Supreme Court Quashes Midstream Policy Change in Punjab's Sports Quota for MBBS/BDS Admissions, Upholding Article 14 Principles

Introduction

In a significant ruling emphasizing transparency and non-arbitrariness in educational admissions, the Supreme Court of India has quashed a midstream modification to the sports quota policy for MBBS and BDS admissions in Punjab for the 2024 session. A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe held that altering admission criteria after the process has commenced violates settled principles of fairness under Article 14 of the Constitution. The decision, rendered in Divjot Sekhon v. State of Punjab , arose from appeals by aspiring medical students who challenged the inclusion of sports achievements from Classes IX and X alongside Classes XI and XII, a change introduced via an email on the last day of application submission. While limiting relief to the appellants to avoid disrupting broader admissions, the Court criticized the policy's origins, tainted by undisclosed personal interests, and granted liberty to 2025 session challengers to approach the High Court. This judgment reinforces that "the rules of the game cannot be changed once the game has begun," applying equally to admissions as to recruitments, and underscores the need for comprehensive policy formulation upfront.

The case highlights ongoing tensions in reservation policies for sports quotas in competitive fields like medical education, where a 1% reservation can make or break access to government seats. For legal professionals, it serves as a reminder of Article 14's vigilance against executive discretion that enables nepotism or arbitrariness, particularly in high-stakes processes.

Case Background

The dispute centers on admissions to MBBS and BDS courses under the 1% sports quota in Punjab for the 2024 academic session, governed by the Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (the University) and the State of Punjab. The appellants—Divjot Sekhon, a roller skater/inline hockey player, and Shubhkarman Singh, a baseball player—along with later appellants Agrima Mann, Gauranshi Dhingra, and Navreet Singh for the 2025 session, sought seats in government medical colleges through the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) UG-2024.

The process began with the Prospectus released by the University on August 9, 2024, explicitly stating that credit for sports achievements would be given only for Classes XI and XII. This aligned with pre-2023 norms, where the zone of consideration was limited to these senior classes, reflecting the period when students balance academics and sports closest to NEET preparation. Applications, including sports documents, were due by August 16, 2024. A checklist in the Prospectus reinforced this, requiring gradation certificates for Classes 10+1 and 10+2 only.

However, on August 16, 2024, at 6:07 PM—mere minutes before the deadline—the University issued an email to all sports quota applicants, directing them to submit achievements from "any class/year." This was followed by an addendum on September 3, 2024, retroactively claiming a misprint in the Prospectus. The Director of Sports, Punjab, then prepared a merit list on August 23, 2024, incorporating Classes IX and X achievements. As a result, Kudrat Kashyap (rank 1) and Mansirat Kaur (rank 5), both roller skaters with early achievements, secured government seats, while Sekhon (rank 8) and Singh (rank 9) were relegated to private colleges like Gian Sagar Medical College, incurring higher fees (over ₹22 lakh vs. ₹9.5 lakh in government institutions).

The 2023 session had temporarily expanded the zone to Classes IX-XII via a Corrigendum dated August 1, 2023, explicitly limited to that year due to COVID-19 disruptions. No such justification existed for 2024, yet the policy was perpetuated. Files revealed the change stemmed from a representation by Ramesh Kumar Kashyap, a roller-skating coach and father of Kudrat Kashyap, who advocated inclusion without disclosing his daughter's benefit. This led to internal endorsements, ignoring the Corrigendum's one-session limit.

For 2025, the Notification dated June 17, 2025 (published August 9, 2024), continued the expanded zone via Clauses 15(v) and 16(v), prompting the third set of appeals. The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed all writ petitions, relying on the 2023 precedent and policy deference, leading to the Supreme Court appeals (SLP(C) Nos. 23112/2024, 28046/2024, and 20137/2025).

The main legal questions were: (1) Whether midstream changes to admission criteria violate Article 14's equality and reasonableness mandates? (2) Does perpetuating a COVID-specific exception without justification introduce arbitrariness? (3) Can undisclosed personal influences vitiate policy modifications?

Arguments Presented

The appellants, represented by advocates including Ms. Misha Rohatgi, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, and Mr. B.K. Satija, argued that the policy change was arbitrary and vitiated the 2024 process. They contended that the initial Prospectus bound the authorities, and altering it post-application submission breached legitimate expectations and transparency. Citing precedents like K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008), they asserted that admission rules, like recruitment norms, cannot be modified mid-process, as it disadvantages candidates who prepared under the original criteria. For 2024 appellants, they highlighted financial prejudice from private seat allotments and demanded redrawing the merit list excluding Classes IX-X achievements. The 2025 appellants sought restoration of pre-2023 norms or staggered implementation, arguing the COVID exception's perpetuation lacked rationale and enabled favoritism.

The respondents—State of Punjab (via Mr. Siddhant Sharma) and the University (via Mr. Vikram Choudhary and others)—defended the change as aligned with the Sports Policy, 2023, notified on July 31, 2023, which did not specify class restrictions. They claimed the Prospectus caveat subordinated it to government notifications, and the August 9, 2024, Notification emphasized inter-se merit via gradation without limiting classes. Relying on Ibadat Sekhon v. State of Punjab (2023 High Court decision), they justified continuity from 2023's Corrigendum, arguing it addressed pandemic gaps where students missed senior-class opportunities. The State portrayed the email as a clarification, not alteration, and urged judicial restraint in policy matters, asserting no prejudice since all candidates could submit additional documents. They dismissed arbitrariness claims, noting the University's role as a nodal agency bound by the Sports Department's domain.

