A contempt petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the conversion of Chandigarh’s Union Territory (UT) quota PG medical seats into All India Quota (AIQ) seats for NEET-PG 2024. The petition alleges that the move violates the apex court’s judgment in the landmark case of Tanvi Bahl vs Shrey Goyal.
In the Tanvi Behl case, the Supreme Court had ruled that residence-based reservation for postgraduate medical admissions is unconstitutional, as it is against Article 14 of the Constitution that guarantees equality before the law.
"We cannot do anything. It is only fair that it goes to the same judge, being contempt… who sat on June 7… The admissions are now over, they can be withdrawn if there is a violation," - Justice KV Vishwanathan, during the hearing.
Read also: "Black Cat Commando Must Surrender: Supreme Court Denies Exemption in Dowry Death Case"
The current bench of Justices KV Vishwanathan and N Kotiswar Singh has referred the matter to Chief Justice BR Gavai for listing before an appropriate bench - specifically, the bench that delivered the Tanvi Behl verdict in January 2024. That bench comprised Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia and SVN Bhatti.
In that judgment, the Court had clearly stated that state quota PG medical seats should be filled on the basis of NEET merit and institutional preference should be allowed only to a limited extent. The judgment came after it set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that had upheld residence-based quota in the government medical college in Chandigarh.
Read also: Supreme Court Summons UP Jailor for Ignoring Bail Order, Calls It 'Travesty of Justice'
The petitioners in the present case, represented by advocate-on-record Jagjit Singh Chhabra, argued that the authorities initially complied with the Tanvi Bahl judgment. A public notice dated 09.04.2025 had stated that the remaining seats in the UT pool would be filled on the basis of institutional preference within the state quota, solely on the basis of NEET-PG 2024 merit.
However, a fresh notice dated 03.06.2025 overturned this decision, stating that the same seats would now be offered as part of the all-India quota, and fresh applications would be invited for them. The petitioners raised strong objections, saying not a single state quota seat should be transferred to the AIQ.
“The Tanvi Bahl judgment did not direct allocation of these seats to the all-India quota. It only struck down domicile-based reservation,”- Jagjit Singh Chhabra, counsel for the petitioners.
Read also: PIL filed in Supreme Court Seeking Grounding of Air India's Boeing Fleet After Ahmedabad Plane Crash
Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave, appearing for the central government, defended the conversion. She argued that the Tanvi Bahl judgment only struck down residence-based reservation and did not specify how the remaining 25% UT seats should be filled. Dave further said that the disputed seats have already been allotted, and candidates are now in the process of submitting their documents.
The Supreme Court has now left the issue to the original bench that passed the Tanvi Bahl judgment for further consideration, underlining the gravity of the alleged violation.
“Only the bench that passed the original judgment should hear this contempt case.” - Justice Vishwanathan.
The outcome of this case could significantly impact the admission process for NEET-PG candidates, especially those eyeing seats in Chandigarh under institutional preference.
Case Title: TANVI AND ORS. Versus A.K. ATRI AND ANR., Diary No. 33610-2025
Appearance: AoR Jagjit Singh Chhabra and Advocates Saksham Maheshwari and Satjit Singh Chhabra; ASG Archana Pathak Dave
Related Article: Supreme Court Grants Relief to NEET-PG Candidate Denied Admission Despite Paying Rs. 27 Lakh Fee
