Legal Review and Analysis of Divjot Sekhon vs State of Punjab & Ors 2026 INSC 26

Case Synopsis

Case: Divjot Sekhon vs State of Punjab & Ors., (2026) INSC 26.

Synopsis : This landmark judgment upholds the sanctity of admission processes by striking down an arbitrary mid-stream change in sports quota criteria, finding it violative of Article 14. It powerfully articulates that such a change, especially one influenced by undisclosed personal interest, vitiates the entire process, and reaffirms the inviolable principle that selection rules cannot be altered after the process has commenced.

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Name: Divjot Sekhon vs State of Punjab & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 26 (Civil Appeal No. of 2026 @ SLP(C) No. 23112 of 2024 and connected matters)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe
Date of Judgment: January 06, 2026

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment extensively interprets and applies constitutional and administrative law principles:

• Article 14 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees equality before the law and prohibits arbitrariness in state action. This is the cornerstone for evaluating the fairness of the admission policy change.

• Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation: A principle of administrative law, as reiterated in Sivanandan C.T. vs High Court of Kerala, (2024) 3 SCC 799, which requires the state to act consistently, transparently, and predictably.

• The "Rules of the Game" Principle: A well-settled jurisprudential principle, established in cases like Maharashtra State Road Transport Corp. vs Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve, (2001) 10 SCC 51, and affirmed by a Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak vs Rajasthan High Court, (2025) 2 SCC 1. It holds that the criteria for selection or admission cannot be altered after the process has commenced.

• Punjab Government Notifications & Sports Policy, 2023: The specific executive instructions and policies governing reservations and admissions under the sports quota for MBBS/BDS courses.

3. Basic Judgment Details

A. Facts of the Case

• The appeals concerned admissions to MBBS/BDS courses under the 1% sports quota in Punjab for the 2024 and 2025 academic sessions.

• The University's Prospectus for 2024 initially stated that only sports achievements from Classes XI and XII would be considered for grading.

• Midway through the admission process, via an email dated 16.08.2024, the University directed candidates to submit achievements from any class/year. Consequently, the merit list prepared by the Director of Sports considered achievements from Classes IX and X.

• Appellants Divjot Sekhon and Shubhkarman Singh (2024 aspirants) argued this change was arbitrary, benefited specific candidates (Respondents 4 & 5), and violated the "rules of the game" principle. They alleged the change was orchestrated by Ramesh Kumar Kashyap, the father of the top-ranked candidate (Kudrat Kashyap), who made a representation without disclosing his personal interest.

• Appellants Agrima Mann, Gauranshi Dhingra, and Navreet Singh (2025 aspirants) challenged the continuation of this enlarged zone of consideration into the 2025 session.

• The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed all writ petitions, leading to the present appeals.

B. Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Whether the State of Punjab and Baba Farid University of Health Sciences acted arbitrarily and violated Article 14 by changing the zone of consideration for sports achievements after the admission process for the 2024 session had commenced?

2. Whether the mid-process change was vitiated by mala fides/nepotism, being influenced by an undisclosed personal interest (Ramesh Kumar Kashyap's representation for his daughter's benefit)?

3. Whether the policy of considering achievements from Classes IX and X, continued for the 2025 session, was sustainable?

4. What relief should be granted to the affected parties?

C. Ratio Decidendi (Court's Reasoning)

• Violation of the "Rules of the Game" Principle: The Court firmly applied the settled law that selection/admission criteria cannot be altered mid-process. The change from "only Classes XI & XII" to "any class/year" after applications were submitted made the process opaque and prone to arbitrariness.

• Arbitrariness and Lack of Transparency: The Court found the process inherently flawed. The State kept the norms "elastic," providing itself "leeway to change policy midstream," which is antithetical to fair play and transparency mandated by Article 14.

• Mala Fides and Vitiation of Policy: The Court's examination of official files revealed the pivotal role of Ramesh Kumar Kashyap. His representation, which led to the policy change, failed to disclose that his daughter Kudrat Kashyap was a direct beneficiary. This "lack of probity" and "subterfuge" vitiated the very foundation of the 2024 policy modification.

• Contradiction with State's Own Policy & Actions: The Court noted several inconsistencies: (i) The Sports Policy, 2023 excluded sub-junior tournaments, yet the University asked for achievements from "any class/year"; (ii) A Corrigendum dated 01.08.2023 had expanded the zone for 2023 only, citing the COVID-19 pandemic as a special, one-time exception; (iii) For other medical/allied courses (BAMS, Nursing, etc.) in the same sessions, the State considered only Classes XI & XII, highlighting double standards.

• Application to 2025 Session: The Court held that continuing the vitiated 2024 policy into 2025 was also untenable. However, as admissions for 2025 were complete and affected parties were not before the Court, it granted limited relief.

4. Core Principle of the Judgment 

Sanctity of Process and Prohibition of Mid-Stream Arbitrariness

Title: The Impermeable Fortress of Fair Procedure: Quashing Arbitrary Mid-Process Amendments in Public Admissions

Analysis
This judgment is a seminal pronouncement on procedural integrity in competitive admissions. The Supreme Court addressed the core issue of executive arbitrariness manifesting in two destructive forms: 1) Temporal arbitrariness: changing rules after the game has begun, and 2) Motivational arbitrariness: allowing the process to be manipulated by undisclosed private interests.

The Court went beyond a mere technical reading of prospectuses. It invoked the doctrine of legitimate expectation, holding that candidates legitimately expect the state to adhere to the criteria announced at the outset. A mid-process change shatters this trust and the level playing field.

Most significantly, the judgment operationalizes judicial review of policy-making. It asserts that while the state has elbow room in framing policy, this discretion is not absolute. A policy (or its modification) that is "riddled with arbitrariness or even provides avenues therefor" is justiciable. By trawling through the government files, the Court demonstrated how nepotism and favoritism can infiltrate administrative decision-making, and how such "subterfuge" completely vitiates the action, regardless of the state's subsequent bona fide intentions.

The ruling reinforces that transparency at the outset is non-negotiable. An "elastic" norm is a synonym for a potential weapon of arbitrariness. The judgment serves as a strict warning to authorities that admission processes must be "fully defined in all its contours before its commencement."

5. Final Outcome and Supreme Court Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and issued the following specific directions:

A. For 2024 Session (Divjot Sekhon & Shubhkarman Singh):

1. The mid-process policy modification was quashed.

2. Divjot Sekhon and Shubhkarman Singh were to be accommodated in the government medical college seats originally allotted to Kudrat Kashyap (R-4) and Mansirat Kaur (R-5).

3. Kudrat Kashyap and Mansirat Kaur were to be shifted to the private college seats (Gian Sagar Medical College) vacated by the appellants.

4. The swap was to be effected without disturbing the academic progress or fee payments of any student.

B. For 2025 Session (Agrima Mann & Ors.):

1. The Court acknowledged the policy was flawed but could not unsettle all 2025 admissions as affected parties were not before it.

2. The appellants were granted liberty to approach the High Court afresh with a properly constituted petition impleading all necessary parties.

C. General Directive to the State of Punjab:

• The State was directed to apply its mind independently and uninfluenced by the tainted recommendation to frame a reasoned policy for the future.

• The State was advised to formulate and announce the complete admission policy before the initiation of the process each year and to avoid mid-stream changes.

6.  (MCQs) Based on the Judgment

Question 1: In Divjot Sekhon vs State of Punjab, the Supreme Court quashed the modification in the sports quota admission policy primarily based on which legal principle?
a) The principle of promissory estoppel.
b) The principle that "the rules of the game cannot be altered once the game has begun."
c) The principle of res judicata.
d) The principle of absolute sovereignty of the state in policy matters.

Question 2: What was the critical factor that, according to the Supreme Court, vitiated the very foundation of the 2024 admission policy change for the sports quota?
a) The change was recommended by the Director of Sports.
b) The change resulted in higher fees for some candidates.
c) The change was based on a representation by Ramesh Kumar Kashyap, who failed to disclose that his daughter would be a direct beneficiary.
d) The change was not published in the official gazette.