Supreme Court Issues Notice on Plea Alleging Irregularities in NEET PG 2024 Round 3 AIQ Counselling

The petition claims that several anomalies occurred during the conduct of the third round of AIQ counselling, particularly focusing on the issue of seat blocking. According to the petitioners, certain candidates were able to block seats in prestigious medical institutions, thereby preventing other eligible candidates from accessing these opportunities. This alleged malpractice took place even before the completion of the second round of state-level counselling in some states, including Madhya Pradesh. As a result, many deserving candidates were unable to register for seats that would have otherwise been available to them.

The petitioners argue that this situation created an unfair disadvantage, as candidates who could not secure their preferred seats had to settle for branches or colleges that were lower in their list of preferences. This not only affected the academic prospects of the affected candidates but also raised concerns about the transparency and fairness of the entire counselling process. The plea asserts that the irregularities violated the merit-based principles that the NEET-PG counselling process is supposed to uphold.

Furthermore, the petition draws attention to the alleged violation of timelines established by the Supreme Court in previous cases related to NEET seat allocation, notably the Anjana Chari case. In that case, the Court had laid down specific guidelines and deadlines to ensure the timely and fair allotment of medical seats across the country. The current plea claims that these timelines were disregarded, leading to confusion and mismanagement during the counselling process.

Senior Advocate K Parameshwar and Advocate Tanvi Dubey represented the petitioners in the case. They emphasized the need for judicial intervention to address the irregularities and to ensure that the counselling process is conducted transparently and in accordance with the rule of law. They argued that the alleged malpractices not only affected individual candidates but also undermined the credibility of the NEET-PG examination and the broader medical admission process in India.

The petition highlights the critical role that NEET-PG plays in determining admissions to postgraduate medical courses across the country. As a highly competitive examination, NEET-PG serves as the gateway for thousands of medical graduates aspiring to specialize in various fields of medicine. Given the significance of this examination, the petitioners contend that any irregularities in the counselling process can have far-reaching consequences for the medical profession and healthcare system in India.

One of the key concerns raised in the plea is the issue of seat blocking, which refers to the practice of candidates securing seats in multiple rounds of counselling without the genuine intention of joining the allocated colleges. This strategy is often employed to manipulate the counselling process, creating artificial scarcity of seats and limiting opportunities for other deserving candidates. The petitioners allege that such practices were rampant during the third round of AIQ counselling, contributing to the chaos and dissatisfaction among candidates.

In addition to seat blocking, the petition also points to the lack of coordination between the central counselling process and state-level counselling rounds. The fact that the third round of AIQ counselling proceeded even before the completion of the second round of state counselling in states like Madhya Pradesh created overlapping timelines and confusion among candidates. This lack of synchronization, the petition argues, compromised the integrity of the counselling process and disadvantaged many candidates who were caught between the two systems.

The Supreme Court’s decision to issue notices to the MCC, NMC, and the Central Government indicates the seriousness with which the Court is treating the allegations. The responses from these bodies will be crucial in determining whether the counselling process adhered to the established rules and whether corrective measures are necessary to address the grievances of the affected candidates.

This case also underscores the broader challenges facing the medical education system in India, particularly concerning the management of entrance examinations and counselling processes. Over the years, there have been multiple instances where candidates and stakeholders have raised concerns about irregularities, lack of transparency, and procedural lapses in medical admissions. The current plea adds to this growing list of grievances, highlighting the need for systemic reforms to ensure fairness and accountability in medical counselling.

The outcome of this case could have significant implications for future NEET-PG counselling processes. If the Supreme Court finds merit in the allegations, it may direct the concerned authorities to revise the counselling procedures, implement stricter monitoring mechanisms, and take corrective actions to address the irregularities. Such measures could help restore the confidence of candidates in the system and ensure that merit remains the sole criterion for medical admissions.

As the case progresses, it will be closely watched by thousands of NEET-PG aspirants, medical professionals, and education policymakers across the country. The petition serves as a reminder of the critical importance of maintaining transparency, fairness, and accountability in competitive examinations and admission processes, especially in fields as vital as medical education.