1. BDS admissions — Lowering of minimum NEET qualifying percentile by State Government and private colleges — Challenge to legality of such admissions under 2007 Regulations. (Para 2 , 5 , 8 , 15 , 18 , 23 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 2074
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, VIJAY BISHNOI, JJ.
Siddhant Mahajan And Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s) 14875-14880 Of 2025 (Arising Out Of SLP (Civil) No(s). 14014-14019 of 2023) With Civil Appeal No 14881-14883 of 2025 (Arising Out Of SLP (CIVIL) No. 11988-11990 of 2023), Civil Appeal No. 14884-14885 of 2025 (Arising Out Of SLP (Civil) No.12372-12373 Of 2023), Civil Appeal Nos. 14886-14888 Of 2025 (Arising Out Of SLP (Civil) No(S).11566-11568 Of 2023), Civil Appeal Nos. 14889-14896 Of 2025 (Arising Out Of SLP (Civil) No(S). 12440-12447 Of 2023), Civil Appeal No. 14897 Of 2025 (Arising Out Of SLP (Civil) No. 24550 Of 2023), Civil Appeal No. 14898 Of 2025 (Arising Out Of SLP (Civil) No. 2837 Of 2024), Civil Appeal No. 14899 Of 2025 (Arising Out Of SLP (Civil) No. 2724 of 2024).
Decided On : 18-12-2025
Important Points
Admissions to BDS courses granted under relaxed percentile criteria by the State were illegal, emphasizing that only the Central Government holds the authority to set qualifying standards for NEET.
Subject
Education Law - Medical Admissions
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Dentists Act, 1948 - Sections 10D and 20 - National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) - Admissions to BDS course - Legality of admissions granted in 2016-17 after lowering percentile - State of Rajasthan conducted admissions below minimal percentiles without authority, resulting in several illegitimate admissions. (Paras 2-4, 40-61)
(B) Admissions - Violation of NEET guidelines - Students admitted with distress, despite knowledge of the irregularity of their admission based on relaxed criteria set by the State government and failing to meet standard NEET qualifications for two years. (Paras 34, 52, 62)
(C) Equity - While recognizing hardship on students, but emphasizing on adherence to merit and standards; court allowed students who completed BDS under irregular circumstances to retain their degrees, asserting non-precedent status on case outcomes henceforth. (Paras 57, 61)
Facts of the case:
A series of appeals contested the legality of admissions granted to students for the BDS course in Rajasthan based on a relaxation of NEET qualifying marks. The relaxation was given by the State beyond what the Central Government allowed, leading to illegal admissions of students with extremely low or negative percentile scores. The single and division benches of the High Court upheld some admissions while discharging others as unlawful. (Paras 2-4, 28-59)
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found the admissions conducted under unauthorized relaxations unsustainable in law, leading to direction for admissions normalization with conditions, including deposits of compensation from colleges and directives for improving welfare institutions from collected funds. (Paras 60-64)
Issues: Key issues involved the authority of the State to lower NEET qualifying standards, the legality of admissions granted in violation of regulations, and the treatment of students affected by those decisions. (Paras 40-61)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that only the Central Government could lower NEET qualifying marks, emphasizing adherence to lawful protocols in educational admissions and rejecting deviation leading to maintaining merit and educational standards. (Paras 40-46, 62)
Result: Appeals allowed in part; students who had completed the BDS course were allowed to retain their degrees, while responsible bodies were instructed to face punitive costs for violations. (Paras 57-64)
(B) Admissions - Violation of NEET guidelines - Students admitted with distress, despite knowledge of the irregularity of their admission based on relaxed criteria set by the State government and failing to meet standard NEET qualifications for two years. (Paras 34, 52, 62)
(C) Equity - While recognizing hardship on students, but emphasizing on adherence to merit and standards; court allowed students who completed BDS under irregular circumstances to retain their degrees, asserting non-precedent status on case outcomes henceforth. (Paras 57, 61)
Facts of the case:
A series of appeals contested the legality of admissions granted to students for the BDS course in Rajasthan based on a relaxation of NEET qualifying marks. The relaxation was given by the State beyond what the Central Government allowed, leading to illegal admissions of students with extremely low or negative percentile scores. The single and division benches of the High Court upheld some admissions while discharging others as unlawful. (Paras 2-4, 28-59)
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found the admissions conducted under unauthorized relaxations unsustainable in law, leading to direction for admissions normalization with conditions, including deposits of compensation from colleges and directives for improving welfare institutions from collected funds. (Paras 60-64)
