Supreme Court of India
DIVJOT SEKHONversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 26
- Decided
- 6 January 2026
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- SANJAY KUMAR
Holding
The mid‑stream alteration of the sports‑quota admission criteria for MBBS/BDS courses is illegal, vitiated, and quashed, and the petitioners are to be accommodated in the seats vacated by the beneficiaries of the unlawful change.
Summary
The petitioners challenged the Punjab government's alteration of the sports‑quota admission criteria for MBBS/BDS courses, which expanded the "zone of consideration" from Classes XI‑XII to include Classes IX‑X after applications had been filed. They argued that the mid‑stream change was arbitrary, violated Article 14’s guarantee of equality, and was influenced by nepotism, as the recommendation came from a coach whose daughter benefited. The Supreme Court examined the prospectus, government notifications, internal notings, and the role of the coach, finding that the policy change was not a legitimate exercise of discretion but an unlawful modification of the rules after the selection process began. The Court held that such elastic admission norms breach the principles of fairness, transparency, and non‑arbitrariness, and therefore the modification was quashed. Consequently, the petitioners were ordered to be allotted the seats vacated by the beneficiaries of the illegal change, while the state was directed to formulate future admission policies before the commencement of the process. The appeals were allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether changing the sports‑quota admission criteria after applications have been submitted violates Article 14 and the principle that the rules of the game cannot be altered mid‑process.
- Whether the State's policy decision, influenced by a private recommendation, is subject to judicial review for arbitrariness and nepotism.
- Whether the continuation of the altered criteria into the 2025 admission cycle is open to challenge.
- Whether specific relief can be granted to the petitioners by reallocating seats of those who benefited from the unlawful policy change.
Legislation cited
Headnote
Issue for Consideration As regards admission to MBBS/BDS courses under sports quota, the issue arose as to whether the procedure of keeping the admission process elastic after issuance of the prospectus and submission of applications by the candidates with their sports achievements would be valid – Admission to MBBS/ BDS courses through NEET-UG under sports quota during session-2024 – Change in policy w.r.t the zone of consideration midstream during the admission process – Impermissibility – Prospectus for admission to the colleges in Punjab in undergraduate
Subjects
Admission to MBBS/BDS courses under sports quotaNEET UG-2024NEET UG-2025Rules of the game cannot be altered once the game has begunChange in policy midstream during the admission processArbitrarinessNepotismFavouritismRevised ProspectusAddendumFairnessPolicy changeAltering zone of considerationZone of considerationAdmission process elasticAdmission norms elasticAdmission policyPolicy decisionCriteria for selection cannot be altered in the middle or after the process of selection has commencedTransparency in admission processSports merit listSports achievementsSports certificatesAdmission criteriaInternal notingsSports policy 2023Sports policy 2018Double standardsUnlawful benefitIllegal benefit
Judgment
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 372 : 2026 INSC 26
Divjot Sekhon
v.
State of Punjab and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2026)
06 January 2026
[Sanjay Kumar* and Alok Aradhe, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
As regards admission to MBBS/BDS courses under sports quota,
the issue arose as to whether the procedure of keeping the
admission process elastic after issuance of the prospectus and
submission of applications by the candidates with their sports
achievements would be valid in the eye of law.
Headnotes†
Education/Educational Institution – Admission to MBBS/
BDS courses through NEET-UG under sports quota during
session-2024 – Change in policy w.r.t the zone of consideration
midstream during the admission process – Impermissibility –
Prospectus for admission to the colleges in Punjab in
undergraduate medical courses, including MBBS/BDS courses,
during session-2024 was released by the University providing
that credit would be given only for sports achievements during
Classes XI and XII – However, later the impugned email and
an Addendum affirming it was issued asking the candidates to
submit their sports certificates in relation to their achievements
during any class/year instead of just Classes XI and XII – In
the merit list, respondent Nos.4 (‘KK’) and 5 were placed
higher than the appellants on the strength of their sports
achievements in Classes IX and X – Writ petitions filed by
appellants, dismissed by High Court – Challenge to:
Held: Rules of the game cannot be altered once the game has
begun – Just as modification of recruitment norms is forbidden in
law after the recruitment process has begun, it is equally illegal
for an admission process to not be fully defined in all its contours
* Author
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 373
Divjot Sekhon v. State of Punjab and Others
before its commencement, so as to leave room for the authorities
to stipulate norms later on to suit their own interests or to permit
nepotism – The transparency of such a process is paramount to
ensure fairness and prevent arbitrariness – The admission process
to MBBS/BDS courses during session-2024, by altering the zone
of consideration for sports quota at the behest of one ‘RKK’, a
Roller-Skating Coach was vitiated as he failed to disclose that
his recommendation benefitted his own daughter ‘KK’-respondent
No.4 – Further, when the State specifically noted in its Corrigendum
in 2023 that enlargement of the zone of consideration to include
Classes IX and X was only for session-2023 in view of the pandemic,
the departure from the policy of limiting consideration to only sports
achievements during Classes XI and XII, which was the policy
obtaining prior thereto, ought not to have been effected midstream
after applications were submitted by the candidates along with
their sports achievements – State and its instrumentalities have
a duty and responsibility to act fairly and reasonably in terms of
the mandate of Art.14 – Any decision taken by the State must be
reasoned and not arbitrary – Procedure followed by the State of
Punjab in leaving the norms elastic, without disclosing as to what
would be the exact policy w.r.t the zone of consideration, and
allowing itself sufficient leeway to change such policy midstream
during the admission process is not fair, transparent and enables
