Association of Managements of Homeopathic Medical Colleges of Maharashtra v. Union of India & Ors.
Background
For the 2018-19 academic year, the Union Government initially said admission to BHMS (homeopathy) courses would follow the NEET merit list, as set out in a February 2018 information brochure. But after the NEET exam was already conducted and results declared, the Government issued a letter in June 2018 introducing a new eligibility rule requiring candidates to score a minimum 50th percentile (open category) or 40th percentile (reserved category) in NEET: a change made mid-way through the ongoing admission process. The Association of Homeopathic Medical Colleges challenged this change before the Bombay High Court, arguing it would leave many seats vacant, but the High Court dismissed the challenge, so the Association (and a related Ayurvedic colleges' case) appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court noted that several other High Courts (Patna, Karnataka, Madras, Rajasthan, Punjab & Haryana, Allahabad, Kolkata) had already allowed admissions in their states without regard to the new percentile requirement, and that the Government had not challenged any of those orders, creating an unfair lack of uniformity across states. Given that seats in Maharashtra remained vacant and depriving genuine students of opportunities served no one's interest, the Court held that admissions should proceed based on the original February 2018 brochure criteria (minimum NEET marks, not minimum percentile). It directed the colleges to complete admissions strictly on merit by 15 February 2019 and to hold extra classes to make up for lost time, but explicitly clarified that this relief was based on the peculiar facts of the case, was not to be treated as a precedent, and expressed no view on whether a minimum-percentile criterion is valid in principle. A connected appeal involving Ayurvedic colleges was disposed of on the same terms.
Lesson Learnt
Changing admission eligibility rules midway through an ongoing admission cycle, after the exam has already been held, can be struck down as unfair, especially when it creates inconsistent outcomes for similarly placed students across different states.