Only the Central Government May Lower the NEET Qualifying Percentile for BDS Admissions and State Relaxation Is Without Authority

The Supreme Court has held that the power to lower the minimum qualifying percentile in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to the Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) course vests exclusively in the Central Government and cannot be exercised by a State Government. Deciding a batch of appeals arising from BDS admissions in Rajasthan for the academic year 2016–17, the Court examined the validity of a 10+5 percentile relaxation granted by the State and the consequences of admissions made beyond it.

While reaffirming the primacy of NEET as the sole gateway for admission to professional dental education, the Court also considered the equities arising from the passage of time and the status of students who had continued their course under interim judicial protection. The impugned judgment of the High Court was modified and the appeals were disposed of accordingly.

Case Background

The appeals arose from admissions to the BDS course in the State of Rajasthan for the academic session 2016–17. Under the Revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007, as amended, candidates were required to secure the prescribed minimum percentile in NEET to be eligible for admission. The proviso to sub-regulation 5(ii) of Regulation II authorises only the Central Government, in consultation with the Dental Council of India (DCI), to lower the minimum qualifying marks when sufficient candidates fail to secure the prescribed percentile in a given academic year.

In 2016, after counselling rounds, a large number of BDS seats in private dental colleges in Rajasthan remained vacant. The Federation of Private Medical and Dental Colleges of Rajasthan submitted a representation seeking reduction of the qualifying percentile. The Central Government forwarded this representation to the State for “necessary action as deemed fit.”

Acting on this communication, the State of Rajasthan issued letters dated 30 September 2016 and 4 October 2016 lowering the NEET qualifying percentile by 10 percentile and, in special exigency cases, by an additional 5 percentile, amounting to a total relaxation of 15 percentile. Certain private colleges subsequently admitted students not only under this 10+5 relaxation but also beyond it, including candidates who had secured extremely low or even negative percentiles in NEET.

What The Lower Authorities Held

The Single Judge of the High Court partly allowed the writ petitions filed by students. Admissions granted by applying relaxation up to 10 percentile and an additional 5 percentile were protected and regularised. However, students admitted beyond this 10+5 relaxation were directed to be discharged from the BDS course. The Single Judge observed that while the Central Government ought to have taken a timely decision under the proviso, reduction beyond 10+5 percentile was impermissible.

The Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge’s view. It held that the State’s action in lowering the minimum percentile was justified in light of the Central Government’s communication directing it to take “necessary action as deemed fit.” At the same time, the Division Bench directed discharge of students admitted beyond the 10+5 relaxation, imposed costs of Rs. 50,00,000 on each defaulting college, and directed payment of Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation to each affected student.

The Court’s Reasoning

Primacy of NEET in Professional Admissions

The Court began by reiterating that admissions to MBBS and BDS courses must be undertaken solely on the basis of NEET merit. This position stands settled and is integral to maintaining uniform national standards, transparency, and fairness in professional education. NEET functions not merely as an entrance examination but as a regulatory mechanism to uphold merit and prevent arbitrariness.

Interpretation of the Proviso to Regulation II

The central issue concerned the proviso to sub-regulation 5(ii) of Regulation II of the 2007 Regulations. The language of the proviso expressly provides that when sufficient candidates fail to secure the prescribed minimum marks in NEET, the Central Government, in consultation with the DCI, may at its discretion lower the minimum marks for that academic year.

The Court held that the discretion is statutorily conferred upon the Central Government alone. There is no provision enabling a State Government to exercise such power. The regulatory scheme reflects a deliberate choice to centralise decisions affecting minimum standards in dental education.

No Delegation Through Administrative Communication

The State relied on the Central Government’s letter forwarding the Federation’s representation for “necessary action as deemed fit.” The High Court had treated this as an implicit delegation of power.

The Supreme Court rejected this interpretation. A statutory power cannot be delegated through general administrative correspondence. Delegation, if permissible, must be express and traceable to the governing statutory or regulatory framework. The phrase “necessary action as deemed fit” could not override or amend the express terms of the Regulation vesting discretion in the Central Government.

Effect of Central Government’s Subsequent Decision

The Court noted that the Central Government, by communication dated 6 October 2016, directed the State to withdraw its relaxation orders, clarifying that the power to lower the percentile vested exclusively in the Central Government. On 7 October 2016, the Central Government declined to lower the qualifying percentile, noting that sufficient qualified candidates were available.

In these circumstances, the State’s unilateral relaxation lacked statutory authority. Admissions granted on that basis did not have legal backing under the 2007 Regulations.

Admissions Beyond 10+5 Percentile

The Court took serious note of admissions granted by certain colleges beyond the 15-percentile relaxation allowed by the State, including students with zero or negative percentiles. Such admissions were wholly outside the regulatory framework and contrary to the mandate that admissions must be based solely on NEET merit.

The Court observed that permitting such practices would erode the uniform standards in professional education and undermine the credibility of NEET as a national entrance examination.

Equitable Considerations

The Court examined the status of students who had continued their studies under interim orders of the High Court and this Court. Details were placed on record regarding completion of the BDS course, internships, and subsequent professional or academic pursuits.

While emphasising that illegality cannot ordinarily be cured by lapse of time, the Court considered the factual position of different categories of students and the outer time limit prescribed for completion of the BDS course under the 2007 Regulations. The Court balanced regulatory compliance with the need to avoid disproportionate hardship in exceptional circumstances.

Statutory Interpretation

The dispute turned on the interpretation of sub-regulation 5(ii) of Regulation II of the Revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007 and its proviso. The main clause prescribes the minimum qualifying percentile in NEET. The proviso authorises lowering of minimum marks only by the Central Government, in consultation with the DCI, and only when sufficient candidates fail to secure the prescribed minimum.

The Court held that the language “the Central Government… may at its discretion lower” is specific and exclusive. The structure of the Regulation leaves no room for independent action by the States. The regulatory intent is to preserve national uniformity in minimum standards.

The Court also considered Section 10D of the Dentists Act, 1948, which provides for a uniform entrance examination. The legislative scheme reinforces central oversight and a merit-based selection process for professional dental education.

Why This Judgment Matters

This decision reaffirms the integrity of NEET as the sole and uniform gateway for admission to dental education across India. It clarifies that decisions affecting minimum eligibility standards must strictly comply with the statutory framework and cannot be assumed by State authorities on the basis of administrative correspondence.

The ruling sends a clear message to private institutions that deviation from prescribed norms, particularly through excessive relaxation, will not be condoned. At the same time, the Court’s engagement with equitable considerations reflects judicial sensitivity in long-pending admission disputes where students have progressed under interim protection.

For regulators, the judgment underscores the need for timely decisions under the proviso to avoid uncertainty and prevent situations where competing interpretations of authority create large-scale litigation.

Final Outcome

The Supreme Court held that the State of Rajasthan had no authority to lower the NEET qualifying percentile for BDS admissions and that such power vests exclusively in the Central Government under the 2007 Regulations. The interpretation adopted by the High Court regarding delegation of power was found unsustainable.

With these observations and modifications in the impugned judgment, the present appeals and all pending/interim applications were disposed of. The directions issued by the High Court were examined and modified in accordance with the statutory scheme and the findings recorded by the Court.

The Supreme Court has held that the power to lower the minimum qualifying percentile in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to the Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) course vests exclusively in the Central Government and cannot be exercised by a State Government. Deciding a batch of appeals arising from BDS admissions in Rajasthan for the academic year 2016–17, the Court examined the validity of a 10+5 percentile relaxation granted by the State and the consequences of admissions made beyond it.

While reaffirming the primacy of NEET as the sole gateway for admission to professional dental education, the Court also considered the equities arising from the passage of time and the status of students who had continued their course under interim judicial protection. The impugned judgment of the High Court was modified and the appeals were disposed of accordingly.

Case Details

• Case Title: Siddhant Mahajan and Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.
• Citation: 2025 INSC 1458
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Bench: J.K. Maheshwari, J.; Vijay Bishnoi, J.
• Date of Judgment: December 18, 2025