Court’s decision
The Madras High Court exercised its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to join the allotted MBBS seat pursuant to Round-III of the Tamil Nadu NEET UG 2025–26 counselling. The Court held that the Petitioner’s inability to pay the required fee by the reporting deadline of 08.11.2025 resulted from circumstances beyond her control, including the fact that the funds were arranged only on the same day and banks could not process the payment due to the second-Saturday holiday. The Court observed that rigid adherence to counselling deadlines cannot defeat merit in exceptional factual situations where the candidate has acted bona fide and without negligence.
The Court underscored the principle that judicial discretion must be deployed to prevent injustice, especially when a meritorious candidate may lose her rightful seat to a less meritorious candidate during stray vacancy rounds. The Court stated that this situation demanded an equitable remedy, noting specifically that the Petitioner’s inability to remit fees on time was due to unavoidable banking limitations. The Court clarified, however, that its order should not be treated as precedent and applies only to the unique facts of this case. The Respondents were directed to permit the Petitioner to join the allotted institution upon payment of ₹15,00,000 on or before 14.11.2025.
Facts
The Petitioner appeared for NEET UG 2025–26 and secured 251 marks. Following publication of the State prospectus on 06.06.2025, she applied under the minority quota for both Government and Management counselling streams. In Round-III counselling held between 30.10.2025 and 01.11.2025, she was allotted an MBBS seat in the fourth Respondent-college under the minority quota. A provisional allotment order was issued on 03.11.2025, requiring her to report and pay fees by 08.11.2025.
To pay the prescribed fee of ₹15,00,000, the Petitioner’s mother arranged funds by pledging family jewellery. The amount became available only on 08.11.2025. Because it was a second Saturday, banks were closed, making it impossible to procure a demand draft or complete NEFT/RTGS transfer. The Petitioner repeatedly attempted to contact the college to inform them that the payment would be made on the next working day, but no response was received. Since the Petitioner could not pay by the deadline, her seat was treated as unoccupied and moved into the stray vacancy pool.
The Petitioner approached the Court seeking a direction permitting her to join the college according to her original allotment, asserting that she had acted in good faith and that the delay resulted solely from practical banking constraints beyond her control.
Issues
- Whether strict adherence to the NEET UG reporting deadline could be relaxed in exceptional circumstances without undermining the counselling process.
- Whether failure to pay fees by 08.11.2025 constituted a forfeiture of the seat even when the candidate demonstrated bona fide reasons.
- Whether the Court, under Article 226, could intervene to restore an allotted seat that had been moved into the stray vacancy list.
- Whether permitting such relief would adversely affect counselling integrity or create a precedent enabling widespread challenges.
Petitioner’s arguments
The Petitioner contended that she had secured a valid allotment under the minority quota based on merit and was willing and prepared to join the programme. She explained that her mother could arrange the ₹15,00,000 fee only on 08.11.2025 due to financial constraints and that the banking holiday prevented immediate transfer. She asserted that the delay was not intentional but was caused by circumstances she could not control, including technical limitations on the payment portal that allowed only eight banks, excluding her mother’s bank.
The Petitioner submitted that depriving her of the seat would be grossly unfair, especially since it would ultimately benefit a less meritorious candidate during stray vacancy rounds. She argued that the counselling framework should not penalise genuine candidates who act with diligence. She sought judicial intervention to protect her rightful seat, asserting that constitutional courts must ensure fairness in educational admissions where rigid rules may cause injustice.
Respondent’s arguments
The third Respondent argued that the NEET counselling schedule is strictly regulated nationally and that deadlines cannot be breached even in compelling circumstances. The Respondent submitted that permitting relaxation for one candidate would set a precedent allowing multiple candidates to claim similar exemptions, thereby disrupting the orderly execution of the stray vacancy process, which had already begun on 11.11.2025 and was scheduled to end on 14.11.2025.
The Respondent stated that once the Petitioner failed to join by 08.11.2025, her seat automatically became part of the stray vacancy list and had already been opted for by other candidates. It was argued that counselling authorities must treat all candidates uniformly and cannot extend deadlines on compassionate grounds. Permitting such relief, the Respondent contended, would undermine the integrity of the counselling system and open floodgates for litigation.
The fourth Respondent, however, stated that it had no objection to admitting the Petitioner because she was more meritorious than candidates likely to secure the seat during stray vacancy.
Analysis of the law
The Court evaluated the scope of its writ jurisdiction, reiterating that Article 226 empowers constitutional courts to remedy injustice where administrative rigidity causes palpable unfairness. The Court highlighted that deadlines in medical admissions are essential for transparency and efficiency, but not inflexible when compelling circumstances justify intervention. The Court carefully analysed the counselling schedule and noted that the Petitioner had secured funds on the last permissible date, and only an intervening bank holiday prevented timely remittance.
The Court reasoned that educational access, particularly in professional courses such as medicine, warrants a harmonious interpretation of procedural rules and constitutional fairness. The Court emphasised that intervention is appropriate where merit would otherwise be compromised. Importantly, the Court balanced individual justice with systemic integrity, ensuring that its decision remained confined to the unique facts of the case without broadly relaxing the counselling framework.
Precedent analysis
While the order did not cite external judicial precedents, it reflected established constitutional principles governing educational admissions. Courts have consistently held that compassionate considerations may justify limited relaxation of procedural timelines where candidates act bona fide and where no prejudice is caused to the admission process. The reasoning aligns with jurisprudence affirming that Article 226 powers are available to prevent injustice even within structured administrative schemes. The Court reiterated that its decision should not be viewed as precedent applicable beyond this specific factual matrix.
Court’s reasoning
The Court recognised that the Petitioner’s family faced genuine financial hardship and yet took immediate steps to secure the required funds. The Court highlighted that the Petitioner’s mother pledged her jewellery and arranged the amount on 08.11.2025, which happened to be a second Saturday. Because banks were closed and electronic transfer options were restricted, the Petitioner could not pay the fees despite genuine efforts.
The Court reasoned that allowing the seat to pass to a less meritorious candidate would contradict the foundational merit-based principles of medical admissions. It found that the Petitioner did not act negligently and should not suffer consequences arising from circumstances beyond her control. Relying on its constitutional duty to ensure substantial justice, the Court exercised discretion to protect the Petitioner’s allotment, while expressly cautioning that the order was not to be invoked as a precedent.
Conclusion
The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to join the allotted MBBS seat upon payment of ₹15,00,000 by 14.11.2025. The Court made clear that failure to comply would result in forfeiture of the Petitioner’s claim. The order ensured that merit was preserved, injustice remedied, and administrative fairness upheld. No costs were imposed.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the principle that procedural rigidity in medical counselling cannot supersede substantive fairness when a candidate demonstrates bona fide difficulty. It underscores that constitutional courts may intervene to preserve merit and prevent injustice, particularly in high-stakes professional admissions. At the same time, the Court’s warning against treating this relief as precedent indicates its intent to preserve the broader integrity of counselling timelines while safeguarding exceptional candidates from unavoidable hardship.