in the mop up round. Obviously, there is a flaw in the admission procedure. We, accordingly, direct the Principal Secretary, Medical Education, Government of U.P., Lucknow … to take this fact into consideration of large-scale blocking of seats and come out with a foolproof admission procedure, which would eliminate such blockage of seats and ensure that maximum number of seats are filled up in the first and second round of counseling. We also direct the Principal Secretary to hold an inquiry into the circumstances of diluting the admission procedure and allowing the candidates who had appeared in the first and second round of counseling to be considered again in the mop up round in the garb of misinterpreting the orders of the Supreme Court. Such inquiry shall be made within two months and action be taken against the erring officials. For future admissions in subsequent academic sessions, we direct that after the first and second round of counseling, a window should be opened for the candidates who had taken admission to upgrade their stream and thereafter allow the remaining seats to be filled up in the mop up round. By this procedure allowing the candidates to upgrade their seats would not amount to third round of counseling. Further, the upgradation of seats of the preferred choice of the candidate would ensure fairness in the admission process and allow the meritorious candidates to take admission not only in the preferred choice of seats but also in better streams and, thus, by doing so, discipline would be maintained. The writ petitions are disposed of.”           

As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 3 that, “Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners viz., State of U.P., and the Director General of Medical Education & Training, Lucknow, U.P. – who were Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the writ petition – have approached this Court by way of the present petition.”

It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 14 that, “From the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and the NMC/MCI, it is discernible that the authorities have introduced several regulatory measures – such as security deposits, debarment clauses, round finality rules, and undertakings from candidates – to enforce commitment and reduce strategic blocking of seats. In compliance with the directions issued by this Court, the National Medical Commission (NMC) has implemented comprehensive reforms to the counselling process, aiming to prevent seat blocking, ensure optimum seat utilization, and promote a transparent, merit based admission system in medical education.

14.1. Currently, all rounds of counselling for State quota seats are conducted by the respective State Government or its designated authority, while counselling for All India Quota (AIQ) seats and deemed universities is managed by the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) under the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS). The entire counselling process is now conducted online, which has eliminated the discretion previously held by private medical colleges and deemed universities to admit students independently after State counselling. As a result, seat blocking has been effectively addressed.

14.2. To further optimize seat allocation, any seat vacated due to resignation, surrender, or migration is retained and made available in subsequent rounds of AIQ counselling. The number of counselling rounds has been increased from two to four – namely, Round 1, Round 2, Mop-Up Round, and Stray Vacancy Round. This expansion provides candidates with greater opportunities to secure a seat and reduces the wastage of available seats.

14.3. Furthermore, in the Stray Vacancy Round, candidates who are allotted and join a seat are not permitted to resign thereafter. Those, who are allotted a seat but fail to join will forfeit their fee and be debarred from appearing in the National Exit Test (NExT) for one year, once NExT is implemented.

14.4. These reforms directly address the concerns raised by the High Court in the impugned order and ensure that meritorious students are not deprived of their rightful opportunities. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court in its entirety, but deem it appropriate to issue certain directions to the concerned authorities to ensure the effective implementation of the revised counselling framework, thereby upholding the principles of merit, fairness and transparency.”

Most rationally and so also most remarkably, the Bench then propounds in para 15 stating that, “Regarding the direction issued by the High Court for payment of compensation to Respondent Nos.1 and 2, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that both the respondents had participated in the first and second rounds of counselling and were allotted seats accordingly. Their exclusion from the mop-up round was in complete adherence to the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Ranjan v. Union of India (2016) 11 SCC 225 and Dar-us-Slam Educational Trust v. MCI (Order dated 09.05.2017). Therefore, the petitioners contend that the question of compensation does not arise and the High Court erred in directing payment of Rs.10,00,000/- each to Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

15.1. Conversely, the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2/writ petitioners submitted that the respondents were denied the opportunity to upgrade to their preferred MD Radiology seats during the mop-up round. They argued that this denial facilitated widespread seat blocking in the earlier rounds, which allowed candidates with lower merit to secure admission while more deserving candidates like themselves were left disadvantaged. Acknowledging these procedural lapses, the High Court observed that although admissions post the prescribed cut-off date were not possible, the conduct of the State authorities had caused significant disadvantage to Respondent Nos.1 and 2, warranting the award of compensation.

15.2. It is an admitted fact that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared for NEET-PG 2017- 18 with MD Radiology as their preferred choice. When that was unavailable during the first two rounds, they opted for Pathology and Paediatrics, respectively and subsequently, joined their allotted colleges and completed their PG courses. As per the then-prevailing counselling procedure, candidates who accepted seats in earlier rounds were precluded from participating in the mop-up round. The High Court itself noted that no valuable right was denied to the respondents regarding participation in the mop-up round and that once admission was granted, the process concluded unless specific exceptions applied as per the admission guidelines.

15.3. While the cause of the respondents in approaching the court was reasonable and in fact catalyzed significant reforms in the counselling process to curb seat blocking and uphold merit, the award of Rs.10,00,000/- each as compensation is found to be arbitrary and excessive. The judgments relied upon by the High Court pertained to different factual contexts where students lost an academic year through no fault of their own. Those cases are distinguishable from the present one, where the respondents completed their courses. Moreover, awarding compensation for seat blocking in NEET-PG counselling is not a common practice.

15.4. The present case instead highlights systemic issues and underscores the need for transparency and fairness in the NEET-PG counselling process. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we are inclined to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 towards litigative expenses, to be paid by the petitioners, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The direction of the High Court awarding compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- each is hereby set aside and the impugned order is accordingly modified.”
What’s more, the Bench then directs in para 17 holding precisely that, “With the aforesaid directions and modification, this Special Leave Petition stands disposed of.”