Supreme Court quashes Punjab’s midstream sports quota policy change for MBBS and BDS admissions citing Article 14 violations.
Case in News
The Supreme Court invalidated Sports Quota MBBS BDS Admissions Quashed due to midstream policy change in Punjab .
Discover powerful Latin Maxims and simplify complex legal terms in seconds.
Case Name
Divjot Sekhon v. State of Punjab
Case Overview
In Divjot Sekhon v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court scrutinised the legality of changes introduced in sports quota admissions for MBBS and BDS courses in Punjab for the 2024 academic session . The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe . The dispute arose after Baba Farid University of Health Sciences modified eligibility criteria after the admission process had already commenced affecting merit rankings under the 1% sports quota .
Step into the world of justice withCourtroom Chronicles
Key Aspects
The case revolved around whether admission norms could be altered after the process had begun and whether such changes satisfied constitutional standards of fairness and transparency . The appellants challenged the sudden expansion of the eligibility zone for sports achievements .
- Original prospectus dated 09 August 2024 limited consideration to Classes XI and XII .
- On the last application date, eligibility was expanded to include Classes IX and X .
- Revised sports merit list altered rankings, disadvantaging the appellants .
- The change was influenced by a representation with undisclosed personal interest .
Legal Insights
The Court analysed the issue through established constitutional and administrative law principles governing admissions. It reiterated that even policy decisions must conform to equality and non-arbitrariness standards .
- Article 14 of the Constitution of India : mandates equality, fairness and absence of arbitrariness in State action .
- “Rules of the game” doctrine : selection or admission criteria cannot be changed mid-process .
- Administrative law principle : non-disclosure of conflict of interest vitiates decision-making .
- Admission policies must be clearly defined before commencement to prevent favouritism .
Court’s Verdict
The Supreme Court held that the midstream modification of sports quota criteria was arbitrary and unconstitutional, violating Article 14 . It quashed the policy change for the 2024 session but limited relief to the appellants to avoid disturbing completed admissions . The Court directed seat adjustments between government and private colleges without affecting fees or ongoing studies . It further clarified that future admission policies must be framed in advance, transparently, and uninfluenced by extraneous considerations .
The LawGist ensures exam success with quality notes—TPL, Current Affairs, Recent Judgments, and more. Backed by trusted resources and videos, The LawGist is every aspirant’s first choice.
Read also-Constitution of India
Source-Supreme Court of India