Issues: Key issues involved the authority of the State to lower NEET qualifying standards, the legality of admissions granted in violation of regulations, and the treatment of students affected by those decisions. (Paras 40-61)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that only the Central Government could lower NEET qualifying marks, emphasizing adherence to lawful protocols in educational admissions and rejecting deviation leading to maintaining merit and educational standards. (Paras 40-46, 62)
Result: Appeals allowed in part; students who had completed the BDS course were allowed to retain their degrees, while responsible bodies were instructed to face punitive costs for violations. (Paras 57-64)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Manish Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Namrata Sharma, Adv. Ms. Nandani Gupta, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kumar, Adv. Ms. Rehana Begam, Adv. Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr. Kumar Kartikey, Adv. Ms. Neelu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Maibam Nabaghanashyam Singh, AOR Mr. A A Bhashali, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Kumar, Adv. Mr. E Vinay Kumar, Adv. Dr. A A Banshali, Adv. Mr. Deepak Goel, AOR Mr. Alka Goyal, Adv. Ms. Harshita Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Archana Preeti Gupta, Adv. Ms. Urvashi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, Adv. Mr. Ankit Roy, AOR Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, Adv. Ms. Padma Priya, Adv. Mr. Prateek Bhatia, AOR Mr. Dhawal Mohan, Adv. Ms. Alankrita Sinha, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Praveen Acharya, AOR Mr. Abhimanyu Kaul, Adv. Mr. Aditya Bhati, Adv. Mr. Lakshay Sharma, Adv. Mr. Bhuvnesh Vyas, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kanoj, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Pallav Shishodia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manan Shishodia, Adv. Mr. Chirag Joshi, Adv. Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, AOR Ms. Sansriti Pathak, A.A.G. Ms. Shagufa Khan, Adv. Mr. Aman Prasad, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR Mr. Anand Shankar, AOR Mr. Prateek Bhatia, AOR Mr. Dhawal Mohan, Adv. Ms. Alankrita Sinha, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Praveen Acharya, AOR Ms. Charu Mathur, AOR Mr. Manish Raghav, AOR Mr. Manish Raghav, Adv. Mr. Jagdish Solanki, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Singh Dhillon, Adv. Mr. Sumit Saddi, Adv. Mr. Kartik Hooda, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Singh, Adv. Mr. Prakash Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Rajan Thakur, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Manish Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Namrata Sharma, Adv. Ms. Nandani Gupta, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kumar, Adv. Ms. Rehana Begam, Adv. Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr. Kumar Kartikey, Adv. Ms. Neelu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Maibam Nabaghanashyam Singh, AOR Mr. A A Bhashali, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Kumar, Adv. Mr. E Vinay Kumar, Adv. Dr. A A Banshali, Adv. Mr. Deepak Goel, AOR Mr. Alka Goyal, Adv. Ms. Harshita Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Archana Preeti Gupta, Adv. Ms. Urvashi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, Adv. Mr. Ankit Roy, AOR Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, Adv. Ms. Padma Priya, Adv. Mr. Prateek Bhatia, AOR Mr. Dhawal Mohan, Adv. Ms. Alankrita Sinha, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Praveen Acharya, AOR Mr. Abhimanyu Kaul, Adv. Mr. Aditya Bhati, Adv. Mr. Lakshay Sharma, Adv. Mr. Bhuvnesh Vyas, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kanoj, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Pallav Shishodia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manan Shishodia, Adv. Mr. Chirag Joshi, Adv. Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, AOR Ms. Sansriti Pathak, A.A.G. Ms. Shagufa Khan, Adv. Mr. Aman Prasad, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR Mr. Anand Shankar, AOR Mr. Prateek Bhatia, AOR Mr. Dhawal Mohan, Adv. Ms. Alankrita Sinha, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Praveen Acharya, AOR Ms. Charu Mathur, AOR Mr. Manish Raghav, AOR Mr. Manish Raghav, Adv. Mr. Jagdish Solanki, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Singh Dhillon, Adv. Mr. Sumit Saddi, Adv. Mr. Kartik Hooda, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Singh, Adv. Mr. Prakash Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Rajan Thakur, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Students claim equity and hardship — DCI asserts exclusive Central Government power to lower percentiles — Colleges plead promissory estoppel and filling of vacant seats. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 )
3. Power to lower NEET percentiles is vested exclusively in the Central Government — Phrases suggesting necessary action do not constitute delegation of statutory power. (Para 42 , 44 , 45 , 51 , 52 )
4. Statutory power to lower minimum qualifying marks for medical admissions is non-delegable and rests solely with the Central Government in consultation with the regulatory body. (Para 42 , 45 )
5. Degrees of students who completed the course regularized under Article 142 — Others discharged — Punitive costs imposed on colleges and State Government. (Para 57 , 58 , 62 )