arbitrariness and nepotism – Modification in the policy quashed –
Appellants to be accommodated in the seats in the government
medical college(s) allotted to respondent Nos.4 and 5, who in turn
shall be given the seats vacated by the Appellants in the private
medical college – Constitution of India – Art.14. [Paras 18, 21, 33,
35, 38]
Education/Educational Institution – Admission to MBBS/
BDS courses through NEET UG under sports quota during
session-2025 – Change in policy w.r.t the zone of consideration
midstream during the admission process – Such modification
of the policy during session-2024 was continued during
session-2025 – Challenge to:
Held: Modification of the policy during session-2024 was vitiated –
Continuation of that policy during session-2025 with nothing further
would also be open to challenge on the same ground – However,
since admissions have already been made for session-2025 and
374 [2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
no candidate who would be adversely affected by interference
therewith was made a party to this litigation – Therefore, this lis
cannot be given a quietus at this stage – These appellants are
granted liberty to approach the High Court once again by way of
a properly constituted proceeding, impleading all the proper and
necessary parties thereto, and seek appropriate relief. [Para 42]
Judicial Review – Policy decision – Plea of the State of Punjab
that the Court would, ordinarily, not interfere in policy matters:
Held: Not accepted – When a policy decision is riddled with
arbitrariness or even provides avenues therefor, the Court would
be justified in nullifying it – The fact that a policymaker is to be
allowed some elbow room in formulating policy does not translate
to allowing scope for arbitrariness or nepotism. [Para 37]
Internal notings – Relevance – Change in policy formulated
by the State examined through file notings reflecting how the
decision-making process progressed from stage to stage:
Held: In the present case, the notings in the file disclosing the role
played by one ‘RKK’, are utmost relevant and cannot be ignored
as his intervention in the matter was what actually prompted the
policy change that was brought about thereafter. [Para 34]
Case Law Cited
Tej Prakash Pathak and others v. Rajasthan High Court and
Others, [2024] 12 SCR 28 : (2025) 2 SCC 1; Sivanandan C.T.
and Others v. High Court of Kerala and Others [2023] 11 SCR
674 : (2024) 3 SCC 799 – followed.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Others v.
Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and Others (2001) 10 SCC 51; K.
Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another [2008] 2 SCR
1025 : (2008) 3 SCC 512; Mandeep Singh and Others v. State
of Punjab and Others, 2025 INSC 834 [2025] 8 SCR 34 : 2025
SCC Online SC 1420 – relied on.
Harinagar Sugar Mills Limited (Biscuit Division) and Another v. State
of Maharashtra and Other [2025] 7 SCR 427 : (2025) 10 SCC
286; Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority v.
Vishnudev Cooperative Housing Society and Others [2018] 11
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 375
Divjot Sekhon v. State of Punjab and Others
SCR 310 : (2018) 8 SCC 215 – referred to.
Ibadat Sekhon v. State of Punjab and Others, Decision of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana dtd. 20.02.2025 in CWP No. 18657
of 2023 (O&M) – referred to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Admission to MBBS/BDS courses under sports quota; National
Eligibility cum Entrance Test (Undergraduate) (NEET UG-2024);
NEET UG-2025; Rules of the game cannot be altered once the
game has begun; Change in policy midstream during the admission
process; Arbitrariness; Nepotism; Favouritism; Revised Prospectus;
Addendum; Fairness; Rules of game; Policy change; Altering
zone of consideration; Zone of consideration; Admission process
elastic; Admission norms elastic; Admission policy; Policy decision;
Criteria for selection cannot be altered in the middle or after the
process of selection has commenced; Transparency in admission
process; Admission processes to educational courses; Sports merit
list; Sports achievements; Sports certificates; Admission criteria;
Internal notings; Internal notings in official files of Government;
Sports policy, 2023; Sports policy, 2018; Double standards; Unlawful
benefit; Illegal benefit.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.09.2024 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 21051 of 2024.
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 68 and 69 of 2026
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Ms. Misha Rohatgi, Suneet Pal Singh Aulakh, Nakul Mohta, Ayush
Kashyap, Amulya Upadhyay, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, B.K. Satija.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Siddhant Sharma, Vikram Choudhary, G.K. Bansal, Nitin Kaushal,
376 [2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Manoj Pandey, Anuj Tyagi, Ms. Shreelekha Vyas, Ms. Tanya
Swarup.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Sanjay Kumar, J
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of separate orders passed by the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissing the writ
petitions filed by the appellants. The first of the appeals pertains to
Divjot Sekhon. Her writ petition in CWP-21051-2024 was dismissed
by a Division Bench of the High Court on 11.09.2024. Her prayer
therein was to quash the email dated 16.08.2024 sent by Baba
Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot1, whereby candidates
applying for admission to MBBS/BDS courses under sports quota in
session-2024 were asked to submit their certificates/achievements of
any class/year instead of just Classes XI and XII. She also challenged
the merit list dated 23.08.2024 of candidates admitted to MBBS/
BDS courses under sports quota, that placed Kudrat Kashyap and
Mansirat Kaur, respondent Nos. 4 and 5, at high positions therein
on the strength of their sports achievements in Classes IX and X.
3. The next appeal is of Shubhkarman Singh, another MBBS aspirant
under sports quota during session-2024. On 12.09.2024, the same
Division Bench dismissed his writ petition in CWP-23083-2024,
following its decision in Divjot Sekhon’s case, a day earlier. His prayer
was on the same lines as Divjot Sekhon’s. In addition thereto, he
assailed the Addendum dated 03.09.2024, whereby the University
informed all National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (Undergraduate)
[NEET UG-2024] aspirants who applied under sports quota that
sports achievements during Classes XI and XII was misprinted in
the Prospectus and that they were told via email dated 16.08.2024
to submit all their sports achievements during any class/year/session
in person on 19.08.2024 (upto 3 PM).
