Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(SC) 350

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, VINEET SARAN, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE ASSOCIATION - PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT(S)
TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NOs. 98,102, 104, 105, 107, 108, 99, 119, 120, 125127, 110, 111, 112, 113114, 115116, 117118, 123124, 128130, , 131, 132134, 138139, 144, 145 & 142 of 2012 and TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NOs. 2324, 5, 7, 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 3738, 59, 8, 9, 10, 1213, 16, 17, 18, 1415, 19, 20, 2122, ,25, 2829, 30, 48, 49, 3132, 3336, 39, 40, 42, 41, 43, 44, 46, 45, 47, 60, 61, 62, 6365, 6669, 7071, 72, 73, 75, 76 & 108 of 2013 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 443 OF 2016 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 750 OF 2016 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2383 OF 2020 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 28223 OF 2016) AND TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO. 25 OF 2019
Decided On : 29-04-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the parties :Gaurav Sharma, Dhawal Mohan, Prateek Bhatia, Deepeika Kalia, V. G. Pragasam, Prabu Ramasubramanian, S. Manuraj, Yashraj Singh Bundela, Praveen Vignesh, M. Yogesh Kanna, S. Raja Rajeshwaran, Karthik Rajendran, Uma Prasuna Bachu, Rohit Rathi, Sheena Taqui, Bina Gupta, Kshitij Vaibhav, K.S.T. Thambi Pillai, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Akhileshwar Jha, Miria Jasmin, Samrat Shinde, Sacihn Patil, Anil Kumar Mishra, Idrish Mohammed, Supantha Sinha, A. K. Mishra, G. N. Reddy, T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, A. P. Mayee, A. Rajarajan, Rupesh Kumar, Pankhuri Shrivastava, Rajeev Sharma, Neelam Sharma, V. N. Raghupathy, Manendra Pal Gupta, Md. Apzal Ansari, Amol Chitale, Pragya Baghel, P. V. Dinesh, Sindhu T. P., Bineesh K., Mukund P. Unny, Ashwini Kumar Singh, M/s. India Law, Mahesh Thakur, Sheffali Chaudhary, Vipasha Singh, Dr. Sushil Balwada, Ramesh Allanki, Syed Ahmad Naqvi, Savita Devi, N. V. R. S.S.S. Vara Prasad, Aruna Gupta, Ganni Krishna, R. Radha Krishna, Shilp Gupta, C.S.N. Mohan Rao, Anil Kumar Mishra-I, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Ashwarya Sinha, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Bina Gupta, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Ramesh Babu M.R., Rakesh K. Sharma, Dushyant Parashar, Lakshmi Raman Singh, Udita Singh, Vivek Singh, A. Venayagam Balan, Alok Shukla, M/s. Arputham Aruna and Co. E.R. Kumar, Krishna Srinivasan, Geeti Aara, Udayaditya Banerjee, Sudipto Sircar, Bhav Ratan, Tanya Chaudhry, Raghav Bansal, Nitika Pandey, M/s. Parekh & Co. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Amit Anand Tiwari, Shakun Sharma, K.K. Singh, Mary Mitzy, E.R. Sumathy, M/s. Lawyer’s Knit & Co, K.K. Mani, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Vipin Kumar Jai, Binu Tamta, Rekha Pandey, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Suruchii Aggarwal, M.Y. Deshmukh, Amit Kumar, Sushma Suri, T.C. Sharma, Prashant Bhushan, Vaijayanthi Girish, Pragati Neekhra, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Gaurav Sharma, V.N. Raghupathy, K.V. Vijayakumar, B. Balaji, Gopal Singh, Kaushik Poddar, R. Chandrachud, Hemantika Wahi, Rupesh Kumar, Astha Tyagi, Samrat Shinde, Sachin Patil, Farah Fathima, Mahesh Thakur, Rakesh K. Sharma, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Ramesh Babu M. R., Pragya Baghel, Dushyant Parashar, A. Venayagam Balan, Lakshmi Raman Singh, V. G. Pragasam, Alok Shukla, M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, M/S. Parekh & Co., Gaurav Sharma, Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Anil Kumar Mishra-i, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Ashwarya Sinha, Amit Kumar, Bina Gupta, Dr. Sushil Balwada, E. R. Sumathy, M/S. Lawyer S Knit & Co, K. V. Vijayakumar, K. K. Mani, G. N. Reddy, Amit Anand Tiwari, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Vipin Kumar Jai, Amit Kumar, Suruchii Aggarwal, M. Y. Deshmukh, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, M/S. Indialaw, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Vaijayanthi Girish, Pragati Neekhra, Gaurav Sharma, V. N. Raghupathy, K. V. Vijayakumar, B. Balaji, Kaushik Poddar, Gopal Singh, R. Chandrachud, T. C. Sharma, Hemantika Wahi, Rupesh Kumar, Astha Tyagi, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINTS
The provisions of the Act and regulation cannot be said to be ultra vires or taking away the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India under Article 30(1) read with Articles 19(1)(g), 14, 25, 26 and 29(1).
There is no violation of the rights of the unaided/aided minority to administer institutions under Articles 19(1)(g) and 30 read with Articles 25, 26 and 29(1) of the Constitution of India by prescribing the uniform examination of NEET for admissions in the graduate and postgraduate professional courses of medical as well as dental science.

