NEET PG Counselling: Supreme Court Unveils 10-Point Reform Plans

In a landmark decision that would reshape India’s medical admissions, the Supreme Court has issued a sweeping 10-point directive to reform the NEET PG counselling process. The directives, first announced in May 2025, are a direct response to student grievances over transparency and malpractice. This intervention seeks to restore trust and merit by mandating a synchronised counselling calendar, enforcing strict penalties for seat-blocking, and requiring private and deemed universities to make full disclosures on fees and seat allocations. The ruling marks a new era of accountability, aiming to ensure that every medical aspirant gets a fair shot at a postgraduate seat. 

According to the learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1, Bhavna Tiwari, and 2, Sonal Sharma, the writ petitioners were aspirants in the first NEET PG examination held for the academic year 2017-18. According to their counsel, the issue started when candidates who had already secured seats in the first and second rounds of counselling were still allowed to participate in the mop-up round. This, they argued, was unfair.

The most controversial part, they claimed, was that a large number of Radiology seats were handed out in the mop-up round to students less meritorious than they were, including those who had already benefited from earlier rounds. The petitioners alleged that this amounted to seat blocking, pointing out that nearly 80% of the available seats were filled during the mop-up stage. Because of this, they said, the seats they had ranked as their first preference ended up being given to less deserving candidates.

Frustrated, they moved the Court, arguing that the rules in the NEET PG 2017 brochure had deprived them of a fair chance to compete in the mop-up round. Their plea asked the Court to step in, restore fairness and ensure that seat allotments truly reflected merit and candidate preference.

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 writ petitioners filed the aforesaid writ petition seeking the following reliefs: 

(i) A declaration that paragraphs 5 and 6 of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) PG 2017 Brochure, published by the King George’s Medical University, Lucknow – inasmuch as they deprived Respondent Nos.1 and 2 of an opportunity to appear in the mop-up round – are ultra vires Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. 

(ii) A direction to the authorities to grant permission to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to attend classes in the institutions of their first choice, where they have already been admitted in a different discipline. 

(iii) A direction to the authorities to pass consequential orders with respect to the admission of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 as per their first choice and merit.

 (iv) A direction to the authorities to undertake necessary reshuffling of admissions in medical colleges based on merit and candidate preferences, by maintaining a common selection list for admission to PG courses. 

(v) Any other order or direction as the Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 

(vi) An award of costs of the petition in favour of Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

By Government Order No.12/71-4-2018-18/18 dated 08.03.2018, a security deposit was stipulated under Clause 5, with a view to deter candidates from the practice of not joining the seats allotted to them in the first two rounds of counselling. This measure has proven effective, as failure to join the allotted seat results in forfeiture of the security deposit.

Earlier, the counselling for the stray vacancy round was conducted manually (by offline mode), whereby the private medical colleges were provided with a list of candidates amounting to ten times the number of vacant seats. This process often led to an arbitrary ‘pick and choose’ method being adopted by certain private institutions. To prevent such practices, the National Medical Commission, vide communication dated 24.07.2023, directed that counselling for all stray vacancy round seats be conducted through an online process. It is pertinent to note that even prior to this directive, the State had already implemented online counselling for the mop-up and stray vacancy rounds through the issuance of Government Order No.1/348793/2023 dated 13.07.2023. 

The Supreme Court’s intervention comes after years of complaints about seat blocking, non-uniform schedules, unclear fees and lack of transparency in postgraduate medical admissions. With the NEET PG 2025 cycle in focus, these measures are set to restore order and clarity to one of India’s most competitive entrance processes. 

1. Implement a Nationally synchronized counselling calendar to align AIQ and State rounds and prevent seat blocking across systems.

2. Mandate   Pre-Counselling   Fee   Disclosure   by   all   private/ deemed   universities, detailing tuition, hostel, caution deposit, and miscellaneous charges.

3. Establish a Centralized Fee Regulation Framework under the National Medical Commission (NMC).

4. Permit upgrade windows post-round 2 for admitted candidates to shift to better seats without reopening counselling to new entrants.

5. Publish raw scores, answer keys and normalization formulae for transparency in multi-shift NEET-PG exams.

6. Enforce strict penalties for seat blocking including forfeiture of security deposit, disqualification from future NEET-PG exams (for repeat offenders), blacklisting of complicit colleges.

7. Implement Aadhaar-based seat tracking to prevent multiple seat holdings and misrepresentation.

8. Hold state authorities and institutional DMEs accountable under contempt or disciplinary action for rule or schedule violations.

9. Adopt a Uniform Counselling Conduct Code across all States for standard rules on eligibility, mop-up rounds, seat withdrawal, and grievance timelines.

10. Set   up   a   third-party   oversight   mechanism   under   NMC   for   annual   audits   of counselling data, compliance, and admission fairness.

The Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) is expected to publish a revised NEET PG 2025 counselling schedule in line with the Supreme Court’s order. States will need to adjust their timelines and processes to comply with the new framework. 

Source: