Sports-Quota Admission Norms Cannot Be Kept “Elastic” Mid-Stream: Undisclosed Conflict-Driven Policy Change Is Arbitrary and Unsustainable
Case: DIVJOT SEKHON v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS, 2026 INSC 26 (Supreme Court of India)
Date: 06-01-2026
Coram: Sanjay Kumar J., Alok Aradhe J.
Subject: MBBS/BDS admissions under 1% sports quota; legality of expanding “zone of consideration” for sports achievements after the process began; transparency and arbitrariness under Article 14.
1. Introduction
The Supreme Court decided three connected appeals arising from writ petitions dismissed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The controversy concerned admissions to MBBS/BDS courses in Punjab under the sports quota.
Parties and factual setting
- Appellants (Session-2024): Divjot Sekhon and Shubhkarman Singh (sports-quota aspirants).
- Private respondents (Session-2024): Kudrat Kashyap (ranked 1) and Mansirat Kaur (ranked 5) in the sports merit list, whose higher placement depended on including sports achievements from Classes IX and X.
- Appellants (Session-2025): Agrima Mann, Gauranshi Dhingra, Navreet Singh challenged continuation of the enlarged criteria in the 2025 admission notification.
- Institutional actors: Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot (nodal admissions agency), State of Punjab, and the Director of Sports, Punjab (gradation/merit list under sports policy).
Key issues
- Whether the “zone of consideration” for sports achievements could be expanded from Classes XI–XII to include Classes IX–X after the prospectus was issued and applications were filed.
- Whether the admission process can be kept “elastic” through open-ended caveats, enabling mid-stream alterations.
- Whether a policy shift prompted by a representation made with an undisclosed personal interest (father of a beneficiary candidate) is vitiated by arbitrariness/lack of probity.
- What relief is appropriate where reworking the entire merit list would unsettle admissions of non-parties.
Chronology (Session-2024) in brief
| Event |
Date |
Relevance |
| Prospectus issued (sports credit limited to Classes XI & XII) |
09.08.2024 |
Sets initial admission representation to candidates. |
| State Notification issued (silent on classes/years; refers to Sports Policy) |
09.08.2024 |
Did not expressly expand the zone of consideration. |
| Revised prospectus still showing XI & XII for sports achievements |
10.08.2024 |
Reinforced XI–XII understanding. |
| Last date for sports-quota applications/documents |
16.08.2024 |
Process effectively commenced/closed for submissions. |
| University email asking for achievements of “any class/year” |
16.08.2024 (6:07 pm) |
Mid-stream expansion; even beyond IX–X to “any” year. |
| Additional submission window in person |
19.08.2024 |
Enabled altered inputs after initial submission deadline. |
| Sports merit list issued (including IX & X achievements) |
23.08.2024 |
Changed rankings; impacted college allotments. |
2. Summary of the Judgment
The Supreme Court held that Punjab’s expansion of the sports-achievement “zone of consideration” for MBBS/BDS admissions in session-2024—implemented mid-process and prompted by a representation from the father of a beneficiary candidate who did not disclose that conflict—was unsustainable under Article 14 principles of fairness, transparency, and non-arbitrariness.
The Court quashed the modification and directed that the State must independently and uninfluencedly reconsider future policy. For session-2024, instead of redrawing the entire merit list (which would affect non-parties), the Court granted limited relief by swapping seats: Divjot Sekhon and Shubhkarman Singh were to be accommodated in the government medical college seats allotted to Kudrat Kashyap and Mansirat Kaur, who in turn would take the private college seats vacated by the appellants—without disturbing fees already paid or study already undertaken.
For session-2025 challengers, the Court did not grant operative relief because admissions were already concluded and necessary parties were not impleaded; it granted liberty to re-approach the High Court with a properly constituted petition.
3. Analysis
3.1 Precedents Cited
This decision was used to reaffirm the foundational administrative law principle that “the rules of the game” (selection/admission criteria) cannot be altered once the process has commenced. The Court transplanted that principle from recruitment contexts to educational admissions, treating both as competitiveness-driven, merit-sensitive public processes requiring predictability and fairness.
(b) K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another (2008) 3 SCC 512
Cited as subsequent reinforcement by a 3-Judge Bench, the case buttressed the doctrine against mid-stream changes. The Court relied on it to show that the prohibition is not merely contextual but an entrenched constitutional discipline of fair procedure.
The Constitution Bench authority gave the rule-of-the-game doctrine its highest precedential weight. The Court used it to reject “elastic” admissions frameworks that leave decisive norms to be fixed later, because such design structurally enables arbitrariness, favouritism, and retrospective disadvantaging of candidates.
