The Supreme Court has issued a series of important directions to prevent malpractice in NEET-PG (National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test – Post Graduate) counselling, particularly the issue of seat blocking in postgraduate medical admissions.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan observed that NEET-PG counselling, which was designed as a fair and merit-based process, has been increasingly manipulated through widespread seat blocking. This malpractice creates inequality and disrupts the availability of genuine seats for deserving candidates.

Read also: Arrest of Prof. Ali Khan Mahmudabad: A Case of Misuse of Power and Constitutional Concerns

"Seat blocking is not merely an isolated wrongdoing – it reflects deeper systemic flaws rooted in fragmented governance, lack of transparency, and weak policy enforcement," the Court noted.

1. A nationally synchronized counselling calendar must be implemented to align AIQ (All India Quota) and State counselling rounds.
2. All private and deemed universities must disclose complete fees before counselling, including tuition, hostel, caution deposit, and other charges.
3. A central fee regulation system must be created under the National Medical Commission (NMC).
4. Upgrade windows post Round 2 should be allowed without reopening counselling for new candidates.
5. The authorities must publish raw scores, answer keys, and normalization formulas to ensure transparency.
6. Strict penalties for seat blocking, such as forfeiture of deposits, disqualification from future NEET-PG exams, and blacklisting of colleges involved, should be enforced.
7. An Aadhaar-based seat tracking system must be introduced to prevent multiple seat holdings.
8. State authorities and medical institutions must be held accountable, and face disciplinary or contempt action for violating rules.
9. A Uniform Counselling Conduct Code must be adopted across states for consistent rules on eligibility, mop-up rounds, seat withdrawal, and grievance redressal.
10. A third-party audit mechanism under NMC should oversee compliance, conduct yearly audits, and ensure fairness.

Read also: CJI BR Gavai Urges Bar Associations to Support Young Lawyers with CSR-Funded Group Insurance

Background of the Case:

This judgment comes from a case where the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Director General of Medical Education & Training, Lucknow challenged an earlier order passed by the Allahabad High Court in 2018.

Back then, NEET PG aspirants alleged that several candidates who were allotted seats in the first and second rounds were again allowed in the mop-up round. This resulted in less meritorious candidates securing Radiology seats, disadvantaging deserving aspirants.

The High Court had passed the following orders:

• “The Director General shall pay ₹10 lakhs compensation to each petitioner within four weeks.”
• “The Principal Secretary must ensure a foolproof system that eliminates seat blocking.”
• “An inquiry must be conducted into allowing already admitted candidates to participate again in the mop-up round.”
• “Upgrade options should be provided after the second round before mop-up seats are filled.”

Read also: SC Directs Centre To Notify New Rules For Consumer Forum Appointments; Ensures 5-Year Tenur

Later, the Supreme Court stayed these directions in April 2018 and noted that reforms had since been implemented. The Medical Counselling Committee, under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, introduced a 4-round AIQ counselling model based on its decision in Nihila P.P. v. Medical Counselling Committee.

Although these steps addressed earlier concerns, the Court felt it necessary to formalize measures to ensure effective implementation, fairness, and transparency in future counselling.

Finally, the Court reduced the compensation granted by the High Court from ₹10 lakhs to ₹1 lakh per petitioner.

“Achieving a fair and efficient system will require more than policy tweaks; it demands structural coordination, technological modernization, and strong accountability at both State and Central levels,” Justice Pardiwala emphasized.

Case : State of UP vs Miss Bhavna Tiwari and others