Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Supreme Court's Stance on Minimum Standards and Percentile - The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that minimum standards, such as minimum percentile marks, are essential to prevent the entry of underqualified practitioners. Lowering these standards solely due to seat availability or other reasons is not permissible, as it compromises quality and standards in medical education ["Dr. Abdul Ali Tibbiya College And Hospital,Lko. Thru. Director Prof. Dr. Arshad Ali VS State Of U. P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Ayush, Lko. - Allahabad"].
NCISM and Rules Framing - The NCISM (National Commission for Indian System of Medicine) cannot unilaterally decrease the percentile criteria unless rules are explicitly framed or amended under relevant statutes. The absence of such regulations or amendments means that directives to lower percentiles, like the 50% minimum, cannot be enforced ["Shreya Choubey D/o Chandrajeet Choubey VS Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Ayurveda - Chhattisgarh"], ["Swanirbhar Homoeopathic Medical College Sanchalak Mahamandal, Gujarat State VS Union Of India - Gujarat"].
Supreme Court's Position on Lowering Percentile - The Court has held that the prescription of minimum percentile marks for admission is a statutory requirement, and such standards cannot be relaxed or lowered without proper legislative or regulatory amendments. Orders or guidelines issued without statutory backing are not enforceable ["Dr. Abdul Ali Tibbiya College And Hospital,Lko. Thru. Director Prof. Dr. Arshad Ali VS State Of U. P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Ayush, Lko. - Allahabad"], ["Swanirbhar Homoeopathic Medical College Sanchalak Mahamandal, Gujarat State VS Union Of India - Gujarat"].
Impact of Court Judgments and Regulations - The Court has clarified that mere guidelines or information bulletins cannot replace statutory regulations. Any change in admission criteria, including percentile requirements, must be made through proper amendments to the relevant Acts (e.g., Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973) or regulations ["SHREYA CHOUBEY Vs UNION OF INDIA - Chhattisgarh"], ["SHREYA CHOUBEY Vs UNION OF INDIA - Chhattisgarh"].
No Precedent for Arbitrary Reduction - The Court has explicitly stated that directives or orders that lower standards without statutory authority cannot be treated as precedent. Each case must be decided based on existing regulations, and any deviation requires proper regulatory amendments ["SHREYA CHOUBEY Vs UNION OF INDIA - Chhattisgarh"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The Supreme Court has held that the NCISM cannot decrease the minimum percentile requirements for admission unless proper rules are framed or amended under statutory provisions. Orders or guidelines that attempt to lower standards without legislative backing are not enforceable and cannot be considered as precedent. Therefore, unless rules are formally amended, NCISM cannot unilaterally reduce the percentile thresholds, including the 50% minimum mark for homeopathy or other AYUSH courses ["Dr. Abdul Ali Tibbiya College And Hospital,Lko. Thru. Director Prof. Dr. Arshad Ali VS State Of U. P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Ayush, Lko. - Allahabad"], ["Swanirbhar Homoeopathic Medical College Sanchalak Mahamandal, Gujarat State VS Union Of India - Gujarat"].
In the competitive world of medical admissions, especially for Indian Systems of Medicine like Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Siddha, and Homeopathy (AYUSH), eligibility criteria such as percentile thresholds play a crucial role. A pressing question arises: Can NCISM decrease the percentile unless rules are framed, as held by the Supreme Court in a homeopathy case? This issue has significant implications for students, institutions, and regulatory bodies. Recent judicial pronouncements underscore that authorities like the National Commission for Indian Systems of Medicine (NCISM) lack the power to modify these thresholds without explicit statutory backing or framed rules. Let's dive into the legal nuances, drawing from key judgments and related precedents.
The core principle is clear: NCISM does not have the authority to unilaterally modify or relax percentile thresholds for admissions or qualifications without specific rule framing or statutory provisions. Courts emphasize that such discretion must stem from clear legal sources, and they hesitate to intervene in policy matters absent arbitrariness or statutory violations. H. P. Public Service Commission VS Mukesh Thakur - 2010 4 Supreme 611
As highlighted in judicial review contexts, Service Law – Judicial review – Court cannot take upon itself the task of the Statutory Authorities. H. P. Public Service Commission VS Mukesh Thakur - 2010 4 Supreme 611 This means modifications to criteria like percentiles must originate from the governing statutory or regulatory framework, not ad-hoc decisions.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that without provisions for re-evaluation or modification, courts—and by extension, authorities—cannot direct changes. For instance, In absence of provision for re-evaluation, a direction to this effect cannot be issued by Court. H. P. Public Service Commission VS Mukesh Thakur - 2010 4 Supreme 611 This logic extends to percentile adjustments in admissions, requiring framed rules for validity.
