Listen To This Post

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe observed that, just as recruitment rules cannot be changed midstream, admission norms must also be fully defined at the outset. Leaving policies vague or flexible, the court said, opens the door to arbitrariness and nepotism.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday came down heavily on the Punjab government for adopting what it termed an “elastic” and non-transparent procedure for admissions to MBBS and BDS courses under the sports quota for the 2024 session, holding that admission criteria cannot be altered once the process has begun.

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe observed that, just as recruitment rules cannot be changed midstream, admission norms must also be fully defined at the outset. Leaving policies vague or flexible, the court said, opens the door to arbitrariness and nepotism.

“The practice and procedure followed by the State of Punjab in leaving the norms elastic, without disclosing what would be the exact policy about the zone of consideration, and allowing itself sufficient leeway to change such policy midstream, is not in accordance with the principles of fair play in action,” the Bench held.

The court emphasised that transparency is paramount in admission processes, particularly for highly sought-after professional courses such as MBBS and BDS. It warned that lack of clarity at the beginning “invariably enables arbitrariness and nepotism to walk in through the back door,” something an egalitarian State must avoid.

The observations were made during hearings of appeals filed by Divjot Sekhon and Shubhkarman Singh, who had challenged the sports quota admission criteria framed by the Punjab government for the 2024 session. Allowing the appeals, the court directed that both aspirants be accommodated against available seats in a government medical college.

Rejecting the State’s defence that courts should ordinarily refrain from interfering in policy matters, the Bench clarified that judicial intervention is warranted where a policy is riddled with arbitrariness or provides scope for it. “The fact that a policymaker is allowed some elbow room does not translate into permitting arbitrariness or nepotism,” the court said.

The judgment reiterates that all actions of the State and its instrumentalities must conform to Article 14 of the Constitution and be fair, reasoned and transparent — especially in admission processes that shape the future of young students.