Judicial Power to Correct Bona Fide Clerical Errors in NEET‑PG Applications under Article 226: Commentary on Ronil Umeshkumar Modi v. State of Gujarat

1. Introduction

The decision in Ronil Umeshkumar Modi v. State of Gujarat & Ors., R/SCA No. 15194 of 2025, decided by the Gujarat High Court on 20 November 2025 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nirzar S. Desai, addresses a recurring and sensitive issue in admission law: whether a purely clerical or mathematical error in an entrance examination form can be allowed to destroy the academic career of an otherwise meritorious candidate.

The judgment assumes particular importance because it arises from the NEET‑PG 2025 admission process, which governs postgraduate medical admissions across India. The Court was called upon to reconcile:

the rigidity of admission rules and software-based processes; with
the equitable duty to protect students from disproportionate consequences flowing from bona fide, non-fraudulent errors.

Although the judgment does not cite specific earlier cases, it articulates and consolidates a significant principle in Indian administrative and education law: High Courts, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, may direct correction of bona fide clerical or mathematical mistakes in NEET‑PG (and analogous) applications, where:

there is no allegation or indication of malpractice, misrepresentation, or suppression;
the candidate approaches the Court before the commencement of the counselling/admission process;
no undue advantage accrues to the candidate over others; and
no stakeholder is demonstrably prejudiced by allowing such correction.

At the same time, the Court imposes monetary costs on the petitioner, signalling that while relief is available in exceptional cases, candidates remain duty-bound to exercise great care in filling online forms.

2. Factual Background and Parties

2.1 Parties

Petitioner: Dr. Ronil Umeshkumar Modi, an MBBS graduate seeking admission to postgraduate medical courses through NEET‑PG 2025.
Respondent No. 1: State of Gujarat.
Respondent No. 2: The State-level authority conducting NEET‑PG 2025 admission and counselling (PG medical admission committee).
Respondent No. 3: The examination/central authority whose Information Bulletin and guidelines governed NEET‑PG 2025 (e.g., NBEMS/central NEET‑PG authority).

2.2 Core Facts

The essential facts, as recorded by the Court, are:

The petitioner successfully completed his MBBS degree.
For admission to a postgraduate course, he participated in the NEET‑PG 2025 admission process.
His actual aggregate MBBS percentage, computed over the three professional years, was 68.30%, as reflected in the original university marksheets.
While filling the NEET‑PG online application form, he inadvertently entered his aggregate MBBS percentage as 67.63% instead of 68.30% – a clerical/mathematical error that understated (rather than inflated) his marks.
During scrutiny and cross-verification of the application, this discrepancy between:
- the percentage entered in the application (67.63%), and
- the percentage borne out by the official marksheets (68.30%)
was detected.
Invoking the NEET‑PG Information Bulletin—in particular Clause 2.2 and Clause 10.10.1 (including clause G, dealing with tie‑breaking based on MBBS aggregate)—the authorities cancelled the petitioner’s candidature/ declared him non‑eligible for NEET‑PG 2025 counselling.

On these facts, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226, seeking:

quashing of the decision declaring him non‑eligible; and
a direction that his correct aggregate (68.30%) be considered for all purposes, including counselling and tie‑breaking, and that he be permitted to participate in NEET‑PG 2025 State counselling.

It is important that the Court notes: the admission process had not yet commenced and the petitioner had approached the Court before the start of counselling.

3. Issues Before the Court

The judgment, though concise, implicitly deals with the following legal issues:

Whether a purely clerical/mathematical error in indicating MBBS aggregate percentage in the NEET‑PG application—without any evidence of fraud or attempt to gain advantage—justifies cancellation of a candidate’s eligibility for counselling under the NEET‑PG Information Bulletin.
Whether, despite the admission authorities (State and central) pleading that the rules and software do not permit any correction post-submission, the High Court can direct correction of the error under its writ jurisdiction.
How to reconcile the stringency of NEET‑PG rules aimed at preventing malpractice with the need to avoid disproportionate hardship and destruction of a medical graduate’s career on account of a minor bona fide mistake.

