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)(UK) 1268

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL


2026:UHC:3441-DB



WRIT PETITION (M/B) No. 935 OF 2025 (1)


WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 3134 OF 2019 (2)


WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 3136 OF 2019 (3)


WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 3140 OF 2019 (4)


WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 3161 OF 2019 (5)


WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 3167 OF 2019 (6)


WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 207 OF 2021 (7)


WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 461 OF 2021 (8)


WRIT PETITION (M/B) No. 841 OF 2025 (9)


WRIT PETITION (M/B) No. 1053 OF 2025 (10)


WRIT PETITION (M/B) No. 1057 OF 2025 (11)


WRIT PETITION (M/B) No. 1064 OF 2025 (12)



Vineeta and others ...Petitioners


Versus


State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondent


Motherhood Ayurveda Medical College, Roorkee ...Petitioner


Versus


State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents


Om Ayrveda Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre, District-Haridwar. ...Petitioner


Versus


State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents


Uttaranchal Ayurvedic Medical College, Dehradun. ...Petitioner


Versus


State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents


Smt. Manjira Devi Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital, Uttarkashi. ...Petitioner


Versus


State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents


Shivalik Institute of Ayurveda and Research, Dehradun. ...Petitioner


Versus


State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents


Quadra Institute of Ayurveda ...Petitioner


Versus


State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents


Doon Institute of Medical Sciences. ...Petitioner


Versus


State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents


Hassanul Haque and others. ...Petitioners


Versus


State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents


Satya Dev and others. ...Petitioners


Versus


State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents


Farha Khan and others. ...Petitioners


Versus


State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents


Mohd. Suaib and others ...Petitioners


Versus


State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents



Counsel for the petitioners : Sri Yogesh Pacholia, Sri Tilak Ram, Sri Navneet Kaushik, Sri Niranjan Bhatt and Sri Aditya Singh, learned counsel.


Counsel for the respondents : Sri J.C. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel with Sri M.S. Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State.


Sri Rajesh Sharma, Sri Saurav Adhikari, Sri Manoj Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India.


Sri Krishan Mohan Joshi, Advocate, holding brief of Sri V.K. Kaparuwan, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India.


Sri Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for Uttarakhand Ayurveda University.


Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for National Commission for Indian System of Medicine.


HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY


JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 30.04.2026

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 07.05.2026

JUDGMENT : (Per Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)

1. A common question which arises for consideration in the present batch of writ petitions is whether the admissions granted to students in AYUSH undergraduate courses during the academic year 2019-20 by various private colleges, bypassing the counseling process based on the result of National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET), could be regularized; and whether the provisional registration granted to the students by the University on basis of interim orders passed in writ petitions filed by the colleges / students can be held to be valid, so as to entitle such students, who have pursued their courses for all these years, to appear in the final examinations, and in cases where they have already appeared, to have their results declared.

2.

2. Broadly, there are two sets of writ petitions. The one is by the individual colleges, wherein the colleges have either challenged the Notification dated 03.01.2019 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (AYUSH) providing that all admissions in AYUSH courses shall mandatorily be made through the merit list of NEET (UG)-2019, in view of the amendments made in the Regulations by the Central Council of Indian Medicine with the previous sanction of the Central Government by Notification dated 7th December, 2018, or have sought a mandamus to permit such students to appear in the professional examinations in different years.

3. The other set of petitions is by the students seeking a mandamus to the respondents to declare their results of the final examination of B.A.M.S. course and/or to permit them to appear in different professional examinations, thereby, enabling them to complete their B.A.M.S. course, and / or to declare their results and issue marksheets to them and / or to quash the order passed by the University cancelling their temporary registration for the course.

4. In some cases, interlocutory applications have also been filed seeking different reliefs which, in pith and substance, are essentially for grant of permission to complete different stages of the course.

5. The brief facts are that by Notification dated 07.12.2018, the Central Council of Indian Medicine introduced the Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standards of Education in Indian Medicine) Amendment Regulations, 2018. By Regulation 2(d), it was provided that there shall be a uniform entrance examination for all medical institutions for admission to undergraduate courses in each academic year, to be conducted by an authority designated by the Central Government. The said Regulations were challenged by various colleges before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The writ petitions were dismissed by judgment date 18.12.2019. Aggrieved thereby, the colleges filed Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided the controversy by judgment dated 20.02.2020 in Union of India vs. Federation of Self-Financed Ayurvedic Colleges Punjab and others, reported in (2020) 12 SCC 115. The Supreme Court held that Section 22 of the Indian Medicines Central Council Act, 1970, which empowers the Central Council to prescribe minimum standards of education in Indian Medicine, is wide enough to enable the Council to provide for NEET examination and, accordingly, the amendments made in the Regulations, making provisions for admission through NEET examination, were upheld. While so holding, the Supreme Court, considering the fact that a large number of seats had remained vacant in various private colleges, even after final round of counseling, and that the colleges had admitted students on the strength of interim orders passed by the High Courts, permitted such students to pursue their courses, provided they were admitted prior to the last date of admission i.e. 15th October, 2019. The Supreme Court clarified that the relaxation granted by it was a one-time measure and would not be

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