Headnote:
(a) Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - Section 10D - Introduction of NEET - Provision introduced by Regulations of MCI and DCI, subordinate legislation - Challenged on the ground that uniform common entrance examination could not be introduced by way of subordinate legislation - Therefore MCI had no power to conduct the said examination - These lacuna plugged by introduction of section 10. (Para 17)
(b) Constitution of India - Article 30 - Right of minority under Art. 30(1) to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice - Subject to reasonable restrictions - Amended Section 10D and amended regulations cannot be said to be taking away rights of unaided minority institutions or private institutions of making admission in any manner. (Para 20, 37)
(c) Administrative law - Concept of limited Government and least interference vis-à-vis larger public and national interest - Individual autonomy, rights, and obligations cannot be interfered except on rational basis - Prescription of NEET definitely in order to improve medical education - Not violative of rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 30 - But is in furtherance of Article 51A(j). (Para 47, 48, 55)
(d) Medical education - NEET - In view of requirement of national standards and the objects sought to be achieved by NEET, conducting individual examinations by some institutions cannot be permitted. (Para 57)
(e) Constitution of India - Articles 19(1)(g) and 30 r/w Articles 25, 26 and 29(1) - These provisions do not come in the way of securing transparency and recognition of merits in the matter of admissions - It is open to regulating the course of study, qualifications for ensuring educational standards and imposing reasonable restrictions in the national and public interest. (Para 58, 59)
Facts of the case:
Initially, the matters filed in 2012-2013 were heard by a Bench of three Judges, and the matters were decided vide judgment and order dated 18.7.2013. As per the majority opinion, the petitions were allowed. The notifications issued by MCI and DCI providing for NEET were quashed. However, the admissions, which were made, were not interfered with. Review petitions were filed, which were entertained and were ultimately allowed on 11.4.2016, and judgment dated 18.7.2013 was recalled.
In Writ Petition (C) No.443 of 2016, prayer has been made to protect the rights of the petitioner institutions guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 25, 26 and 30 of the Constitution of India. In Writ Petition (C) No.750 of 2016, prayer is made to direct the respondents to conduct centralized counselling for admission to all Graduate Medical and Dental Courses throughout the country. In Transferred Case (C) No.25 of 2019, it is stated that vires of the provisions of Maharasthra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institution (Regulation of Admissions & Fees) Act, 2015, applying them to Unaided Private Minority Professional Educational Institutions are bad in law. In S.L.P. (C) No.28223 of 2016, provisions have been questioned on the ground that they cannot take away the rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(g) and 30 read with Articles 25, 26 and 29(1) of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
There is no violation of the rights of the unaided/aided minority to administer institutions under Articles 19(1)(g) and 30 read with Articles 25, 26 and 29(1) of the Constitution of India by prescribing the uniform examination of NEET for admissions in the graduate and postgraduate professional courses of medical as well as dental science. The provisions of the Act and regulation cannot be said to be ultra vires or taking away the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India under Article 30(1) read with Articles 19(1)(g), 14, 25, 26 and 29(1).
Result: All transferred cases, appeals and writ petitions disposed of.

JUDGMENT

ARUN MISHRA, J.

1. Most of the cases have a chequered history. Initially, petitioners have questioned four notifications two notifications dated 21.12.2010 issued by Medical Council of India (for short, ‘the MCI’) and other two notifications dated 31.5.2012, issued by Dental Council of India (for short, ‘the DCI’). The MCI by virtue of Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) 2010, (Part II) notified by the Government of India, amended the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997. Similarly, the other notification issued by MCI called “PostGraduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulation, 2010 (PartII)” to amend the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000. The regulations came into force on their publication in the Official Gazette. The other two notifications dated 31. 5.2012 issued by DCI were relating to admission in the BDS and MDS courses.

2. The MCI issued notifications in exercise of power conferred by Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act of 1956’). The amendments were made in the Regulation on Graduate Medical Education, 1997. The change was made in Clause 5 in Chapter II of the Regulations. Clause 5 provided for procedure for selection thus:

"6. In Chapter II, Clause 5 under the heading “Procedure for selection to MBBS Course shall be as follows” shall be substituted as under:

(i) There shall be a single eligibilitycumentrance examination, namely, ‘National EligibilitycumEntrance Test for admission to MBBS course’ in each academic year. The overall superintendence, direction, and control of the National EligibilitycumEntrance Test shall vest with the Medical Council of India. However, the Medical Council of India, with the previous approval of the Central Government, shall select organisation(s) to conduct 'National EligibilitycumEntrance Test for admission to MBBS course.

(ii) In order to be eligible for admission to MBBS course for a particular academic year, it shall be necessary for a candidate to obtain minimum of 50% (fifty percent) marks in each paper of National EligibilitycumEntrance Test held for the said academic year. However, in respect of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, and the Other Backward Classes, the minimum percentage shall be 40% (forty percent) in each paper, and in respect of candidates with locomotory disability of lower limbs, the minimum percentage marks shall be 45% (fortyfive percent) in each paper of National EligibilitycumEntrance Test:

Provided when sufficient number of candidates belonging to respective categories fail to secure minimum marks as prescribed in National EligibilitycumEntrance Test in any academic year for admission to MBBS course, the Central Government in consultation with the Medical Council of India may at its discretion lower the minimum marks required for admission to MBBS course for candidates belonging to respective categories and marks so lowered by the Central Government shall be applicable for the said year only.

(iii) The reservation of seats in medical colleges for respective categories shall be as per applicable laws prevailing in States/Union Territories. An all India merit list as well as Statewise merit list of the eligible candidates shall be prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in National EligibilitycumEntrance Test and candidates shall be admitted to MBBS course from the said lists only.

(iv) No candidate who has failed to obtain the minimum eligibility marks as prescribed in subclause (ii) above shall be admitted to MBBS course in the said academic year.

(v) All admissions to MBBS course within the respective categories shall be based solely on marks obtained in the National EligibilitycumEntrance Test.”

(emphasis supplied)

3. Similarly, amendments to the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 were made. The relevant portion of the amendments made are extracted hereunder:

“No. MCI. 18(1)/2010Med./49070. — In

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2020 Supreme(SC) 350

Cases Referred (26)