IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Talwant Singh, JJ.
Priyanshu Undaviya - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 451 of 2022, CM Appls. 1274 of 2022 and 10133 of 2022
Decided On : 25-02-2022
ORDER
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
CM APPL. 10133/2022
1. This is an application filed on behalf of the petitioners for taking additional documents on record.
2. The prayer made in the application is allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 451/2022 and CM APPL. 1274/2022[Application filed on behalf of the petitioners for interim relief]
3. This matter has been received on transfer from Division Bench-I today.
4. Our attention has been drawn by the counsel for the petitioners to the order of the Supreme Court dated 17.02.2022, passed in Special Leave Petition No.1709/2022.
4.1. We are informed by Mr Animesh Kumar, who appears on behalf of the petitioners, that notice in the writ petition as well as interlocutory application i.e., CM Appl. 1274/2022 was issued on 10.01.2022.
4.2. A perusal of the order dated 10.01.2022 shows that on that date, notice was accepted on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 4. It is in this context that a direction was issued, via the very same order, to issue notice to respondent nos.5 and 6, which was made returnable on 30.03.2022. However, the office report generated by the Registry shows that notices could not issue, as although process fee was filed, the same has been returned under objection.
5. Be that as it may, Mr Animesh says that, although in the writ petition a challenge has been laid to Section 14 of the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020 (hereafter referred to as "2020 Ayurveda Act") and Section 141 of the National Commission for Homeopathy Act, 2020 (hereafter referred to as the "2020 Homeopathy Act"), however, having regard to the urgency in the matter, for the moment, counsel for the petitioner seeks to press only the interlocutory application. Furthermore, at this juncture, interim order is sought by the petitioners confined to admission in the Homeopathy stream.
6. Mr Animesh says that the petitioners., to obtain admission in the Homeopathy stream, are required to qualify the National Eligibility-cum- Entrance Test (in short 'NEET'). It is not in dispute that this requirement applies to the other allied streams such as Ayurveda, Unani, Siddha and Sowa Rigpa Systems as well, apart from the Homeopathy stream [hereafter collectively referred to as "alternate medicine stream"]
6.1. Besides this, it is necessary to qualify the NEET examination for candidates who wish to enter the Modern Medicine stream
7. The grievance of the petitioners, thus, to put it broadly lies in this periphery.
7.1. According to the petitioners, they should not be subjected to NEET examination, as the Modern Medicine stream is, in many ways, i.e., in course and content different to alternate medicine stream. It is emphasised that since modes of treatment are, markedly, different, the course content is decidedly not the same.
7.2. Apart from anything else, Mr Animesh contends that with the enactment of the 2020 Ayurveda Act and the 2020 Homeopathy Act, the earlier Acts i.e., the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (hereafter referred to as "1970 Ayurveda Act") and the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 (hereafter referred to as "1973 Homeopathy Act") have been repealed.
7.3. It is also Mr Animesh's contention that the Homoeopathy (Degree Course) Amendment Regulations, 2018 2 (hereafter referred to as "2018 Homeopathy Regulations"), framed under the erstwhile Act, which, in turn, brought about the amendment in the Homeopathy (Degree Course) Regulations, 1983, do not, presently, survive despite the savings provision incorporated in the 2020 Homeopathy Act i.e., Section 59(2)3 of the 2020 Homeopathy Act. [The said amendment was enacted via notification dated 14.12.2018.]
7.3(a) This assertion has been made by Mr Animesh, based on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dated 31.08.2021, passed in W.P.(C) No.100650/2021, titled The Karnataka Private Homeopathic Medical Colleges Management Association and Ors. vs. Union
The court emphasized that any educational regulations for admissions, such as NEET, must comply with statutory procedures, failing which they are rendered unenforceable.
Admission regulations for homeopathy postgraduate courses must comply with statutory procedures; deviations are not permissible, especially post cut-off date.
Court mandates the reduction of NEET qualifying percentile for admissions to address vacant seats in medical colleges.
The necessity of NEET UG-2019 qualification for admission to BUMS/BAMS/BHMS Courses for the academic session 2019-20 as per the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 and the Regulations of 2018.
Section 55(2)(m) of 2020 Act does not authorize Central Government to give advisory/instructions to National Testing Agency.
Merely because interim orders have been passed which were adinterim exparte orders without the benefit of the arguments of the other side on the basis of the replies filed and the pleadings, such int....
The UOI cannot impose NEET qualifications for AYUSH admissions without legislative backing, as executive actions cannot override statutory regulations.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.