Discretion in policy decisions exists but is confined to statutory limits. Interference is warranted only for manifest arbitrariness, as noted where a Union decision was upheld as reasonable. H. P. Public Service Commission VS Mukesh Thakur - 2010 4 Supreme 611
For NCISM, this means unilateral percentile reductions are invalid unless empowered by specific rules under the NCISM Act, 2020, or related regulations. Without such, actions risk judicial invalidation, protecting the integrity of merit-based admissions.
The Supreme Court's stance echoes across similar domains, particularly homeopathy admissions, reinforcing the need for rule-based changes.
In homeopathy contexts, regulations under the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973, were framed specifically for degree courses, and rules could not be altered adversely post-examination. In such case this Court has held that the Rules of selection cannot be changed adversely as against the interest of the competing candidates after they have appeared in examination. SHREYA CHOUBEY Vs UNION OF INDIACHHADAMILAL CHOUKSAY MEMORIAL HOMOEOPATHY MEDICAL COLLEGE Vs UNION OF INDIA
Another precedent clarifies that lowering minimum marks requires alignment with regulations, as in cases where the Dental Council recommended changes per 2022 Regulations—unlike unilateral moves. Karnataka Private Homoeopathic Medical College Managements Association, Represented By Its General Secretary, Sri. K. Chandrashekar, S/o. Sri. Hanumanthappa vs Union Of India, Represented By Its Secretary - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 440628
State-level admissions further illustrate: NCISM guidelines on OBC percentile relaxation (40th percentile for SC/ST/OBC) are overridden by state domicile rules for All India Quota (AIQ) seats. Non-Keralite II category candidates, for example, do not qualify for reservations or relaxations based on state prospectuses. The court upheld that Eligibility for AIQ seats is dictated by state regulations, overriding national guidelines for OBCs who are not granted percentile relaxation based on domicile. SRISWAGATH S, SAABIQ MOHAMED, MUSHALINI G vs THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56045
In regularization disputes, authorities like the National Commission for Homeopathy informed that percentiles must be met per rules, denying regularization powers to bodies like ARA, Maharashtra. Jumrani Gautam Anilkumar VS Union pf India through Ministry of Ayush - 2022 Supreme(Bom) 2642
Non-compliance with NCISM Regulations, such as bypassing counseling for BAMS admissions, renders processes illegal. Courts stress adherence to statutory counseling to maintain standards. T.M.A.E. Society'S, Ayurvedic Medical College And Hospital vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health Sciences - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 21774
Even in broader regulatory challenges, information bulletins cannot substitute statutory regulations under acts like the 1973 Homeopathy Act. SHREYA CHOUBEY Vs UNION OF INDIA - Chhattisgarh_Delhi_CM_APPL-1274_2022 2022_DHC_787-DB
These cases collectively affirm: Rules prevail, and changes post-process harm candidates' interests.
While strict, exceptions apply:
However, participation in processes aware of rules waives later claims, as seen in NK-II category denials. SRISWAGATH S, SAABIQ MOHAMED, MUSHALINI G vs THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56045
To navigate this landscape:
Future modifications should withstand scrutiny through rule-based transparency.
The Supreme Court's position, rooted in homeopathy precedents, firmly establishes that NCISM cannot decrease percentiles without framed rules—safeguarding fairness in AYUSH admissions. This upholds statutory supremacy over discretion, preventing arbitrariness.
Key Takeaways:- Percentile changes demand explicit rules. H. P. Public Service Commission VS Mukesh Thakur - 2010 4 Supreme 611- Post-exam alterations disadvantage candidates. SHREYA CHOUBEY Vs UNION OF INDIA- State regulations often govern AIQ nuances. SRISWAGATH S, SAABIQ MOHAMED, MUSHALINI G vs THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56045- Compliance ensures educational quality. T.M.A.E. Society'S, Ayurvedic Medical College And Hospital vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health Sciences - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 21774
This article provides general insights based on judicial precedents and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for specific cases.
