Published Jul 31, 2026 | 9:00 AM ⚊ Updated Jul 31, 2026 | 9:00 AM
Tamil Nadu has 438 government Super Speciality seats in the current admission cycle.
Synopsis: The Supreme Court’s order directing Tamil Nadu to surrender 151 vacant in-service Super Speciality seats to the All India Quota has triggered a political dispute over the future of specialist medical training and public healthcare in the State. The ruling TVK government says it secured a legal safeguard ensuring that half the surrendered seats will return to Tamil Nadu if the NEET-SS qualifying percentile is lowered, while the DMK and the Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association argue that the State failed to protect its in-service quota.
The Supreme Court’s direction to surrender 151 unfilled in-service Super Speciality (SS) seats from Tamil Nadu to the All India Quota (AIQ) has triggered a political and legal debate over the future of specialist medical education and public healthcare in the State.
Super Speciality courses represent the highest level of postgraduate medical education in India and are pursued by doctors after completing an MD or MS degree. The programmes include advanced disciplines such as DM Cardiology, DM Neurology, DM Nephrology, DM Medical Oncology, MCh Neurosurgery, MCh Urology and MCh Plastic Surgery. Doctors completing these courses become highly specialised consultants equipped to treat complex diseases and perform advanced procedures.
The court’s order has prompted sharply differing interpretations from the ruling TVK government, the Opposition DMK and the Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association (TNMOA).
The State government has described the order as a legal victory, stating that it protects Tamil Nadu’s interests by ensuring that half the surrendered seats would be returned to the State if the NEET-SS qualifying percentile is lowered in subsequent rounds of counselling.
However, the TNMOA and the DMK have contended that the government’s handling of the case has jeopardised the State’s in-service quota and raised concerns over the future availability of super-specialists in government hospitals.
Also Read: Madras HC quashes Tamil Nadu govt order granting jobs to Karur stampede victims’ families
The dispute arose after 151 in-service Super Speciality (DM/MCh) seats earmarked for government doctors under the Tamil Nadu State quota remained vacant following the State counselling process for NEET-SS 2025.
Tamil Nadu, which has 219 in-service Super Speciality seats in the current admission cycle, conducted counselling without reducing the NEET-SS qualifying percentile. After the counselling process, 151 seats remained vacant. According to the TNMOA, the State conducted its second round of counselling before completion of the second round of All India counselling and declared the seats vacant.
The State decided not to return the unfilled seats to the DGHS, maintaining that they should continue to remain under the State quota.
Tamil Vani and other NEET-SS aspirants subsequently moved the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking directions to transfer the vacant State quota seats to the All India pool. They argued that highly specialised medical seats should not remain vacant when eligible candidates were available through the national merit list.
The matter was heard by a Bench of Justices BS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe. The Tamil Nadu government and the TNMOA opposed the transfer, contending that surrendering the seats would adversely affect the State’s in-service reservation policy and its rights over State quota seats.
Rejecting those submissions, the Bench held that highly specialised medical seats could not be allowed to remain vacant. It directed the Tamil Nadu government to surrender all 151 vacant seats to the DGHS by 28 July for allotment through the All India Merit List as part of the ongoing NEET-SS 2025 counselling process.
The Bench further directed that if the qualifying percentile is reduced in subsequent counselling rounds to fill remaining vacancies, 50 percent of those seats should revert to Tamil Nadu’s in-service quota, while the remaining 50 percent would continue under the All India Quota.
The Court clarified that its directions were issued in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and should not be treated as a precedent.
The litigation had delayed the second round of NEET-SS 2025 counselling. Following the latest order, the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) is expected to resume counselling for the remaining Super Speciality seats.
Tamil Nadu has 438 government Super Speciality seats in the current admission cycle. Of these, 219 are reserved for in-service government doctors, while the remaining 219 are filled through the All India Quota and other non-service admission channels.
The in-service quota is reserved exclusively for doctors already serving in the State’s public health system. These doctors continue to work in government hospitals, district headquarters hospitals, primary health centres and government medical colleges while preparing for the NEET-SS examination.
