Madras High Court Upholds Supreme Court Mandate on Medical Admissions Timeline
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has firmly stated that courts cannot order additional rounds of counselling to fill vacant medical seats once the Supreme Court's fixed last date for admissions has passed. The court emphasized that issuing such directions would directly violate the Supreme Court's mandate, which establishes strict timelines for the admission process.
Bench Overturns Single Judge Order for Extra Counselling
The first bench, comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan, delivered this order while allowing an appeal filed by the Union Health Ministry. The ministry had challenged a single judge's order dated September 18, 2025, which had directed the conduct of additional counselling to fill vacant seats under the NEET Super-Specialty 2024 category.
The bench explicitly referenced the Supreme Court's position in the Ashish Ranjan case, noting that the regulations outlining the strict timeline schedule for counselling rounds bear the imprimatur of the apex court. "If that is the observation of the SC, we are of the view that, irrespective of whether the seats remain unfilled on account of arbitrary inaction on the part of the officials or not, once the last date of admission was over, the court cannot grant any relief," the bench asserted.
Strict Adherence to Counselling Schedule is Paramount
Supporting the arguments presented by Additional Solicitor General A R L Sundaresan, the bench highlighted that the Supreme Court has, in numerous judgments, held that the counselling schedule must be adhered to strictly without exceptions. The court warned that permitting violations of this schedule or granting extensions would effectively open a Pandora's box, undermining the entire purpose of establishing a fixed time framework.
"Extension cannot be granted just because some seats are lying vacant without any other justification," the bench clarified, reinforcing the principle that vacancy alone is insufficient grounds to deviate from the Supreme Court's directives.
Legal Remedies Limited After Admission Deadline
The court further elaborated on the legal boundaries, stating that if any illegality is discovered in the counselling and admission process, it can be corrected by the writ court, but only if the last date of admission has not yet passed. Once that deadline is over, the situation becomes a fait accompli.
In such cases, based on previous Supreme Court orders, the affected party must seek remedy directly from the Supreme Court itself. Consequently, the bench set aside the single judge's order, thereby nullifying the directive for additional counselling rounds.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to maintaining discipline and predictability in medical admissions, ensuring that the processes governed by the Supreme Court's timelines are respected to avoid administrative chaos and legal uncertainty.
