State Lacked Power To Lower NEET-UG Percentile For BDS Admissions; Supreme Court Orders ₹10 Crore Deposit Per Erring College And ₹10 Lakh By State To RSLSA
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi held that the Rajasthan Government had no power to reduce the minimum NEET-UG qualifying percentile for admission to the BDS course for the 2016–17 academic year, and that the relaxation-driven admissions were unauthorised under the governing dental education norms. Invoking Article 142, the Court regularised the admissions and degrees of students who have already completed the BDS course, subject to filing undertakings to render pro bono services to the State in specified emergencies. It denied relief to those who have still not completed the course within the prescribed period. The Court also directed each erring private college to deposit ₹10 crore and the State to deposit ₹10 lakh with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority.
The batch of appeals concerned the legality of admissions to the Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) course in Rajasthan for the academic year 2016–17, after the minimum qualifying percentile in NEET-UG was lowered for filling vacant seats. The dispute arose after the State Government issued orders dated 30.09.2016 and 04.10.2016 lowering the qualifying percentile “to an extent of 10 percentile and additional 5 percentile,” which the Dental Council of India (DCI) described as a “gross violation” and asked the State to “withdraw/cancel immediately” those orders; DCI also recorded that the power to lower the percentile was “vested only with the Central Government” and that admissions based on such State relaxation were “void ab initio.”
The Central Government rejected the proposal to lower the percentile, noting “adequate number of candidates” had qualified, and advised seeking extension of admission deadlines through Supreme Court approval. Later, the State sought post-facto approval, which the DCI did not accept, noting that once the State had opted for NEET, it could not alter qualifying marks. Proceedings followed after DCI directed discharge of such students and RUHS denied enrolment IDs, leading to writ petitions and appeals.
The Court recorded that “the minimum qualifying percentile for admission to the BDS course is 50th percentile in NEET for candidates in the unreserved category, 40th percentile for SC/ST/OBC candidates and 45th percentile for candidates with locomotory disability of the lower limbs.” It stated that reduction is permissible “only when a sufficient number of candidates in the respective categories fail to secure the prescribed minimum cut-off marks for the concerned academic year,” and 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 Court added: “It must be stated in no uncertain terms that such a power cannot be exercised by any other authority or the State Government, as was done in the instant case.”
On the conduct of the private colleges, the Court recorded that “while the relaxation by the State of Rajasthan to the extent of 10+5 percentile was already excessive,” the colleges “overstepped the relaxations already granted” and admitted students “relying solely on their 10+2 scores,” resulting in admissions of students with “even zero and negative scores.” It stated: “Thus, admissions granted beyond relaxations of 10+5 percentile were also wholly untenable and unlawful,” and “amounted to making a mockery of the rules and regulations prescribed by the DCI for effective dental education in the country.”
Regarding the plea of promissory estoppel, the Court stated that “the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to sustain an action taken in contravention of a statutory mandate,” and that the colleges’ plea was “devoid of merit” because the relaxations were “in contravention of the 2007 Regulations, which do not confer any power upon the State of Rajasthan to reduce the prescribed minimum percentile.” It also recorded the settled position that “The respondent cannot plead any estoppel either by conduct or against a statute,” and that “promissory estoppel does not apply against the statute.”
In addressing relief, the Court stated that “in order to do complete justice in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case,” it “deem[ed] it fit to invoke Article 142 of the Constitution of India.” It cautioned that the direction was issued “only to save the efforts, time and resources of the students” and “shall not be treated as a precedent.”
The Court recorded that it would “invoke Article 142 of the Constitution of India” and, “[a]s a result, the admissions of the Appellant/students who have passed the BDS course and received their degrees stand regularised.”
It directed that all such beneficiary students “shall file an affidavit with the Registrar (Judicial), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, within a period of eight weeks from the date of pronouncement of this judgment, giving an unconditional undertaking” to render “pro-bono services to the State of Rajasthan during their entire lifetime” in specified exigencies—“natural calamities, man-made disasters/accidents, health emergencies comprising epidemics, pandemics, disease outbreaks or public health crises declared by competent authorities, or any other situation of similar gravity … as notified by the State of Rajasthan”—“without charging any remuneration for a maximum cumulative period of 2 years.”
The Registrar (Judicial), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur was directed to “forward those affidavits to the concerned authority of the State of Rajasthan for their record,” and if any student defaults, “the Registrar (Judicial) … shall intimate this Court through proper channel and the Registry of the Supreme Court shall place the said information before this Court for further directions.”
The Court clarified that “those students who have not passed the BDS course and/or have not received their degrees shall not be entitled to any relief.”
“The Appellant-Colleges … deposit a cost of Rs. 10 crores each, and the State of Rajasthan … deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lacs with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority within a period of eight weeks from the date of pronouncement of this judgment,” and that the Authority “shall invest the said fund in a short-term fixed deposit account, in a Nationalized Bank, with auto-renewal facility.”
The Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority “shall utilize the amount of interest accrued” for “maintenance, upgradation and improvement of One Stop Centres, Nari Niketans, Old Age Homes as well as Child Care Institutions” (and for new infrastructure), but “only with the advice of a committee of the judges of the Rajasthan High Court,” and requested the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court to constitute “a Committee comprising five judges … including at least one woman judge.”
Finally, “with these observations and modifications in the impugned judgment, the present appeals and all pending/interim applications stand disposed of,” with the judgment dated “18th DECEMBER, 2025.”
Case Title: Siddhant Mahajan and Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1458.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No(s). … of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 14014–14019/2023, 11988–11990/2023, 12372–12373/2023, 11566–11568/2023, 12440–12447/2023, 24550/2023, 2837/2024, 2724/2024).
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari, Justice Vijay Bishnoi.
