In a recent case, the Supreme Court of India has issued a definitive judgment addressing the denial of admission to an MBBS course in Maharashtra. 

The case, presided over by a three-judge bench comprising Justice B R Gavai, Justice Rajesh Bindal, and Justice Sandeep Mehta, centered around a student named Vansh who was unjustly denied admission due to what the court described as an "insensitive, unjust, illegal, and arbitrary approach" by the concerned authorities.

Vansh, a domicile of Maharashtra, had applied for admission under the Other Backward Class/Non-Creamy Layer (OBC/NCL) category. However, despite being found meritorious and issued a provisional selection letter by the state common entrance cell, his admission was abruptly rescinded by the medical college. This decision was made without prior notice or affording Vansh an opportunity to present his case.

The court meticulously examined the circumstances surrounding Vansh's case. It noted that Vansh's father, a member of the Border Security Force (BSF), had been posted outside Maharashtra, necessitating Vansh to complete his class 10 and class 12 education outside the state. This aspect was crucial in understanding Vansh's situation and the challenges he faced in fulfilling the eligibility criteria for admission.

Furthermore, the court observed that Vansh had promptly filed a writ petition before the high court on August 10, 2023, just a day after his admission was revoked, demonstrating his eagerness to seek legal recourse without delay.

In light of these factors, the Supreme Court rendered a comprehensive judgment to address the injustice faced by Vansh. Firstly, it directed the Maharashtra government and the medical college to provide compensation of Rs 1 lakh to Vansh as restitution for the harm caused by the arbitrary cancellation of his admission.

Secondly, the court ordered the creation of an additional MBBS seat specifically for Vansh in the upcoming academic year, commencing from 2024. This measure aimed to ensure that Vansh receives the educational opportunity he rightfully deserves, without prejudice or discrimination.

Importantly, the court emphasized that there should be no reduction in the quota of seats available to other candidates who successfully qualify under the NEET UG 2024 examination. This directive aimed to maintain fairness and equity in the allocation of seats, while also addressing Vansh's specific circumstances.

Additionally, the court addressed the systemic issues underlying Vansh's case. It directed that until suitable amendments are made to the existing guidelines/rules, candidates domiciled in Maharashtra, whose parents are employed in the central government, defense services, or paramilitary forces, should be entitled to a seat in the MBBS course under the Maharashtra state quota.

In its judgment dated March 20, the Supreme Court unequivocally condemned the arbitrary cancellation of Vansh's admission, emphasizing the need for procedural fairness and adherence to established rules and guidelines.