MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court recently dismissed the petition of a 27-year-old student who couldn’t complete his Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) in nine years as per the course’s rules. While the student claimed that he had taken gap years since he could not pay the fees, the court held that extending the time limit for the course would make the rules of the course meaningless.
The student, Ashish Shyamkumar Nair, had begun studying the dental surgery course at the YMT Dental College, Kharghar in 2016. As per the Dental Council of India Regulations, in nine years a student is expected to complete the course’s 16 semesters and an internship, but the college records showed that Nair had appeared only for 13 semester exams in that period.
As per the council’s rules, Nair was then discharged from the course, and earlier in 2025 he approached the high court asking to appear for the exams of the remaining three semesters. Nair told the court that he failed to sit for those three exams because the financial burden of a close relative’s illness had left him unable to pay his college fees. He urged the court to permit him to attend the remaining exams, saying that if he is not allowed to do so “his entire career will be jeopardised as he would be denied his degree”.
Nair further cited his constitutional rights, and his representatives told the court that every student has the right to education, a right which must be upheld in this case. Nair added that the years that he could not pay for the fees should be excluded from the nine-year limit for the course.
However, the Dental Council of India argued that as per rules under the Dental Council of India Regulations, 2007, “any student who does not clear the BDS course in all subjects within a period of nine years, including the one-year compulsory paid internship shall be discharged from the course”.
The division bench of justices Ravindra Ghuge and Ashwin Bhobe rejected the petitioner’s claim that his missed years should be excluded from the nine-year timeframe given to dental surgery students. Citing a similar case at the Nagpur bench, the court held, “If the ground that the Petitioner could not pay fees in some years and, therefore, took a gap during those years is accepted, the prescription of the Dental Council of India Regulations, 2007 would virtually be rendered nugatory (of no value).”
The bench added that there was no evidence that the nine-month rule was arbitrary or irrational. “Nodal bodies consist of wise members, who have trained minds and expertise in their subjects and are competent to make policy decisions. If it has been decided that the nine-year period would be sufficient for passing the course, we do not find it arbitrary”, the court said.