State Of U.P. vs. Miss Bhavna Tiwari

1
2025 INSC 747
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 9298 OF 2018
STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER … PETITIONERS
VERSUS

MISS BHAVNA TIWARI & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
1. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for all the parties and perused the
materials placed before us.
2. This Special Leave Petition arises from the final judgment and order dated
1 2
19.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous
Writ Petition No. 28550 of 2017, whereby the High Court disposed of the writ petition
with the following observations and directions:
“In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court no admission can be granted after the cut
of date. A time schedule is required to be strictly adhered to. However, in the given
circumstances the petitioners are entitled to compensation, which the Court computes at
Rs.Ten lakhs each payable to the petitioners. The said amount shall be paid by the
Director General of Medical Education and Training, …within four weeks from the date of
presentation of a certified copy of the order.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CHANDRESH
Date: 2025.05.21
13:49:54 IST
Reason:
1
For short, “the impugned order”
2
Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”

2
Before we part with the case, we are of the opinion that there is a need to issue further
directions as we have found that there has been a large-scale blocking of seats. 80% of the
seats were filled up in the mop up round. Obviously, there is a flaw in the admission
procedure.
We, accordingly, direct the Principal Secretary, Medical Education, Government of U.P.,
Lucknow … to take this fact into consideration of large-scale blocking of seats and come
out with a foolproof admission procedure, which would eliminate such blockage of seats
and ensure that maximum number of seats are filled up in the first and second round of
counseling. We also direct the Principal Secretary to hold an inquiry into the
circumstances of diluting the admission procedure and allowing the candidates who had
appeared in the first and second round of counseling to be considered again in the mop up
round in the garb of misinterpreting the orders of the Supreme Court. Such inquiry shall
be made within two months and action be taken against the erring officials.

For future admissions in subsequent academic sessions, we direct that after the first and
second round of counseling, a window should be opened for the candidates who had taken
admission to upgrade their stream and thereafter allow the remaining seats to be filled up
in the mop up round. By this procedure allowing the candidates to upgrade their seats
would not amount to third round of counseling. Further, the upgradation of seats of the
preferred choice of the candidate would ensure fairness in the admission process and
allow the meritorious candidates to take admission not only in the preferred choice of
seats but also in better streams and, thus, by doing so, discipline would be maintained.
The writ petitions are disposed of.”
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners viz. , State of U.P., and the Director
General of Medical Education & Training, Lucknow, U.P. – who were Respondent
Nos.2 and 3 in the writ petition – have approached this Court by way of the present
petition.
4. By order dated 16.04.2018, this Court has granted an order of interim stay of the
operation of the impugned order.

3
5. According to the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, the writ
petitioners were aspirants in the first NEET-PG conducted for the academic year
2017-18. The ranks secured by them as well as the seats allotted to them in the first and
second rounds of counselling are detailed below:

5.1. The grievance of the writ petitioners was that there had been a deviation in the
admission process. Candidates, who had already been allotted seats in the first and
second rounds of counselling were again permitted to appear in the mop-up round. It

4
was alleged that a number of seats in the Radiology course were available in the mop-up
round and were allotted to candidates, who were less meritorious than the writ
petitioners, including those who had already participated in the earlier rounds of
counselling. Alleging large-scale seat blocking and asserting that nearly 80% of the seats
were filled during the mop-up round – resulting in the seats of their first preference
being eventually allotted to less meritorious candidates – Respondent Nos.1 and 2 / writ
petitioners filed the aforesaid writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
(i) A declaration that paragraphs 5 and 6 of the National Eligibility cum Entrance
Test (NEET) PG 2017 Brochure, published by the King George’s Medical
University, Lucknow – inasmuch as they deprived Respondent Nos.1 and 2 of
an opportunity to appear in the mop-up round – are ultra vires Articles 14 and
15 of the Constitution of India.
(ii) A direction to the authorities to grant permission to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to
attend classes in the institutions of their first choice, where they have already
been admitted in a different discipline.
(iii) A direction to the authorities to pass consequential orders with respect to the
admission of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 as per their first choice and merit.
(iv)
A direction to the authorities to undertake necessary reshuffling of admissions
in medical colleges based on merit and candidate preferences, by maintaining a
common selection list for admission to PG courses.
(v) Any other order or direction as the Court may deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case.
(vi) An award of costs of the petition in favour of Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners that the High

5
Court, after hearing all parties, rightly disposed of the writ petition with appropriate
observations and directions. Therefore, no interference is warranted by this court.

6. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that apart from directing the
payment of compensation to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 / writ petitioners, the High Court
was categorical in addressing the issue of seat blocking and in safeguarding the interests
of meritorious candidates. Accordingly, it issued specific directions to the Government
authorities, viz.,
(i) To ensure that no seat blocking takes place in the future in medical courses and
that the majority of the seats are filled during the first and second rounds of
medical counselling.
(ii) To ensure that less meritorious students do not secure admission to relatively
more prestigious Post Graduate medical courses over candidates who are
higher in merit.
7. At the outset, it is to be noted that the NEET-PG counselling process was
conceived as a transparent, merit-based national mechanism for allocating postgraduate
medical seats. However, over time, it has come under increasing scrutiny for facilitating
widespread seat blocking. This malpractice distorts the actual availability of seats,
fosters inequity among aspirants, and often reduces the process to one governed more by
chance than merit. Seat blocking is not merely an isolated wrongdoing – it reflects
deeper systemic flaws rooted in fragmented governance, lack of transparency, and weak
policy enforcement. Although regulatory bodies have introduced disincentives and

6
technical controls, the core challenges of synchronization, real-time visibility, and
uniform enforcement remain largely unaddressed. Achieving a truly fair and efficient
system will require more than policy tweaks; it demands structural coordination,
technological modernization, and robust regulatory accountability at both State and
Central levels.
8. Seat blocking in NEET-PG counselling occurs when candidates temporarily accept
seats, only to abandon them later after securing more preferred options. This leads to
those seats remaining unavailable in earlier rounds and opening up only in later stages,
disadvantaging higher-ranked aspirants, who may have already committed to less
preferred choices. Delays in state counselling, last-minute seat additions or deletions,
and lack of coordination between quotas worsen the issue. As a result, lower-ranked
candidates can secure better seats by taking risks, while merit-based selection is
undermined.
9. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that
except for the payment of compensation to Respondent Nos.1 and 2, the other directions
issued by the High Court have been duly complied with.
9.1. It is further submitted that to streamline the counselling process and to curb the
issue of seat blocking, the State of U.P. has taken substantial steps by introducing the
following measures:

7
(i) By Government Order No.12/71-4-2018-18/18 dated 08.03.2018, a security deposit
was stipulated under Clause 5, with a view to deter candidates from the practice of not
joining the seats allotted to them in the first two rounds of counselling. This measure has
proven effective, as failure to join the allotted seat results in forfeiture of the security
deposit. For better appreciation, Clause 5 is extracted below:
“(5) Security Money
For participating in the NEET PG 2018 counselling process in respect of
Government medical colleges, security money is fixed as Rs.30,000/- (thirty
thousand rupees) and in respect of private medical and dental colleges, the same is
fixed as Rs.2,00,000/- (two lakh rupees). In the event of candidates taking admission
to the seat allotted to them in the Govt./private medical/ dental college, security
money deposited by candidates shall be returned in the bank account provided by
them. Such candidates who do not take admission inspite of allotment of seat, their
security money shall be forfeited.
Security money be got deposited by online mode from the candidates participating in
the online counselling process of NEET PG 2018, prior to choice filling.”
(ii) Earlier, the counselling for the stray vacancy round was conducted manually (by
offline mode) whereby the private medical colleges were provided with a list of
candidates amounting to ten times the number of vacant seats. This process often led to
an arbitrary ‘pick and choose’ method being adopted by certain private institutions. To
prevent such practices, the National Medical Commission, vide communication dated
24.07.2023, directed that counselling for all stray vacancy round seats be conducted
through an online process. It is pertinent to note that even prior to this directive, the
State had already implemented online counselling for the mop-up and stray vacancy

8
rounds through the issuance of Government Order No.1/348793/2023 dated 13.07.2023.
(iii) A one-year debarment has been envisaged for candidates who fail to join the seats
allotted to them in the stray vacancy round. Accordingly, a stipulation to this effect was
incorporated in the Counselling Brochure for NEET-PG 2024, which reads as follows:
“If a candidate is allotted a seat in Stray round, candidate has to report & join the
allotted seat / college else he / she shall be debarred from UPNEET PG / MDS
Counselling -2025 along with forfeiture of security deposit”.

10. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to the status
of seat allotment and admissions after each round of counselling in NEET - PG 2024, in
the context of the measures implemented to curb seat blocking. The details are tabulated
below:

Note: - In the first round of counselling, there were 2026 seats in all, and after receiving

9
recognition for 74 new seats from N.M.C., total 2100 seats were placed in the second
round of counselling process.
Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the counselling
process has been significantly refined, and the issue of seat blocking has been effectively
addressed to a large extent.
11. Additionally, the learned senior counsel for the NMC / MCI explained how the
scheme for admission to medical colleges evolved through a series of judicial
interventions.
3
11.1. In Sharwan Kumar v. DGHS and others , this Court framed a scheme for
admission to medical courses. As per this scheme, only two rounds of counselling were
st nd
conducted for All India Quota (AIQ) seats – the 1 and 2 rounds of counselling. This
scheme was adopted by State Governments for admission to State Quota seats. It also
provided that vacant or unfilled AIQ seats would be surrendered to the State Quota or
concerned colleges after the last date for admission. Accordingly, all States followed the
pattern of conducting two rounds each for AIQ and State counselling. However, delays
by counselling authorities led to deviations from the schedule, resulting in many
students being deprived of the opportunity to participate in counselling on par with
others, particularly affecting their chances in State counselling.
4
11.2. The above issue came under scrutiny in Ashish Ranjan v. Union of India , where
3
(1993) 3 SCC 332
4
(2016) 11 SCC 225

10
this Court approved the MCI’s notification regarding the counselling schedule for the
first NEET-PG, which also involved two rounds of counselling. Under this system, the
Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) conducted counselling for AIQ (both
PG and MBBS) while State Governments or their nominated authorities conducted
counselling for State Quota seats, including Government seats in private colleges.
11.3. That apart, associations or consortia of medical colleges conducted counselling
for private colleges within States. For deemed universities, counselling practices varied:
some conducted their own, while others joined private college counselling. However,
this decentralized system often led to malpractices, such as the admission of less
meritorious students or selections made without regard to merit. This created a situation
where private medical and dental colleges could admit students in violation of the merit-
based principle.
This concern was addressed in Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of
5
Madhya Pradesh , where, the Constitution Bench of this Court directed that all
admissions to medical and dental courses for the academic year 2016-17 must be made
based on the NEET merit list, followed by centralized counselling conducted by the
respective State.
11.4. Further, in its order dated 03.05.2017 in WP(C) No.261 of 2017 – Christian
Medical College Vellore Association v. Medical Council of India , this Court directed
that States must conduct common counselling for admissions to medicine courses.
5
(2016) 7 SCC 353

11
11.5. Similarly, in its order dated 04.05.2017 in WP (C) No. 244 of 2017 – Education
Promotion Society of India v. Union of India , this Court held that counselling for
deemed Universities must also be conducted by the concerned State Government or its
designated authority.
11.6. Finally, in its order dated 09.05.2017 passed in WP (C) No. 267 of 2017, this
Court laid down detailed guidelines for admissions. One key directive was that, after the
nd
2 round of counselling, students, who had already taken admission would not be
allowed to vacate their seats. This was intended to prevent seat blocking and ensure that
st nd
the maximum number of seats were filled during the 1 and 2 rounds of counselling.
12. The learned senior counsel for the MCI / NMC further submitted that the Medical
Council of India (MCI) and subsequently, the National Medical Commission (NMC)
have taken several steps to prevent seat blocking and to ensure transparency and fairness
in the admission process for medical courses.
12.1. The MCI while exercising its powers under section 33 of the Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956 and with the prior approval of the Government of India, amended the
MCI Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations and Regulations on Graduate Medical
Education, 1997. Through notifications dated 10.03.2017 and 27.06.2017, it inserted
Regulation 9A and 5A respectively. These amendments mandated that admissions to
medical courses in all medical colleges, including deemed universities, must be made
only through common or combined counselling conducted by the respective State

12
Government, Central Government, or their designated authorities.
12.2. In compliance with directions issued by this Court, the MCI further amended the
Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, via notifications dated 05.04.2018 and
20.08.2018. Among other provisions, the amendment required the counselling authority
to forward a list of candidates, in order of merit equal to ten times the number of vacant
seats to the concerned medical colleges for admission to postgraduate medical courses.
12.3. Subsequently, the Central Government through a notification dated 24.09.2020
repealed all provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. In its place, the
National Medical Commission Act, 2019, was brought into force, dissolving the MCI
and the Board of Governors in supersession of MCI. The National Medical Commission
was established under the new Act to regulate the medical profession and education, and
to lay down standards for the same.
12.4. In pursuance of the order of this Court in Nihila P.P. v. the Medical Counselling
6
Committee and others , the Government of India, in consultation with the NMC,
presented a revised counselling scheme before this Court. This scheme included four
st nd
rounds of counselling, namely: 1 round, 2 round, mop-up round and stray vacancy
round. This Court in its judgment dated 16.12.2021, approved the implementation of this
four-round counselling process for both undergraduate and postgraduate courses,
effective from the academic year 2021-22 onwards.
12.5. As per paragraph (f) of the above judgment, the option of upgradation and free
6
2021 SCC OnLine SC 3283

13
exit was allowed only during Round 1 of the central counselling. Paragraph (g) stated
that no upgradation would be permitted from Round 2 to the mop-up round. Paragraph
(h) categorically provided that candidates who had joined the allotted college in Round 2
would not be permitted to resign and would be ineligible to participate in any further
rounds of counselling. However, this restriction has since been modified, and candidates
rd rd
are now permitted to upgrade their seats up to the 3 round of counselling. After the 3
round, they are barred from vacating their seats. Additionally, paragraph (i) provided
that only those candidates who had not joined the allotted seats in Round 2 would be
eligible to participate in further rounds of counselling. The relevant portion of the said
judgment reads as under:
“…
The proposed modified scheme of online 4 rounds of counselling will be in tune with the
prevailing norms of counselling (including the fees and security deposit) being followed
for Central Institutes / Universities. The salient points of the scheme are as follows:
a) There will be 04 rounds of online counselling i.e., AIQ Round I, AIQ Round 2, AIQ
Mop-up Round and AIQ Stray Vacancy Round.
b) The seats which were earlier reverted back to the respective States after the
completion of Round 2 of AIQ will continue to be filled in the AIQ Mop-up Round and
AIQ Stray Vacancy Round to be conducted by MCC of DGHS, MoHFW in online mode.
c) The said rounds will only be conducted for the AIQ seats having All India character
which are contributed by the States for 15% UG seats and 50% PG seats.
d) Fresh registration of candidates will be allowed in:
AIQ Round 1
AIQ Round 2
AIQ Mop-up Round.
e) There will be no fresh registration for candidates in the AIQ Stray Vacancy Round.
f) There will be an option for upgradation and free exit, only in Round 1 of the AIQ
counselling.
g) There will not be an option of upgradation to Mop-up round from Round 2.
h) Candidates who have joined the allotted seat in Round 2 and further rounds of

14
counselling will not be allowed to resign and will also be ineligible to take part in
further rounds of any type of counselling.
i) Candidates who have not joined the allotted seat in Round 2 will be eligible for
further rounds of counselling subject to forfeiture of security deposit and fresh
registration in only mop-up round.
j) The provisions with regard to security deposit, option of free exit and eligibility for
participation will be as per the Gazette Notification No. MCI-34(41)/2018 –
Med./109835 dated 18.05.2018.

3. This Court has been informed that the modified schemes shall be implemented for the
current year 2021-2022 for admissions to NEET UG and PG.
4. In view of the aforesaid statement made on behalf of MCC, Directorate of Health
Services, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the Special Leave Petition and Writ
Petition which are disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.”
13. It is also submitted by the learned senior counsel that in addition to previous
measures, the NMC has taken further steps to ensure that student admissions are
conducted in strict adherence to the rule of merit. It was observed that the offline mode
of counselling during the stray round was detrimental to the interests of both medical
education and meritorious students. To ensure fairness in the admission process,
adherence to the merit list and to prevent seat blocking, it became necessary to mandate
that all counselling rounds be conducted online – both by State Governments for state
quota seats and by the Medical Counselling Committee, DGHS for All India Quota
(AIQ) seats.
13.1. Accordingly, the Medical Counselling Committee filed an application
(I.A.No.132614/2022 in W.P (C) No.267 of 2017) requesting directions to conduct the