(Word count: approximately 1050)
#NCISM #SupremeCourt #AYUSHAdmissions
The Apex Court with respect to NMC, a body constituted on similar lines for MBBS courses as NCISM, having been constituted for Ayush Courses, has held in the case of Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. ... Time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that lack of minimum standards would result in half-baked doctors and non-availability of eligible candidates could not be a reason to lower the standard. ... and Homeopathy to be 59000 seat....
The judgment of the High Court of Madras in the case of Dr. T. ... It is settled that a Writ Court cannot determine the constitutional question in a vacuum. ... There is no question of applicability of the provisions struck down by the High Court of Karnataka until and unless the Apex Court upsets the judgment or stays the operation of the judgment. ... Reliance is also placed on the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of ....
In such case this Court has held that the Rules of selection cannot be changed adversely as against the interest of the competing candidates after they have appeared in examination. ... 18. ... Likewise for admission to the Homeopathy stream, the regulations were framed under the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 and the rules were framed under Homeopathy (Degree Course) Regulations, 1983. ... ....
In such case this Court has held that the Rules of selection cannot be changed adversely as against the interest of the competing candidates after they have appeared in examination. ... XXX xxx xxx 12.Likewise for admission to the Homeopathy stream, the regulations were framed under the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 and the rules were framed under Homeopathy (Degree ... Referring the order....
In such case this Court has held that the Rules of selection cannot be changed adversely as against the interest of the competing candidates after they have appeared in examination. ... XXX xxx xxx 12.Likewise for admission to the Homeopathy stream, the regulations were framed under the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 and the rules were framed under Homeopathy (Degree ... Referring the order....
it was held that the facts of that case were entirely different inasmuch as, in the case before the Supreme Court in Harshit Agarwal (supra), it was the Dental Council itself that recommended for lowering of minimum marks, which is in accordance with the Regulations 2022. ... Union of India and Others, (2021) 2 SCC 710 to contend that the Supreme Court in that case was considering admission to the Undergraduate course for the BDS Course and it was ob....
As held by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. ... As per the NCISM guidelines, the minimum marks in the case of SC, ST and OBC candidates is 40th percentile. ... be transferred and converted to the State /UT quota seats and filled up in further rounds as per State Government norms/rules. ... Even otherwise, having participated in the admission process, fully aware of the fact that NK-II category students are not entitled for reservation, the petitioners #H....
admissions cannot be held to be illegal. ... The Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that the restriction laid down in Dar-Us-Slam Educational Trust case would apply only for admission to UG courses and it would not apply even to PG courses. Here we are concerned with admission to courses imparting Indian Medicine and Homeopathy. ... The writ petition filed by the petitioner-college, being W.P.No.3595/2023, was allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 31.03.202....
not the case in hand. ... According to learned counsel for the respondents, particularly MUHS, the National Commission for Homeopathy i.e. respondent herein has already intimated about non-fulfilling the percentile prescribed by the rules and regularization and as such the ARA, Government of Maharashtra has no powers to regularize ... In this background, neither of the petitioners case is at par with the one which was pleaded before the Apex Court nor before the Karnataka High #HL_STAR....
The information bulletin, in our view, cannot substitute the regulations framed under a statute. ... Thus, the fact that the 2018 Homeopathy Regulations framed under the 1973 Homeopathy Act [which 2022:DHC:787-DB W.P. ... Insofar as the reliance placed on the judgement of the Supreme Court dated 20.02.2020 is concerned, our attention was drawn by Mr Animesh to the observations made by the Supreme Court in paragrap....
However, as we have observed hereinabove, none of the Rules and Regulations brought to our notice suggest that a unified All India cadre of LDCs has been created or exists in the ESIC. The Supreme Court held that once rules are framed, the action of the Government in respect of matters covered by the rules should be regulated by the Rules. 44. Reliance placed by Mr. Khatana on A.K. Bhatnagar and Ors. (supra) & Ranajit Kumar Meher (supra) is misplaced.
The provisions of the Act, therefore, must prevail over the rules. The Supreme Court held that the rules framed by the Coal India Limited are not statutory rules.
6. The Supreme Court held that the rules framed by the Coal India Limited are not statutory rules. The provisions of the Act, therefore, must prevail over the rules.
If the State Government had considered the case of the petitioner along with other candidates before appointment to the selection posts, there would be no breach of provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India because every one who was eligible in view of the conditions of service and was entitled to consideration , was actually considered before promotion to those selection posts were actually made.” Meaning thereby, even administrative instructions can be issued regarding principles to be followed for appointment. In the above Sant Ram's case, Hon'ble Supreme Cou....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