6. Who has the authority to lower the minimum qualifying percentile for NEET-UG BDS admissions?
The power to lower the minimum marks required for admission to the BDS course is vested exclusively in the Central Government, to be exercised in consultation with the Dental Council of India (DCI), as per the 2007 Regulations. (Para 42 , 45 )
7. Can the Central Government delegate the power to lower NEET qualifying percentiles to a State Government?
No. The statutory power to lower minimum marks is non-delegable. Phrases like necessary action as deemed fit in communications cannot be construed as a delegation of statutory authority to the State Government. (Para 44 , 45 )
8. Does the doctrine of promissory estoppel apply to admissions made in violation of statutory regulations?
No. Promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to sustain an action taken in contravention of a statutory mandate; there can be no estoppel against a statute. (Para 49 )
9. Under what circumstances can the court regularize illegal medical admissions using Article 142?
The court may exercise extraordinary powers under Article 142 to prevent immense hardship when students have already completed the course and were unaware of the irregularity, provided it serves the interest of complete justice. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 )
JUDGMENT :
VIJAY BISHNOI, J.
Leave granted.
2. The present batch of appeals concerns the legality of the Bachelor of Dental Surgery (hereinafter referred to as “BDS”) course admissions granted in the State of Rajasthan for the academic year 2016-17 after lowering of the minimum percentile as prescribed for the National Entrance-cum-Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to as “NEET”) UG examinations.
3. The appeals have been preferred against the final Judgment and Order dated 04.05.2023 (hereinafter referred to as “impugned judgment”) passed in D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 911/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 957/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 958/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 959/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 963/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 964/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1155/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1184/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1272/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1273/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1287/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1288/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1289/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1304/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1310/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1311/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1316/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1317/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1340/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1349/2018, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1749/2018 and D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 387/2018 (hereinafter referred to as “the writ appeals”) by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur (hereinafter referred as “the High Court”). The Division Bench of the High Court, thereby dismissed the said writ appeals preferred by the appellants herein against the Judgment and Order dated 20.04.2018 passed by the Single Judge Bench of the High Court in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13776 of 2017 and other connected petitions, whereby the said petitions were partly allowed and it was ordered that the admissions granted by applying the relaxation to the extent of 10 percentile and 5 percentile stood regularized and the students who had been admitted beyond the said relaxation stood discharged.
4. The appellants before us can be classified into the following three categories:
A. In appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos.14014-14019 of 2023, 11988-11990 of 2023, 12372-12373 of 2023, 11566-11568 of 2023 and 24550 of 2023: Students, who were granted admission beyond the relaxation of 10 percentile and additional 5 percentile as was granted by the State of Rajasthan, are aggrieved by the impugned judgment for directing their discharge from the BDS course with immediate effect.
B. In appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos.12440-12447 of 2023: The Dental Colleges of the State of Rajasthan, which granted admissions to the students, beyond the relaxation that was granted by the State of Rajasthan, are aggrieved by the impugned judgment, whereby the respective Colleges were penalised with costs of Rs.50,00,000/- each and were directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- to every such student, who was made to suffer on account of being illegally admitted to the BDS course.
C. In appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 2837 of 2024 and 2724 of 2024: The Dental Council of India is challenging the impugned judgment so far as it regularises the admissions of students who were admitted to the BDS course on account of lowering the minimum percentile, beyond what is provided under sub- regulation 5 of Regulation II of the Revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2007 Regulations”), by the State of Rajasthan.
FACTUAL MATRIX
5. The Dental Council of India (hereinafter referred to as “the DCI”) is a body constituted under the provisions of the Dentists Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). With the aim of maintaining uniform standards for dental education at the undergraduate and postgraduate level in the country, the DCI, in exercise of the rule-making powers vested in it under Section 20 of the Act, framed the 1983 Regulations with the previous sanction of the Central Government. Thereafter, in the year
