The Supreme Court has scrutinized the repercussions of interim orders in the admission process and its unintended financial impact on educational institutions in the case where two medical colleges were directed to keep a medical seat vacant by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, but it incurred losses as ultimately the seat remained unfilled.

The bench, comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Vishwanathan, dealt with a case that highlights the complications that may arise if adequate caution and circumspection are not exercised while passing interim orders in judicial proceedings.

The case arises from an interim order passed by the High Court to two Medical Colleges (Appellants) mandating them to keep a seat vacant during the ongoing litigation, where Writ Petition were filed by two students (Respondents).The court orders in question arose from disputes related to the Mukhyamantri Medhavi Vidyarthi Yojana, a financial aid program in Madhya Pradesh for students from low-income families. The students challenged an amendment that increased the income cap for eligibility, arguing that this change reduced their chances of admission. The orders to hold certain seats open were intended to reserve spots for these students in case their legal challenges succeeded.

However, both the Writ Petitions were dismissed by the High Court, post which the Appellants knocked on the door of the Supreme Court and contended that the seat which was directed to be kept vacant has gone waste since the Writ Petitions could not be disposed of before the cut-off date for admissions. They further argued that the vacant seat would result in underutilization of resources, wastage of resources causing financial harm to them and resulting in meritorious candidates being denied the admission to that seat.

The Court stated that the High Court has wholly ignored the well-settled principles for adjudication of interim reliefs. It observed that:

"Firstly, the interim order directing one seat in the counselling to be kept vacant (if available) in both these matters is a cryptic order where neither the prima facie case nor the balance of convenience and irreparable loss aspects have been discussed. This Court had time and again reiterated that in cases where the court is inclined to grant interim relief, at least a brief prima-facie assessment as to why the case warranted an interim protection needs to be discussed''

The Court highlighted that keeping a seat vacant due to litigation will result in a huge financial loss to the college, apart from being a national wastage of resources. Further, the court also expressed its disapproval upon the grant of provisional admission of the High Court and emphasised that they should only be granted when the petitioner has a "cast-iron" case that is bound to succeed. The court held that "if provisional admission seats are not to be given casually, the said principle should also apply for directions to keep seats vacant. Only if there is a cast iron case for the petitioner and the petitioner is bound to succeed in cases where the error of the respondent authorities is so gross as to negate any other conclusion, interim orders keeping seats vacant could be made."

It also observed that ''Though courts have power to make orders directing seats to be kept vacant in suchcases, great caution and circumspection should be shown in exercising the power. In appropriate cases, even where the said exceptional criterion as set out above is met, the court will be justified in directing the petitioner to provide security to the concerned college or institution where the seat is ultimately directed to be kept vacant or on whom ultimately the liability of the vacant seat would fall. The security is to guarantee that in the event of the Writ Petition/Appeal being dismissed and  the seat going unfilled for the academic year, the Petitioner/Appellant would make good the loss which the college may incur financially. Even in rare and exceptional cases where orders for keeping seats vacant are made, every endeavour must be made by the Court to dispose of the matter before the counselling for admissions are over.''

It was further emphasised that when a college seat remains unfilled, the institution loses tuition fees not only for a single year but for the entire duration of the course, which may extend to four years or more.

This Court has also held that the maxim “actus curiae neminem gravabit” will apply in such a scenario, ultimately allowing the appellant colleges to appeal to the Fee Fixation Committee to adjust the fees for subsequent cohorts, spreading the financial burden caused by the lost seats over future students. This approach, as the Court indicated, would minimise immediate financial hardship on the college while still maintaining fairness for incoming students by distributing costs incrementally.

Case Title: Ramkrishna Medical College Hospital & Research Centre Versus State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., Slp (C) No. 11785 Of 2024 (And Connected Case)

Advocate for Petitioners: AOR, Mr. Harsh Parashar, Adv. Mr. Piyush Parashar & ors

Advocate for Respondents: AOR. Mr. Sunny Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, D.A.G. & ors

(For more updates, tap to join us on Whatsapp, Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn)