Supreme Court Issues 10-Point Directives for NEET PG Reform
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi: Doctors' long-pending demands for transparency in the National Eligibility-Entrance Test Postgraduate (NEET-PG) examination have finally been fulfilled. In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has issued 10-point directives to reform NEET PG and has directed the National Board of Examinations (NBE) to publish the raw scores, answer keys, and normalisation formula for the NEET PG exam.
"Publish raw scores, answer keys and normalization formulae for transparency in multi-shift NEET-PG exams," a Division bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan recently ordered.
This observation was made by the Apex Court bench while considering a plea concerning two NEET PG aspirants who appeared in the PG entrance test for 2017-2018 and alleged that seats for Radiology courses (which they preferred) were given to less meritorious students. They had alleged that there was a large-scale seat blocking.
Earlier, the Allahabad High Court had granted relief to these petitioners and directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation to each of the petitioners. Further, the HC had also ordered an investigation into the large-scale seat-blocking and issued further directions for proper admissions via the counselling process.
The State had challenged the High Court's order before the Supreme Court. While considering the matter, the Supreme Court took cognisance of the "systemic issues" and recognised the "need for transparency and fairness in the NEET-PG counselling process."
Even though the top court bench set aside the order of Rs 10 lakh compensation to the petitioners, it granted Rs 1 lakh to each of them towards litigation expenses and issued the following directions to the concerned authorities:
(i) Implement a Nationally synchronized counselling calendar to align AIQ and State rounds and prevent seat blocking across systems.
(ii) Mandate Pre-Counselling Fee Disclosure by all private / deemed universities, detailing tuition, hostel, caution deposit, and miscellaneous charges.
(iii) Establish a Centralized Fee Regulation Framework under the National Medical Commission (NMC)
(iv) Permit upgrade windows post-round 2 for admitted candidates to shift to better seats without reopening counselling to new entrants.
(v) Publish raw scores, answer keys and normalization formulae for transparency in multi-shift NEET-PG exams.
(vi) Enforce strict penalties for seat blocking including forfeiture of security deposit, disqualification from future NEET-PG exams (for repeat offenders), blacklisting of complicit colleges.
(vii) Implement Aadhaar-based seat tracking to prevent multiple seat holdings and misrepresentation.
(viii) Hold state authorities and institutional DMEs accountable under contempt or disciplinary action for rule or schedule violations.
(ix) Adopt a Uniform Counselling Conduct Code across all States for standard rules on eligibility, mop-up rounds, seat withdrawal, and grievance timelines.
(x) Set up a third-party oversight mechanism under NMC for annual audits of counselling data, compliance, and admission fairness.
Case Background:
The petitioners had appeared in the NEET PG exam for 2017-2018 and their All India Ranks were 13979 and 11280. Their first preference were to get admitted to MD Radiodiagnosis course.
It was the grievance of the petitioners that there had been a deviation in the admission process and candidates who had already been allotted seats in the first and second rounds of counselling were again permitted to appear in the mop-up round. It was alleged that a number of seats in the Radiology course were available in the mop-up round and were allotted to candidates, who were less meritorious than the writ petitioners, including those who had already participated in the earlier rounds of counselling.
Alleging a large-scale seat-blocking and asserting that nearly 80% of the seats were filled during the mop-up round-resulting in the seats of their first preference being eventually allotted to less meritorious candidates, the petitioners filed the plea before the HC.
In its order dated 19.01.2018, the HC bench had observed that the petitioners could not be granted admission beyond the cut-off date and therefore, it had granted Rs 10 lakh compensation to each of them.
However, the Court had found that there had been a large-scale blocking of seats and that 80% of the seats were filled up in the mop-up round. Observing that there was a flaw in the admission procedure, the bench had directed Principal Secretary of Medical Education, Government of Uttar Pradesh to consider the "large-scale blocking of seats and come out with a foolproof admission procedure, which would eliminate such blockage of seats and ensure that maximum number of seats are filled up in the first and second round of counseling."
Further, the bench had also directed the Principal Secretary to hold an inquiry into the circumstances of diluting the admission procedure and allow the candidates who had appeared in the first two rounds to appear again in the mop-up round.
