The Allahabad High Court has sought details of MBBS admissions under reserved categories in four government medical colleges in Uttar Pradesh, amid a continuing legal dispute over reservation quotas that allegedly exceed the limits prescribed by state law.

The Lucknow bench, on October 13, directed the state government to submit figures for reserved-category admissions made before and after September 16, 2026, when the court stayed part of a government order governing seat allocation. The dispute concerns medical colleges in Ambedkar Nagar, Kannauj, Jalaun and Saharanpur, where the reservation policy had already been challenged and struck down by the High Court in 2025.

The dispute centres on a government order that allocated a higher proportion of seats to reserved categories than the limits prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh Admission to Educational Institutions (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 2006.

What is the reservation policy under dispute?

Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Admission to Educational Institutions (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 2006, prescribes reservation of 21 per cent for Scheduled Castes (SC), 2 per cent for Scheduled Tribes (ST) and 27 per cent for Other Backward Classes (OBC) in covered educational institutions. These categories together account for 50 per cent of seats.

The four colleges followed a different arrangement. Under the disputed seat matrix, each college had 85 state-quota MBBS seats, distributed as follows:

• Scheduled Castes: 62 seats

• Scheduled Tribes: five seats

• Other Backward Classes: 11 seats

• Unreserved category: seven seats

Across the four colleges, this amounted to 340 state-quota seats, of which 248 were allocated to SC candidates, 20 to ST candidates, 44 to OBC candidates and 28 to the unreserved category. The allocation therefore placed 312 of the 340 state-quota seats, or about 91.8 per cent, in reserved categories.

The state defended the arrangement by referring to the funding and establishment of the colleges under the Centre's Special Component Plan for Scheduled Castes. The relevant government orders had provided for 70 per cent of seats to be reserved for SC/ST candidates, 15 per cent for OBC candidates and 15 per cent for the general category. The state argued that these arrangements were linked to the guidelines governing the use of funds for the colleges.

What did the court decide in 2025?

The issue first came before the Lucknow bench in Sabra Ahmad vs State of Uttar Pradesh, decided on August 25, 2025.

The petitioner had appeared for NEET-UG 2025, scoring 523 marks and securing an All India Rank of 29,061. She challenged the seat allocation, arguing that the reservation for SC, ST and OBC candidates exceeded the statutory limits and adversely affected candidates competing on merit.

The state argued that the reservation arrangement was linked to the funding guidelines under which the four colleges had been established. The court examined those guidelines alongside the 2006 Act and found that the funding conditions did not authorise the state to prescribe reservation percentages beyond those permitted by law.

In its judgment, the court held that the government orders were “clearly contrary to the mandate of Section 4 of the Act, 2006”. It quashed the orders prescribing the higher quotas and directed the state to fill seats in the four colleges afresh in accordance with the 2006 Act, covering both state and central quota seats.

The state challenged the ruling. During subsequent proceedings in September 2025, it undertook to implement the directions from the 2026-27 academic session, allowing the admission process for the preceding year to continue.

Why did the dispute return in 2026?

On September 1, 2026, the Uttar Pradesh government issued a fresh order prescribing the disputed seat allocation for the four colleges. Candidates who appeared for NEET-UG 2026 challenged the arrangement, arguing that it exceeded the limits under the 2006 Act and was inconsistent with the state's earlier undertaking before the court.

On September 16, the High Court stayed the relevant clause of the government order concerning reservation for SC and ST candidates. It directed that admissions proceed in accordance with the 2006 Act.

The bench also questioned why the government had issued the order despite the earlier judgment and undertaking. Its observations raised the possibility of contempt proceedings, though the observations themselves did not amount to a final finding of contempt against any official.

Why does the court need the admission data?

The latest direction is intended to establish what happened during the counselling process before and after September 16.

At the October 13 hearing, the state informed the court that no reserved-category candidate had been admitted beyond the prescribed reservation percentage after the interim order. The bench retained records submitted by the Medical Education and Social Welfare departments and directed three senior officials to appear again with the relevant documents.

The officials are V Hekali Zhimomi, Principal Secretary of the Medical Health Department; Neha Sharma, Director General of Medical Education; and Anurag Yadav, Principal Secretary of the Social Welfare Department.

The court's request for figures does not, by itself, decide whether every admission made before September 16 was unlawful. It allows the bench to compare admissions made under the earlier allocation with those made after its interim order and assess whether the state complied with its directions.

What does this mean for NEET-UG candidates?

The case is limited to reservation in four government medical colleges. It does not change the NEET-UG examination or the reservation framework across all medical institutions in India.

For candidates seeking admission to these colleges, the outcome could affect how the state applies reservation during the current counselling cycle.

The case also tests the relationship between government policy and legislation. The state relied on funding conditions to justify a higher reservation allocation, while the court's 2025 judgment held that those conditions could not override the reservation law governing admissions.