SC: When A Policy Decision Riddled With Arbitrariness, Court Would Be Justified In Nullifying It

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that when a policy decision is riddled with arbitrariness or even provides avenues, the court would be justified in nullifying it, while pulling up the Punjab government for adopting an “elastic” procedure for admission in the MBBS and BDS courses under the sports quota in the 2024 session.

A bench comprising justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe said the practice and procedure followed by Punjab in leaving the norms elastic, without disclosing as to what would be the exact policy with regard to the zone of consideration, and allowing itself sufficient leeway and elbow room to change such policy midstream during the admission process is not in accordance with the principles of fair play in action.

“Lack of transparency at the outset invariably enables and makes room for arbitrariness and nepotism to walk in through the back door, a situation to be eschewed and avoided by an egalitarian state”, it said.

The bench said, “Though the state of Punjab would seek to rely upon case law in support of its argument that the court would, ordinarily, not interfere in policy matters, it is equally well settled that when a policy decision is riddled with arbitrariness or even provides avenues therefor, the court would be justified in nullifying it”.

The bench said the fact that a policymaker is to be allowed some elbow room in formulating policy does not translate to allowing scope for arbitrariness or nepotism. “We, therefore, find no merit in the contentions of the State of Punjab”, it added.

The apex court said that the admission criteria for educational courses cannot be altered once the process has started.

The bench said just as modification of recruitment norms is forbidden in law after the recruitment process has begun, it is equally illegal for an admission process to not be fully defined in all its contours before its commencement, so as to leave room for the authorities concerned to stipulate norms later on to suit their own interests or to permit nepotism. “The transparency of such a process is paramount to ensure fairness and prevent arbitrariness”, it added.

The bench made these observations in a verdict on appeals filed by Divjot Sekhon and Shubhkarman Singh, against the admission criteria adopted by the Punjab government for admission in the MBBS and BDS courses under the sports quota in session 2024.

The bench said the state and its instrumentalities have a duty and responsibility to act fairly and reasonably in terms of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.

“When a thing is done in a post-haste manner, malafides would be presumed, as anything done with undue haste can be termed arbitrary and would not be condonable in law. The aforestated principle would apply with equal vigour to an admission process relating to sought-after courses like MBBS and BDS,” it said.

The court directed that Sekhon and Singh be accommodated in the seats in the government medical college.

The bench said the state of Punjab would be well advised to formulate the admission policy in its entirety before initiation of the admission process for each year, if it seeks to modify the same time and again, and it is not proper and correct to do so mid-stream during the admission process.