"For future admissions in subsequent academic sessions, we direct that after the first and second round of counseling, a window should be opened for the candidates who had taken admission to upgrade their stream and thereafter allow the remaining seats to be filled up in the mop up round. By this procedure allowing the candidates to upgrade their seats would not amount to third round of counseling. Further, the upgradation of seats of the preferred choice of the candidate would ensure fairness in the admission process and allow the meritorious candidates to take admission not only in the preferred choice of seats but also in better streams and, thus, by doing so, discipline would be maintained," the High Court had also ordered.
Plea before the Supreme Court:
The High Court's order was challenged by the State before the Supreme Court bench. While considering the matter of NEET-PG counselling and the allegations of seat blocking, the Apex Court bench observed,
"At the outset, it is to be noted that the NEET-PG counselling process was conceived as a transparent, merit-based national mechanism for allocating postgraduate medical seats. However, over time, it has come under increasing scrutiny for facilitating widespread seat blocking. This malpractice distorts the actual availability of seats, fosters inequity among aspirants, and often reduces the process to one governed more by chance than merit. Seat blocking is not merely an isolated wrongdoing – it reflects deeper systemic flaws rooted in fragmented governance, lack of transparency, and weak policy enforcement. Although regulatory bodies have introduced disincentives and technical controls, the core challenges of synchronization, real-time visibility, and uniform enforcement remain largely unaddressed. Achieving a truly fair and efficient system will require more than policy tweaks; it demands structural coordination, technological modernization, and robust regulatory accountability at both State and Central levels."
"Seat blocking in NEET-PG counselling occurs when candidates temporarily accept seats, only to abandon them later after securing more preferred options. This leads to those seats remaining unavailable in earlier rounds and opening up only in later stages, disadvantaging higher-ranked aspirants, who may have already committed to less preferred choices. Delays in state counselling, last-minute seat additions or deletions, and lack of coordination between quotas worsen the issue. As a result, lower-ranked candidates can secure better seats by taking risks, while merit-based selection is undermined," it further noted.
During the course of the hearing, the counsel for the State observed that, except for the payment of compensation to the petitioner doctors, other directions issued by the High Court had been duly complied with. Further, the bench also observed that to streamline the counselling process and to curb the issue of seat blocking, the State of UP took substantial steps by introducing the following measures:
(a) The State stipulated collecting a security deposit to deter candidates from leaving the seats allotted to them in the first two rounds of counseling.
(b) The National Medical Commission introduced an online process for counselling for all stray vacancy round seats.
(c) Further, a one-year debarment had been envisaged for candidates who fail to join the seats allotted to them in the stray vacancy round. Accordingly, a stipulation to this effect was incorporated in the Counselling Brochure for NEET-PG 2024.
Referring to the status of seat allotment in the NEET PG 2024, the petitioners' counsel also informed the bench that the counseling process had been significantly refined and the issue of seat blocking had been effectively addressed to a large extent. The counsel for NMC also explained to the Court about the scheme for admission to medical colleges evolved through a series of judicial interventions and informed about the steps taken to curb the practice of seat blocking.
The counsel for NMC also informed the Court that the Commission has taken further steps to ensure that student admissions are conducted in strict adherence to the rule of merit. The Court observed that the offline mode of counselling during the stray round was detrimental to the interests of both medical education and meritorious students and to ensure fairness in the admission process, adherence to the merit list and to prevent seat blocking, it became necessary to mandate that all counselling rounds be conducted online – both by State Governments for state quota seats and by the Medical Counselling Committee, DGHS for All India Quota (AIQ) seats.
"From the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and the NMC/MCI, it is discernible that the authorities have introduced several regulatory measures – such as security deposits, debarment clauses, round finality rules, and undertakings from candidates – to enforce commitment and reduce strategic blocking of seats. In compliance with the directions issued by this Court, the National Medical Commission (NMC) has implemented comprehensive reforms to the counselling process, aiming to prevent seat blocking, ensure optimum seat utilization, and promote a transparent, meritbased admission system in medical education," observed the top court bench.
