Introduction:

In Shilpa Suresh v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Others (W.P. No. 44306 of 2025), the Madras High Court, led by Justice Anand Venkatesh, exercised its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction to offer relief to a NEET UG candidate who was denied admission to her allotted MBBS seat after failing to pay the admission fee within the stipulated time. The petitioner, Shilpa Suresh, a candidate who secured 251 marks in NEET UG 2025-26 and was allotted a seat in Madha Medical College and Research Institute in the third round of allotment, encountered an unavoidable hurdle—the last date for fee payment coincided with a Second Saturday, making NEFT and RTGS payment modes inaccessible. Despite arranging the substantial fee amount of ₹15,00,000 on the same day and attempting to reach the college, she was unable to complete the process or receive any guidance. Consequently, her seat was marked vacant and forwarded to the stray vacancy pool. Represented by Advocates Ms. Abisha Isaac and Ms. H. Mary Sowmi Rexi, she sought judicial intervention to preserve her rightful seat. The respondents, represented by Government Advocate Mr. K. Tippu Sultan along with Special Counsel Mrs. M. Sneha and Standing Counsel Mr. Richardson Wilson, defended the selection schedule, arguing that strict adherence was necessary to maintain fairness and consistency in the admission process. The medical college, however, expressed no objection to admitting her, noting that she was more meritorious than many candidates likely to enter through the stray vacancy round. After examining the facts, the Court extended relief to the petitioner while cautioning that the order could not be used as a precedent for all similar cases.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner presented a compelling case by highlighting the extraordinary circumstances that prevented her from fulfilling the admission formalities within the deadline. She argued that she had complied with all procedural requirements promptly after the third allotment on November 3, 2025, but could arrange the required ₹15 lakh fee only on November 8, which unfortunately was a Second Saturday. Since banks do not process NEFT or RTGS transactions on such days, she was left without an effective method to remit the payment. She further submitted that despite repeated attempts, she and her mother could not reach the college authorities for alternative instructions or confirmation of payment arrangements. She contended that the non-availability of banking services on a government-designated deadline should not deprive a meritorious student of her rightful seat. She emphasized that she had worked hard to secure a decent NEET score and that her inability to pay on the last date was not due to negligence, but due to circumstances beyond her control. Her counsel argued that denying admission would not only be unjust but also contrary to the principles of fairness, given that she had arranged the substantial fee amount on time and had shown genuine intent to join. They further submitted that since the medical college did not oppose her admission, and since merit would be protected by allowing her to join, the Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.

The Selection Committee, on the other hand, strongly opposed the plea and insisted on the strict implementation of the admission schedule. Representing the State authorities, Government Advocate Mr. K. Tippu Sultan, along with Special Counsel Mrs. M. Sneha and Standing Counsel Mr. Richardson Wilson, argued that the admission timeline was strictly regulated and uniformly applicable to all candidates. They contended that permitting such deviations would create a dangerous precedent, potentially encouraging numerous candidates to approach the Court citing financial difficulties or personal hardships. The Selection Committee emphasized that the entire admission machinery depends on adherence to time schedules and that allowing exceptions could disrupt the structured process of allotments, reporting deadlines, and stray vacancy procedures. They further argued that the petitioner’s seat had lawfully been added to the stray vacancy pool after she failed to report within the deadline, and therefore the authorities acted strictly in accordance with the rules. The Committee also highlighted that banking holidays or personal circumstances cannot be grounds to bypass the structured NEET counselling system. They reiterated that while the petitioner may have faced difficulties, the sanctity of the schedule cannot be compromised in the interest of the greater administrative good.

Interestingly, the medical college itself took a neutral but supportive stance, informing the Court that they had no objection to admitting the petitioner. They noted that she was more meritorious than candidates who would otherwise enter through the stray vacancy round. The college’s counsel maintained that admitting a student with higher marks aligns with the principle of merit-based selection and benefits the institution as well.

Judgment of the Court:

Justice Anand Venkatesh carefully examined the timeline, the banking constraints, the petitioner’s efforts, and the selection authorities’ concerns regarding maintaining the integrity of NEET admission schedules. The Court noted that the petitioner had indeed performed reasonably well in NEET UG 2025-26 and secured a valid allotment through the third round of counselling. It also recognized the genuine financial struggle her family faced while attempting to arrange the significant fee amount. The fact that the last date for fee payment fell on a Second Saturday, rendering NEFT and RTGS payments impossible, was considered a crucial mitigating circumstance. The Court observed that the petitioner and her mother had made earnest attempts to contact the college but could not receive assistance. Justice Venkatesh stressed that although rules must generally be followed uniformly, courts are permitted to exercise their extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 in exceptional cases involving unavoidable circumstances, provided such intervention does not undermine the core principles of merit and fairness.

The Court reasoned that allowing the petitioner to join the course would not harm the merit-based structure of MBBS admissions. On the contrary, it would ensure that the seat does not go to a candidate with lower merit through the stray vacancy round. Justice Venkatesh noted that the petitioner’s merit position was strong enough to justify relief and that overlooking her case would lead to an unjust outcome where a more deserving candidate loses her allotted seat through no fault of her own. Thus, the Court held that this was a fit case to exercise extraordinary equitable jurisdiction. The Court also underscored that the order must not be used as a blanket precedent for all future cases involving missed deadlines. It clarified that only cases involving compelling circumstances and no compromise on merit could be considered for such relief.

Accordingly, the High Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to join the MBBS course at Madha Medical College and Research Institute. It allowed her to complete all formalities within a short timeline and instructed the Selection Committee to treat this case as an exception, not as a relaxation of the general rules. The Court’s decision ensured that merit was preserved, justice was served, and a deserving student was not unfairly denied her chance due to an administrative technicality intertwined with a banking holiday.