1 For short, ‘the University’
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 377
Divjot Sekhon v. State of Punjab and Others
4. The email dated 16.08.2024, issued by the Admission Branch of the
University, was addressed to all the candidates who had applied
under sports quota and they were informed that, as per Punjab
Government’s Notification for admission to MBBS/BDS courses
under NEET UG-2024, the clause pertaining to sports category read:
‘Credit and admission shall be made on the basis of inter-se merit
determined on the basis of gradation (Category A/B/C) as per sports
policy notified by Department of Sports & Youth Services, Government
of Punjab’. The candidates were told that, as per the above clause,
it was not compulsory to submit only sports achievements of 10+1
& 10+2 Classes and they were supposed to submit all their sports
achievements made during any class/year. They were told that if
they wanted to submit any more documents in support of their claim
under sports category, which they had not submitted earlier, they
could submit the same in person on 19.08.2024 upto 3 PM. Thus,
the addendum dated 03.09.2024, issued post facto, was only an
affirmation of the email dated 16.08.2024.
5. The last appeal pertains to Agrima Mann, Gauranshi Dhingra and
Navreet Singh, aspirants for admission to MBBS/BDS courses under
sports quota for the next year, i.e., during session-2025. They filed
CWP-19735-2025 assailing Clauses 15(v) and 16(v) of the Notification
dated 09.08.2024, published on 17.06.2025, for admission to MBBS/
BDS courses through NEET UG-2025. The impugned clauses related
to 1% reservation of seats under sports quota, whereby credit was
sought to be given to sports achievements during any academic
year without restriction. Their prayer was that the benefit should
be restricted to the achievements in Classes XI and XII only and
that there was no justification in perpetuating the criteria that was
adopted during Covid-19 pandemic. They sought a direction to the
authorities to restore the policy decision/ criteria which existed prior
to session-2023 in respect of admissions to MBBS/BDS courses
for session-2025. In the alternative, they sought a direction to the
authorities to implement the changed policy decision/ criteria in a
staggered manner so as to not take the existing aspirants by surprise.
This writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High
Court on 16.07.2025, but there was no independent application of
mind as the Bench merely followed the decision rendered in Divjot
Sekhon’s case by the coordinate Bench, presided over by the same
learned Judge.
378 [2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
6. We will first deal with the cases of Divjot Sekhon and Shubhkarman
Singh as they relate to MBBS/BDS admissions during session-2024.
The Prospectus for admission to the colleges in Punjab in
undergraduate medical courses, including MBBS/BDS courses,
during session-2024 was released by the University on 09.08.2024.
It specifically provided that credit would be given only for sports
achievements during Classes XI and XII. Admissions were to be made
on the basis of inter-se merit of candidates determined on the basis
of gradation (Category A/B/C). While so, the Government of Punjab
issued Notification dated 09.08.2024, outlining the admission criteria to
MBBS/BDS courses for session-2024. The notification was, however,
silent about the classes/years which would be considered under
sports quota for assessing sports achievements of the candidates.
A revised Prospectus was issued by the University on 10.08.2024,
wherein the stipulation about considering sports achievements during
Classes XI and XII was retained. Applications for admission under
sports quota along with relevant documents were to be submitted by
16.08.2024. The checklist provided to aid the process of submission
of documents stated as follows: -
‘4. Gradation Certificate of Category (A/B/C) issued by
the Director Sports Punjab for Sports Achievements made
during 10+1 (passing year______) & 10+2 (passing year
______)
5. Sports Certificate played during 10+1 (passing year
______) & 10+2 (passing year_____)’
7. While so, on 16.08.2024 at 6:07 pm, the impugned email was issued
to all the candidates who had applied under sports quota for admission
to MBBS/BDS courses. Thereby, the University asked them to submit
their sports certificates in relation to their achievements during any
class/year. Divjot Sekhon is a Roller Skater/Inline Hockey player.
Shubhkarman Singh plays Baseball. They appeared for NEET UG-
2024 on 05.05.2024. The results of NEET UG-2024 were declared
on 26.07.2024. Thereafter, the merit list of eligible candidates under
sports quota was released by the Director of Sports, Punjab, on
23.08.2024. This merit list was drawn up by considering candidates’
sports achievements during Classes IX and X also. On the strength
of their achievements during Classes IX and X, Kudrat Kashyap,
respondent No. 4, a Roller Skater/Inline Hockey player, stood at
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 379
Divjot Sekhon v. State of Punjab and Others
rank No. 1, while Mansirat Kaur, respondent No. 5, another Roller
Skater, stood at rank No. 5. Divjot Sekhon was shown at rank No.
8 while Shubhkarman Singh was at rank No.9 therein. Basing on
these ranks, Divjot Sekhon and Shubhkarman Singh were admitted
to MBBS course in Gian Sagar Medical College, Banur, a private
medical college.
8. According to the appellants, only for session-2023, the sports merit
list was prepared on the basis of the sports achievements not only
during Classes XI and XII but also Classes IX and X, owing to the
Covid-19 pandemic that held sway from 2020 to 2022. Earlier, only
the sports achievements of candidates during Classes XI and XII
were being taken into consideration. They pointed out that even for
session-2024, the Prospectus initially released by the University
stated that only the sports achievements during Classes XI and XII
would be considered. But, thereafter, the State and the University
did a volte-face and took into account the sports achievements of
candidates during Classes IX and X also. They challenged this action
on their part alleging that the admission process had been changed
after its commencement.
9. In its reply filed before the High Court, the University stated that it
had specifically mentioned in the prospectus issued on 09.08.2024
that the notification for admission to MBBS/BDS courses during
session-2024 was still awaited but, keeping in view the schedule
issued by the Medical Counselling Committee/Government of India,
applications had been invited on urgent basis, but eligibility for
admission to MBBS/BDS courses under NEET UG-2024 would be
subject to issuance of the notification by the Department of Medical
Education and Research, Government of Punjab. The University
published advertisements in the newspapers indicating the last date
for depositing registration fee through the online payment gateway as
16.08.2024. As per the University, the advertisements also indicated
that any notification/update issued by the Medical Counselling
Committee/Government of India/Government of Punjab regarding
NEET UG-2024 would be applicable.
