NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court on Tuesday criticized the Punjab government for altering admission criteria for MBBS and BDS courses under the sports quota for the 2024 academic session. The court asserted that admission rules cannot change once the selection process has begun, emphasizing the paramount need for transparency and fairness in educational admissions.
Supreme Court Slams “Elastic Procedure”
Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe presided over the bench. They described the Punjab government’s admission procedure as “elastic.” This allowed authorities to stipulate new norms after the process was underway, which the court stated contradicts principles of fair play.
The bench highlighted a key legal principle: admission processes must be fully defined before commencement. This prevents authorities from altering norms later to suit their own interests or permit nepotism. The court stressed that transparency is crucial to prevent arbitrary decisions.
“Lack of transparency at the outset invariably enables and makes room for arbitrariness and nepotism to walk in through the backdoor,” the bench observed. The court emphasized that an egalitarian state must avoid such situations.
Constitutional Duty and Arbitrary Actions
The top court’s decision followed appeals from students Divjot Sekhon and Shubhkarman Singh . They challenged the admission criteria adopted by the Punjab government for the MBBS and BDS sports quota in 2024.
The Supreme Court reiterated the State’s fundamental duty to act fairly and reasonably. This responsibility stems from Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. Any decision made by the State must be reasoned and not arbitrary.
The court further noted that actions taken with “undue haste” can be presumed arbitrary. Such actions are not condonable in law. This principle applies with significant force to highly competitive admission processes for courses like MBBS and BDS.
Court Directs Student Accommodation
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sekhon and Singh. It directed the Punjab government to accommodate both students in seats within a government medical college.
Punjab government lawyers argued that courts typically should not interfere in policy matters. The bench rejected this contention. The court clarified that while policymakers have some discretion in creating policies, this does not allow for arbitrariness or avenues for nepotism. When a policy decision is riddled with arbitrariness, the court is justified in nullifying it.
The Supreme Court found no merit in the arguments presented by the state of Punjab. This ruling reinforces that admission processes must be transparent, consistent, and finalized before they commence. It protects students from sudden rule changes that could unfairly affect their academic opportunities.