DIVJOT SEKHON v. STATE OF PUNJAB
Admission Criteria - Sports Quota - Alteration of Rules Mid-Process - Arbitrariness and Nepotism - Violation of Article 14 - Transparency in Admission Process.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2026 INSC 26
Decision Date: 06-01-2026
List of Laws
The Constitution of India; Medical Education; Admission Policy; Article 14 of the Constitution; NEET UG-2024; Sports Policy, 2023
- Facts: Several appeals were filed challenging the admission process for MBBS/BDS courses in Punjab, specifically regarding the sports quota. The main contention was the change in criteria for considering sports achievements, where the University initially considered only Classes XI and XII but later included Classes IX and X. This change was allegedly influenced by a parent, Ramesh Kumar Kashyap, whose daughter benefited from the altered criteria.
- Procedural Posture: The appeals arose from orders of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which had dismissed writ petitions filed by the appellants challenging the admission process. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and consolidated the cases.
- Issue: Was the modification of the admission criteria for MBBS/BDS courses under the sports quota, specifically the inclusion of sports achievements from Classes IX and X, valid and legally sustainable, considering allegations of arbitrariness, nepotism, and lack of transparency?
- Holding: The Supreme Court held that the modification of the admission policy was not valid. The Court quashed the policy modification, emphasizing that the admission process should be transparent and free from arbitrariness. The Court directed that Divjot Sekhon and Shubhkarman Singh be accommodated in government medical colleges, while Kudrat Kashyap and Mansirat Kaur be given seats in Gian Sagar Medical College.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that altering the rules of the game after the process has begun is impermissible. The Court found that the modification was influenced by Ramesh Kumar Kashyap to benefit his daughter, lacking transparency and probity. The Court noted that the State's action deviated from established practice without valid justification, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that while the State has the power to change policy, such changes must be fair, reasoned, and not arbitrary. The Court also highlighted that the University's actions defied comprehension, especially since the Sports Policy, 2023, excluded sub-junior tournaments, yet the University sought sports achievements from any class/year. The Court stated, "The transparency of such a process is paramount to ensure fairness and prevent arbitrariness."
🔒 For Members Only