10. Thereafter, the Department of Medical Education and Research,
Government of Punjab, issued Notification dated 09.08.2024 and,
accordingly, the revised prospectus, including the notification, was
published on 10.08.2024. This prospectus superseded the instructions
380 [2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
issued earlier. Clause 15 of this prospectus pertained to reservation
in government medical/dental colleges while Clause 16 pertained to
private institutes/universities. Sports reservation was indicated as
1% in both categories. Clauses 15 and 16 stipulated that credit and
admission shall be on the basis of inter-se merit of the candidates
determined on the basis of gradation (Category A/B/C), as per the
sports policy notified by the Department of Sports and Youth Services,
Government of Punjab.
11. The University stated that, in all, 5721 candidates applied for
admission through NEET UG-2024, of whom 58 candidates had
applied under sports quota and submitted their Sports Gradation
Certificates, along with other credentials/documents, on 16.08.2024.
According to the University, page 18 of the NEET UG-2024 Prospectus
issued by it regarding sports persons wrongly indicated that sports
achievements during Classes XI and XII only would be considered
and it, therefore, sent an email to all the aspirants on 16.08.2024
at 6.07 pm, clarifying that all candidates should submit their sports
achievements during any class/year by 3 pm on 19.08.2024. All
such documents submitted by aspirants till 3 pm on 19.08.2024 were
forwarded by the University to the Director of Sports, Punjab, under
letter dated 20.08.2024. Pursuant thereto, the Director of Sports,
Punjab, issued the sports merit list dated 23.08.2024 and the same
was published by the University on its website on the very same day.
The University claimed that it was only a nodal agency which was
bound to follow the instructions issued by the Department of Medical
Education and Research, Government of Punjab, as sports policy
was within the exclusive domain of the Director of Sports, Punjab.
The University filed a reply before this Court on the same lines.
12. The State of Punjab also filed a reply before us. Therein, while
reiterating what it had stated in its reply before the High Court, the
State sought to place reliance on the decision of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana in Ibadat Sekhon vs. State of Punjab and
others2 in relation to the sports quota during session-2023. Notably,
the said decision turned upon the Corrigendum dated 01.08.2023
issued by the State of Punjab. Clauses 15(v) and 16(v) in the earlier
Notification dated 10.03.2023, pertaining to government medical/
2 CWP No. 18657 of 2023 (O&M), decided on 20.02.2025
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 381
Divjot Sekhon v. State of Punjab and Others
dental colleges and private institutes/ universities, provided that credit
would be given only for sports achievements during Classes XI and
XII. This was modified by the Corrigendum dated 01.08.2023 whereby
the zone of consideration was expanded to include Classes IX and
X also. The Corrigendum dated 01.08.2023 read thus: -
“In partial modification of the Notification No. 5/5/2021-
5HB3/446 dated 10.03.2023, para 15(v) and 16(v) are
amended as under only for the session 2023:
“Credit shall be given for the sport achievements made
during session 2019-20 to 2022-23. The admission shall
be made on the basis of inter-se merit of the candidates
determined on the basis of gradation (Category A/B/C)
issued by the Director of Sports, Punjab. However, for
exempted categories under para 11 of the Notification, the
competent authority will be Director, Sport of that state or
U.T., from where the candidate has passed his class XI
and XII examinations.”
Note: This corrigendum is for this session only, in the
light of the special circumstances prevailed during the
COVID-19 pandemic.”
The corrigendum, therefore, made it clear that the modification was
only for that session, i.e., session-2023, and it was owing to the
special circumstances brought about by the Covid-19 pandemic. It is
in this backdrop that the High Court dismissed Ibadat Sekhon’s writ
petition. However, adoption and perpetuation of the same modified
policy, which was categorically stated to be an exception, during the
later session-2024 and thereafter did not flow from the Corrigendum
dated 01.08.2023.
13. Pertinently, the prospectus issued earlier by the University for
session-2024 contained a list of categories and category codes
and insofar as sports persons under Category Code No. 17 were
concerned, it stated that credit would be given only for sports
achievements during Classes XI and XII. However, in the general
instructions in Part A, under Clause 14, it was stated that in case
of any discrepancy or contradiction between the Government’s
notifications and the University’s instructions contained in the said
prospectus, the letter and spirit of the notifications shall prevail
382 [2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
but in academic matters, the University shall be the final authority.
Further, in the Schedule for admission through NEET UG-2024, it
was specifically stated in Note#1 that any subsequent notification/
notice/amendments/corrigenda issued by the Government of Punjab/
University would be followed in letter and spirit and the candidates
were required to visit the University website regularly for any updates.
14. We may note that even in the Notification dated 09.08.2024 issued
by the Department of Medical Education and Research, Government
of Punjab, except for quantifying the reservation for sports persons
at 1%, the issue as to how such reservation was to be implemented
was not spelt out and it was merely stated that admission under this
quota would be made on the basis of inter se merit of candidates
determined on the basis of gradation (Category A/B/C) as per the
sports policy notified by the Department of Sports and Youth Services,
Government of Punjab. This was in relation to both government
medical/dental colleges as well as private institutes/universities.
