'State Can't Dilute NEET Eligibility For Dental Courses': Supreme Court In Rajasthan BDS Case; Imposes ₹10 Crores On Erring Colleges

The Supreme Court on Thursday held that the State of Rajasthan had no authority to lower the minimum qualifying percentile in the NEET-UG examination for admissions to the Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) course for the academic year 2016–17, and that the decision to do so was manifestly illegal. At the same time, invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court protected the degrees of students who have already completed the BDS course, while imposing severe financial penalties on erring private dental colleges and the State Government for undermining statutory norms governing dental education.

The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi in a batch of civil appeals filed by affected students, private dental colleges in Rajasthan and the Dental Council of India (DCI), challenging a 2023 judgment of the Rajasthan High Court. The appeals arose out of a prolonged dispute relating to BDS admissions made after the State Government unilaterally relaxed NEET eligibility criteria in 2016, allegedly to fill a large number of vacant seats.

The controversy dates back to the introduction of NEET as the sole eligibility-cum-entrance examination for admissions to medical and dental courses across the country. Under the Revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007, candidates belonging to the general category are required to secure at least the 50th percentile in NEET to be eligible for admission, while the threshold is 40th percentile for SC, ST and OBC candidates, and 45th percentile for candidates with locomotory disability of the lower limbs. The regulations permit lowering of this minimum percentile only by the Central Government, and that too in consultation with the DCI, and only when sufficient candidates are not available.

During the counselling process for the 2016-17 academic session, a large number of BDS seats in private dental colleges in Rajasthan remained vacant. Acting on representations made by the Federation of Private Medical and Dental Colleges of Rajasthan, the State Government issued letters on September 30 and October 4, 2016, permitting a reduction of 10 percentile and an additional 5 percentile in the NEET cut-off, citing special exigency and the need to fill vacant seats. Acting on this relaxation, private dental colleges admitted students who had failed to secure the prescribed minimum percentile, and in several cases, even admitted candidates with zero or negative NEET percentiles, relying solely on Class 12 marks.

The DCI and the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare later took the position that the State of Rajasthan had no statutory power to lower NEET qualifying marks. The DCI warned that any admissions made pursuant to such unauthorised relaxation would be void ab initio. On October 6, 2016, the Central Government directed the State to withdraw its relaxation orders, clarifying that the power to lower the minimum percentile vested exclusively with the Centre. Despite this, the State failed to promptly inform the colleges, and admissions under the relaxed criteria continued.

Subsequently, the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences refused to issue enrolment numbers to several students admitted under the relaxed norms. This led to a series of writ petitions before the Rajasthan High Court. In April 2018, a Single Judge partly allowed the petitions, protecting admissions made after relaxation of 10 plus 5 percentile, while ordering discharge of students admitted beyond that limit. The Division Bench upheld this view in May 2023, while also imposing costs of Rs 50 lakh on each erring college and directing payment of compensation of Rs 25 lakh to affected students.

Before the Supreme Court, students argued that they had pursued and completed the BDS course under interim court orders and that cancelling their degrees after nearly a decade would cause irreparable harm. The DCI, on the other hand, contended that the High Court erred in treating the State's relaxation as lawful, and that the power to reduce NEET cut-offs could not be delegated to the State. The private colleges defended their actions as bona fide, while challenging the heavy penalties imposed on them.

Rejecting the reasoning of the High Court, the Supreme Court categorically held that there was no delegation of power by the Central Government to the State of Rajasthan. The Bench ruled that the phrase “necessary action as deemed fit” used in the Centre's letter forwarding the colleges' representation could not be interpreted as authorising the State to lower NEET eligibility criteria. The Court held that neither the Dentists Act nor the 2007 Regulations permit such delegation, and that the State's decision to reduce the cut-off by 10 percentile and then by a further 5 percentile was without authority of law.

 It is apparent that the power to undertake such a reduction in the qualifying percentile is only vested in the Central Government, to be exercised in consultation with the DCI. It must be stated in no uncertain terms that such a power cannot be exercised by any other authority or the State Government, as was done in the instant case.

The Court held that at best, the State of Rajasthan could have made a representation to the Central Government or a recommendation to the DCI to take the appropriate steps in view of the large number of vacant seats.

"However, the State of Rajasthan took it in its own hands to proceed with the reductions, which cannot be justified by any means," it said.

Court comes down on private colleges for admissions without following norms

The Court further criticised private dental colleges for going even beyond the State's illegal relaxation, observing that they admitted students purely on the basis of Class 12 marks, including those with zero or negative NEET scores.

Describing this conduct as a “mockery of the rules and regulations prescribed for effective dental education”, the Bench said the colleges were "driven by greed" to fill every vacant seat, at the cost of educational standards.

What has transpired in the facts before us is egregious and cannot be condoned in any circumstances whatsoever. The State of Rajasthan as well as the private colleges have not followed the law and there were also some lapses on the part of the DCI as well as the Central Government.

Court protects students who completed their courses

At the same time, the Court acknowledged that the students were the ultimate victims of systemic failures involving the State Government, colleges, and regulatory authorities. Taking note of the fact that many students had continued their studies under interim court orders and had since completed the BDS course and received degrees, the Court invoked Article 142 to do complete justice.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court ordered that the admissions of students who have completed the BDS course and received their degrees shall stand regularised, notwithstanding the illegality in the admission process. However, the Court clarified that this relief was strictly confined to completed cases and should not be treated as a precedent. Students who have not completed the BDS course within the maximum period of nine years prescribed under the regulations were denied any relief and directed to be discharged.

As a condition for protecting their degrees, the Court directed that the benefited students must file affidavits before the Rajasthan High Court undertaking to render pro bono dental services to the State of Rajasthan, whenever required during natural calamities, pandemics, public health emergencies or similar crises, for a maximum cumulative period of two years during their lifetime.

Coming down heavily on institutional misconduct, the Supreme Court enhanced the penalties imposed by the High Court. It directed each erring private dental college to deposit Rs 10 crore as costs, and ordered the State of Rajasthan to deposit Rs 10 lakh, within eight weeks, with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority. The Court directed that the funds be placed in fixed deposits and that the interest accrued be utilised for social welfare purposes, including the maintenance and upgradation of One Stop Centres, Nari Niketans, old age homes and child care institutions in the State, under the supervision of a committee of judges of the Rajasthan High Court.

Case : Siddhant Mahajan v The State of Rajasthan

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1220

Click here to read the judgment