107.wp.7137.26 1/14 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.7137 OF 2026 Syed Aatif Umair Syed Anees and anr. VS Union of India and ors. ______________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders. Mr. Devidatta Kamat, Sr. Advocate a/b Mr. M.D. Raut, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.N. Shukul, DSGI a/b Mr. G. Khatwani, Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND R AJNISH R. VYAS , JJ. DATE : 21 .09.2026 The petitioners herein are students and candidates who have appeared and participated in NEET – 2026 (Undergraduate) examination. The prayer of the petitioners is for quashing and setting aside impugned communication dated 20/08/2026 issued by respondent No.1. Further the petitioners are seeking direction to the respondents to relax the minimum eligible marks notified for Re-NEET (UG) 2026 held on 21/06/2026 by recalculating the minimum eligible score based on the number of students who appeared in the NEET (UG) – 2026 exam held on 03/05/2026. 2. The impugned communication dated 20/08/2026 discloses denial of request made by petitioners by way of representation dated 01/08/2026 for re-determination/relaxation of the minimum eligible marks/percentile. 2026:BHC-NAG:12494-DB 107.wp.7137.26 2/14 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned communication is unreasonable and arbitrary as it will impair the petitioners right to pursue higher education, which forms part of right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. It is further stated that by reason of Regulation 9 of the National Medical Commission's Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023 the petitioners are barred from pursuing medical education, not only in India, but across the world. It is submitted that such disqualification for reasons of large absenteeism in re-NEET is not attributable to petitioners, and therefore, non-consideration of the request of the petitioners is disproportionate and arbitrary. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 6. Mr. Kamat, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Raut, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in NEET (UG) - 2026 held on 03/05/2026, 22,79,743 students registered, out of them 22,05,000 students appeared and the percentage of absenteeism was 3.27%. It is argued that however, the said examination was cancelled for unforeseen reasons, and it was unprecedented. It is stated that in re- examination of NEET (UG) – 2026 held on 21/6/2026 the percentage of absenteeism was much more than in the examination held on 03/05/2026. It is pointed out that the percentage of absenteeism was increased from 3.27% to 12.27% and it resulted in increase in percentile. Because of less number 107.wp.7137.26 3/14 of students appeared in NEET (UG) - 2026 exam held on 21/06/2026, the minimum eligible score is 213 for Unreserved seats and 117 for Reserved seats. It is submitted that since cancellation of examination would not be attributable to the candidates who appeared in the examination including the petitioners, denial to lower down the minimum eligible score by exercising the discretion by the respondents is arbitrary and it amounts to impairing the petitioner’s right to pursue higher education. 7. Mr. Kamat, learned Senior Counsel further draws our attention to qualifying criteria given in Chapter 8 of the Information Bulletin and submits that in order to be eligible for admission to Undergraduate Medical Courses for a particular academic year in case of General, General-EWS, it shall be necessary for a candidate to obtain a minimum of marks at the 50th percentile in National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test. He further submits that by exercising discretionary power, the respondents authorities may lower the minimum marks required for admission to undergraduate medical courses. It is therefore submitted that the petitioners in view of the Regulation 10 of the National Medical Commission's Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023 requested the respondents authorities to lower down the minimum marks required for admission to undergraduate medical courses to pursue their education abroad. It is submitted that the said request was rejected arbitrarily by denying to exercise the discretion. It is, therefore, submitted that the respondents may be directed to consider the request of the petitioners. 107.wp.7137.26 4/14 8. On the other hand, Mr. Shukul, learned DSGI strongly opposed the present petition and submits that the petition itself is not maintainable for the reason that it is the discretion of the respondents to lower down the minimum marks required for admission to under graduate medical courses and as the discretion has rightly and judiciously exercised by the respondent No.1, in absence of any legal right in favour of the petitioners, the petition is not maintainable. To substantiate his arguments he has placed reliance on the following judgment of the Supreme Court of India and High Court of Rajasthan : 1) Balco Employees’ Union (Regd.) Vs. Union of India and ors. reported in [(2002) 2 SCC 333], 2) State of Kerala and ors. Vs. Kandath Distrilleries reported in [(2013) 6 SCC 573] 3) Judgment dated 02/05/2022 in the Neppali Sai Vikash and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors. in MCA No.735/2022 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.124/2022 and 4) Judgment dated 31/05/2021 in the case of Jayoti Vidyapeeth Womens University, Jaipur Vs. The Union of India and ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6865/2021 by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur. 9. It is further submitted that the discretion to lower down the eligibility marks for admission to under graduate medical courses can be exercised only in case when a sufficient 107.wp.7137.26 5/14 number of candidates in the respective category failed to secure minimum marks as prescribed in National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET). It is argued that since the present case is not covered by the proviso to Sub-clause (ii) of Clause 1, Qualifying Criteria of Chapter 8 of the Information Bulletin, there is no illegality committed by respondent No.1 in rejecting the request of the petitioners. 10. It is pointed out that 11.21 lakh candidates have qualified for admission to undergraduate MBBS/BDS programmes and there are total 1,42,314 MBBS and 27,825 BDS seats available in the country. He therefore, submits that since there is no legal right in the favor of the petitioners to seek relief as prayed in the present matter to lower down the minimum marks for the admission to undergraduate medical courses, the petition may be dismissed. 11. It is further argued that if the prayer of the petitioners is accepted and a request for re-determination/relaxation of minimum qualifying marks/percentile is acceded to, it may lower down the standard of health care. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petition may be dismissed. 12. Having heard the rival submissions and gone through the record it is evident that the qualifying criteria is given in the Information Bulletin and Chapter 8 of the same is relevant, which provides merit list and qualifying criteria. Sub- clause (ii) of Clause 1 of Chapter 8 of the Information Bulletin says that in order to be eligible for admission to undergraduate 107.wp.7137.26 6/14 medical courses for a particular academic year in case of General, General-EWS, it shall be necessary for a candidate to obtain a minimum of marks at the 50th percentile in National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test to Undergraduate Medical Courses held for the said academic year. Sub-clause (ii) of Clause 1 further says that in respect of candidate belonging to Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes, Other Backward Classes, the minimum marks shall be at the 40th percentile and the said sub- clause further speaks about the percentile in respect of candidates with Benchmark Disabilities specified under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. However, since the said part is not relevant for purpose of the present petition, we will not dwell on the same. 13. There is a proviso to the above referred sub-clause which says that when a sufficient number of candidates in the respective category fail to secure minimum marks as prescribed in National Eligibility cum Entrance Test held for any academic year for admission to Undergraduate Medical Courses, the Central Government in consultation with the National Medical Commission and Dental Council of India, National Commission for Indian System of Medicines and National Commission of Homeopathy and any other regulatory body may at its discretion lower the minimum marks required for admission to Undergraduate Medical Courses for candidates belonging to respective categories and marks so lowered by the Central Government shall be applicable for the said academic year only. 107.wp.7137.26 7/14 14. Thus, the whole case of the petitioner is based on the aforementioned proviso giving discretionary power to the respondent No.1 to lower the minimum marks required for admission to Undergraduate Medical Courses. 15. It is evident from the language of the aforementioned proviso that the pre-requisite for exercising such discretion would only triggered when a sufficient number of candidates in the respective categories fail to secure the minimum marks. 16. Admittedly, in the matter at hand it is not the case of the petitioners that such pre-requisites is present for exercise of discretion in the instant matter. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indian in the case of Balco Employees’ Union (Regd.) Vs. Union of India and ors. (supra) has held that it is neither within the domain of the Courts nor the scope of the judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved. Nor are our Courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of a petitioner merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical. 18. Admittedly, in the present matter, no challenge is raised to the criteria relating to aforementioned qualifying criteria. Thus, in absence of any such challenge where the discretion is to be exercised in a given situation or contingency which admittedly has not arisen in the present matter, the question would be whether the petitioners can maintain the 107.wp.7137.26 8/14 present petition. For this purpose, it would be apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Kerala and ors. Vs. Kandath Distrilleries (supra) wherein it is held thus: “30. The legislature when confers a discretionary power on an authority, it has to be exercised by it in its discretion, the decision ought to be that of the authority concerned and not that of the Court. Court would not interfere with or probe into the merits of the decision made by an authority in exercise of its discretion. Court cannot impede the exercise of discretion of an authority acting under the Statute by issuance of a Writ of Mandamus. A Writ of Mandamus can be issued in favour of an applicant who establishes a legal right in himself and is issued against an authority which has a legal duty to perform, but has failed and/or neglected to do so, but such a legal duty should emanate either in discharge of the public duty or operation of law. We have found that there is no legal duty cast on the Commissioner or the State Government exercising powers under Section 14 of the Act read with Rule 4 of the 1975 Rules to grant the licence applied for. The High Court, in our view, cannot direct the State Government to part with its exclusive privilege. At best, it can direct consideration of an application for licence. If the High Court feels, in spite of its direction, the application has not been properly considered or arbitrarily rejected, the High Court is not powerless to deal with such a situation that does not mean that the High Court can bend or break the law. Granting liquor licence is not like granting licence to drive a cab or parking a vehicle or issuing a municipal licence to set up a grocery or a fruit shop. Before issuing a writ of mandamus, the High Court should have, at the back of its mind, the legislative scheme, its object and purpose, the 107.wp.7137.26 9/14 subject matter, the evil sought to be remedied, the State’s exclusive privilege etc., and not to be carried away by the idiosyncrasies or the ipse dixit of an officer who authored the order challenged. Majesty of law is to be upheld not by bending or breaking the law but by strengthening the law.” 19. From the above referred observation it is evident that when legislature confers a discretionary power on an authority, it has to be exercised by it in its discretion, the decision ought to be that of the authority concerned and not that of the Court. The Court would not interfere with or probe into the merits of the decision made by an authority in exercise of its discretion. Further, to maintain a writ it is necessary to establish a legal right and to point out the legal duty of the authority to perform, but has failed and/or neglected to do so. 20. In the present matter it is not a case of the petitioner that any legal right is there in favour of the petitioners or the legal duty to be performed for respondent No.1, has neglected or failed to do so. Thus, on this ground the petition needs to be dismissed. 21. Further it is the case of the petitioner that he will be deprived of pursuing his education and if the qualifying marks are not lowered down, the petitioners would not be in position to pursue medical education, even in abroad. To substantiate his submission, the petitioners are harping upon Regulation 9 of the National Medical Commission’s (NMC) Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023 relating to 107.wp.7137.26 10/14 Eligibility Criteria which says that no student shall be eligible to pursue graduate medical education either in India or elsewhere (if they want to return and practice in India), except by scoring the minimum eligible score at the NEET UG exam. 22. From the language of above referred regulation it is evident that the intention is to have uniform or similar eligibility criteria to pursue education either in India or elsewhere. The reason behind such intention is clear from the bracketed portion of the above regulation which anticipates that the candidate who in case goes elsewhere out of India to pursue his or her Medical education and return back to India on completion of education for practice, the standard of healthcare should be maintained and there should not be two different standards. 23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Neppali Sai Vikash and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors. (supra) has held that it would not be justified in the exercise of the power of judicial review to direct a further reduction of 5 percentile since that would be trenching upon the academic/policy domain. The need for filling up vacant seats, which undoubtedly is a matter of public interest has to be balanced with other considerations such as ensuring that the batch of admitted students commences the course, the standards of medical education are not diluted and uncertainty is not created by ad-hoc reductions in the norms of eligibility. 107.wp.7137.26 11/14 24. Similarly, it would be beneficial to refer to the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jayoti Vidyapeeth Womens University, Jaipur Vs. The Union of India and ors. (supra). The relevant paras of the same read thus: “(34) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon consideration of the statutory scheme, this Court is of the opinion that the proviso to clause (d) of Regulation No.2 of the Regulations is nothing more than a discretionary power bestowed upon the Central Government to reduce the required percentile points when sufficient number of candidates in respective categories fail to secure minimum marks in NEET Examination. This discretion is required to be exercised on overall appraisal of relevant legends, one of which may be number of vacant seats, but it cannot be the sole factor to be reckoned or a driving force. (35) Such opinion flows from the very language of the proviso, which lays down that the Central Government, in consultation with the CCIM may, at its discretion, lower the minimum marks required for admission. As such, the discretionary power of the Central Government can be solicited or invoked neither by the institutions imparting education nor by the enthusiastic or willing students, simply citing that some seats are lying vacant. (38) In the opinion of this Court, the adjective "sufficient" is of a great significance and interpretation given in para No.(37) above clearly suggests that merely because 10%, 15% or even more seats in some of the colleges of the State of Rajasthan are lying vacant, the Central Government cannot be called upon much less 107.wp.7137.26 12/14 compelled to reduce the minimum percentile. Because, if relaxation is to be given by the Central Government, it has to be given to all the candidates through out the length and breadth of the country and not to the candidates of State of Rajasthan only, as NEET examination is an all India level competition. (40) Although the petitioners have not brought on record the vacant seat position of the entire country, but the Central Government having undertaken such exercise, has recorded in its order under challenge that maximum number of seats are filled-up in most of the States. That being the position, the finding of the Central Government that sufficient number of seats have been filled, is an uncontroverted fact. The fulcrum of the decision of the Central Government is such indisputed fact. The same can neither be faulted with nor can it be alleged to be suffering from any infirmity much less irrationality. (57) No infirmity has been pointed out or even alleged by the petitioners in the decision dated 08.04.2021. Even petitioner's representation submitted pursuant to this Court's order dated 25.03.2021 also did not contain anything of substance - it contained a hollow request to reduce the minimum percentile, that too on the sole ground that 77 seats out of total 770 seats are lying vacant. Petitioner's point has been taken note of, duly pondered upon and then, debunked with sound reasoning. This Court hardly finds any reason to interfere in such decision of the Central Government. (59) If the yardstick has been set at 40th percentile, it means that 60% of the students, who have 107.wp.7137.26 13/14 appeared in the NEET examination have been declared successful. This is quite a number, given the large number of candidates who appeared in the NEET Examination. It is of common knowledge that these qualified candidates will be enjoined with the responsibility of diagnosing and curing the suffering populace. It is intriguing that out of 720 marks, the candidates who have scored 113 marks (15.69%) of the unreserved category; candidates having secured 87 marks (12.08%) of SC/ST and Other Backward Classes and candidates obtaining 99 marks (13.75%) out of the persons with disability category, have been declared qualified in NEET-2020. (60) If the criteria for minimum percentile is further reduced, this Court is doubtful about the standard of the students taking admission and is wary of their potential to undertake the professional courses. They will really be half-baked professional, as stated by learned counsel for the Council. It may ultimately be fatal to the health of the citizens.” 25. From the above referred judgment, it is evident that the Court refused to reduce the criteria for minimum percentile with a view that the standard of students taking admissions may vary their potential to undertake the professional courses and they will really be half baked like professional. 26. Having held that the intention to have similar minimum qualifying marks for admission to Undergraduate Medical Courses, as per Regulation 9 is with an intention that even if a student who pursuaded his/her medical education 107.wp.7137.26 14/14 abroad or elsewhere and not in India, and if he or she comes back to India there should not be any variation in standard of education since it relates to health care. 27. In the above circumstances we do not find any merits in the present petition, we are of the opinion that the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) *Divya Signed by: Mrs. Divya Baldwa Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 21/09/2026 21:24:54