Introduction:
In the landmark judgment delivered in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Miss Bhavna Tiwari and Others, cited as 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 607, the Supreme Court of India has issued a comprehensive set of directions aimed at eradicating the persistent and disruptive malpractice of seat-blocking in NEET-PG (National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test – Post Graduate) counselling processes. The bench, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, was dealing with an appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Director General of Medical Education & Training, Lucknow, against an earlier order passed by the Allahabad High Court in 2018. The High Court’s ruling stemmed from grievances raised by NEET PG aspirants from the academic years 2017-2018, who alleged that less meritorious candidates secured seats in the mop-up rounds after already participating in the first and second rounds of counselling. The apex court acknowledged that while certain reforms have since been introduced to streamline medical admissions, further concrete and synchronised measures were necessary to reinforce transparency, uphold meritocracy, and ensure fairness across all levels of the admission process.
Arguments of both sides:
On behalf of the appellants—the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Director General of Medical Education & Training—it was argued that the Allahabad High Court’s direction to pay Rs.10 lakhs each as compensation to the aggrieved NEET PG candidates was excessively punitive and not grounded in a pragmatic understanding of the structural constraints that existed during the counselling process. The appellants further contended that substantial changes had already been implemented in the wake of the High Court order, especially after the Supreme Court’s intervention in Nihila P.P. v. Medical Counselling Committee, including the introduction of four rounds of All India Quota (AIQ) counselling aimed at preventing the recurrence of seat-blocking. Moreover, it was pointed out that the mop-up round procedures had been clarified and regulated more stringently in the years that followed the 2018 controversy. It was stressed that the state authorities, acting in good faith, had complied with the guidelines prevailing at the time and were not guilty of deliberate wrongdoing or gross negligence that would justify such high monetary compensation.
Conversely, the respondents, including Miss Bhavna Tiwari and other NEET PG aspirants, emphasised the grave injustice they suffered due to the faulty counselling mechanism that permitted already allotted candidates to re-enter the selection process in the mop-up round. They argued that this practice effectively sidelined more meritorious candidates who were denied the opportunity to opt for better seats due to procedural anomalies and mismanagement. They further highlighted that seat-blocking was not merely a technical irregularity but a deep-rooted systemic flaw that subverted the very objective of NEET-PG as a merit-based and transparent examination system. The High Court’s direction to award compensation, the respondents argued, was both appropriate and necessary to acknowledge the loss of opportunity and emotional distress inflicted upon deserving candidates. They supported the High Court’s insistence on a foolproof mechanism to prevent such incidents from recurring.
Court’s judgement:
The Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, undertook a detailed examination of the seat-blocking phenomenon and its deleterious consequences on the integrity of the NEET-PG counselling process. The Court unequivocally recognised that while NEET-PG was envisioned as a transparent and meritocratic national-level examination for allocating postgraduate medical seats, its execution had been marred by systemic loopholes that allowed for large-scale seat-blocking. This malpractice, the Court observed, distorted the perceived availability of seats, disadvantaged higher-ranked aspirants who adhered to the rules, and ultimately undermined public trust in the counselling mechanism. Citing the failure of fragmented governance, poor inter-quota coordination, last-minute changes in seat availability, and a lack of real-time data synchronisation, the Court emphasised that the core issues remained inadequately addressed despite piecemeal reforms.
In a decisive move to overhaul the NEET-PG counselling architecture, the Supreme Court laid down ten exhaustive directions. Firstly, the Court ordered the implementation of a nationally synchronised counselling calendar to ensure that the timelines of AIQ and State-level counselling are aligned, thereby preventing cross-system seat-blocking. Secondly, it mandated that all private and deemed universities must disclose their fee structures—covering tuition, hostel, caution deposits, and other charges—before counselling begins. This would empower students to make informed choices and deter sudden financial shocks. Thirdly, a centralised fee regulation framework under the aegis of the National Medical Commission (NMC) was proposed to bring uniformity and accountability to fee structures across the country. Fourthly, the Court directed that upgraded windows be made available after round two of counselling, allowing candidates already admitted to move to more preferred options without reopening the process to new entrants. Fifthly, to enhance transparency in the multi-shift NEET-PG examination, it was ordered that raw scores, answer keys, and normalisation formula be published.
In a stern warning against future malpractice, the sixth directive called for strict penalties for seat-blocking, including forfeiture of security deposits, disqualification from future NEET-PG exams for repeat offenders, and blacklisting of complicit colleges. Seventh, the Court mandated the adoption of Aadhaar-based seat tracking mechanisms to prevent candidates from holding multiple seats under pretences. Eighth, the Court declared that state authorities and Directorates of Medical Education (DMEs) would be held accountable through contempt or disciplinary proceedings for any breach of rules or schedules. Ninth, a uniform counselling conduct code applicable across all states was called for, to ensure consistency in rules related to eligibility, mop-up rounds, seat withdrawal, and grievance redressal timelines. Finally, the tenth direction required the establishment of a third-party oversight mechanism under the NMC to conduct annual audits on counselling data and ensure compliance with admission fairness standards.
The Court acknowledged that some reforms had indeed followed the 2018 High Court ruling and the apex court’s decision in Nihila P.P., including the adoption of four rounds of AIQ counselling. However, it noted that many of these reforms lacked rigorous implementation or were limited in scope. The Court stressed that technology-driven modernisation, structural coordination between central and state agencies, and uniform enforcement mechanisms were imperative to achieve a system where merit, transparency, and fairness are not compromised.
Regarding the monetary compensation awarded by the High Court, the Supreme Court found the amount of Rs.10 lakhs to each aggrieved candidate to be disproportionate, given the subsequent corrective measures and the evolving regulatory landscape. The bench accordingly reduced the compensation to Rs.1 lakh each, reasoning that while the grievances were genuine and deserved recognition, a lower amount would balance both accountability and the state’s evolving compliance with the new system. The Court refrained from interfering with the other remedial directions issued by the High Court, deeming them aligned with the principles of good governance and educational integrity.
In conclusion, this judgment represents a watershed moment in medical education governance in India. By addressing structural inadequacies and directing technology-driven reforms, the Supreme Court has taken a decisive step to re-establish trust in the NEET-PG system and reaffirm the fundamental values of merit and transparency that underpin public education.