Court Finds No Arbitrariness in Policy Decision to Ensure Optimal Seat Utilization
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court on January 27, 2026, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the decision of the National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) to lower the cutoff percentiles for NEET-PG 2025 admissions. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra, found the petition lacking in material and contradictory in its submissions.
The petitioner, Advocate Abhinav Gaur, had argued that the revised cutoff scores, which dramatically reduced the qualifying percentiles for various categories, were unconstitutional and compromised the meritocracy in medical admissions. However, the court noted that the petition failed to substantiate these allegations with any relevant material.
The decision to adjust the eligibility criteria was aimed at ensuring optimal utilization of available medical seats and preventing potential vacancies. The court emphasized that expanding the candidate pool would not compromise merit, as admissions would still be based on meritocratic principles.
The court also referenced a similar case, Sanchit Seth v. National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences, adjudicated by the Delhi High Court. In that ruling, the Delhi High Court upheld the policy decision, observing that the reduction in eligibility criteria was made after thorough deliberation and was necessary for optimal seat occupancy.
The Allahabad High Court underscored the limited scope of judicial review in policy decisions, stating it is permissible only on grounds of arbitrariness and perversity. Finding no such arbitrariness, the court dismissed the PIL.
This judgment reaffirms the judiciary's stance on respecting policy decisions made after due process and careful consideration, particularly in areas requiring specialized expertise like medical education.
Bottom Line:
Public Interest Litigation challenging the lowering of cutoff percentiles for NEET-PG 2025 admissions dismissed due to lack of relevant material and contradiction in submissions. Judicial review of policy decisions permissible only on grounds of arbitrariness and perversity.
Statutory provision(s): Article 16 of the Constitution of India
Abhinav Gaur v. Union of India, (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2844566