Kudrat Kashyap and Mansirat Kaur, impleaded respondents, emphasized their bona fide achievements and argued no direct relief was sought against them, seeking status quo in their allotments.

Legal Analysis

The Supreme Court meticulously dismantled the respondents' defenses, grounding its reasoning in Article 14's core tenets of reasonableness, non-arbitrariness, and equality. Interpreting the Sports Policy, 2023, the bench noted its silence on class zones but explicit exclusion of sub-junior tournaments under Rule 4.2, making the email's open-ended "any class/year" directive prone to arbitrariness and contrary to policy. The Court rejected reliance on the 2023 Corrigendum, which was expressly temporary and COVID-linked, observing that perpetuating an exception without justification fails Article 14's reasonableness test.

Drawing on Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve (2001), the bench reaffirmed that "the rules of the game cannot be altered once the game has begun," extending this from recruitments ( K. Manjusree , 2008; Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court , 2025) to admissions. It distinguished policy deference, holding that elastic norms invite nepotism, as evidenced by inconsistent application: for 2024, Classes XI-XII sufficed for allied courses like BAMS, BHMS, and BUMS, and even postgraduate admissions limited to MBBS/BDS-period achievements. This "glaring inconsistency" underscored double standards violative of equality.

Crucially, file notings revealed Ramesh Kumar Kashyap's undisclosed influence, tainting the policy's foundation. Invoking Mandeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2025) and Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CTO (2005), the Court presumed malafides in hasty, unreasoned changes, emphasizing that executive actions must be fair and transparent to pass Article 14 muster. It rejected Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2025) as inapplicable, clarifying that notings here illuminated decision-making flaws, not mere internals.

The doctrine of legitimate expectation, per Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala (2024), was invoked: candidates trusted the Prospectus, and midstream shifts erode good administration's consistency. The bench clarified that while states can revise policies, deviations from longstanding practices ( pre-2023 norms ) demand discernible reasons, absent here. This analysis not only quashed the 2024 modification but critiqued broader elastic policymaking, advising upfront, comprehensive framing to prevent "arbitrariness and nepotism... through the backdoor."

Precedents like Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority v. Vishnudev Cooperative Housing Society (2018) were distinguished, as ignoring influence-disclosing notings would shield impropriety. The ruling thus balances policy flexibility with constitutional safeguards, particularly in sought-after courses where reservations amplify stakes.

Key Observations

The judgment is replete with incisive observations underscoring the Court's dismay at procedural lapses:

• On midstream changes: "It is well-settled that the rules of the game cannot be altered once the game has begun. In Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and others vs. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and others , this Court observed that 'the rules of the game, meaning thereby, that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced'."

• On arbitrariness: "Lack of transparency at the outset invariably enables and makes room for arbitrariness and nepotism to walk in through the backdoor, a situation to be eschewed and avoided by an egalitarian State."

• On tainted foundations: "This lack of probity on the part of Ramesh Kumar Kashyap, so as to benefit his own daughter, Kudrat Kashyap, and his influencing of the authorities without disclosing this fact, so as to bring about a change in the policy... is sufficient in itself to vitiate the modification."

• On legitimate expectation: "The principles of good administration require that the decisions of public authorities must withstand the test of consistency, transparency and predictability to avoid being regarded as arbitrary and therefore violative of Article 14." ( Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala )

• On policy reasonableness: "Even in cases where there is no statutory prescription of any particular way of doing a thing, the executive must observe the long-standing practice, and a deviation from such a practice would require passing the muster of reasonableness, which is a facet of Article 14 of the Constitution."

These excerpts encapsulate the Court's holistic scrutiny, blending procedural fairness with substantive equality.

Court's Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashing the midstream policy modification for the 2024 session as illegal and arbitrary. It declared the email and addendum vitiated, restoring the original zone of consideration to Classes XI and XII only. However, to prevent widespread disruption—admissions being complete and unaffected parties absent—the relief was tailored: Divjot Sekhon and Shubhkarman Singh must be accommodated in the government seats previously allotted to Kudrat Kashyap and Mansirat Kaur, with the latter shifting to the appellants' private seats at Gian Sagar Medical College. All parties' studies, fees paid, and progress remain unaffected, allowing seamless continuation.

For the 2025 session, where the flawed policy persisted, the Court declined quo warranto relief due to completed admissions and absent necessary parties but granted the appellants liberty to file fresh High Court proceedings, impleading all stakeholders. The State was advised to independently frame a reasoned policy for future sessions, uninfluenced by extraneous representations, ensuring full definition before process initiation.

This decision's implications are profound for legal practice. It bolsters challenges to post-commencement policy tweaks in education and recruitments, mandating ex ante clarity to Article 14 compliance. For admissions, it prioritizes recent achievements, aligning with NEET's academic-sports balance, and deters nepotistic interventions via file scrutiny. Future cases may invoke it to demand pre-process policy finality, potentially reducing litigation in quota disputes. In Punjab and beyond, it signals stricter judicial oversight of reservation implementations, promoting equity in access to professional courses amid rising NEET competition. While costs were borne by parties, the ruling's precedential weight could streamline administrative accountability, fostering trust in public processes.