Delhi High Court Upholds Student's Right to Continue MBBS Amid NEET-UG 2024 Probe: "Cannot Be Curtailed Lightly"

Spread the Message

Read Time:4 Minute, 31 Second

In a landmark ruling on January 7, 2026, the Delhi High Court directed authorities to allow Harshit Agrawal, a NEET-UG 2024 candidate, to resume his MBBS classes at Bhima Bhoi Medical College and Hospital in Odisha, emphasizing that the right to higher education demands strong protection. Justice Jasmeet Singh ruled the cancellation of Agrawal’s admission—based solely on his inclusion in a CBI list of suspected candidates—was unjustified, as he stands only as a witness, not an accused, in the ongoing NEET paper leak investigation. This decision comes amid widespread scrutiny of the 2024 medical entrance exam irregularities that rocked India’s healthcare education pipeline.

Case Background and Timeline

Harshit Agrawal cleared his Class 12 exams in 2022 and appeared for NEET-UG 2024 on May 5, scoring 651 out of 720 marks, securing an All India Rank of 28,106 and General Category Rank of 11,234 after a revised scorecard on July 26. He gained admission through counseling to the Odisha medical college, but CBI summoned him on August 15 for questioning in the paper leak probe centered in Bihar’s Hazaribagh.

The National Testing Agency (NTA) issued a show-cause notice on October 23, withdrew his scorecard despite his response, prompting the National Medical Commission (NMC) and college to cancel his admission on January 23, 2025, citing CBI’s list of 22 implicated candidates—Agrawal at serial no. 18. Agrawal filed a writ petition under Article 226, seeking parity with another student, Kirtee Koushika Panda, allowed by the Supreme Court to continue despite similar listing.

NEET-UG 2024 Scandal Context

The NEET-UG 2024 controversy erupted post-results on June 4, with allegations of question paper leaks, impersonation, and solver gangs distributing solved papers hours before the exam. CBI’s chargesheets named over 40 accused, including solvers and distributors, implicating 144 candidates who allegedly paid for access, though many arrests targeted masterminds rather than test-takers. NMC had suspended 26 MBBS students and canceled 14 admissions earlier, debarring 42 candidates for 2-3 years, amid probes affecting 215 more.

This scam threatened the merit-based gateway to over 1 lakh MBBS seats across India, eroding public trust in a system serving 24 lakh aspirants annually.

Court’s Key Findings and Rationale

Justice Singh stressed Agrawal earned admission via “open entrance on merit,” requiring “valid, genuine, and compelling reasons” for cancellation—mere CBI listing insufficient without prima facie guilt. “The statement… that the petitioner is not an accused but only a witness makes it apparent there cannot be any prima-facie findings of malpractice,” the bench noted, protecting his “valuable right” from disruption.

The court affirmed education as an implicit fundamental right: “Even though not explicitly spelt out in Part III of the Constitution, it is an affirmative obligation on the state… cannot be permitted to be curtailed lightly.” A writ of mandamus was issued, disposing the petition while allowing NTA, NMC, and the college no leeway for delay.

Broader Public Health Implications

This ruling safeguards future doctors’ training amid probes, preventing talent loss in India’s healthcare workforce, already short 2 million professionals per WHO estimates. Allowing witnesses to study maintains meritocracy, ensuring qualified graduates for public health crises like pandemics, without presuming guilt.

For students, it signals due process over suspicion, potentially aiding dozens in similar limbo and stabilizing medical education pipelines disrupted since 2024. Healthcare leaders note it balances integrity with equity, as premature exclusions could exacerbate rural doctor shortages in states like Odisha.

Expert Perspectives and Balanced Views

Dr. R.V. Asokan, former President of the Indian Medical Association (not involved), welcomed the verdict: “Merit-based admissions must stand unless proven wrongdoing; halting careers on lists alone undermines the profession’s future.” He cautioned, however, that final CBI findings post-chargesheet could warrant action.

Legal expert and education lawyer Dr. Meenakshi Arora added: “The judgment aligns with constitutional ethos—presumption of innocence till proven guilty—vital for high-stakes exams.” Yet, NTA officials argue lists stem from evidence like payments or locations, urging post-trial reviews to deter malpractices.

Limitations include ongoing CBI probes; if evidence emerges, NMC could revisit post-conviction, as in prior suspensions. Critics fear it might embolden aspirants, though courts prioritize individual rights over collective suspicion.

Practical Takeaways for Stakeholders

Aspiring doctors should document merit proofs and respond promptly to notices, seeking legal aid early. Institutions must adhere to court orders, resuming classes swiftly to avoid academic gaps. For regulators, this underscores need for robust, evidence-led processes in exams impacting public health.

Parents and students can take heart: Justice tempers investigation rigor with fairness. Policymakers may push NEET reforms, like advanced security, per post-2024 reviews.

Medical Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered medical advice. Always consult with qualified healthcare professionals before making any health-related decisions or changes to your treatment plan. The information presented here is based on current research and expert opinions, which may evolve as new evidence emerges.

References: