Harshit Agarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2021 INSC 69Decided 8 Feb 2021
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 54 of 2021
Justice L. Nageswara Rao · Justice Krishna Murari

Background

Students who took the NEET 2020 exam for admission to the Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) course did not meet the minimum qualifying percentile set by Dental Council of India regulations. The Dental Council itself recommended lowering the cut-off percentile (as had been done in previous years), citing roughly 7,000 vacant BDS seats nationwide, but the Union Government declined to act on that recommendation. The students, along with a group of Andhra Pradesh dental colleges, petitioned the Supreme Court directly under Article 32, arguing the Government's refusal was arbitrary.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the Government's decision not to lower the cut-off was legally flawed because it rested on an incorrect and incomplete comparison of available seats to eligible candidates (ignoring that NEET now also covered AYUSH and other courses, which meant the real seat-to-candidate ratio was far tighter than the Government claimed), and because it relied on irrelevant considerations such as the adequacy of dentists already in the country. The Court noted the Government had lowered minimum marks for BDS in the previous year and for super-speciality and AYUSH courses more recently, undercutting its claim that lowering marks would compromise standards. The Government's decision was set aside as illegal and irrational, and the Court directed that vacant BDS seats for 2020-21 be filled by lowering the qualifying percentile by 10 points across categories, with admissions completed by a fixed date, while also noting high private-college fees (not merely the cut-off) were a real deterrent to admissions.

Lesson Learnt

When a government decision has to balance competing considerations under a specific regulatory power, courts will strike it down if the decision-maker relies on an inaccurate factual basis or factors outside the purpose for which that power was granted, even in a technical/educational policy matter where courts usually defer to expert bodies.

Education LawDelhi High Court

Ms. Ashi Agarwal vs. Union of India & Ors.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition. It held that the petitioner had not shown a legally sustainable basis for deviating from the prescribed eligibility criteria. The disputed questions about the JEE (Main) evaluation and her absence from Session II could not be conclusively decided in writ proceedings. Sympathy or loss of an academic year could not substitute for the eligibility conditions, and creating a supernumerary seat would have reopened a concluded admission cycle. The Court noted that an earlier interim-relief order on the same issue had already attained finality before the Supreme Court.

Decided 1 Oct 2026Read case
Education LawDelhi High Court

Union of India & Ors. vs. Himanshi & 34 Ors.

The High Court found the Committee's report against Himanshi to be full of tentative, hedged language ("seems," "probably," "appears") rather than firm findings, with no CCTV footage of her at all and, most critically, the terminal she was shifted to did not even match the government's own list of "compromised" terminals for that exam venue, directly contradicting the central premise of the case against her. Given this glaring internal inconsistency, along with discrepancies between the Committee's report and the SSC's own court filings about how many questions she answered on each terminal, the Court held the cancellation and 7-year debarment were not justified on the facts and dismissed the Union's appeal, while making clear this ruling did not decide the separate cases of the other 34 candidates.

Decided 24 Sept 2026Read case
Education LawDelhi High Court

Aashiya vs. National Medical Commission through its Secretary & Ors. and connected matters

The Court held that under the applicable National Medical Commission guidelines and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, a candidate's UDID card is the primary evidence of the existence, nature, and extent of disability, and the Medical Assessment Boards' role is confined to assessing "functional competency" (the ability to complete the MBBS course): they have no power to independently re-quantify or reduce the disability percentage recorded on the UDID card. Since both boards had actually found the petitioner functionally capable of pursuing MBBS, yet used their own reduced disability percentage to deny her PwBD reservation, the Court set aside both boards' certificates and directed that she be allowed to participate in the next available round of NEET counselling under the PwBD category, based on her UDID-recorded disability.

Decided 24 Sept 2026Read case
Education LawDelhi High Court

Union of India & Ors vs. Jatin

The Court held that since the entire case against Jatin rested solely on the CCTV footage, denying him any access to or sight of that footage before cancelling his candidature caused him clear, "manifest prejudice": this was not a mere technical lapse but went to the heart of his ability to defend himself. Distinguishing a Supreme Court ruling that not every missing document invalidates a disciplinary proceeding (only ones that cause real prejudice), the Court found this was exactly the kind of case where genuine prejudice existed, since there was no other evidence at all. It upheld the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the SSC's petition, remarking that conducting a proper inquiry or simply sharing the footage could have avoided the litigation entirely.

Decided 16 Sept 2026Read case
Education LawDelhi High Court

Prabhat Shahi vs. National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS)

The Court found that NIOS's current rules (2026) impose no time limit for correcting a genuine date-of-birth error, so the earlier limitation-based rejection could no longer stand. Relying on the Supreme Court's holding that an examination board cannot let administrative convenience override a citizen's right to accurate identity records, and noting that Shahi's Aadhaar, passport, driving licence, PAN card and school records all uniformly showed 1990, the Court found this a genuine clerical error rather than any attempt at fraud. It directed NIOS to correct the date of birth to 10.02.1990 and issue fresh certificates.

Decided 16 Sept 2026Read case
Education LawDelhi High Court

Vijeta vs. Union of India and Ors.

The Court rejected the first argument, noting the referenced documents were freely available on the university's website and their non-attachment did not invalidate the notice. On the second and more substantial point, the Court held that a student being a member of a political party's youth/student wing does not, by itself, make that student "associated" with the political party for purposes of the Lyngdoh rule: what the rule actually forbids is participation in the election process by people who are not genuine students, or direct involvement of an actual registered political party. However, the Court noted that one candidate's campaign poster had displayed an actual political party's name and official election symbol, which the Court found genuinely problematic and directed university authorities to actively prevent and check such prohibited conduct going forward.

Decided 16 Sept 2026Read case