15. The Department of Sports and Youth Services, Government of
Punjab, brought out the Sports Policy, 2023, vide Notification dated
31.07.2023. This was in supersession of the Sports Policy, 2018.
Though the Sports Policy, 2023, envisioned encouraging all citizens to
adopt an active life style; motivate children to come to play/run; and
to restore Punjab’s glory in sports at national and international levels,
and promised eight actionable points, including putting sports on a
high pedestal through rewards and job opportunities for outstanding
sports persons, it left certain issues unanswered. More specifically,
it did not elaborate on the zone of consideration for assessment
of sports achievements for conferment of benefits. Rule 4.2 of the
said policy, however, specifically stated that a sub-junior tournament
would be ineligible while grading sporting achievements. When the
policy specifically excluded sub-junior tournaments, the University’s
email dated 16.08.2024 requiring the candidates to submit their
sports achievements during any class/year defies comprehension.
Significantly, the University did not limit its expansion thereby to
only Classes IX and X but required candidates to submit even their
sub-junior achievements, if any, which was contrary to the State’s
sports policy. Needless to state, there had to be clarity in that regard
as leaving the issue open to be decided at a later point of time on
a case-to-case or course-to-course basis would invariably introduce
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 383
Divjot Sekhon v. State of Punjab and Others
arbitrariness and let in the scope for favouritism.
16. The Sports Policy, 2023, did not indicate the classes/years that would
be taken into consideration for assessing the competing merit of
candidates under sports quota, i.e., the classes or years that would
be treated as relevant for assessing their sports achievements during
that period. Rule 5.1 of the Sports Policy, 2023, merely specified
how inter se merit under sports quota was to be decided amongst
winners, runners up and third position holders. Therefore, when
there was no change in the basic sports policy and the prospectus
for session-2024, in accordance therewith, mentioned that only
Classes XI and XII would be considered for assessment of sports
achievements, the State of Punjab cannot fall back on the procedure
followed for session-2023 to justify the change that it brought about
by again including Classes IX and X within the zone of consideration,
contrary to its own Corrigendum dated 01.08.2023.
17. That said, the case law relied upon by the appellants about the
binding nature and legal status of a prospectus is not relevant to this
adjudication as the prospectus issued by the University contained the
caveat that the notifications issued thereafter by the Government of
Punjab would be binding. The larger question, however, is whether
this procedure of keeping the admission process elastic after issuance
of the prospectus and submission of applications by the candidates
would be valid in the eye of law. This question arises in the backdrop
of the necessity to maintain complete transparency in the admission
process so as to obviate any possibility of arbitrariness or nepotism
creeping in at a later stage, i.e., after submission of applications
and sports achievements by candidates for admission to MBBS/
BDS courses under sports quota.
18. It is well-settled that the rules of the game cannot be altered once
the game has begun. In Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation and others vs. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and
others3, this Court observed that “the rules of the game, meaning
thereby, that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the
authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection
has commenced”. The same principle was followed subsequently by
a 3-Judge Bench in K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
3 (2001) 10 SCC 51
384 [2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
and another4 and by a Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak
and others vs. Rajasthan High Court and others5. This principle
is just as applicable to admission processes to educational courses
as it would be to recruitment processes. Just as modification of
recruitment norms is forbidden in law after the recruitment process
has begun, it is equally illegal for an admission process to not be fully
defined in all its contours before its commencement, so as to leave
room for the authorities concerned to stipulate norms later on to suit
their own interests or to permit nepotism. The transparency of such
a process is paramount to ensure fairness and prevent arbitrariness.
19. Significantly, for Bachelor of Physiotherapy course, Bachelor of
Medical Laboratory Technology course and BSc course in Anatomy,
Physiology & Biochemistry offered by the University during the very
same session-2024, the Director of Sports, Punjab, instructed the
University, vide letter dated 08.07.2024, that as per Rule 5.1 of the
revised Sports Policy, 2023, only the sports achievements of Classes
XI and XII were to be considered while preparing the sports merit
list for those courses. There is no explanation forthcoming from the
authorities as to why these double standards had been adopted.
20. It was in this context that this Court directed the State of Punjab
to produce all the relevant material to examine how the matter
progressed from stage to stage. Thereupon, the original files pertaining
to this issue were placed before us. Perusal thereof reflected that
one Ramesh Kumar Kashyap, a Roller-Skating Coach, who is none
other than the father of Kudrat Kashyap, respondent No.4, had
submitted a representation requesting that, in the admission process
for MBBS/BDS courses in educational institutions in the State of
Punjab, the sports achievements during Classes IX and X should
also be included. Significantly, while making this recommendation,
citing various reasons, Ramesh Kumar Kashyap failed to mention
that his daughter, Kudrat Kashyap, would herself be benefited by
this change.
21. According to the undated representation made by Ramesh Kumar
Kashyap, if a student wins a medal or participates in international
competitions in Classes IX and X, he/she might not get another
4 (2008) 3 SCC 512
5 (2025) 2 SCC 1
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 385
Divjot Sekhon v. State of Punjab and Others
opportunity in Classes XI and XII, since such events are conducted
once in every four years and by the time the next event occurs,
the student would have already passed Class XII. He further stated
that if a student, who achieved medals at the national/international
level in Class IX or X is injured during Class XI or XII and cannot
participate further, his/her earlier achievements would be ignored
during MBBS/BDS admissions. According to him, students who pursue
sports seriously until Class X often lag behind in academics and if
they continue sports at the same intensity during Classes XI and
XII, they might fail to qualify for the NEET examination. He further
stated that many students who secure sports medals in Classes XI
and XII, usually participate in obscure or lower level competitions,
and often such students have never been active in sports prior to
Class XI and manage achievements in later years using influence,
thereby disadvantaging genuine athletes. He asserted that a true
athlete’s capability should be judged based on their performance over
the past four years and doing so would cause no disadvantage to
anyone. He pointed out that even during the previous year, sports
achievements from Classes IX, X, XI and XII were considered. He,
accordingly, recommended that it would be appropriate that sports
achievements of Classes IX and X also be considered along with
Classes XI and XII from the academic year 2024-2025 onwards.
