SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 1077

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J
Sido Kahnu Medical College and Hospital – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P.(C) 16639/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Amit Sibal, Amarjit Singh Bedi, Varun Chandiok, Riya Seth
For the Respondents: Archana Pathak Dave, Jivesh Kr. Tiwari, Chetan Jadon, Vansh Jadon, Kirtiman Singh, T. Singhdev, Bhanu Gulati, Sourabh Kumar, Ritwick Saha, Tanishq Shrivastava, Yamini Singh, Ramanpreet Kaur, Vedant Sood, Abhijit Chakravarty

Interim directions for medical college student admissions are not warranted in the absence of valid statutory institutional approval and after the expiry of the established counselling deadline.

Headnote:The Petitioner, a medical college, filed an application under S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the recall of an earlier court order and sought inclusion in the special stray round of MBBS counselling for the 2025-2026 academic year. The Petitioner contended that the Union of India provided incorrect information regarding the addition of new seats and colleges in counselling pools, citing alleged past practices. The Court noted the submissions by the Respondents, emphasizing that counselling for the All-India Quota had concluded and that the absence of a valid Letter of Permission rendered the request for interim admission relief legally untenable. The central issue involved whether an interim direction could be granted to include a college in the counselling process post-deadline and without necessary statutory approvals. The court examined the statutory framework governing medical college admissions, noting that the Division Bench had previously established that approval from the National Medical Commission is a mandatory prerequisite for admitting students. Relying on binding precedents, it was reasoned that judiciary-mandated interim relief cannot override statutory approval requirements. The application for further consideration was adjourned to 07.01.2026 at the request of the Petitioner, pending proceedings before the Supreme Court.

Table of Content
1. application for procedural recall in medical admission counselling. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. requirement of statutory approval and expiry of counselling deadlines for interim relief. (Para 4)
3. deference to pending supreme court proceedings regarding interim relief. (Para 5 , 6)

O R D E R

CM APPL. 81685/2025

1. This application is filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 151 CPC for recall of order dated 19.12.2025 as also for a direction to include the name of the Petitioner College in the special stray round of counselling for 150 MBBS seats for academic year 2025-2026, pursuant to notice dated 17.12.2025.

2. Mr. Amit Sibal, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that filing of this application is necessitated on account of the fact that an incorrect statement was made on behalf of Union of India on 19.12.2025 that notice dated 17.12.2025 was only for filling up seats which were lying vacant due to non-joining/non-reporting after completion of stray vacancy round of NEET (UG) 2025 counselling and neither new seats will be added nor new colleges will be permitted to participate in this round of counselling. It is urged that after the order was passed on 19.12.2025, Petitioner learnt that even in the last year i.e., for academic year 2024-2025, new seats and new colleges were added in stray round and special rounds and that this practice has been continuing over the years. He also submits that Union of India has taken a categorical stand in its reply to the application that no new seats were included in the previous year, which is clearly false as would be demonstrated from the documents filed with the application.

3. Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for Union of India, on instructions, reiterates her statement made on 19.12.2025 that notice dated 17.12.2025 was only for filling up seats which were lying vacant due to non-joining/non-reporting after completion of stray vacancy round and no new seats or new colleges were permitted to participate in the said counselling round. As for the past practice, it is stated that at this stage, she is not privy to the complete details and in any event that has no relevance with the notice dated 17.12.2025 which pertains to the current academic year.

4. Mr. T. Singhdev, learned counsel appearing for Respondents No.2 and 3 submits that counselling for All-India Quota ended on 31.12.2025 and once the counselling is over, no interim order is warranted, permitting the Petitioner to participate as that would amount to extending the date of counselling. He further submits that in identical circumstances, this Court had declined interim relief in W.P. (C) 19317/2025 in case titled Raja Rajeshwari Institute of Medical Sciences Girls v. Union of India and Ors. vide order dated 19.12.2025 on the ground that all rounds of counselling were over. Petitioner challenged the order before the Division Bench in LPA No. 791/2025, which was dismissed on 23.12.2025. Division Bench observed that in terms of provisions contained in the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, any fresh medical college can be established only after requisite statutory approval is accorded by National Medical Commission and since as on date approval has not been accorded to the Appellant and the order rejecting the approval is pending challenge before the Single Judge, any liberty to the Appellant to admit students will not be warranted. Division Bench relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in Dental Council of India v. Dr. Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandal Hingoli and Others , (2017) 13 SCC 115, wherein it was held, in light of the entire statutory framework for establishment of new medical college, that any order permitting admission of students by way of interim measures would be unwarranted. In light of this order, it is argued that since counselling is over, no interim order is warranted in the absence of Letter of Permission in favour of the Petitioner.

5

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top