67 students cleared NEET, studied for years, and still lost their seats.

Two Notifications, One College, and 67 Students Who Took the Back Door

When Abdul Ahad and several other students qualified NEET 2016 and secured admission to Glocal Medical College's MBBS course, they thought they had made it. The college, affiliated to Glocal University — a deemed university — had conducted its own private counselling and handed them seats. What they didn't know — or chose not to know — was that the State of Uttar Pradesh had issued two notifications, on August 22 and September 2, 2016, mandating centralized counselling for all medical admissions, including private colleges. Glocal Medical College ignored those notifications. The Medical Council of India discovered the violation. On January 27, 2017, MCI issued a discharge order for 67 students whose names did not appear on the official DGME list. Sixteen years of litigation later, the Supreme Court of India, in a review petition decided on August 17, 2021, shut the door firmly. The students lost their seats. The rule of law won.

What the State Actually Ordered

The State of Uttar Pradesh, through its notifications dated August 22 and September 2, 2016, directed that all admissions to medical courses — including those in private and deemed universities — must be conducted through a centralized counselling process. This was not a whimsical directive. It was based on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 7 SCC 353, which held that the State can regulate admissions to private professional institutions by providing a centralized entrance test and counselling to ensure merit, transparency, and equal opportunity. The Allahabad High Court, on September 15, 2016, upheld these notifications, finding no fault with the centralized counselling mandate. Even minority institutions, the High Court clarified, could admit community students only through centralized counselling, without deviating from NEET merit.

Glocal Medical College, however, decided to chart its own course. It conducted private counselling and admitted students — including the review petitioners — for the academic session 2016-2017. The college's defiance was not subtle. It was a direct contravention of a binding State notification, upheld by the High Court, and rooted in a Supreme Court precedent.

The MCI Discharge Order: A Paper That Changed Everything

On January 27, 2017, the Medical Council of India issued a discharge order for 67 students whose names did not appear on the official DGME list. The students were to be discharged from Glocal Medical College. The college, however, did not comply. The students continued their studies. The Supreme Court, in an interim order dated March 20, 2017, permitted them to appear in examinations but expressly stipulated that their results would not be published and that no equity could be claimed on the basis of that order. The students took the exams. They cleared them. They moved to the second year. They cleared that too. But the sword of Damocles — the discharge order — hung over their heads.

In 2019, the students claimed they only learned of the discharge order. They filed writ petitions before the Allahabad High Court, which disposed of them with liberty to approach the Supreme Court. They then filed special leave petitions, which were dismissed on July 20, 2020. The review petitions — the ones now being decided — followed.

What the Students Argued

The review petitioners, through their learned Counsel, made a straightforward plea: they were innocent students who had qualified NEET, had been pursuing their studies for years, had cleared examinations, and should not be made to suffer for the college's wrongdoing. They argued that they had no knowledge of the State notifications or the MCI discharge order until much later. They pointed to the interim order that had allowed them to continue their studies. They invoked sympathy. They asked the Court to regularize their admissions, or at least permit them to complete their course.

The Union of India and the Medical Council of India opposed the review. They argued that the admissions were per se illegal, that the students had entered through a back door, and that no amount of sympathy could override the rule of law. They cited a string of precedents to support their position.

The Precedent Wall the Court Built

Justice B.R. Gavai, writing for the three-judge bench that included Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Krishna Murari, did not mince words. The Court held that the admissions through private counselling were per se illegal. The State notification, based on Modern Dental College, was binding. The college's private counselling was a flagrant violation of that notification. The students could not claim ignorance — the notifications were public, the High Court's judgment was public, and the MCI discharge order was served on the college.

The Court then turned to the precedents. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jainarayan Chouksey, (2016) 9 SCC 412, the Supreme Court had held that admissions to all medical seats must be conducted by centralized counselling by the State Government only, and any admission given through private counselling by any college or university shall stand cancelled forthwith. That was directly on point.

In Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal, (1993) 4 SCC 401, the Court had warned that sympathy-driven orders cannot override proper legal assessment. In Gurdeep Singh v. State of J&K, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 188, the Court had held that advantages secured by stratagem and trickery cannot be rationalized in courts, and allowing retention of gains from illegal means jeopardizes the purity of selection and emboldens errant conduct. In K.S. Bhoir v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 10 SCC 264, similar observations were made.

In Mahatma Gandhi University v. GIS Jose, (2008) 17 SCC 611, the Court had held that misplaced sympathies should not be shown in total breach of admission rules, and allowing a student admitted in breach of rules to complete the course and write examinations is totally illegal. That case was factually similar — the High Court had shown sympathy, and the Supreme Court reversed it. The Court also cited CBSE v. Sheena Peethambaran, (2003) 7 SCC 719, which deprecated the practice of permitting students to study under interim orders and then pleading sympathy after course completion.

Finally, in National Council for Teacher Education v. Venus Public Education Society, (2013) 1 SCC 223, the Court held that institutions engaged in imparting training courses must obey the command of law in letter and spirit, and no deviation is justified on grounds of mercy, sympathy, or financial constraints.

The Doctrine That Mattered: No Sympathy for Backdoor Admissions

The ratio decidendi of this judgment is twofold. First, where the State has mandated centralized counselling for medical admissions pursuant to judicially sanctioned principles, any private counselling conducted by an institution in contravention thereof renders the resultant admissions per se illegal and incapable of being sustained. Second, courts cannot extend sympathetic consideration to students who gained admission through illegal backdoor means, even if they have subsequently pursued studies and cleared examinations, because such sympathy would jeopardize the purity of the admission process and embolden illegal conduct.

The Court also clarified a third principle: an interim order permitting students to appear in examinations, expressly stipulating that no equity shall be claimed on its basis, cannot be relied upon to regularize or validate admissions that are otherwise per se illegal. The students had appeared in exams and cleared them, but that did not create any right to retain their seats.

The Court's Puzzlement: How Did This Happen?

In an obiter observation that may have future significance, the Court expressed difficulty in understanding how the results were declared for the 1st year MBBS, how students were admitted to the 2nd year, and how the 2nd year was cleared, despite the MCI's discharge order of January 27, 2017. This suggests institutional complicity or defiance. The observation may be cited in future cases to hold institutions liable for contempt or regulatory action when they permit continuation of studies despite discharge orders.

Why This Matters for Practitioners

For advocates, this judgment is a powerful tool to resist sympathy-based arguments in admission cases. The Court has made it clear that the purity of the admission process is paramount, and no amount of time spent studying or exams cleared can cure a fundamentally illegal admission. For CFOs and founders of private educational institutions, the message is equally stark: do not conduct private counselling in defiance of State notifications. The consequences are severe — not just for the institution, but for the students who are caught in the crossfire. For startup founders in the ed-tech space, the judgment reinforces that regulatory compliance is non-negotiable, and interim orders do not create permanent rights.

THE PLAY: When faced with a client who has secured admission through private counselling in violation of a State-mandated centralized process, do not argue sympathy. Argue that the admission is per se illegal and cannot be sustained, and advise the client to seek alternative remedies — such as a fresh admission through the proper channel — rather than litigating a losing battle.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions. The 67 students lost their seats. The rule of law prevailed over sympathy. The judgment is a reminder that in the world of medical admissions, there is no back door that leads to a valid degree.