22. Having stated so much about the rationale behind his recommendation,
it was incumbent upon Ramesh Kumar Kashyap, had he been acting
bonafide on behalf of all sportspersons and if his only aim was to
secure their interest, to have also mentioned the fact that his daughter,
Kudrat Kashyap, had participated in international events earlier and
by inclusion of Classes IX and X within the zone of consideration,
she would be hugely benefited as she was appearing for NEET UG-
2024. The facts manifest that she was, in fact, so benefited as she
was ranked at No. 1 in the merit list dated 23.08.2024. This lack of
probity on the part of Ramesh Kumar Kashyap, so as to benefit his
own daughter, and his influencing of the authorities without disclosing
this fact, so as to bring about a change in the policy contrary to what
was stated in the Corrigendum dated 01.08.2023, is sufficient in itself
to vitiate the modification that was brought about during session-2024
to the detriment of other candidates under sports quota, including
Divjot Sekhon and Shubhkarman Singh.
23. The fact that these modified parameters were not extended to
386 [2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
other medical and allied courses offered by the University during
session-2024 clearly underlines the arbitrariness that crept in only in
relation to admissions to MBBS/BDS courses. Be it noted that, during
session-2024, only Classes XI and XII were taken into consideration
for assessment of sports achievements for admission to Bachelor
of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery course (BAMS), Bachelor of
Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery course (BHMS) and Bachelor
of Unani Medicine and Surgery course (BUMS). Even thereafter,
during session-2025, only Classes XI and XII were taken into
consideration for assessment of sports achievements for admission
to BSc (Nursing) and Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal
Husbandry, in addition to the aforestated courses.
24. In this regard, we may also note that the prospectus issued by the
University for session-2024 in respect of post-graduate medical/dental
courses, wherein sports persons were provided 2% reservation,
specifically stated that credit would be given only for the sports
achievements during MBBS/BDS courses only. The logic behind
such a prescription is not far to gather, as achievements during the
period immediately preceding admission to the course in question
would be of relevance and not some achievements in the distant past.
This is more so in the case of admission to MBBS/BDS courses, as
a student aspiring for admission to such courses has to obtain not
only adequate academic ranking but also secure sports achievements
during that period. He/she would be entitled to the benefit of such
reservation, having balanced both effectively, so as to stand in a
sufficiently high position in the merit list.
25. According to Divjot Sekhon, she would have ranked at No. 6 in the
merit list if the authorities had considered only the sports achievements
during Classes XI and XII and she would have secured a seat in
a government medical college at much lesser financial cost. She
pointed out that the fees to be paid by her in the private medical
college was over ₹22 lakh for the entire 5-year course whereas she
would have only incurred expenditure of ₹9.5 lakh in a government
medical college. Reference was made to the procedure followed for
admission to MBBS/ BDS courses during session-2019; session-2021;
and session-2022, wherein only Classes XI and XII were the zone
of consideration for assessment of sports achievements. As already
noted hereinbefore, insofar as session-2023 was concerned, the
norm was modified only for that particular session in the light of
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 387
Divjot Sekhon v. State of Punjab and Others
Covid-19 pandemic, by expanding the zone of consideration to
include Classes IX and X also. However, it appears that Ramesh
Kumar Kashyap, who is stated to have trained Divjot Sekhon also,
seems to have struck upon the idea that perpetuating the same would
benefit his daughter and he, accordingly, made a recommendation
to the authorities without disclosing his own private interest. This is
clear and manifest from the files placed before us, which set out in
detail the recommendation made by him and how it finally weighed
with the authorities concerned.
26. Kudrat Kashyap, respondent No.4, filed replies in both the appeals.
Therein, she adverted to her sports achievements, including her
participation in an event at the international level. However, no
mention was made of how her father, Ramesh Kumar Kashyap,
went about securing a change in the policy which had prevailed till
session-2023 and was modified only for that session, in the context
of the Covid-19 pandemic, so as to benefit her.
27. Mansirat Kaur, respondent No.5, also filed her replies stating that
no relief had been claimed against her and that she was impleaded
unnecessarily. However, if we set aside the modification to the zone
of consideration, i.e., its enlargement from Classes XI and XII to
include Classes IX and X also, she would be adversely affected.
She cannot, therefore, state that she is not a proper and necessary
party to this litigation and that her name should be deleted from the
memo of parties.
28. Acting upon Ramesh Kumar Kashyap’s representation, the Director of
Sports, Punjab, vide letter dated 18.10.2023, made these comments: -
“With reference to the comments sought in the subject
matter, it is stated that the Department always takes
initiative for the welfare of sports persons. Therefore, in
view of the representation submitted by the applicant,
consideration may be given to providing 3% reservation
for sports persons in admissions to medical education, so
that maximum players can avail the benefit. Further, for
example, if a sports person wins a medal at the national/
international level at an early age, i.e., in Class 9th or 10th,
such a player brings laurels to the state and the country at
a young age. However, due to the existing rules, he/she is
388 [2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
unable to avail the benefit of the sports quota at the time
of admission. Along with sports, maintaining education is
also essential. As per the existing practice, Baba Farid
University of Health Sciences, Faridkot, considers sports
achievements of Classes 11th and 12th for MBBS/BDS
admissions. The Department of Medical Education and
Research, while issuing the notifications for the year 2023-
24, had directed that sports achievements of Classes 9th,
10th, 11th and 12th be considered for that year. Therefore, it
is recommended that, in the future as well, on a permanent
basis, sports achievements obtained during Classes 9th,
10th, 11th and 12th be considered for admission to MBBS/
BDS courses.”
