In a significant ruling aimed at preserving the integrity of medical education in India, the Supreme Court has ordered a detailed inquiry against six Ayurvedic colleges in Gujarat for granting admissions to students who failed to qualify the mandatory NEET-UG cut-off. The Court refused to interfere with the Gujarat High Court’s decision denying relief to such students, while simultaneously expressing serious concern over illegal admissions that could jeopardise both academic standards and students’ futures.
The decision was rendered by a Bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, which observed that although judicial interference was not warranted in favour of the students, the conduct of the colleges required close scrutiny.
Background of the Dispute
The case arose from admissions granted to students in Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) and Bachelor of Homoeopathic Medicine and Surgery (BHMS) courses for the academic year 2019–2020.
The students had appeared for NEET-UG, but failed to secure the minimum qualifying percentile prescribed under the amended AYUSH Regulations, 2018, which mandate:
- 50th percentile for candidates in the unreserved category.
Despite this statutory requirement, certain private colleges in Gujarat granted the students “conditional admissions”, assuming that the Central Government might later reduce the cut-off percentile, as had occurred in earlier years due to vacant seats.
Conditional Admissions and Regulatory Non-Compliance
The colleges admitted the students with explicit conditions stating that their admission would be valid only if the cut-off percentile was subsequently lowered by the competent authority. However, no such reduction was notified for the relevant academic year.
As a result, the admissions continued in clear violation of statutory regulations, raising serious concerns about regulatory compliance and institutional accountability.
Proceedings Before the Gujarat High Court
The matter first came before a Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court, who refused to sustain the admissions on two key grounds:
- The students had not challenged the validity of the amended AYUSH Regulations, which clearly prescribed the minimum percentile.
- The conditional nature of the admissions made it evident that continuation depended on regulatory approval, which never materialised.
The Single Judge concluded that the students were aware of the risks involved and could not later seek equitable relief.
Intra-Court Appeal and Reliance on Past Precedent
The students challenged the decision through an intra-court appeal, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Federation of Self-Financed Ayurvedic Colleges, Punjab (2020). In that case, the Court had permitted a reduction in minimum qualifying marks due to an acute shortage of eligible candidates.
However, the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court rejected this argument, clarifying that:
- Reduction of cut-off percentile is a discretionary power, not an automatic right;
- Such discretion lies with the counselling authority in consultation with the government;
- Students cannot claim admission as a matter of entitlement merely because seats may remain vacant.
The Bench further observed that “undue sympathy” could not be extended to students who participated in the process despite knowing the regulatory requirements.
Supreme Court’s Intervention: No Relief, But Serious Concerns
When the matter reached the Supreme Court, the Bench refused to interfere with the High Court’s reasoning. However, it took note of a larger systemic issue—the continuation of students for several academic years based on prima facie illegal admissions.
The Court noted that such practices have long-term consequences, not only for students but also for the credibility of medical education and public health systems.
Colleges Under Inquiry
Recognising the gravity of the situation, the Supreme Court ordered an inquiry into the conduct of the following six colleges:
- Ananya College of Ayurved, Kalol
- Bhargava Ayurved College, Dahemi
- Indian Institute of Ayurved, Rajkot
- B.G. Garaiya Ayurved College, Rajkot
- Global Institute of Ayurved, Rajkot
- Jay Jalaram Ayurvedic Medical College, Shivpuri
The Court expressed concern that these institutions had continued students into their 3rd, 4th, and even 5th years despite knowing that the foundational eligibility requirement had not been met.
Directions Issued by the Supreme Court
To ensure accountability, the Supreme Court issued the following directions:
- Notices were issued to all six colleges, directing them to file detailed affidavits explaining:
- The circumstances under which admissions were granted;
- Reasons for allowing students to continue despite ineligibility.
- The Gujarat Ayurved University and the Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM) were directed to constitute a Joint Committee.
- The Committee was empowered to:
- Call for documents from colleges;
- Seek information from students;
- Conduct a comprehensive inquiry into admission irregularities.
- The Court directed full cooperation from both students and institutions in the inquiry process.
The matter has been listed for further hearing after four weeks.
Legal and Regulatory Significance
This order reinforces several crucial principles in education and administrative law:
1. NEET as a Non-Negotiable Standard
The judgment reaffirms NEET as a uniform and mandatory benchmark for admissions to medical and allied health courses, including AYUSH disciplines.
2. No Equitable Relief Against Statutory Violations
Courts will not extend sympathy where admissions are granted in clear violation of statutory regulations, even if students have invested years in the course.
3. Institutional Accountability
The ruling signals a shift from focusing solely on student eligibility to holding institutions accountable for regulatory breaches.
4. Protection of Public Interest
By ordering an inquiry, the Court has prioritised public health, academic integrity, and systemic reform over individual equities.
Implications for AYUSH Education in India
The decision sends a strong message to private medical institutions across the country that speculative or conditional admissions cannot override statutory mandates. It also highlights the urgent need for stricter regulatory oversight in AYUSH education, which plays a vital role in India’s healthcare ecosystem.
For students, the ruling serves as a cautionary reminder to verify eligibility criteria independently and not rely solely on institutional assurances.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s order marks a decisive step towards restoring discipline and transparency in medical admissions. By refusing relief to ineligible students while simultaneously ordering a high-level inquiry into institutional misconduct, the Court has struck a careful balance between judicial restraint and systemic correction.
The outcome of the inquiry is likely to have far-reaching consequences for AYUSH colleges and could shape future regulatory enforcement in professional education across India.
Also Read
Allahabad High Court Directs Revision of CLAT-2026 Merit List After Faulty Answer Key Review