4. Summary of the Judgment

4.1 Holding

The Gujarat High Court allowed the petition, holding that:

The petitioner’s mistake was a clerical, inadvertent mathematical error, not arising from any malpractice, suppression, or misrepresentation.
Such an error, in the absence of mala fides or undue advantage, ought not to ruin the career of a candidate who has already qualified as a doctor and seeks entry into a postgraduate course.
Given that the admission process had not commenced and no prejudice would be caused to other candidates or stakeholders, the petitioner’s case deserved sympathetic consideration.
The respondents were directed to:
- correct the petitioner’s aggregate MBBS percentage in the application and all records from 67.63% to 68.30%; and
- permit him to participate in the NEET‑PG 2025 PG medical admission process.
The previous action/decision of the respondents declaring the petitioner non‑eligible or not permitting him to participate in the selection process was quashed and set aside.

4.2 Directions and Costs

The Court ordered:

The correction exercise be completed on or before Monday evening, 24 November 2025, thus preserving the admission schedule.
The petitioner, though successful, must pay:
- Rs. 10,000 to Respondent No. 3; and
- Rs. 15,000 to the High Court Legal Services Authority,
recognising the administrative burden of re‑processing his case and contributing to legal aid.
Liberty to either party to approach the Court in case of difficulty in implementation.

The Court consciously clarifies that even participation in the admission process does not confer any vested right of admission on the petitioner; his claim will still be governed by merit and the applicable rules.

5. Legal and Regulatory Framework

5.1 NEET‑PG Information Bulletin: Clause 10.10.1 and Clause G (Tie‑Breaker)

The Court reproduces the relevant part of the NEET‑PG 2025 Information Bulletin, namely Clause 10.10.1, dealing with “VALIDITY OF NEET‑PG 2025 RESULT” and, significantly, the Tie Breaker Criteria. Clause G is crucial:

G. Candidate securing higher aggregate marks (in percentage) in all MBBS Professional Examinations will be placed at a better merit position i.e. will get a higher rank in the merit list. [...] It is to be noted that the aggregate marks in percentage shall be provided by the applicant while submitting her/his application form to NBEMS. The marks shall be provided as an accurate value rounded down to two decimals.

This clause:

Requires the candidate to enter the MBBS aggregate percentage correctly;
Uses this percentage as a tie‑breaker to rank candidates who obtain identical NEET‑PG scores; and
Emphasises the need for accuracy and rounding down to two decimal places.

While the judgment refers to Clause 2.2 and Clause 10.2 as the basis for the cancellation, their full text is not reproduced, but they evidently treat discrepancies between declared and actual marks as a ground to question eligibility or the validity of the result.

5.2 PG Medical Education Regulations, 2023

The Information Bulletin itself states that the admission to MD/MS/PG Diploma courses is governed by the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023 issued by the National Medical Commission with the prior approval of the Central Government, and by the judgments of the Supreme Court of India. While these regulations are not set out in detail in the judgment, they form the overarching statutory backdrop for NEET‑PG admissions.

5.3 Constitutional Framework – Article 226

The entire intervention rests on the High Court’s broad powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which empower High Courts to:

issue writs, directions or orders to “any person or authority”;
correct arbitrary, unreasonable or disproportionate administrative action;
ensure that statutory powers and rules are exercised in a manner consistent with constitutional mandates of fairness, reasonableness and non‑arbitrariness.

6. Precedents Cited and Doctrinal Context

6.1 Explicit Precedents in the Judgment

The judgment, as reproduced, does not cite any specific earlier case law of the Gujarat High Court or the Supreme Court. The reference to “the Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India” appears only in the quoted extract from the NEET‑PG Information Bulletin, which generically acknowledges that NEET‑PG and PG admissions are subject to Supreme Court decisions.

Thus, the High Court’s reasoning is primarily rooted in:

the text of the Information Bulletin, and
general constitutional principles of fairness and proportionality under Article 226.

6.2 Broader Jurisprudential Context (Not Formally Cited but Relevant)

Although not explicitly referred to, the Court’s approach is consistent with a long line of Supreme Court and High Court decisions dealing with:

Admissions and entrance examinations (medical, engineering, etc.);
Clerical mistakes vs. fraudulent misrepresentation in application forms; and
The limited but significant scope for equitable intervention in admission matters under Article 226.

Through this lens, the present judgment can be understood as affirming and concretising two doctrinal threads:

Distinction between bona fide errors and malafide conduct: Courts have traditionally distinguished between:
- fraud, suppression, deliberate misrepresentation, which justify severe consequences like cancellation of candidature; and
- inadvertent or clerical mistakes, which may warrant a corrective, not punitive, response if no prejudice is caused.
Proportionality and fairness in applying admission rules: Even where rules are clear and candidates are bound by them, courts have intervened when their rigid or mechanical application would:
- produce manifestly unjust or disproportionate results, and
- undermine the wider public interest in not wasting meritorious human resources, especially in crucial sectors like medicine.

The High Court in this case, although not citing specific precedents, squarely places its reasoning within these broader principles.

7. Court’s Legal Reasoning

7.1 Characterisation of the Error

Central to the judgment is the Court’s characterisation of the petitioner’s mistake as:

“an inadvertent mathematical error”;
“a clerical and inadvertent mathematical mistake” (para 12);
not an attempt:
- “to commit any malpractice”,
- “to misrepresent”, or
- “to suppress” material information.

Several features support this characterisation:

The actual MBBS percentage (68.30%) is higher than the figure declared (67.63%). If the petitioner had intended to cheat, he would more plausibly have inflated his marks, not understated them.
The petitioner approached the Court before counselling began and sought only to correct the error—and not a backdoor admission.
There was no contest or doubt about the correctness of the university marksheets.

By firmly categorising the error as clerical and bona fide, the Court lays the foundation for a different remedial response than it would have adopted for deceitful conduct.

7.2 No Evidence of Malpractice or Undue Advantage

The Court expressly notes that:

“nothing has been brought on record to indicate that the petitioner has indulged in any malpractice, attempted to suppress any information, or filed the petition with an intent to misrepresent” (para 11).
The petitioner is not attempting to gain any unfair benefit; rather, he only seeks that his correct marks be reflected.

The absence of mala fides is decisive in attracting a sympathetic and corrective approach.

7.3 Stage of the Admission Process

A critical factor is that the:

admission/counselling process had not yet started at the time of the petition; and
the petitioner had approached the Court pre‑emptively, before any seats were allotted or competing equities crystallised.

This timing allows the Court to conclude that:

no third-party rights (other candidates’ seats) had yet arisen; and
permitting correction would not destabilise the admission schedule or prejudice other aspirants.

Courts are typically more cautious where corrections are sought at later stages (post‑allotment, mid-session, etc.). Here, the Court emphasises that “since the admission process has not yet commenced and the petitioner has approached this Court before its initiation, the petitioner’s case deserves to be considered sympathetically” (para 11).

7.4 Lack of Prejudice to Stakeholders

The High Court takes care to evaluate the impact on other stakeholders:

Allowing the correction:
- does not automatically confer admission;
- only allows the petitioner to compete in the counselling process;
- does not displace any existing candidate, as no admissions had yet been made.
There is no likelihood of adverse impact on others, because:
- every other candidate will still be ranked on merit and governed by the same rules; and
- the petitioner’s corrected percentage simply ensures that his true position in the tie‑breaking matrix is considered.

The Court observes (para 11) that the petitioner’s participation:

“would not confer any right upon him or create any assurance that he will be able to secure admission. Therefore, such participation is not likely to adversely affect any of the stakeholders.”

7.5 Response to Authorities’ “No Power/Software Limitation” Argument

The State (Respondent No. 2) and the central authority (Respondent No. 3) argued that:

they are bound by the Information Bulletin and cannot alter entries post‑submission;
the software system would show a “mismatch” if the MBBS percentage were corrected later, which could again lead to the petitioner’s exclusion; and
Respondent No. 2 has no power to modify application entries—its role is only to conduct counselling based on data supplied by Respondent No. 3.

The Court effectively overrules these objections, holding that:

Administrative limitations or internal rules cannot override the Court’s constitutional power to ensure fairness.
Once the Court directs correction, the authorities must adjust their software and records to reflect the accurate data.
Technical or procedural constraints of a digital system cannot be permitted to defeat substantive justice.

This affirms an important principle: where statutory or guideline-based powers are silent or restrictive, the High Court can still issue a mandamus directing the authority to do what fairness and constitutional principles require.

7.6 Proportionality and “Human” Approach

The judgment is underpinned by an explicit concern that “such an inadvertent mathematical mistake should not prove costly to the student, and such a minor error should not be allowed to jeopardize a person’s career” (para 11).

In effect, the Court applies a proportionality test:

Nature of violation: mere clerical miscalculation, with no bad faith;
Severity of consequence: total exclusion from NEET‑PG counselling—a potentially career‑defining loss;
Availability of a less drastic measure: simple correction of the percentage based on undisputed university records.

Since the punishment (exclusion) is vastly disproportionate to the nature of the mistake, the Court chooses the milder, remedial path, in harmony with constitutional values.

7.7 Costs Despite Relief

Notably, even as the petition is allowed, the Court:

Orders the petitioner to pay Rs. 25,000 in total costs:
- Rs. 10,000 to Respondent No. 3; and
- Rs. 15,000 to the High Court Legal Services Authority.

This achieves two objectives:

Compensatory: Recognises that the authorities must undertake a de novo exercise to reconfigure the petitioner’s status in their systems.
Deterrent/educative: Signals to candidates that while courts will intervene against manifest injustice, they are expected to exercise high diligence when filling critical admission forms and cannot assume risk‑free judicial correction of every mistake.

8. Impact and Significance

8.1 On NEET‑PG and Medical Admissions

This judgment is likely to be cited in future NEET‑PG and medical admission disputes where:

a candidate has made a bona fide clerical, typographical or mathematical mistake in the online form;
there is clear documentary evidence of the correct data (e.g., university mark sheets);
no third-party rights have yet accrued (pre‑counselling or at an early stage); and
the candidate does not seek admission as a matter of right, but only an opportunity to participate fairly.

It therefore:

Encourages a nuanced approach by admission authorities, distinguishing between genuine errors and deliberate falsehoods.
Warns against mechanical application of Information Bulletin clauses in a way that undermines the object of ensuring a fair, merit‑based process.
Confirms that courts will not ordinarily interfere with the structure of NEET‑PG, but will intervene to correct manifest injustices at the margins.

8.2 Beyond Medical Admissions – Other Competitive Examinations

The reasoning is not confined to NEET‑PG. It is readily extendable to:

Undergraduate NEET (MBBS/BDS), JEE, CLAT, and other national-level exams;
State‑level entrance exams; and
Recruitment examinations where candidates fill online applications.

Wherever rules contain “no correction after submission” clauses, and administrative authorities treat every discrepancy as ground for outright cancellation, this judgment provides a template for judicial intervention where:

the mistake is demonstrably bona fide and minor;
rectification is possible without prejudice to others or disruption of the timetable; and
failure to correct would impose a disproportionate and lifelong cost on the candidate.

8.3 For Administrative Bodies and Software‑Driven Processes

The judgment is also a reminder that:

Admission processes cannot become hostages to software or rigid rule‑scripts;
Authorities must retain, or at least be willing to invoke under court direction, a measure of human discretion to address genuine anomalies; and
“No correction” guidelines cannot be treated as absolute in the face of constitutional scrutiny, especially where their application would be arbitrary or disproportionate.