29. In that context, the view of the Sports Department, vide Note #15
dated 02.11.2023, warrants extraction in its entirety. It reads as follows:
“Further, for example, if a sports person wins a medal at
the national/international level at an early age, i.e., in Class
9th or 10th, such a player brings laurels to the state and
country at a young age. However, due to the existing rules,
he/she is unable to avail the benefit of the sports quota
at the time of admission. Along with sports, maintaining
education is also essential. As per the existing practice,
Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot,
considers sports achievements of Classes 11th and 12th
for MBBS/BDS admissions. The Department of Medical
Education and Research, while issuing the notification for
the year 2023-24, had directed that sports achievements
of Classes 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th be considered for that
year. Therefore, it is recommended that, in the future as
well, on a permanent basis, sports achievements obtained
during Classes 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th be considered for
admission to MBBS/BDS courses.”
The above Note failed to take into account the fact that the modification
during session-2023 was limited to that academic session only, in
terms of the Corrigendum dated 01.08.2023, and the reason therefor
was stated to be the Covid-19 pandemic. Those crucial aspects were
completely overlooked by the Sports Department while endorsing the
recommendation made by Ramesh Kumar Kashyap. The contrary
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 389
Divjot Sekhon v. State of Punjab and Others
endorsement at Note #50 dated 13.04.2024 by the Nodal Officer
(Legal) also warrants reproduction. It reads as under:
“Medical Education is providing 1% reservation for sports
persons instead of govt policy of 3%, that too for the
achievements in 10+1 and 10+2 only, because this is
crucial time which a student is giving to sports instead of
studies. Achievements made in 9th and 10th will not hold
that student to any disadvantage. It’s clear that we don’t
need such reservation to be extended beyond 11th and 12th.”
30. Surprisingly, the State of Punjab thereafter produced another set of
documents before us. This set of documents merely referred to a
representation having been received regarding the rules for sports
quota but no reference was made therein to Ramesh Kumar Kashyap.
The file moved forward from stage to stage thereafter but there is
neither mention nor awareness at any stage of Kudrat Kashyap,
the daughter of Ramesh Kumar Kashyap, being benefited by the
proposed change that he wanted. Ultimately, the State accepted and
acted upon his recommendation.
31. In that regard, we may refer to the observations made by this Court
in Mandeep Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others6: -
“58. True, the State is entitled to change its policy, yet a
sudden change without valid reasons will always be seen
with suspicion. Even in cases where there is no statutory
prescription of any particular way of doing a thing, the
executive must observe the long-standing practice, and a
deviation from such a practice would require passing the
muster of reasonableness, which is a facet of Article 14 of
the Constitution. In this regard, this Court in Bannari Amman
Sugars Ltd. v. CTO [(2005) 1 SCC 625] observed that:
“9. While the discretion to change the policy in
exercise of the executive power, when not trammelled
by any statute or rule is wide enough, what is
imperative and implicit in terms of Article 14 is that a
change in policy must be made fairly and should not
give the impression that it was so done arbitrarily or
6 2025 INSC 834 : 2025 SCC Online SC 1420
390 [2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
by any ulterior criteria. The wide sweep of Article 14
and the requirement of every State action qualifying
for its validity on this touchstone irrespective of the
field of activity of the State is an accepted tenet. The
basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action
by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and
substance is the heartbeat of fair play. Actions are
amenable, in the panorama of judicial review, only to
the extent that the State must act validly for discernible
reasons, not whimsically for any ulterior purpose...”
This Court held that the State and its instrumentalities have a duty
and responsibility to act fairly and reasonably in terms of the mandate
of Article 14 of the Constitution and that any decision taken by the
State must be reasoned and not arbitrary. It was further observed
that when a thing is done in a post-haste manner, malafides would
be presumed as anything done with undue haste can be termed
arbitrary and would not be condonable in law. The aforestated principle
would apply with equal vigour to an admission process relating to
sought-after courses like MBBS/BDS.
32. In Sivanandan C.T. and others vs. High Court of Kerala and
others7, a Constitution Bench observed as under: -
“45. The underlying basis for the application of the doctrine
of legitimate expectation has expanded and evolved to
include the principles of good administration. Since citizens
repose their trust in the State, the actions and policies of
the State give rise to legitimate expectations that the State
will adhere to its assurance or past practice by acting in
a consistent, transparent, and predictable manner. The
principles of good administration require that the decisions
of public authorities must withstand the test of consistency,
transparency and predictability to avoid being regarded as
arbitrary and therefore violative of Article 14.”
33. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the admission
process to MBBS/BDS courses during session-2024, by altering
the zone of consideration for sports quota at the behest of Ramesh
7 (2024) 3 SCC 799
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 391
Divjot Sekhon v. State of Punjab and Others
Kumar Kashyap, whose motives remained undisclosed, cannot be
sustained even if the State of Punjab acted upon his recommendation
bonafide and in ignorance of his subterfuge. The very foundation for
such modification stands vitiated as Ramesh Kumar Kashyap failed
to disclose that his recommendation benefitted his own daughter,
Kudrat Kashyap.
34. We may also note that, in Harinagar Sugar Mills Limited (Biscuit
Division) and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others8,
this Court observed that internal notings cannot be relied upon to
establish compliance with procedure. Reference was made to the
earlier decision of this Court in Pimpri Chinchwad New Township
Development Authority vs. Vishnudev Cooperative Housing
Society and others9, wherein it was observed that mere notings
in the official files of the Government, while dealing with any matter
pertaining to any person, is essentially an internal matter of the
Government and will carry with it no legal sanctity. That was a case
relating to withdrawal from acquisition in relation to a particular
person’s property and the aforesaid observation was made in that
context. These decisions have no impact in the present context,
where the change in policy formulated by the State is being examined
through the file notings which reflect how the decision-making
process progressed from stage to stage. The notings in the file,
which clearly disclose the role played by Ramesh Kumar Kashyap,
are utmost relevant and cannot be ignored as his intervention in
the matter was what actually prompted the policy change that was
brought about thereafter.
