Karnataka High Court issues split verdict on third-round NEET counselling

The Karnataka High Court has issued a split verdict on the contested third round of NEET counselling, plunging the medical admission process into uncertainty. One judge ordered a fresh counselling round due to concerns over merit-based allotment and the inclusion of new seats, while the other advocated for KEA to complete the current process by December 10, 2025. This judicial divergence puts thousands of MBBS/BDS aspirants in limbo, demanding immediate resolution. The matter is now headed to a third judge, delaying the final seat allotment and the start of the academic year.

The Karnataka High Court has delivered a split verdict on the petitions challenging the conduct of the third round of NEET counselling by the Karnataka Examinations Authority (KEA), effectively putting a pause on the final allocation of medical and dental seats. This rare judicial divergence arises from a fundamental disagreement over the fairness and transparency of the process, particularly concerning the handling of newly added seats and the participation rules for previously admitted candidates.

​The core of the issue stems from KEA’s methodology during the third round, which petitioners argued violated the principle of merit-based allotment and led to less meritorious students securing seats ahead of higher-ranked aspirants. With one judge ordering a fresh round of counselling and the other permitting KEA to conclude the existing process by December 10, 2025, the fate of thousands of aspiring doctors now rests on a third judge who will act as a referee to break the deadlock. Aspirants and colleges alike face a critical period of uncertainty as the academic calendar continues to be affected.

​The Divergent Rulings: Fresh Start vs. Expedited Closure

​The split verdict highlights serious legal and procedural contentions regarding the sanctity of the medical admissions process in Karnataka. The two judges, Justice Jayant Banerji and Justice KV Aravind, arrived at diametrically opposed conclusions, each rooted in a different interpretation of the counselling rules and the precedence set by the Supreme Court.

• ​Justice Jayant Banerji's Order (Pro-Aspirant Petitions): 
  • ​Set Aside Provisional List: The provisional allotment list for the third round (published on October 24, 2025) was set aside, deeming the procedure flawed.
  • ​Mandate for Fresh Counselling: Directed the KEA to conduct the third round of counselling afresh, strictly adhering to the Supreme Court judgment in the Bhavana Tiwari case. This precedent mandates fairness and strictly merit-based allocation, particularly regarding consequential vacancies.
  • ​Reasoning: Observed that introducing 443 new seats during the third round and allowing fresh registrations against those seats "rendered the counselling process opaque," leading to allegations of non-merit-based allotments.
  • ​Deadline: Directed KEA to conclude the two stages of the fresh third round and declare the final list no later than December 2, 2025.
• ​Justice KV Aravind's Order (Pro-KEA Stance): 
  • ​Dismissal of Petitions: Dismissed the petitions filed by the aggrieved students, upholding the sanctity of the procedures accepted by candidates.
  • ​Permission to Proceed: Permitted the KEA to proceed with the current round and conclude the entire remaining counselling exercise expeditiously, with an outer limit of December 10, 2025.
  • ​Reasoning: Pointed out that candidates admitted in Round 2 were permitted to participate in Round 3 only against the newly added seats, a condition they had accepted when entering their options. Allowing them to challenge this now, he argued, would deprive other eligible candidates of timely admission.

​The immediate consequence of this split is that the interim order not to finalise the allotment remains in force. The matter has been referred to the Chief Justice, who will assign it to a third judge to provide the binding, final ruling.

​The Merit and Transparency Concerns for Aspirants

​The core grievance of the petitioners revolved around a perceived distortion of the merit list due to specific KEA procedures, causing immense anxiety among higher-ranked candidates who felt unjustly denied better seats.

• ​Introduction of New Seats: The mid-counselling addition of approximately 443 new MBBS/BDS seats across nine colleges created a complex situation. Students who had already secured a seat in Round 1 or 2 were allowed to participate against these new seats.
• ​The Upgradation Dilemma: When an already-admitted student secured one of the new seats, their previously allotted seat was vacated. This consequential vacancy was then offered to the next candidate on the merit list. Petitioners argued that the KEA's procedure unfairly restricted high-ranked students, who were already holding a Round 2 seat, from upgrading to a better seat that became vacant consequentially.
• ​Locked-Out High-Rankers: A major contention was that candidates who were satisfied with their Round 2 allotment but wished to upgrade to a better college (against a consequential vacancy) were not allowed to participate in Round 3 unless the seat was one of the newly added ones. This procedural restriction essentially locked out higher-ranked candidates from improving their status against the vast majority of vacant seats, potentially paving the way for lower-rank candidates to claim those seats, directly challenging the core merit principle.

​Implications and The Road Ahead for KEA and Students

​The judicial uncertainty has severe implications for the current academic session, potentially leading to further delays in the start of classes and the subsequent rounds of counselling.

• ​Referral to a Third Judge: Due to the split verdict, the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court will now refer the batch of petitions to a third single judge. This judge's ruling, which is expected quickly given the urgency of the admission schedule, will be the deciding factor, either upholding the current process or necessitating a complete re-run of Round 3 as directed by Justice Banerji.
• ​Academic Delay: With the final date of joining potentially pushed beyond the court's suggested December 10 deadline, the academic session for the new batch of doctors faces unavoidable disruption, impacting both institutional planning and the students' lost study time.
• ​Aspirant Action: Aspirants must closely monitor the KEA official website (cetonline.karnataka.gov.in) for updates. Any potential fresh counselling round would require swift action—re-registration, new choice filling, and locking—all within a tight timeframe likely dictated by the court. Aspirants must keep their original documents prepared for immediate reporting. The essence of the Bhavana Tiwari judgment is to ensure that merit always prevails, a principle that will guide the final decision.

​Conclusion

​The split verdict from the Karnataka High Court underscores the complex legal and procedural hurdles facing high-stakes medical admissions. While one view prioritizes merit and transparency by demanding a fresh, corrected counselling round, the other emphasizes expediency and the timely conclusion of the already delayed process. For the thousands of NEET aspirants in Karnataka, the resolution now lies with the third judge. Until that final order is issued, the third round of counselling remains on hold, demanding patience and vigilance from all stakeholders.

For regular updates follow Only Education News. For more details on medical entrance exams and courses, check here: Medical Exams List.