Supreme Court Allows Provisional MBBS Seat To EWS Candidate, Rejects Contention That MP Govt Lacks EWS Quota Policy For Pvt Colleges
"If private colleges don't follow [reservation policy], close them. Put a lock on them", said CJI Kant.
Invoking its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court today directed the National Medical Commission and Madhya Pradesh government to grant provisional admission to a NEET-qualified candidate belonging to the Economically Weaker Section category.A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria passed the order. It noted that the petitioner...
Invoking its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court today directed the National Medical Commission and Madhya Pradesh government to grant provisional admission to a NEET-qualified candidate belonging to the Economically Weaker Section category.
A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria passed the order. It noted that the petitioner had qualified the NEET exam twice, but could not secure admission.
The petitioner Atharv Chaturvedi, appearing in person, approached the Court as he could not get EWS seat in private medical colleges since the State did not frame any policy to implement such reservation in private institutions. Earlier, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had declined his plea, noting that a similar petition was previously rejected, while giving 1 year's time to the State to enhance EWS seats in private medical colleges (which was not over).
Allowing interim relief to the petitioner, the top Court ordered :
"The petitioner is a young boy belonging to Economically Weaker Section. He has qualified the NEET exam twice, but is unfortunate to get admission in MBBS course on account of one [or the other reason]. In the first exam, admission could not be granted on the ground that in the notification dt. 2 July 2024, the state government had not carved out any reservation for EWS candidates...National Medical Commission and State of Madhya Pradesh through the Dept. of Medical Education are directed to ensure that the petitioner is provisionally admitted to MBBS course strictly as per his EWS rank in the session 2025-26, subject to deposit of fee, etc."
When Counsel for the State submitted that in connection with private colleges, the policy is under consideration, CJI remarked, "if the private colleges don't follow [reservation policy], close them. Put a lock on them! Very simple. How can reservation policy be ignored?"
The counsel added, "our concern is student should not be exploited later on". "You bring that private college before us!" replied CJI. When the State counsel persisted that process of making guidelines is ongoing, the CJI added, "don't spoil the career of this boy (petitioner)".
At last, the counsel submitted that the petitioner took part in counselling knowing the conditions and was now estopped from challenging the process. But the bench was not convinced.
Background
Before the MP High Court, the petitioner challenged Gazette Notification dated 02.07.2024 on the ground that the same was ultra vires Articles 14 and 15(6) of the Constitution of India. He further sought admission in some medical college against an enhanced EWS seat.
The same notification was challenged by him by way of another petition, seeking similar reliefs, in 2024. At the time, the High Court upheld the notification, while directing the State to complete the process of enhancement of seats in private medical colleges in1 year, to provide for EWS reservation in terms of notification dated 29.01.2019 of the Union government.
Taking note of this judgment in the impugned order, the High Court noted that the time of 1 year given to the State was not over. The NMC informed the Court that the process of enhancement of seats was underway but due to pan-India implications, it was likely to take some time. As the result of enhancement of seats was to be prospective, NEET 2025 notification would not be affected and besides, counselling was already over, it further stated.
The High Court observed that the petitioner had preferred an SLP against the decision in his 2024 case, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a review petition. The review petition was dismissed and thereafter, the petitioner again approached the Supreme Court, but his plea was dismissed.
In this backdrop, the High Court denied relief to the petitioner.
Case Title: ATHARV CHATURVEDI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 35993/2025