Supreme Court Clarifies: NCISM Cannot Unilaterally Lower Percentile Thresholds Without Rules

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.

Main Legal Finding: Limits on NCISM's Authority

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. 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. 2010 4 Supreme 611 This means modifications to criteria like percentiles must originate from the governing statutory or regulatory framework, not ad-hoc decisions.

Key Points from Supreme Court Guidance

• Courts hold that powers to alter eligibility criteria or percentiles must be rooted in statutes or regulations. 2010 4 Supreme 611
• Without explicit rules, arbitrary changes lack legal basis and are impermissible. 2010 4 Supreme 611
• Administrative bodies cannot relax standards without proper rule-making, ensuring actions stay within legal bounds. 2010 4 Supreme 611

Detailed Analysis: Judicial Principles on Modifying Criteria

Absence of Rule Framing

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. 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. 2010 4 Supreme 611

Implications for NCISM

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.

Insights from Related Homeopathy and AYUSH Cases

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 INDIA

CHHADAMILAL 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. 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 1943

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. 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. 2022 0 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. 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 1392

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.

Exceptions and Limitations

While strict, exceptions apply:

• Explicit statutory grants allowing NCISM to relax criteria.
• Justified deviations backed by clear provisions, not arbitrariness.

However, participation in processes aware of rules waives later claims, as seen in NK-II category denials. 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56045

Practical Recommendations for Stakeholders

To navigate this landscape:

• For NCISM: Frame transparent rules outlining percentile modification processes to enable lawful flexibility.
• Institutions: Adhere strictly to counseling and eligibility to avoid invalidations, as retrospective validations are limited. 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 1392
• Students/Candidates: Understand state vs. national guidelines; domicile often dictates relaxations.
• All Parties: Ensure changes pre-examination to prevent adverse impacts on competitors.

  SHREYA CHOUBEY Vs UNION OF INDIA

Future modifications should withstand scrutiny through rule-based transparency.

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

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. 2010 4 Supreme 611- Post-exam alterations disadvantage candidates.

SHREYA CHOUBEY Vs UNION OF INDIA

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)