9. Complex Concepts Simplified

9.1 Article 226 and Writ Jurisdiction

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers High Courts to issue writs, orders or directions to any person or authority for enforcement of fundamental rights and “for any other purpose”. In practice, this means:

The High Court can review decisions of government and public bodies to ensure they are legal, reasonable and fair.
It can quash arbitrary decisions and direct authorities to act in a particular way (e.g., to allow a candidate to participate in counselling).
This jurisdiction is discretionary, not automatic; courts weigh equities, timing, and impact on third parties.

9.2 Clerical/Mathematical Error vs. Misrepresentation/Fraud

In admission law, a critical distinction exists between:

Clerical/Mathematical Error:
- Unintentional mistake in calculation or data entry;
- No intent to cheat or gain an unfair edge;
- E.g., mis‑adding marks, transposing digits, or rounding incorrectly.
Misrepresentation/Fraud/Suppression:
- Deliberate false statement or concealment of facts;
- Done to gain admission or a higher rank;
- E.g., exaggerating marks, faking a caste certificate, hiding a failure.

Courts are far more willing to correct clerical errors but usually refuse relief and uphold cancellation where fraud or misrepresentation is established.

9.3 Tie‑Breaker Criteria in NEET‑PG

In NEET‑PG, candidates receive a score based on the entrance test. Where two or more candidates secure identical normalised marks, the Information Bulletin prescribes a tiered sequence of tie‑breaking rules (Clause 10.10.1 A–G). Only if earlier criteria do not resolve the tie does the system reach Clause G, which considers:

Higher MBBS aggregate percentage (correctly calculated and rounded down to two decimals).

Thus, MBBS aggregate is not ordinarily the primary basis of ranking; it is a secondary criterion used in rare tie situations. That makes the punishment of cancelling candidature for a slight misstatement in this field appear even more disproportionate, a point that implicitly underlies the Court’s sympathetic approach.

10. Key Takeaways and Conclusion

10.1 Core Principle Established

The judgment in Ronil Umeshkumar Modi v. State of Gujarat crystallises an important rule:

High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Article 226, can direct correction of bona fide clerical or mathematical errors in NEET‑PG (and analogous) application forms, and permit the affected candidate to participate in the admission process, where:

the mistake is inadvertent and non‑fraudulent;
the candidate has not sought to gain undue advantage (indeed, may even have understated their merit);
the admission process has not substantially progressed and no third‑party rights are affected;
there exists reliable documentary proof of the correct data;
technical or software‑based hurdles are the only obstacles to correction; and
the candidate is ready to bear reasonable costs arising from the re‑processing.

10.2 Balancing Rigour and Fairness

The decision strikes a deliberate balance between:

the need for rigour, integrity and certainty in national admission processes; and
the duty to avoid draconian, life‑altering penalties for minor inadvertent mistakes, especially for qualified doctors seeking further specialisation.

It conveys that while rules and online systems are necessary for fairness and efficiency, they cannot become inflexible instruments of injustice. Courts will not re‑write policy, but they will step in where the rigid enforcement of procedural stipulations becomes arbitrary or disproportionate.

10.3 Practical Lessons

For candidates:
- Extreme care is essential when filling online admission forms.
- However, in rare cases of genuine error, there remains a possibility of judicial correction, though relief is discretionary and may come with costs.
For admission authorities:
- They must build processes and software with limited, supervised flexibility to remedy evident bona fide errors.
- They should avoid equating every discrepancy with malpractice.
For courts:
- This judgment offers a framework to distinguish from non‑condonable fraudulent acts in admission disputes.

In sum, the Gujarat High Court’s ruling in this case is a significant contribution to the jurisprudence on fairness in competitive examinations and admissions. It affirms that merit‑based systems must also be humane, and that the law will not stand by when a doctor’s postgraduate prospects are jeopardised by nothing more than an inadvertent miscalculation in an online form.

Judicial Power to Correct Bona Fide Clerical Errors in NEET‑PG Applications: Commentary on Ronil Umeshkumar Modi v. State of Gujarat