15
stray vacancy round for 100% Deemed Universities in both Under-Graduate and Post
Graduate Courses, via online mode. It is pertinent to note that MCC is responsible for
conducting counselling for admissions to all Deemed Universities. Based on this
application, this Court through its order dated 12.12.2022 permitted and directed MCC
to conduct stray vacancy round for all Deemed Universities through online mode.
13.2. Considering the above, and with a view to uphold the rule of merit and safeguard
the interests of meritorious students, the NMC after thorough discussions, decided that
all States and Colleges must conduct the stray round of counselling exclusively through
online mode for MBBS admissions starting from the academic year 2023-24. This
decision was communicated to all States and relevant authorities through a circular dated
24.07.2023.
13.3. In exercise of its powers under sub-section (1) of Section 25 and sub-section (2)
of Section 57 of the NMC Act, 2019, the NMC notified Postgraduate Medical Education
Regulations, 2023. Under Regulations 4.3 and 4.4, the concept of Common Counselling
was introduced, mandating that all rounds of PG medical counselling must be held
solely in online mode by the appropriate State and Central Authorities. Additionally,
these regulations require colleges to disclose their fee structure, enabling candidates to
make informed choices and reducing the chances of students vacating seats due to
unexpected high fees.
13.4. Similarly, under the powers granted by sub section (1) of section 24, and various

16
clauses under sub-section (2) of section 57 of the NMC Act, 2019, the NMC also
notified the Graduate Medical Education Regulation, 2023. Regulations 12, 13, and 14
specify that admission to the MBBS course shall only be conducted through Common
Counselling organized by the authority designated by the Central Government.
Regulation 16 categorically prohibits any form of admission other than through common
counselling.
13.5. Further, from the academic year 2023-24, the MCC, in consultation with the
NMC, decided that students allotted seats in the stray round will not be permitted to
vacate their seats. If a student still vacates the seat, they will face forfeiture of fees and
will be barred from appearing in NEET PG / National Exit Examination (NExT) (once
implemented) for a period of one year.
By pointing out the above, the learned senior counsel for the NMC/MCI submitted that
the two concerns raised by the High Court stand adequately addressed by this
respondent.
14. From the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and the NMC/MCI, it is
discernible that the authorities have introduced several regulatory measures – such as
security deposits, debarment clauses, round finality rules, and undertakings from
candidates – to enforce commitment and reduce strategic blocking of seats. In
compliance with the directions issued by this Court, the National Medical Commission
(NMC) has implemented comprehensive reforms to the counselling process, aiming to

17
prevent seat blocking, ensure optimum seat utilization, and promote a transparent, merit-
based admission system in medical education.
14.1. Currently, all rounds of counselling for State quota seats are conducted by the
respective State Government or its designated authority, while counselling for All India
Quota (AIQ) seats and deemed universities is managed by the Medical Counselling
Committee (MCC) under the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS). The entire
counselling process is now conducted online, which has eliminated the discretion
previously held by private medical colleges and deemed universities to admit students
independently after State counselling. As a result, seat blocking has been effectively
addressed.
14.2. To further optimize seat allocation, any seat vacated due to resignation,
surrender, or migration is retained and made available in subsequent rounds of AIQ
counselling. The number of counselling rounds has been increased from two to four –
namely, Round 1, Round 2, Mop-Up Round, and Stray Vacancy Round. This expansion
provides candidates with greater opportunities to secure a seat and reduces the wastage
of available seats.
14.3. Furthermore, in the Stray Vacancy Round, candidates who are allotted and join a
seat are not permitted to resign thereafter. Those, who are allotted a seat but fail to join
will forfeit their fee and be debarred from appearing in the National Exit Test (NExT)

18
for one year, once NExT is implemented.
14.4. These reforms directly address the concerns raised by the High Court in the
impugned order and ensure that meritorious students are not deprived of their rightful
opportunities. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed
by the High Court in its entirety, but deem it appropriate to issue certain directions to the
concerned authorities to ensure the effective implementation of the revised counselling
framework, thereby upholding the principles of merit, fairness and transparency.
15. Regarding the direction issued by the High Court for payment of compensation to
Respondent Nos.1 and 2, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
both the respondents had participated in the first and second rounds of counselling and
were allotted seats accordingly. Their exclusion from the mop-up round was in complete
7
adherence to the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Ranjan v. Union of India and
8
Dar-us-Slam Educational Trust v. MCI . Therefore, the petitioners contend that the
question of compensation does not arise and the High Court erred in directing payment
of Rs.10,00,000/- each to Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
15.1. Conversely, the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 / writ petitioners
submitted that the respondents were denied the opportunity to upgrade to their preferred
MD Radiology seats during the mop-up round. They argued that this denial facilitated
7
(2016) 11 SCC 225
8
Order dated 09.05.2017

19
widespread seat blocking in the earlier rounds, which allowed candidates with lower
merit to secure admission while more deserving candidates like themselves were left
disadvantaged. Acknowledging these procedural lapses, the High Court observed that
although admissions post the prescribed cut-off date were not possible, the conduct of
the State authorities had caused significant disadvantage to Respondent Nos.1 and 2,
warranting the award of compensation.
15.2. It is an admitted fact that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared for NEET-PG 2017-
18 with MD Radiology as their preferred choice. When that was unavailable during the
first two rounds, they opted for Pathology and Paediatrics, respectively and
subsequently, joined their allotted colleges and completed their PG courses. As per the
then-prevailing counselling procedure, candidates who accepted seats in earlier rounds
were precluded from participating in the mop-up round. The High Court itself noted that
no valuable right was denied to the respondents regarding participation in the mop-up
round and that once admission was granted, the process concluded unless specific
exceptions applied as per the admission guidelines.
15.3. While the cause of the respondents in approaching the court was reasonable and
in fact catalyzed significant reforms in the counselling process to curb seat blocking and
uphold merit, the award of Rs.10,00,000/- each as compensation is found to be arbitrary

20
and excessive. The judgments relied upon by the High Court pertained to different
factual contexts where students lost an academic year through no fault of their own.
Those cases are distinguishable from the present one, where the respondents completed
their courses. Moreover, awarding compensation for seat blocking in NEET-PG
counselling is not a common practice.
15.4. The present case instead highlights systemic issues and underscores the need for
transparency and fairness in the NEET-PG counselling process. Accordingly, in the
interest of justice, we are inclined to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each to Respondent
Nos.1 and 2 towards litigative expenses, to be paid by the petitioners, within a period of
three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The direction of the High
Court awarding compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- each is hereby set aside and the
impugned order is accordingly modified.
16. As held by us in paragraph 14.4 , we issue the following directions to the concerned
authorities:
(i) Implement a Nationally synchronized counselling calendar to align AIQ and State
rounds and prevent seat blocking across systems.
(ii) Mandate Pre-Counselling Fee Disclosure by all private / deemed universities,
detailing tuition, hostel, caution deposit, and miscellaneous charges.
(iii) Establish a Centralized Fee Regulation Framework under the National Medical

21
Commission (NMC)
(iv) Permit upgrade windows post-round 2 for admitted candidates to shift to better seats
without reopening counselling to new entrants.
(v) Publish raw scores, answer keys and normalization formulae for transparency in
multi-shift NEET-PG exams.
(vi) Enforce strict penalties for seat blocking including forfeiture of security deposit,
disqualification from future NEET-PG exams (for repeat offenders), blacklisting of
complicit colleges.
(vii) Implement Aadhaar-based seat tracking to prevent multiple seat holdings and
misrepresentation.
(viii) Hold state authorities and institutional DMEs accountable under contempt or
disciplinary action for rule or schedule violations.
(ix) Adopt a Uniform Counselling Conduct Code across all States for standard rules on
eligibility, mop-up rounds, seat withdrawal, and grievance timelines.
(x) Set up a third-party oversight mechanism under NMC for annual audits of
counselling data, compliance, and admission fairness.
17. With the aforesaid directions and modification, this Special Leave Petition stands
disposed of.

22
18. Connected Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
..................................……. J.
(J.B. PARDIWALA)
.……...................................… J.
(R. MAHADEVAN)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 29, 2025