IMPORTANT POINT
Admissions to educational institutions have been held to be part and parcel of the right of an educational institution to administer and the same cannot be regulated, except for the purpose of laying down standards for maintaining the excellence of education being provided in such institutions.

Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950-Article 19(1)(g), 25, 26, 29(1) and 30- Subordinate legislation, such as the right to frame Regulations, flowing from a power given under a statute, cannot have an overriding effect over the fundamental rights- Although, Article 19(6) of the Constitution recognizes and permits reasonable restrictions on the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g), the course of action adopted by the MCI and the DCI would not, qualify as a reasonable restriction, but would amount to interference with the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) and, more particularly, Article 30, which is not subject to any restriction similar to Article 19(6) of the Constitution. (Para 157)
        (Minority View Per Anil R. Dave J.)
        Constitution of India, 1950-Article 19(1)(g), 25, 26, 29(1) and 30-Article 19(6) of the Constitution permits the State to enact any law imposing reasonable restrictions on the rights conferred by Article 19(1)(g) in relation to the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession- Enactments of the Act and the Dentists Act, 1948, including Regulations made thereunder, which regulate the professional studies cannot be said to be violative of the Constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution(Para 20 of the Minority view per Anil R. Dave J.)
        Constitution of India, 1950-Article 30 - Right of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice- Right to administer an educational institution would also include the right to admit students- Under Article 30 of the Constitution an educational institution must be deemed to have the right to reject a candidate having superior marks as against a candidate who having lesser marks conformed to the beliefs, aspirations and needs of the institution for which it was established. (Para 150)
        (Minority View Per Anil R. Dave J.)
       Constitution of India, 1950-Article 30 - Though the students can be selected only on the basis of their merit, it would be open to the States to follow their reservation policy and it would also be open to the institutions based on religious or linguistic minority to select students of their choice, provided the students so selected have secured minimum marks prescribed at the NEET-From and among those students, who have secured prescribed qualifying marks, the concerned institutions, who want to give priority to the students belonging to a particular class or caste or creed or religion or region, etc. would be in a position to give preference to such students in the matter of their admission to the concerned medical college- Thus, the purpose with which the Articles 25, 26, 29, and 30 are incorporated in our Constitution would be fully respected and implemented.(Para 10 of the Minority view per Anil R. Dave J.)
        (Minority View Per Anil R. Dave J.) From the deserving eligible students, who have procured qualifying marks at the NEET and who belong to the reserved classes would be given preference so as to fulfill the policy with regard to reservation. Thus, the students belonging to the reserved classes would also not suffer on account of holding the NEET(Para 13 of the Minority view per Anil R. Dave J.)
        (Minority View Per Anil R. Dave J.) Constitution of India,1950-Articles 25, 26, 29 and 30 -None of the rights guaranteed under the aforestated Articles would be violated by permitting the NEET- It is always open to the petitioners to select a student subject to his being qualified by passing the examination conducted by the highest professional body- This is to assure that the students who are to undergo the professional training are suitable for the same- Regulations relating to admission of the students i.e. admitting eligible, deserving and bright students would ultimately bring reputation to the educational institutes(Para 21 of the Minority view per Anil R. Dave J.)
        Constitution of India, 1950-Schedule VII, Entry 66, List I- The right of the MCI to frame Regulations under Entry 66, List I, does not take us anywhere, since the freedoms and rights sought to be enforced by the Petitioners flow from Articles 19(1)(g), 25, 26, 29(1) and 30 of the Constitution which cannot be superseded by Regulations framed by a Statutory authority by way of delegated legislation. (Para 147)
        Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - Section 19A - Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) 2010, (Part II) dated 21st December, 2010 published by the Medical Council of India - Notification No. MCI-31(1)/2010-MED/49068- Post-graduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulation, 2010 (Part II) dated 21st December, 2010 published by the Medical Council of India - Notification No.MCI.18(1)/ 2010-MED/49070- Dentists Act, 1948- Section 20- Notifications bearing No. DE- 22-2012 dated 31.5.2012, relating to admission in the BDS and MDS courses published by the Dental Council of India- One National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET)- The direction contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 19A of the 1956 Act makes it a pre-condition for the Regulations and all subsequent amendments to be submitted to the Central Government for sanction- The Council is required to take into consideration the comments of any State Government within three months from the furnishing of copies of the draft Regulations and/or subsequent amendments thereto- The submission of the draft Regulations and all subsequent amendments thereto cannot be said to be directory, since upon furnishing of the draft Regulations and all subsequent amendments thereto by the Council to all the State Governments, the Council has to take into consideration the comments, if any, received from any State Government in respect thereof, before submitting the same to the Central Government for sanction. (Para 137)
        (Minority View Per Anil R. Dave J.) Though the students can be selected only on the basis of their merit, it would be open to the States to follow their reservation policy and it would also be open to the institutions based on religious or linguistic minority to select students of their choice, provided the students so selected have secured minimum marks prescribed at the NEET- From and among those students, who have secured prescribed qualifying marks, the concerned institutions, who want to give priority to the students belonging to a particular class or caste or creed or religion or region, etc. would be in a position to give preference to such students in the matter of their admission to the concerned medical college- Thus, the purpose with which the Articles 25, 26, 29, and 30 are incorporated in our Constitution would be fully respected and implemented.(Para 10 of the Minority view per Anil R. Dave J.)
        (Minority View Per Anil R. Dave J.) The MCI and the DCI are competent to exercise their right to regulate the education system under the provisions of the Act and under the provisions of the Dentists Act, 1948, which permit them to determine the standard of students who are to be admitted to these professional courses.(Para 15 of the Minority view per Anil R. Dave J.)
        Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - Section 19A - Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) 2010, (Part II) dated 21st December, 2010 published by the Medical Council of India - Notification No. MCI-31(1)/2010-MED/49068- Post-graduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulation, 2010 (Part II) dated 21st December, 2010 published by the Medical Council of India - Notification No.MCI.18(1)/ 2010-MED/49070- Dentists Act, 1948- Section 20- Notifications bearing No. DE- 22-2012 dated 31.5.2012, relating to admission in the BDS and MDS courses published by the Dental Council of India- One National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET)- The MCI and the DCI are creatures of Statute, having been constituted under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and the Dentists Act, 1948, and have, therefore, to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them by the Statutes and they cannot wander beyond the same-The right of the MCI and the DCI to prescribe such standards has been duly recognised by the Courts- However, such right cannot be extended to controlling all admissions to the M.B.B.S., the B.D.S. and the Post-graduate Courses being run by different medical institutions in the country- The MCI and the DCI had no authority, either under the 1956 Act or the 1948 Act, to do so. (Para 143, 151)
        (Minority View Per Anil R. Dave J.) The students would be benefited because they will not have to appear at different places on different days at different examinations for the same purpose. (Para 11 of the Minority view per Anil R. Dave J.)
        Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - Section 19A - Affairs of aided institutions - A certain degree of control may be exercised in regard to aided institutions, where on account of the funds being provided by the Government, it may have a say in the affairs of such institutions. (Para 143)
        Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - Section 19A - Admissions in private institutions- So long as a private institution satisfies the triple test indicated in P.A. Inamdar’s case, no objection can be taken to the procedure followed by it over the years in the matter of admission of students into its M.B.B.S. and Post-graduate courses in medicine and other disciplines. (Para 149)
        Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - Section 19A -Impact of the NEET on the right of the religious and linguistic minorities- In the case of aided minority institutions, it has been held that the authority giving aid has the right to insist upon the admission of a certain percentage of students not belonging to the minority community, so as to maintain the balance of Article 19(2) and Article 30(1) of the Constitution. Even with regard to unaided minority institutions, the view is that while the majority of students to be admitted should be from the minority community concerned, a certain percentage of students from other communities should also be admitted to maintain the secular character of education in the country in what has been described as a "sprinkling effect". (Para 157)
        (Minority View Per Anil R. Dave J.) The policy with regard to the reservation can be very well implemented if the NEET is introduced because the NEET would determine standard or eligibility of a student who is to be imparted education in the field of medicine- The institution imparting medical education will have to see that the student to be admitted is having minimum standard of suitability and the institution will be at a liberty to select a student of its choice if it wants to promote a particular class of persons-By admitting suitable and deserving students having an aptitude for becoming doctors, the religious institutions would be in a position to have better doctors for fulfilling their objective. (Para 12 of the Minority view per Anil R. Dave J.)
        Indian Medical Council Act, 1956- Section 33(l)-Right to conduct examinations - Section 33(l) entitles the MCI to make regulations regarding the conduct of professional examinations, the same, does not empower the MCI to actually hold the entrance examination, as has been purported to be done by the holding of the NEET- The power to frame regulations for the conduct of professional examinations is a far cry from actually holding the examinations and the two cannot be equated. (Para 146)
       Facts of the case:
        The four impugned Notifications dated 21.12.2010 and 31.5.2012 provides that all admissions to the M.B.B.S. and the B.D.S. courses and their respective Post-graduate courses, shall have to be made solely on the basis of the results of the respective NEET, thereby preventing the States and their authorities and privately-run institutions from conducting any separate examination for admitting students to the courses run by them.
       Findings of the Court :
        The right to admit students in the different educational and medical institutions is an integral part of the right to administer and cannot be interfered with except in cases of maladministration or lack of transparency. The freedom and rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(g), 25, 26 and 30 of the Constitution to all citizens to practise any trade or profession and to religious minorities to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of Part III of the Constitution, and further to maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes as guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, read with the rights guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution, are also well-established by various pronouncements of this Court. Over and above the aforesaid freedoms and rights is the right of citizens having a distinct language, script or culture of their own, to conserve the same under Article 29(1) of the Constitution.
       Result :
        The Transferred Cases and the Writ Petitions allowed.
        Notifications quashed.

JUDGMENT

ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.

1. Four notifications, two dated 21.12.2010 and the other two dated 31.5.2012, issued by the Medical Council of India and the Dental Council of India, are the subject matter of challenge in all these matters which have been heard together by us. Notification No. MCI-31(1)/2010-MED/49068 described as "Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) 2010, (Part II)" has been published by the Medical Council of India to amend the "Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997". Notification No.MCI.18(1)/2010-MED/49070 described as "Post-graduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulation, 2010 (Part II)" has been issued by the said Council to amend the "Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000". Both the Regulations came into force simultaneously on their publication in the Official Gazette. The third and fourth Notifications both bearing No. DE- 22-2012 dated 31.5.2012, relating to admission in the BDS and MDS courses published by the Dental Council of India, are similar to the notifications published by the MCI.

2. The four aforesaid Notifications have been challenged on several grounds. The major areas of challenge to the aforesaid Notifications are:

(i) The powers of the Medical Council of India and the Dental Council of India to regulate the process of admissions into medical colleges and institutions run by the State Governments, private individuals (aided and unaided), educational institutions run by religious and linguistic minorities, in the guise of laying down minimum standards of medical education, as provided for in Section 19A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and under Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.

(ii) Whether the introduction of one National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) offends the fundamental right guaranteed to any citizen under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business?

(iii) Whether NEET violates the rights of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice, as guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution?

(iv) Whether subordinate legislation, such as the right to frame Regulations, flowing from a power given under a statute, can have an overriding effect over the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25, 26, 29(1) and 30 of the Constitution?

(v) Whether the exclusion of Entry 11 from the State List and the introduction of Entry 25 in the Concurrent List by the Constitution Forty Second (Amendment) Act, 1976, makes any difference as far as the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India under Section 33 of the 1956 Act and those framed by the Dental Council of India under Section 20 of the Dentists Act, 1948, are concerned, and whether such Regulations would have primacy over State legislation on the same subject?

(vi) Whether the aforesaid questions have been adequately answered in T.M.A. Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka [(2002) 8 SCC 481], and in the subsequent decisions in Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka [(2003) 6 SCC 697], P.A. Inamdar Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 6 SCC 537] and Indian Medical Association Vs. Union of India [(2011) 7 SCC 179]? and

(vii) Whether the views expressed by the Constitution Bench comprised of Five Judges in Dr. Preeti Srivastava Vs. State of M.P. [(1999) 7 SCC 120] have any impact on the issues raised in this batch of matters?

3. In order to appreciate the challenge thrown to the four notifications, it is necessary to understand the functions and duties of the Medical Council of India under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and the Dental Council of India constituted under the Dentists Act, 1948. The submissions advanced in regard to the MBBS and Post-graduate courses will apply to the BDS and MDS courses also.

4. The Indian Medical Council Act, 1933, was replaced by the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, hereinafter referred

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 Supreme(SC) 657

Cases Referred (47)

Related Judgments

Plastikos Packaging VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad

SYSTEMS MANUFACTURING LTD VS SYSTEMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 665

JOGENDRA SINGH VS SURESH MANJULAPUR - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 662

MYSORE WINE PRODUCTS AND ALLIED CO. LTD. , BANGALORE VS PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 663

Bose VS State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Salaikiramam P. S. , - 2000 Supreme(Mad) 1273

Jain Construction Company VS State of Rajasthan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 912

Voltas Limited VS Joint Collector, Medak - 2000 Supreme(AP) 945

STATE OF BIHAR VS SURENDRA SINGH RAUTELA ALIAS BENGALI - 2000 Supreme(Jhk) 45

Krishna Kumar VS Gulab Khan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 1546

KARSANBHAI DAHYABHAI PARMAR VS DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE - 2000 Supreme(Guj) 1009