Supreme Court Holds That Admission Criteria Cannot Be Altered Midstream and Sports Quota Policy Change Influenced by Undisclosed Conflict of Interest Is Arbitrary and Unconstitutional

Case Name: Divjot Sekhon v. State of Punjab & Ors. (with connected appeals)
Citation: 2026 INSC 26
Date of Judgment/Order: 06 January 2026
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe

Held: The Supreme Court held that altering the zone of consideration for sports quota admissions to MBBS/BDS courses after commencement of the admission process is impermissible in law, and that a policy modification brought about midstream at the behest of a person having an undisclosed personal interest is arbitrary, lacks probity, violates the principles of fair play, and offends Article 14 of the Constitution.

Summary: The appeals arose from challenges to the admission process for MBBS/BDS courses under the sports quota in Punjab for sessions 2024 and 2025. The prospectus initially restricted consideration of sports achievements to Classes XI and XII, but after applications were submitted, the authorities expanded the zone of consideration to include Classes IX and X, purportedly following sports policy. The Supreme Court examined the prospectus, government notifications, sports policy, and original file notings, and found that the policy change was triggered by a representation from a sports coach who failed to disclose that the change would directly benefit his daughter, a competing candidate. The Court held that leaving admission norms undefined or elastic enables arbitrariness and nepotism, and reiterated that the “rules of the game” cannot be changed after the process has begun, particularly in high-stakes professional admissions.

Decision: The appeals were allowed; the midstream modification of the sports quota policy was quashed; the benefit illegally accrued to candidates who gained advantage due to inclusion of Classes IX and X was withdrawn; Divjot Sekhon and Shubhkarman Singh were directed to be accommodated in government medical college seats in place of the beneficiaries of the unlawful change; the affected candidates were reshuffled without disturbing fees or completed coursework; and liberty was granted to challenge the 2025 admissions afresh through properly constituted proceedings, with parties bearing their own costs.