This case was central to the Court’s scrutiny of “sudden changes” in executive policy. The Court invoked it to emphasize that:
(i) the State can change policy, but (ii) abrupt deviation from longstanding practice must satisfy reasonableness under Article 14, and (iii) post-haste action raises suspicion and may permit presumptions of mala fides/arbitrariness. The Court applied this to the sports-quota context, noting that sought-after courses like MBBS/BDS demand heightened procedural integrity.
(e) Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CTO ((2005) 1 SCC 625) (quoted in Mandeep Singh)
Quoted for the Article 14 “heartbeat” of non-arbitrariness and the requirement that policy change must be made fairly and for discernible reasons, not whimsically or for ulterior purposes. This supplied the constitutional vocabulary through which the Court evaluated the Punjab policy shift.
(f) Sivanandan C.T. and others v. High Court of Kerala and others ((2024) 3 SCC 799)
A Constitution Bench expansion of the doctrine of legitimate expectation into “good administration”—requiring consistency, transparency and predictability. The Court used this to frame the State’s duty not merely to avoid proven bad faith, but to structure decision-making such that citizens can reasonably rely on stable and knowable rules in time-sensitive admission processes.
(g) Harinagar Sugar Mills Limited (Biscuit Division) and another v. State of Maharashtra and others ((2025) 10 SCC 286)
These were cited for the general proposition that internal file notings lack independent legal sanctity. The Court distinguished them: here, file notings were not relied upon to prove a completed formal act, but to judicially review the decision-making process—specifically, to trace the genesis of the policy change and the undisclosed conflict of interest that prompted it. Thus, the Court treated the file as probative of arbitrariness and improper influence.
(i) Ibadat Sekhon v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 18657 of 2023 (O&M), decided on 20.02.2025)
The State relied on this High Court decision to justify inclusion of Classes IX and X. The Supreme Court rejected that reliance because Ibadat Sekhon turned on a specific Corrigendum dated 01.08.2023 that expressly limited the expanded zone of consideration to “this session only” (session-2023) due to COVID-19 circumstances. The Supreme Court held that perpetuation into later sessions did not “flow” from that corrigendum and needed an independent, reasoned policy foundation.
3.2 Legal Reasoning
(1) “Elastic” admissions frameworks are constitutionally suspect
The Court’s reasoning goes beyond a narrow finding of “change after commencement.” It condemns a governance technique: issuing a prospectus while leaving core determinants (here, which years’ sports achievements count) unresolved, coupled with broad caveats that later notifications/updates will prevail. The Court treats this elasticity as an invitation to arbitrariness because it preserves “leeway and elbow room” to reshape criteria after candidates have arranged their applications and documents—precisely the moment when fairness requires stability.
(2) The Sports Policy, 2023 did not justify the expansion; the University’s email was even broader and inconsistent
The Sports Policy, 2023 (31.07.2023) did not specify which classes/years form the relevant window; it did exclude sub-junior tournaments (Rule 4.2). Yet the University’s 16.08.2024 email demanded achievements from “any class/year,” potentially including sub-junior achievements—making the implementation not only vague but also internally inconsistent with the very policy it purported to follow. The Court treated this as symptomatic of non-transparent administration.
(3) Double standards across courses reinforced arbitrariness
The Court placed weight on comparative administrative behaviour:
- For certain other courses in the same session-2024 (e.g., Bachelor of Physiotherapy, Bachelor of Medical Laboratory Technology, and BSc in Anatomy/Physiology/Biochemistry), the Director of Sports instructed that only Classes XI and XII be considered.
- Similarly, for BAMS/BHMS/BUMS in session-2024, and later BSc (Nursing) and Veterinary in session-2025, XI–XII remained the window.
- Even the University’s post-graduate medical/dental prospectus tied sports credit to achievements during MBBS/BDS only—reflecting a general logic of recency and relevance.
This cross-course inconsistency suggested that the MBBS/BDS expansion was not a principled, system-wide policy choice but an ad hoc deviation—supporting the Article 14 critique.
(4) Undisclosed conflict of interest vitiated the policy change at its foundation
The decisive factual finding arose from file production: a representation by Ramesh Kumar Kashyap (roller-skating coach) sought inclusion of IX–X achievements and failed to disclose that his daughter, Kudrat Kashyap, would benefit. The Court held that this lack of probity and undisclosed personal interest, coupled with the State acting on the recommendation (even if bona fide), is sufficient to vitiate the modification.
The Court’s approach is significant: it treats the integrity of the inputs into policy-making (transparency of the influencer’s interest) as part of the constitutional validity of the output (policy choice), especially in high-stakes competitive admissions.
