The Allahabad high court on Monday sought an explanation from the Uttar Pradesh government on how its earlier order regarding Scheduled Caste (SC) reservation in MBBS counselling for the 2026-2027 academic session was implemented.
The Lucknow bench of the high court directed the additional chief secretary, medical education, UP, to appear before it in person on Tuesday and explain the status of compliance with the court’s order as well as the assurance given by the state government earlier.
A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla passed the order on a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by Youth for Equality Foundation, which claimed that the state government didn’t implement the court’s order on SC reservation in all colleges, and instead restricted its implementation to only four government medical colleges.
The dispute relates to the SC reservation in four government medical colleges–Ambedkar Nagar, Kannauj, Jalaun and Saharanpur.
Earlier, in a special appeal, the state government sought that the counselling for the 2025-26 academic session not be disturbed. The government assured the court that from the 2026-27 academic session, SC reservation in these four colleges would be implemented in accordance with the statutory limit of 21%.
Earlier, on September 16, another division bench stayed the implementation of nearly 91% reservation for NEET-UG admissions to MBBS courses in the said four govt medical colleges, while allowing counselling to proceed based on the reservation percentages applicable in other government medical colleges.
{{/usCountry}}Earlier, on September 16, another division bench stayed the implementation of nearly 91% reservation for NEET-UG admissions to MBBS courses in the said four govt medical colleges, while allowing counselling to proceed based on the reservation percentages applicable in other government medical colleges.
{{/usCountry}}A division bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai had permitted counselling with 21% reservation for SC, 2% for ST and 27% for OBC. Admissions made through the counselling will, however, remain subject to the outcome of the proceedings.
The bench had also issued a show-cause notice to the additional chief secretary, medical education, asking why criminal contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for allegedly failing to comply with an undertaking given before the court last year.
During Monday’s hearing, senior advocate Sandeep Dixit, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the state government did not implement the court’s order across the entire counselling process for all the colleges and seats, and instead restricted its application to only the four colleges involved in the writ petition.
The petitioner contended that it amounted to non-compliance with the earlier court order and the assurance given by the state in the special appeal.