STATE OF U.P. v. MISS BHAVNA TIWARI, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

SLP(C) No.-009298 - 2018

Disposition

allowed

Attorney(S)

ANKIT GOEL
P. S. SUDHEER

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The State of Uttar Pradesh filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9298 of 2018 challenging the judgment dated 19 January 2018 rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 28550/2017. The High Court had issued a series of directions aimed at rectifying alleged irregularities—particularly “large scale blocking of seats” during medical admission counselling in Uttar Pradesh. When the Supreme Court initially entertained the SLP on 16 April 2018, it stayed operation of the High Court’s order and directed that the Medical Council of India (MCI) be impleaded. By the time of the present order dated 12 February 2025, the MCI has been replaced by the National Medical Commission (NMC). The Supreme Court heard counsel for the parties and determined that effective adjudication requires input from the NMC regarding implementation of the High Court’s directions.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the directions issued by the Allahabad High Court to overhaul the medical admission process in Uttar Pradesh—particularly to prevent blocking of seats and to institute a “foolproof admission procedure”—should be upheld and enforced while the SLP is pending.
What stance and remedial measures the National Medical Commission intends to adopt in response to the High Court’s directives.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The bench, after a prolonged hearing, expressed that the High Court had addressed “a very serious issue” involving systemic flaws in the medical admission process. Recognizing that meaningful compliance with those directions hinges on regulatory oversight, the Court considered it essential to hear the National Medical Commission. Consequently, it:

Noted that the MCI had already been impleaded in 2018 but, with the regulatory transition, the NMC is now the appropriate body to respond.
Directed counsel for the NMC to obtain instructions “at the earliest” regarding future action on the High Court’s directives.
Fixed the matter for further hearing after two weeks, cautioning that no additional time would be granted and that, in the absence of a response, the Court would proceed to pass appropriate orders on its own.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The matter is adjourned for two weeks with a peremptory direction to the National Medical Commission to state its position on the High Court’s directions; failure to do so will prompt the Court to issue further orders.

Implications: The order signals the Supreme Court’s intent to ensure substantive implementation of the High Court’s reforms to the medical admission process in Uttar Pradesh. Immediate impact is a mandatory response from the NMC; no broader precedent is set at this interim stage.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

STATE OF U.P. v. MISS BHAVNA TIWARI

ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.13 SECTION XI

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 9298/2018 [Arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 19-01-2018 in WP No. 28550/2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad] STATE OF U.P. & ANR. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

MISS BHAVNA TIWARI & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 12-02-2025 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN For Petitioner(s) :Ms. Garima Prashad, Sr. Adv., A.A.G. Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR

Mr. Harshit Singhal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Mohan Kumar, AOR Ms. Neetu Singh, Adv.

Ms. Ishika, Adv.

Ms. Asia Beg, Adv.

Ms. Bobby Anand, Adv.

Mr. Narender Singh, Adv.

Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Adv.

Dr. Tribhuwan Bhandari, Adv.

Ms. Amrita Sarkar, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

1. We heard this matter for quite some time. Ms. Garima Prashad, the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh, gave us a fair idea as regards the controversy in the present litigation.

2. In the course of the hearing of this matter, we realized that the presence of the Medical Counsel of India is required. In other words, we need to hear the Medical Counsel of India as to what it

proposes to do as regards the directions issued by the High Court, in the impugned judgment.

3. We take notice of the order passed by this Court dated 16.04.2018 which reads thus:-

"1. Issue notice.

2. At the oral request of Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, the impleadment of Medical Council of India (MCI) through its Secretary, is allowed.

3. Let notice be issued to newly added respondent-MCI also. The standing counsel, if any, for respondents appearing in this Court also be served.

4. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted.

5. In the meantime, the operation of the impugned order to remain stayed."

4. Thus, it appears that way back in 2018, the Medical Counsel of India was ordered to be impleaded in the present litigation.

5. Today, Mr. Prateek Bhatia, learned counsel has appeared for the National Medical Commission.

6. We invited the attention of the learned counsel appearing for the National Medical Commission to the directions issued by the High Court which reads thus:-

"Before we part with the case, we are of the opinion that there is a need to issue further directions as we have found that there has been a large scale blocking of seats. 80% of the seats were filled up in the mop up round. Obviously there is a flaw in the admission procedure. We, accordingly, direct the Principal Secretary, Medical Education, Government of U.P., Lucknow, respondent no.2 to take this fact into consideration of large scale blocking

of seats and come out with a foolproof admission procedure, which would eliminate such blockage of seats and ensure that maximum number of seats are filled up in the first and second round of counseling. We also direct the Principal Secretary to hold an inquiry into the circumstances of diluting the admission procedure and allowing the candidates who had appeared in the first and second round of counseling to be considered again in the mop up round in the garb of misinterpreting the orders of the Supreme Court. Such inquiry shall be made within two months and action be taken against the erring officials. For future admissions in subsequent academic sessions, we direct that after the first and second round of counseling, a window should be opened for the 30 candidates who had taken admission to upgrade their stream and thereafter allow the remaining seats to be filled up in the mop up round. By this procedure allowing the candidates to upgrade their seats would not amount to third round of counseling. Further, the upgradation of seats of the preferred choice of the candidate would ensure fairness in the admission process and allow the meritorious candidates to take admission not only in the preferred choice of seats but also in better streams and, thus, by doing so, discipline would be maintained.

The writ petitions are disposed of.

A certified copy of this order shall be sent by the Registry to the Principal Secretary, Medical Education, Government of U.P., Lucknow, respondent no.2, within two weeks for necessary compliance."

7. According to us, a very serious issue has been looked into by the High Court in its true perspective and we would like to see to it that the directions issued by the High Court are meaningfully given effect to.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the National Medical Commission shall take appropriate instructions at the earliest and inform us as to what it intends to do in future.

9. Post the matter after two weeks.

10. No further time shall be granted to the National Medical Commission in this regard. If they have nothing to say, we shall proceed to pass appropriate orders, in the matter.

(GEETA JOSHI) (POOJA SHARMA)

SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)

STATE OF U.P. v. MISS BHAVNA TIWARI

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

STATE OF U.P. v. MISS BHAVNA TIWARI

Comments