35. That apart, when the State specifically noted in its Corrigendum
dated 01.08.2023 that enlargement of the zone of consideration to
include Classes IX and X was only for session-2023, in view of the
pandemic, the departure from the policy of limiting consideration
to only sports achievements during Classes XI and XII, which was
the policy obtaining prior thereto, ought not to have been effected
midstream after applications were submitted by the candidates along
with their sports achievements.
36. More significantly and as already noted hereinabove, the practice
8 (2025) 10 SCC 286
9 (2018) 8 SCC 215
392 [2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
and procedure followed by the State of Punjab in leaving the norms
elastic, without disclosing as to what would be the exact policy with
regard to the zone of consideration, and allowing itself sufficient
leeway and elbow room to change such policy midstream during
the admission process is not in accordance with the principles of
fair play in action. Lack of transparency at the outset invariably
enables and makes room for arbitrariness and nepotism to walk in
through the backdoor, a situation to be eschewed and avoided by
an egalitarian State.
37. Though the State of Punjab would seek to rely upon case law in
support of its argument that the Court would, ordinarily, not interfere
in policy matters, it is equally well settled that when a policy decision
is riddled with arbitrariness or even provides avenues therefor, the
Court would be justified in nullifying it. The fact that a policymaker is to
be allowed some elbow room in formulating policy does not translate
to allowing scope for arbitrariness or nepotism. We, therefore, find
no merit in the contentions of the State of Punjab.
38. The modification in the policy is, therefore, quashed leaving it open to
the State of Punjab to apply its mind independently and uninfluenced
by the so-called recommendation made by Ramesh Kumar Kashyap,
so as to take a reasoned and well-informed policy decision as to what
should be the criteria to be followed in future. The State of Punjab
would be well advised to formulate the admission policy in its entirety
before initiation of the admission process for each year, if it seeks
to modify the same time and again. It is not proper and correct to
do so mid-stream during the admission process. However, insofar
as session-2024 is concerned, Kudrat Kashyap, who was the direct
beneficiary of the subterfuge of her father, Ramesh Kumar Kashyap,
cannot be permitted to enjoy the unlawful benefit garnered in her
favour through his manipulations and machinations. Though Mansirat
Kaur, respondent No. 5, also stood benefited thereby, though through
no fault of hers, she is also liable to be divested of the illegal benefit
that was conferred upon her owing to the wrongdoings of Ramesh
Kumar Kashyap.
39. We are conscious of the fact that Ramesh Kumar Kashyap is not a
party to these proceedings and the observations and remarks that
we have made are adverse to him. However, we may note that he
was very much present in the Court during the proceedings and was
well aware of the sentiments expressed against him by the Court,
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 393
Divjot Sekhon v. State of Punjab and Others
but he took no steps to get himself impleaded, if he had anything
to say in his own defence.
40. In terms of our findings hereinabove, we would have ordinarily
directed the University to redraw the entire merit list for the sports
quota during session-2024, by excluding from consideration the
sports achievements of candidates secured during Classes IX and
X. However, doing so at this stage would impact the admissions of
those who are not even before us and would unsettle settled matters,
as no candidate other than Divjot Sekhon and Shubhkarman Singh
has raised a grievance about this issue. The relief to be granted
pursuant to this judgment is accordingly limited to them. Divjot Sekhon
and Shubhkarman Singh shall, therefore, be accommodated in the
seats in the government medical college(s) which were allotted to
Kudrat Kashyap and Mansirat Kaur, respondent Nos. 4 and 5. In
turn, Kudrat Kashyap and Mansirat Kaur shall be given the seats
vacated by Divjot Sekhon and Shubhkarman Singh in Gian Sagar
Medical College, Banur. The course of study undergone by all of
them and the fees already paid by all of them shall remain unaffected
and they shall all be permitted to continue with their studies in their
new colleges from that stage onwards.
41. In so far as the appeal filed by Gauranshi Dhingra, Agrima Mann
and Navreet Singh is concerned, it pertains to the policy of the
State of Punjab while making admissions to MBBS/BDS courses
under sports quota during session-2025. The modification made at
the behest of Ramesh Kumar Kashyap during session-2024 was
perpetuated thereafter and applied during session-2025. Pursuant
thereto, the appellants were shown at Rank Nos. 13 (Navreet Singh),
14 (Gauranshi Dhingra) and 15 (Agrima Mann) in the merit list of
63 candidates prepared by the Director of Sports, Punjab, after
considering the 67 candidates who had applied under sports quota
for admission to MBBS/BDS courses. As per the State of Punjab, all
three appellants were entitled to admission under the sports quota
in private colleges only.
42. The grievance of the appellants is that the authorities continued to
apply the same modified policy with regard to the enlarged zone of
consideration that was followed during session-2024, i.e., by including
Classes IX and X along with Classes XI and XII for assessment of
394 [2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the sports achievements of candidates. The High Court nonsuited
them straightaway by following its earlier decision in Divjot Sekhon’s
case. However, in the light of what we have stated hereinabove, with
regard to how the modification of the policy during session-2024
stands vitiated, continuation of that policy during session-2025 with
nothing further would also be open to challenge on the same ground.
However, we are informed that admissions have already been made
for session-2025 and no candidate who would be adversely affected
by interference therewith has been made a party to this litigation.
Therefore, we cannot give a quietus to this lis at this stage. The
only relief that can be given to these appellants is to grant them the
liberty to approach the High Court once again by way of a properly
constituted proceeding, impleading all the proper and necessary
parties thereto, and seek appropriate relief.
The appeals are allowed in the aforestated terms.
Parties shall bear their own costs.
Result of the case: Appeals allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Admission to MBBS/BDS courses under sports quota"Sign in to search