The Supreme Court will hear on November 19 a petition filed by a NEET-UG candidate from Tamil Nadu who lost her MBBS seat after failing to pay the admission fee within the prescribed deadline. The Madras High Court had refused to grant her relief, prompting her to approach the apex court. She argues that she could not remit the fee on time due to financial constraints and technical limitations in the payment system.

Her counsel mentioned the matter urgently before a Bench headed by CJI BR Gavai, along with Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria. He emphasized the immediacy of the issue:
“The urgency is that stray counselling is happening today. The seat will be filled. This poor girl had to pay ₹15 lakhs, and on the last day, she couldn’t.”

He further informed the Court that the payment window closed on a second Saturday, and the candidate could not complete the online payment because she did not hold accounts with the seven banks authorized for fee transactions. The CJI agreed to list the matter on November 19.

The student had initially secured relief from a single judge of the Madras High Court. Justice Anand Venkatesh had directed that she be admitted, noting her high score in NEET-UG. However, the following day, a Division Bench overturned that order.

The candidate had taken the NEET UG 2025–26 exam and scored 251. She was allotted a seat at Madha Medical College and Research Institute in the third round on November 3, 2025. The official schedule required candidates to download the allotment order and report to the college by November 8.

According to the petitioner, her family managed to arrange the ₹15 lakh fee only on November 8. Since it was a second Saturday, NEFT/RTGS transactions could not be processed. She and her mother allegedly attempted to contact the college to inform them, but received no response. As she did not report on November 8, her seat was treated as vacant and moved into the stray vacancy round. She then approached the High Court seeking permission to join the course.

The Division Bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, while setting aside the single judge’s order, held that the timelines prescribed in the prospectus were binding and could not be relaxed for individual students. The Bench noted that many candidates in similar circumstances might have faced the same difficulty.

After delivering the order, the judges spoke to the student personally, advising her not to lose heart and encouraging her to consider alternate academic paths.

Case: Shilpa Suresh v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others