It noted that currently, all rounds of counselling for State quota seats are conducted by the respective State Government or its designated authority, while counselling for All India Quota (AIQ) seats and deemed universities is managed by the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) under the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS). The entire counselling process is now conducted online, which has eliminated the discretion previously held by private medical colleges and deemed universities to admit students independently after State counselling. As a result, seat blocking has been effectively addressed.
To further optimise seat allocation, any seat vacated due to resignation, surrender, or migration is retained and made available in subsequent rounds of AIQ counselling. The number of counselling rounds has been increased from two to four – namely, Round 1, Round 2, Mop-Up Round, and Stray Vacancy Round. This expansion provides candidates with greater opportunities to secure a seat and reduces the wastage of available seats, noted the Court.
Further, the bench noted that in the Stray Vacancy Round, the candidates who are allotted and join a seat are not permitted to resign thereafter. Those, who are allotted a seat but fail to join will forfeit their fee and be debarred from appearing in the National Exit Test (NExT) for one year, once NExT is implemented.
"These reforms directly address the concerns raised by the High Court in the impugned order and ensure that meritorious students are not deprived of their rightful opportunities. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court in its entirety, but deem it appropriate to issue certain directions to the concerned authorities to ensure the effective implementation of the revised counselling framework, thereby upholding the principles of merit, fairness and transparency," the Court opined.
Regarding the High Court's directions for paying compensation to the petitioner doctors, the Court observed that the State informed that both the doctors had participated in the first and second rounds of counselling and were allotted seats accordingly. Their exclusion from the mop-up round was in complete adherence to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Ranjan v. Union of India and Dar-us-Slam Educational Trust v. MCI. Therefore, the State argued that the question of compensation did not arise.
On the other hand, the counsel for the doctors argued that they were denied the opportunity to upgrade to their preferred MD Radiology seats during the mop-up round. They argued that this denial facilitated widespread seat blocking in the earlier rounds, which allowed candidates with lower merit to secure admission while more deserving candidates like themselves were left disadvantaged. Acknowledging these procedural lapses, the High Court observed that although admissions post the prescribed cut-off date were not possible, the conduct of the State authorities had caused significant disadvantage to Respondent Nos.1 and 2, warranting the award of compensation.
At this outset, the Supreme Court bench observed, "It is an admitted fact that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared for NEET-PG 2017- 18 with MD Radiology as their preferred choice. When that was unavailable during the first two rounds, they opted for Pathology and Paediatrics, respectively and subsequently, joined their allotted colleges and completed their PG courses. As per the then-prevailing counselling procedure, candidates who accepted seats in earlier rounds were precluded from participating in the mop-up round. The High Court itself noted that no valuable right was denied to the respondents regarding participation in the mop-up round and that once admission was granted, the process concluded unless specific exceptions applied as per the admission guidelines."
"While the cause of the respondents in approaching the court was reasonable and in fact catalyzed significant reforms in the counselling process to curb seat blocking and uphold merit, the award of Rs.10,00,000/- each as compensation is found to be arbitrary and excessive. The judgments relied upon by the High Court pertained to different factual contexts where students lost an academic year through no fault of their own. Those cases are distinguishable from the present one, where the respondents completed their courses. Moreover, awarding compensation for seat blocking in NEET-PG counselling is not a common practice," it further noted.
However, the Apex Court opined that the "present case instead highlights systemic issues and underscores the need for transparency and fairness in the NEET-PG counselling process."
"Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we are inclined to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 towards litigative expenses, to be paid by the petitioners, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The direction of the High Court awarding compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- each is hereby set aside and the impugned order is accordingly modified," ordered the Court.
The Supreme Court's directions to NBE asking the Board to publish the raw scores, answer keys and normalisation formula for NEET PG exam comes at a time when more than two pleas are pending before the top court seeking similar reliefs. One of these pleas has been filed by the United Doctors' Front (UDF), which opposed the NBE's decision to hold the NEET PG 2025 exam in two shifts.
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/state-of-up-v-miss-bhavna-tiwari-601204-287876.pdf
