Actus curiae cannot reopen concluded medical admissions after the counselling schedule has ended

The maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit cannot be invoked to reopen a concluded postgraduate medical admission process where the applicants were not vigilant and approached the court only after the schedule had ended. The Supreme Court of India noted that the binding admission directions for the academic year had already been implemented, and further counselling or a mop-up round beyond the cut-off date would unsettle completed admissions and create uncertainty. Claims based on vacant seats, public interest, or parity with other cases could not override the governing admission regime. The challenge to refusal of additional counselling therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to a further round of counselling and filling up of vacant postgraduate medical seats after completion of the admission process, on the plea that delay caused by court proceedings attracted the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit.

Analysis: The admission process had already been completed pursuant to the binding directions governing the relevant academic year, and the appellants approached the High Court only after the process stood concluded. The maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit applies where a party suffers prejudice because of an act of the court and the court is required to undo that prejudice; it cannot be used in the absence of diligence to reopen a concluded admission process. The Court held that once the schedule had run its course, further counselling beyond the cut-off date would disturb settled admissions and create unacceptable uncertainty. The claims based on vacant seats, public interest, and parity with other cases could not override the governing admission regime.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to any further counselling or mop-up round, and the challenge to the refusal to conduct such counselling failed.

Ratio Decidendi: The maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit is available only where prejudice is caused by the court's act and cannot be invoked by a litigant who was not vigilant to reopen a concluded admission process contrary to the governing admission schedule.

---