When Compassion Meets the Courtroom: Rajasthan HC Grants Relief to NEET Aspirant

In a landmark decision that underscores the role of the judiciary as a guardian of citizens' aspirations, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur has intervened to protect a medical student from losing his seat due to unavoidable personal tragedy and administrative inflexibility. Justice Sameer Jain’s recent judgment reminds state authorities that they are, foremost, welfare institutions.

The Backdrop: A Race Against Time

The petitioner, a young candidate from an impoverished background, secured a seat in a private medical college during the second round of NEET UG 2025 counselling. However, the path to his medical dream hit a jarring roadblock. The Counselling Board mandated that a fee of ₹18.90 lakh be deposited by 2:00 PM on September 30, 2025.

In the days preceding this deadline, the student’s great-grandmother—his primary guardian—passed away. Complicating matters further, the prior two days were public holidays, leaving the student unable to finalize the payment within the short, four-day window permitted. Despite depositing the funds just hours late on October 1, the authorities declared his seat vacant and labeled him "not eligible," citing a strict interpretation of the information booklet.

Arguments from the Trench

The petitioner sought the court's intervention, arguing that his delay was a direct result of bereavement and circumstances beyond his control. He requested the court to allow his participation in the third round of counselling by adjusting the security deposit already held by the board.

The respondent-Counseling Board took a firm stand, arguing that the information booklet is a "universal" document governing thousands of candidates. They maintained that granting an exception would "vitiate the entire process" and cause administrative chaos, though they failed to provide evidence of tangible, irreparable loss caused by this specific delay.

The Court’s Analysis: A Welfare State or a Compulsive Litigant?

Justice Sameer Jain did not mince words when criticizing the rigidity of the state’s position. The court noted that the state, as a welfare entity, should not act as a "compulsive litigant" that punishes students for minor procedural lapses during periods of national holidays and personal grief.

Drawing a parallel to the economic doctrine of "Unjust Enrichment," the court examined the legality of the board’s decision to forfeit the student's security deposit. The court observed that the respondent could not justify the retention of the forfeited funds.

> "The State, which under the Constitution of India is envisaged as a welfare state and the guardian of its citizens, is unfortunately portraying itself as a compulsive litigant by itself insisting upon the deposit of fees within an unreasonably short span of time."

Key Observations

• On the Nature of the Claim: "This court holds that the retention and forfeiture of the petitioner’s security deposit by the Counseling Board constitutes a classic instance of unjust enrichment."
• On Judicial Responsibility: "It is duty of judicial bodies to safeguard the budding aspirations, dreams and motivation of young minds, who burn the mid night oil to reach at the places like good medical institutes."
• On Procedural Fairness: "In the tussle between merits and money, future of bonafide aspirants need not to suffer."

The Verdict: Preserving Futures

The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, permitting him to participate in the third round of counselling. Crucially, the judgment directed that if the student is allotted a seat, his existing ₹5 lakh security deposit and the late-deposited balance must be adjusted against the total fees, avoiding the need for further financial strain.

While the court clarified that this order was passed due to the "peculiar facts and circumstances" of the case and does not serve as a binding precedent, the ruling acts as a strong rebuke to the "hefty fee, tight window" culture often seen in medical education admissions. Furthermore, the Registrar (Judicial) has been directed to forward the order to the National Medical Commission and the Ministry of Health, signaling a broader call for reforming how fee deadlines are enforced across the nation.