During the three-year Super Speciality programme, the State bears the cost of training, with in-service doctors continuing to receive their salary or stipend, academic training and accommodation. The policy is intended to ensure that doctors who complete Super Speciality training return to government service, strengthening tertiary healthcare across Tamil Nadu.
Doctors who spoke to South First estimated that the State spends more than ₹1 crore on training each in-service Super Speciality doctor, including expenditure on specialised medical education, infrastructure, faculty support, accommodation and salary during the three-year course.
Following the Supreme Court’s latest order, the 151 vacant in-service seats have been surrendered to the DGHS for allotment through the All India Quota. If the NEET-SS qualifying percentile is lowered in later rounds of counselling, however, half of those seats will revert to Tamil Nadu’s in-service quota, while the remaining half will continue under the All India Quota.
Also Read: Tamil Nadu’s consent not needed for Mekadatu reservoir project, Centre informs RS
Admission to Super Speciality courses is conducted through the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for Super Speciality (NEET-SS), a common national examination.
Government doctors have consistently argued that they compete at a disadvantage because they continue to discharge official duties while preparing for the examination, unlike many non-service candidates who are able to devote themselves exclusively to preparation.
According to the Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association (TNMOA), during an earlier hearing, Justice BV Nagarathna reportedly made the following oral observation: “How can Government doctors, who are simultaneously discharging their official duties, compete with candidates who prepare for the NEET examination from the comfort of their homes?”
Despite these concerns, admissions continue through the common entrance examination, leaving some in-service seats unfilled after the State counselling process.
Traditionally, vacant seats reserved for Tamil Nadu’s in-service government doctors are surrendered to the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) for allotment through the All India Quota. If vacancies continue even after All India counselling, the Union Government may reduce the NEET-SS qualifying percentile, enabling more candidates from across the country to compete for the remaining seats.
Government doctors in Tamil Nadu have long opposed this practice, arguing that it reduces opportunities for doctors serving in the State’s public health system to obtain Super Speciality training.
TNMOA State General Secretary Dr M Akilan said that under the established counselling process, seats surrendered to the All India Quota that remain vacant after AIQ counselling should revert to the Tamil Nadu government.
He alleged that the Supreme Court’s latest order, following what he described as weak legal arguments advanced by the State, provides that only 50 percent of such seats would return to Tamil Nadu if the NEET-SS qualifying percentile is lowered in subsequent counselling rounds, while the remaining 50 percent would continue under the All India Quota.
Dr M Akilan argued that because the surrendered seats are located in Tamil Nadu’s government medical colleges, which attract candidates from across the country owing to their infrastructure and high patient load, most of the 151 in-service seats are likely to be filled by non-service candidates from other States once the qualifying percentile is reduced.
As a result, he claimed, Tamil Nadu would recover only a limited number of seats, largely in less sought-after specialities, reducing the number of government doctors who can undergo Super Speciality training and later serve in the State’s district hospitals and other public healthcare institutions.
The Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association (TNMOA) has sharply criticised the Tamil Nadu government’s handling of the litigation, describing the outcome as a setback for the State’s public healthcare system.
TNMOA State General Secretary Dr M Akilan said the Supreme Court’s order would have long-term implications for the availability of specialists in government hospitals.
“This is the loss of 151 future superspecialist manpower who would have otherwise strengthened public health care and provided advanced medical care to people of Tamil Nadu,” he said.
Dr M Akilan alleged that the State’s approach was marked by “negligence and lack of seriousness” from the outset.
According to him, the government conducted its second round of counselling before the completion of the second round of All India counselling and declared the in-service seats vacant.
He further alleged that the government failed to appoint a senior advocate in time during the original proceedings and engaged counsel only at the last minute. He claimed that the government’s counsel conceded before the Supreme Court that the vacant seats would be surrendered to the All India Quota, leading to the court directing their transfer.
Although the State subsequently filed an appeal against the judgment, Dr M Akilan alleged that it was “a mere formality.”
