Petitioners from Gujarat MBBS Colleges Challenge Madhya Pradesh Advisory — HC Bench Grants Four Weeks to State

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has issued a notice to the State Government and the Director of Medical Education after two petitioners, who completed their MBBS from Gujarat and secured high ranks in NEET-PG 2025, challenged an advisory that bars non-state graduates from participating in the first round of counselling for Government Medical Colleges. The court has granted the State four weeks to file its reply, listing the matter for January 2, 2026.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has taken up a significant challenge concerning the fairness and legality of the rules governing NEET-PG 2025 counselling in the state. A division bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf issued a formal notice in response to a plea filed by two MBBS graduates, who completed their education in Gujarat, against an advisory and notification issued by the Madhya Pradesh government.

The petitioners, both of whom secured high ranks in NEET-PG 2025 and are reportedly domiciled in Madhya Pradesh, argue that the new restrictions are discriminatory and effectively create an unconstitutional institutional reservation. The Court has provided the Director of Medical Education and the State Government four weeks to prepare and file their detailed responses.

I. Challenged Advisory and Core Restrictions

The core of the petition is directed against two official communications that restrict the participation of candidates who have completed their MBBS degree from institutions outside Madhya Pradesh.

• October 28, 2025, Advisory (Points 12 & 13):
  • Point 12: Stipulated that only candidates who completed their MBBS from institutes within Madhya Pradesh would be permitted to participate in the First Round of counselling.
  • Point 13: Stated that candidates who graduated outside the State would be allowed to participate only in subsequent rounds, and even then, preference would be given to those who studied in Madhya Pradesh.
• September 3, 2025, Gazette Notification: Further codified that non-state MBBS graduates could be allotted seats only if candidates who studied their MBBS within the State were unavailable.
• Conflict with Existing Law: Petitioners contend that these restrictions conflict with the Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Evam Shulk ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007, which grants preference based on domicile and not the place of study.

II. Arguments of Petitioners and Court Directives

The legal challenge is built on the premise that the restrictions violate constitutional rights by indirectly creating a 100% institutional reservation.

• Claim of 100% Institutional Reservation: The petitioners asserted that the cumulative effect of the advisory and notification is to create a 100% institutional reservation for candidates who completed their MBBS in Madhya Pradesh, which is contrary to several Supreme Court guidelines.
• Constitutional Violation: The plea claims that the rules and notifications violate Articles 14 (Equality before law) and 19(1)(g) (Right to practice any profession) of the Constitution for being irrational, arbitrary, and discriminatory.
• Relief Sought: The petition seeks a declaration that the September 3, 2025, amendment is ultravires (beyond the powers) and that points 12 and 13 of the October 28, 2025, Advisory are unconstitutional.
• Court Order: The Division Bench has issued a Notice to the respondents and granted four weeks to the State Government and the Director of Medical Education to file their respective counter-replies. The matter has been listed for a hearing on January 2, 2026.

III. Precedents and Impact on PG Counselling

This legal challenge is particularly significant as the Madhya Pradesh High Court had previously struck down similar institutional preference clauses in the context of private medical colleges.

• Previous HC Ruling: The MP High Court, in a separate judgment, had earlier declared an amendment that barred non-state MBBS graduates from admission to private PG medical courses as unconstitutional, clarifying that reservation (including institutional preference) cannot exceed 50% of total seats.
• Impact on Domicile: If the petitioners—who are reportedly MP domiciled but studied in Gujarat—are successful, it would reaffirm the primacy of domicile over the place of MBBS study for State Quota counselling preference, aligning with the 2007 Adhiniyam.
• Counselling Status: The initial counselling schedule was postponed following the legal challenges, leaving the fate of the first round for state government medical colleges uncertain until the matter is adjudicated by the High Court.

The High Court's decision to grant the State four weeks to respond sets the stage for a critical legal battle that will determine the final rules for NEET-PG 2025 counselling in Madhya Pradesh. The outcome will directly impact thousands of candidates who completed their primary medical education outside the state but claim domicile, ensuring that the final admission rules are in line with established constitutional and Supreme Court precedents.