#Debriefed: Everything you need to know about the NEET judgment

Yesterday, Justice Anil Dave presided over a 5-judge bench that allowed a review of the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India over the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET)..This 2013 judgment, which set aside the NEET, directly impacted the future 50,000 doctors that the country churns out every year. Or rather, it directly impacted the 370 medical colleges that produce these graduates..Here, we look at eight salient aspects of the NEET judgment..1. What was the NEET judgment all about?.The entire NEET controversy rests on four notifications issued by the Medical Council of India (MCI) and the Dental Council of India (DCI)..The notifications, issued in December 2010 and May 2012, amended the following:.Regulations on Graduate Medical Education of 1997.Post Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulation, 2010.In essence, these notifications meant that admissions for MBBS and BDS, and their respective post-graduate courses, would be through the NEET. This examination would be supervised by the MCI..2. Who filed the petition? .A number of minority institutions, including the Christian Medical College Vellore, who argued that these amendments “stifled and stultified” the fundamental rights of minority unaided institutions, more specifically, with the right to administer and maintain these institutions..Reliance was placed on PA Inamdar, where it was held no state interference would be allowed if a private institution’s examination system was “fair, transparent and non-exploitative”.Conversely, the MCI argued that it was vested with the powers to conduct entrance examinations. It was also argued that the NEET benefited students, as it did away with the “malpractices” of “profiteering and capitation fees” which had struck at the “core of the admission process”..Lastly, it was claimed that the NEET would attract the most meritorious students and hence act in the interest of minority institutions..3. What did the court hold?.On July 18, 2013, by a majority of 2:1, the Supreme Court Court set aside the notifications issued by the MCI and the DCI..The court, in a judgment authored by then Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir and Justice Vikaramajit Sen, held that the MCI was not vested with any power to conduct entrance examinations..The MCI also could not mandate NEET for admission to the medical colleges and institutions of the country. The court also held that there was no evidence to “even suggest” that institutions were guilty of any malpractices or that they failed the triple test of PA Inamdar..Ultimately, it was the majority view that admissions are “part and parcel” of an educational institutions right to administer, and cannot be regulated upon..4. What was the dissenting opinion?.Delivered by Justice Anil Dave, the dissenting judgment’s second paragraph itself observes the “lack of discussion” between the judges, while also noting the paucity of time given Justice Kabir’s impending retirement (he retired on July 18)..Speaking out in favour of the NEET, Dave J. held that the NEET would do away with any “extraneous consideration” that may come into play during the selection process. He also said that the NEET would have “credibility in the eyes of the students and society”..As for the argument that the NEET would interfere with the right of administration, Justice Dave reasoned that the NEET would not prevent States and minority institutions from following their own reservation policies..Lastly, the judge held that the power of regulation granted to the MCI and the DCI included the right to regulate the admission process..5. Who filed the review?.On August 12 that very year, NGO Sankalp approached the Supreme Court with a review petition. Sankalp, represented by Prashant Bhushan, argued that the NEET judgment did not consider the apex court’s own decision in Preeti Srivastava, and P Inamdar. The latter was a seven-judge bench decision..The review also rested on Justice Dave’s minority judgment to argue that the NEET did not violate the fundamental rights of minority institutions..On October 23 that year, a three-judge Bench issued notice in Sankalp’s review petition. Subsequently, it was brought to the court’s notice that a connected matter (Civil Appeal 4060 of 2009) had been referred to a five-judge Bench..This particular Civil Appeal involved Modern Dental College and the state of Madhya Pradesh. More specifically, the question that arose for consideration was the limit of State interference in the fees and admission to private unaided professional colleges in Madhya Pradesh..On January 21, the review petition was heard by a five-judge Bench, with notice ordered to be served through substituted service..Since February this year, the five-judge Bench has commenced hearing in this matter. The five judges are Anil Dave, AK Sikri, RK Agarwal, AK Goel, and R Banumathi JJ..6. What was the reasoning adopted in the review?.Allowing the review, the apex court held that the majority view in the 2013 judgment did not consider the previous decisions of the apex court..The court also held that that there was “no discussion” between the judges before the judgment was announced, a sentiment that was also expressed in Dave J.’s dissenting opinion..Hence, the review petition was allowed, with directions that the matter be “heard afresh”..7. Who are the lawyers involved?.Yesterday, the lawyers who appeared for the Medical Council of India were Dhawal Mohan, Prateek Bhatia, Deepika Kalia and Gaurav Sharma. The respondents saw a host of counsel appear, including ASG Pinky Anand..In the 2013 matter, a host of senior counsel found mention, including the likes of Harish Salve, L Nageswar Rao, Rajeev Dhawan, Siddharth Luthra, and Nidesh Gupta..8. Now what?.This is where things are unclear. The review judgment simply states that the review has been allowed and that the matter shall be “heard afresh”. It does not mention when this shall happen. Nor is it clear whether the judgment in the connected matter, which was reserved in March, will have any bearing on the NEET matter..As and when this matter is heard afresh though, you can rest assured that many a constitutional argument shall be made, and rebutted. It is now onto Round 2 of the NEET battle.