EWS student who fought up to Supreme Court for MBBS seat allowed to sit for exams despite attendance shortage caused by delayed admission.

The petitioner, an Economically Weaker Section (EWS) student, qualified for NEET for the 2024-25 and 2025-26 sessions but was denied admission due to technical pretexts regarding a notification dated 02.07.2024.

After litigating before the High Court and the Supreme Court, the Apex Court, vide order dated 10.02.2026 in SLP No. 35993 of 2025, directed his admission into the MBBS course.

Consequently, he was admitted to respondent no. 3 college in March 2026.

However, the respondents denied him permission to appear in the August 2026 first-year examinations due to insufficient attendance caused by the delay in the admission process.

The court primarily relied on the principles of equity and the mandate of Article 142 of the Constitution of India, observing that when the Supreme Court exercises its extraordinary power to grant admission in exceptional cases, subordinate authorities must act in the letter and spirit of such orders.

The principle that a student should not suffer for the "action/inaction of respondents" or procedural delays beyond their control.

The doctrine of "remedial measures," allowing the substitution of regular attendance with supervised extra classes to maintain academic standards.

The court reasoned that the petitioner is a "bright student" who qualified for NEET twice and fought his case personally up to the Supreme Court.

It noted that the delay in admission (from the 2025 session to March 2026) was entirely attributable to the respondents’ technical objections and not any fault of the petitioner.

Since the Supreme Court had already intervened under Article 142 to grant admission, denying the petitioner the right to sit for the exam would render the Apex Court's relief illusory.

The court accepted the National Medical Commission's fair submission that "remedial measures" through extra classes could bridge the academic gap.

This balanced the necessity of curriculum completion with the petitioner's right to academic progression alongside his peers.

The court directed respondent no. 2 to open the examination portal and issue an admit card, and directed respondent no. 3 to conduct extra classes to fulfill the curriculum requirements.

The result of the examination is to be declared to allow the petitioner to continue with the 2025-26 batch.

Due to the unique facts, this order was specifically noted as not constituting a binding precedent.