(5) Departure from the “COVID-only” exception required explicit, reasoned re-justification
The State’s Corrigendum dated 01.08.2023 expressly confined the expanded window to session-2023 only due to COVID-19. The Court held that, absent a fresh, well-informed and transparently formulated policy decision, the State could not normalize the exception—particularly not midstream after applications were submitted.
(6) Judicial review of policy: deference ends where arbitrariness begins
While acknowledging the usual restraint in policy matters, the Court reiterated that courts will intervene where a policy is riddled with arbitrariness or provides avenues for arbitrariness/nepotism. “Elbow room” in policy-making does not include elbow room for favouritism.
(7) Remedy: limited individualized correction to avoid unsettling non-parties
Although the Court considered directing a full redraw of the sports merit list for session-2024, it declined because that would affect candidates not before the Court and unsettle “settled matters.” It thus crafted a tailored remedy:
- Divjot Sekhon and Shubhkarman Singh get the government college seats allotted to Kudrat Kashyap and Mansirat Kaur.
- Kudrat Kashyap and Mansirat Kaur take the private college seats vacated by the appellants.
- Study undertaken and fees already paid remain unaffected.
This reflects a pragmatic remedial principle: when systemic illegality is found but comprehensive correction would harm absent parties, courts may grant constrained relief to the litigants while still declaring and quashing the offending policy.
3.3 Impact
(A) On admission governance and prospectus design
- Advance finality of criteria: The judgment warns States/Universities that they must define the admission policy “in its entirety” before the process begins; vague prospectuses with later “updates” deciding core eligibility/merit determinants are legally vulnerable.
- Transparency as structural requirement: The Court frames transparency not as an aspirational value but as a constitutional necessity to prevent arbitrariness/nepotism in competitive admissions.
(B) On sports quota implementation
- Recency rationale reinforced: The judgment endorses the logic that achievements “immediately preceding admission” are ordinarily more relevant than distant achievements, especially where candidates must balance both academics (NEET rank) and sports.
- Policy coherence demanded: Differential treatment of MBBS/BDS compared to other allied courses without disclosed reasons is treated as arbitrariness.
(C) On conflicts of interest in policy influence
- Disclosure norms by implication: While the Court did not lay down a codified disclosure regime, it effectively constitutionalizes a disclosure expectation where an individual’s representation seeks to reshape competitive criteria and the individual has a personal stake.
- Beneficiary disentitlement: A direct beneficiary of a conflict-driven manipulation “cannot be permitted to enjoy” the unlawful benefit—highlighting a restitutionary, fairness-based approach even absent personal wrongdoing by the beneficiary.
(D) Litigation and remedial strategy
- Necessary parties matter: For concluded admissions (session-2025), relief was refused without impleadment of affected candidates, underscoring procedural discipline in challenges to admission lists.
4. Complex Concepts Simplified
“Rules of the game cannot be changed after the game begins”
In selections/admissions, the “game” starts when the authority invites applications on stated criteria. If the authority later changes what counts (e.g., which years’ sports medals matter), candidates who planned and applied under the old rule are unfairly disadvantaged. Courts treat this as a violation of fairness under Article 14.
“Zone of consideration”
This means the time-window from which achievements will be counted. Here, the dispute was whether only Class XI–XII achievements count, or Class IX–XII, or even “any year.”
Article 14 (non-arbitrariness) in admissions
Article 14 is not limited to equal treatment in a narrow sense. It requires the State to act with fairness, consistency, transparency, and reasoned decision-making. An admissions scheme that leaves scope to alter criteria midstream, or is influenced by undisclosed personal interest, is “arbitrary” and therefore unconstitutional.
Legitimate expectation and good administration
When the State follows a consistent past practice (e.g., counting sports achievements from XI–XII), citizens can reasonably expect that practice to continue unless changed transparently, predictably, and for stated reasons. Sudden shifts—especially mid-process—defeat that expectation and trigger judicial review.
Why file notings mattered here
Internal file notes usually do not themselves create legal rights. But courts can examine files to see whether a decision was taken fairly, for proper reasons, and without improper influence. Here, the file showed the origin of the policy shift and the undisclosed conflict.
5. Conclusion
DIVJOT SEKHON v. STATE OF PUNJAB strengthens constitutional discipline over competitive admissions by declaring that the State cannot keep core admission norms “elastic” and alter them midstream through ad hoc communications. The judgment integrates the “rules of the game” doctrine with Article 14’s modern demands of transparency, predictability, and good administration, and it treats undisclosed conflict-driven influence as vitiating the policy change at its root.
The practical significance lies in two messages: (i) admission policies—especially for high-demand courses like MBBS/BDS—must be fully articulated before the process starts; and (ii) courts will not hesitate to dismantle policy shifts that create avenues for arbitrariness or nepotism, even while tailoring remedies to avoid destabilizing admissions of non-parties.