In a significant judgment delivered on December 18, 2025, the Supreme Court of India has regularised the admissions of Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) students in Rajasthan for the academic year 2016-17, who were admitted after the State Government lowered the NEET percentile without valid authority.
While exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to save the careers of students who have already completed their degrees, the Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi came down heavily on the private dental colleges and the State Government. The Court imposed a staggering cost of Rs. 10 Crores on each appellant-college and Rs. 10 Lakhs on the State of Rajasthan, directing that the funds be utilized for social welfare institutions like Old Age Homes and Child Care Institutions.
Legal Issue and Outcome
The core issue before the Apex Court was the legality of BDS admissions granted in Rajasthan for the academic year 2016-17 after the State Government lowered the minimum qualifying percentile for the National Eligibility-cum-Eligibility Test (NEET) by 10 percentile and subsequently by an additional 5 percentile. Furthermore, private colleges had granted admissions even beyond this 15 percentile relaxation, admitting candidates with zero or negative scores to fill vacant seats.
The Court held that the State of Rajasthan had no jurisdiction to lower the qualifying marks, as such power is vested exclusively with the Central Government under the Dental Council of India (DCI) Regulations. However, considering that the students had completed their courses during the pendency of litigation, the Court regularised their admissions subject to a mandatory condition of providing two years of pro-bono service during health emergencies or natural calamities.
Background of the Case
For the academic year 2016-17, admissions to BDS courses were mandated solely through NEET. Due to a large number of vacant seats, the Federation of Private Medical and Dental Colleges of Rajasthan represented to the Central Government to lower the qualifying percentile. The Central Government forwarded this representation to the State of Rajasthan to take “necessary action as deemed fit.”
Interpreting this as a delegation of power, the State Government issued orders on September 30, 2016, and October 4, 2016, lowering the percentile by 10% and an additional 5%, respectively. Private colleges, acting on this and further driven to fill seats, admitted students even below this lowered threshold.
Subsequently, the Central Government and the DCI clarified that no such power was delegated to the State and directed the cancellation of such admissions. The Rajasthan High Court, in its impugned judgment, had protected the admissions made within the State’s 10+5 percentile relaxation but ordered the discharge of students admitted beyond that limit.
Arguments of the Parties
- The Students: Counsel for the students argued that they had completed their BDS courses and obtained provisional degrees. They contended that cancelling their degrees after nearly a decade would cause irreparable damage to their lives and careers. They pleaded for relief under Article 142, citing that they were victims of the confusion between the State and Central authorities.
- Dental Council of India (DCI): The DCI argued that the power to lower the percentile vests only with the Central Government under the proviso to Regulation II(5) of the Revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007. It submitted that the State’s action was void ab initio and the admissions were “backdoor entries.”
- The Colleges: The dental colleges contended that they acted largely on the State’s relaxation orders to fill vacant seats. They argued that they had incurred substantial infrastructure costs and should not be penalised for official acts.
- State of Rajasthan: The State submitted that it acted bona fide believing the Central Government’s direction to take “necessary action as deemed fit” constituted a delegation of power.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court categorically rejected the State’s contention regarding the delegation of power. Referring to the Revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007, the Court observed:
“From the language of the said proviso, it is apparent that the power to undertake such a reduction in the qualifying percentile is only vested in the Central Government, to be exercised in consultation with the DCI… The words ‘necessary action as deemed fit’ in terms of the Central Government’s letter dated 29.09.2016 can under no circumstances be stretched to confer such authority upon the State of Rajasthan.”
The Bench termed the State’s action as “manifestly illegal.” Furthermore, addressing the conduct of private colleges that admitted students beyond the State’s relaxation, the Court noted:
“The private colleges in the State of Rajasthan, driven by their greed to fill every last seat, overstepped the relaxations already granted by the State of Rajasthan… This whole exercise amounted to making a mockery of the rules and regulations prescribed by the DCI for effective dental education in the country.”
The Court also dismissed the plea of promissory estoppel, citing Maharishi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur (2010), stating that there can be no estoppel against a statute.
However, relying on precedents like Deepa Thomas v. Medical Council of India and Saraswati Educational Charitable Trust v. Union of India, the Court decided to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 142 to do complete justice, noting that “the only victims are the students” who have now become qualified professionals.
The Decision and Directions
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals with the following key directions:
- Regularisation of Admissions: The admissions of students who have passed the BDS course and received their degrees stand regularised.
- Mandatory Pro-Bono Service: All benefitted students must file an affidavit within eight weeks undertaking to render pro-bono services to the State of Rajasthan for a cumulative period of 2 years during natural calamities, health emergencies, or pandemics, without remuneration.
- No Relief for Incomplete Courses: Students who have not yet cleared the BDS course or exceeded the maximum 9-year duration prescribed by the 2007 Regulations shall be discharged and are not entitled to relief.
- Penalty on Colleges: Each Appellant-College is directed to deposit a cost of Rs. 10 Crores with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority within eight weeks.
- Penalty on State: The State of Rajasthan must deposit Rs. 10 Lakhs.
The Court directed that the interest accrued from these funds be utilized for the maintenance and upgradation of One Stop Centres, Nari Niketans, Old Age Homes, and Child Care Institutions in Rajasthan, under the supervision of a Committee of five High Court Judges (including at least one woman judge).
Case Details:
- Case Title: Siddhant Mahajan and Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. (and connected matters)
- Case Number: Civil Appeal No(s). of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 14014-14019 of 2023)
- Citation: 2025 INSC 1458
- Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