He also said the association had repeatedly urged the government to pass a special resolution in the Legislative Assembly to protect Tamil Nadu’s in-service Super Speciality seats from being transferred to the All India Quota, but no such resolution was adopted.
Also Read: Horse trading or strategy? Inside the TVK’s play for AIADMK leaders
The TNMOA and Rajya Sabha MP and Senior Advocate P Wilson, who appeared for the association before the Supreme Court, also questioned the State’s legal strategy.
The association alleged that although the Health Secretary had appointed Senior Advocates Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Prashant to appear in the matter, neither appeared before the Supreme Court during the crucial hearing. According to the TNMOA, the Bench was left searching for senior counsel to answer its questions.
The association further alleged that the government failed to rely on earlier judgments, including WP No. 196 of 2018 (TNMOA vs Union of India) and WP No. 53 of 2022, which it said recognised the State’s authority to regulate medical admissions and provide a separate admission channel for in-service government doctors.
According to the TNMOA, the government should have firmly argued that the 151 seats formed part of Tamil Nadu’s exclusive in-service quota and therefore should not have been diverted to the All India Quota.
Describing the outcome as both a legal and administrative failure, the association said it reflected a lack of commitment to protecting government doctors and safeguarding Tamil Nadu’s future public healthcare system.
Echoing these concerns, Wilson said Tamil Nadu had 219 in-service Super Speciality seats, but because the government did not reduce the qualifying percentile before counselling, 151 seats remained vacant, ultimately resulting in the Supreme Court directing that they be surrendered to the All India Quota.
He alleged that the State’s legal team failed to effectively defend Tamil Nadu’s position and did not adequately present its arguments before the Bench.
Wilson further claimed that the outcome could deny 119 Tamil Nadu government doctors the opportunity to pursue Super Speciality education and urged the State government to approach the Supreme Court again with stronger legal arguments.
Drawing a comparison with an earlier legal battle, Wilson said the DMK’s case securing 27 percent reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBC) students in the All India Quota had enabled 26,204 students to secure medical admissions. He argued that the present case similarly required a stronger legal defence to protect Tamil Nadu’s in-service Super Speciality seats.
Former Chief Minister and DMK president MK Stalin also criticised the TVK government over the issue, alleging that it had allowed Tamil Nadu’s in-service Super Speciality seats to be surrendered and questioning its conduct before the Supreme Court.
Echoing concerns raised by government doctors, Stalin asked why the senior advocates appointed by the State allegedly did not appear during the hearing, why there were delays in appointing senior counsel, and why the government failed to advance what he described as a strong legal case.
He also questioned why the State conducted its counselling before the completion of the second round of All India counselling, why it did not pass a special resolution in the Legislative Assembly opposing the transfer of the seats, and what became of the review petition filed against the Supreme Court’s earlier order.
Stalin alleged that Tamil Nadu had effectively lost 151 future government super-specialists and demanded that the TVK government explain its handling of the case to government doctors and the public.
Tamil Nadu Health Minister KG Arun Raaj rejected the TNMOA’s allegations and instead blamed the previous DMK government for routinely surrendering vacant Super Speciality seats to the All India Quota.
According to the Minister, 119 seats were surrendered in 2024 and 145 seats in 2025 under the previous administration. He alleged that after those seats were surrendered, the Union Government reduced the NEET-SS qualifying percentile and filled them through the All India Merit List, depriving Tamil Nadu government doctors of opportunities.
Arun Raaj said the present government adopted a different approach.
According to him, instead of immediately surrendering the vacant seats, the government maintained that they should be transferred only if counselling continued with the existing qualifying percentile.
Describing the Supreme Court’s latest order as a “historic” outcome for Tamil Nadu, he said the court accepted the State’s contention that if the qualifying percentile is reduced in subsequent counselling rounds, 50 percent of the remaining vacant seats must revert to Tamil Nadu’s in-service quota.
He argued that, unlike previous years, when all surrendered seats permanently became part of the All India Quota after the qualifying percentile was lowered, the latest order safeguards Tamil Nadu’s interests by ensuring that half of such seats would return to the State.
