Atharva Chaturvedi cleared NEET twice and scored 530 marks. Still, he failed to secure an MBBS seat under the Economically Weaker Sections quota. The reason was not merit. It was policy. His state had not extended the 10% EWS reservation to private medical colleges. That single omission pushed a teenager to argue his own case before the Supreme Court of India—and forced the system to listen.
Who is Atharva Chaturvedi
Atharva Chaturvedi is a 19-year-old medical aspirant from Madhya Pradesh. He comes from an EWS background and cleared the highly competitive NEET exam not once, but twice. His score of 530 placed him within reach of MBBS seats in several private colleges. Yet, counselling ended without an offer.
The problem began before counselling
The EWS quota exists on paper. The Constitution allows it. However, implementation depends on state governments. In Atharva’s case, the state applied EWS reservation only to government medical colleges. It left private unaided colleges outside the policy framework. As a result, private colleges did not create EWS seats at all.
Merit could not help him. Affordability could not bridge the gap. Management quota fees were beyond reach. The door closed because the rule never opened it.
Why the EWS quota failed on the ground
The failure did not stem from confusion. It stemmed from delay and avoidance. The law empowers states to extend EWS reservation to private colleges, but it does not force automatic execution. States must notify rules, define seat matrices, and integrate them into counselling schedules. That did not happen.
Private colleges followed what was officially notified. Courts, too, hesitated to interfere once counselling rounds concluded. In this vacuum, qualified students like Atharva slipped through the cracks.
A rare moment inside the courtroom
When Atharva reached the Supreme Court, he did something unusual. He asked for ten minutes to speak. He argued his own case. He explained how a missing policy had cost him an academic year despite merit and eligibility.
The court recognised the human cost. It also recognised its own limits. Judges cannot rewrite state policy overnight. Still, to prevent irreversible harm, the court exercised its extraordinary powers and granted provisional relief.
What the Supreme Court clarified
The court drew a sharp line. It acknowledged that the EWS reservation has constitutional backing. At the same time, it held that private colleges cannot be compelled without a clear state policy. The responsibility lies squarely with the state government.
The relief granted was specific to Atharva’s case. It was not a blanket order. Yet, the message was unmistakable. Rights mean little without rules. Delays carry consequences.
Why this case matters beyond one student
Atharva’s case reflects a national pattern. Every year, thousands of EWS students clear NEET with competitive scores. Many depend on private colleges because government seats are limited. When states delay notifications, these students lose time, money, and hope.
The case exposes a silent inequality. A reservation exists in theory. Access fails in practice. The burden shifts to students, who must then fight the state to claim what policy already promises.
What must states do now?
First, states must issue clear notifications on EWS reservation in private medical colleges well before counselling begins. Second, they must publish transparent seat matrices so students know where they stand. Third, regulators must align timelines so that no policy change arrives mid-admission.
These steps require administration, not litigation.
The human cost of inaction
Atharva did not ask for special treatment. He asked for the application of an existing promise. He studied, qualified, waited, and then learned the law because the system failed him. Most students cannot do that. Many simply move on, carrying a quiet loss.
Atharva Chaturvedi’s story is not just about one MBBS seat. It is about how governance gaps turn constitutional rights into empty words. Courts can step in once. They cannot fix a system permanently. That responsibility belongs to states. Until they act, merit alone will never be enough.
