The one-time admission relaxation applies only to students admitted before the prescribed deadline.

The petitioners alleged that the respondents had failed to comply with the writ court’s order dated 7 May 2026, which directed the University to treat the relevant admissions as regular, declare the students’ results, and permit them to appear in any back-paper examination in accordance with law

The University’s compliance affidavit stated that the petitioners had not been admitted on or before 15 October 2019, the last date for admission, and therefore could not be treated as regular students.

The petitioners relied on college-issued seat-allotment letters and fee receipts dated 15 October 2019; the University’s supplementary compliance affidavit disputed that the admissions had been made by that date.

1. Whether the respondents’ failure to treat the petitioners’ admissions as regular, declare their results, and permit back-paper examinations amounted to contempt of the writ court’s order

2. Whether the petitioners’ admissions fell within the one-time relaxation for students admitted before 15 October 2019.

In Union of India v. Federation of Self-Financed Ayurvedic Colleges Punjab, (2020) 12 SCC 115, the Supreme Court permitted students admitted to AYUSH undergraduate courses for 2019–20 to continue if they had been admitted before the last date of admission, 15 October 2019; it specified that the relaxation was a one-time measure and not a precedent.

The writ court’s direction required the University to treat admissions as regular and provide the specified examination-related relief in accordance with law.

The judgment identifies no separate statutory provision or detailed contempt test as the basis for its decision.

The Court considered the Supreme Court’s 15 October 2019 cutoff, which was also the basis for the writ court’s directions.

Although the petitioners produced seat-allotment letters and fee receipts dated that day, the University’s supplementary compliance affidavit stated that their admissions had not been made on or before the cutoff.

On the material and submissions before it, the Court concluded that contempt was not established.

Any pending applications were also disposed of.