NEET: The story so far (Timeline edition)

In just over three weeks, the CBSE will conduct Phase II of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test or NEET, as is popularly known. It has been a long tumultuous journey for the country’s medical entrance test, one which started more half a decade ago..On December 21, 2010 the NEET was first notified by the Medical Council of India. Through two MCI notifications, amendments were made to the “Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997” and “Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000”..These notifications were landmark in more ways than one way- they introduced a single window entrance for admission to MBBS courses – NEET. In 2012, the Dental Council of India followed suit and issued similar notification for Dental courses..However, in the years that followed, these notifications would ignite a legal battle which would bring the Supreme Court of India under immense public and media scrutiny..Here is a comprehensive timeline of NEET..The origin.December 21, 2010: Two notifications were issued by the Medical Council of India. Notification No. MCI-31(1)/2010-MED/49068 described as “Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) 2010, (Part II)” amended 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)” amends the “Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000”..The most significant amendment, which was the subject matter of challenge in was clause 5 in Chapter II of the 1997 Regulations governing the graduate medical education. The relevant excerpts form the Amendment Notification reads as follows:.“6. In Chapter II, Clause 5 under the heading “Procedure for selection to MBBS Course shall be as follows” shall be substituted as under:-. There shall be a single eligibility cum entrance examination namely ‘National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for admission to MBBS course’ in each academic year. The overall superintendence, direction and control of National Eligibility- cum-Entrance Test shall vest with Medical Council of India. However, Medical Council of India with the previous approval of the Central Government shall select organization/s to conduct ‘National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for admission to MBBS course.”.A similar amendment was made in Post Graduate Medical Educations Rules, 2000 as well, bringing the admissions to post graduate medical course under NEET..May 31, 2012: The Dental Council of India follows suit and publishes similar notifications bringing the BDS and MDS courses under the ambit of NEET..The challenge.A number of minority institutions, including the Christian Medical College Vellore, challenged the notifications as unconstitutional. Represented by senior counsel including Harish Salve, Rajiv Dhawan, K Parasaran, KK Venugopal, and R Venkataramani, their contention was that the amendments “stifled and stultified” the fundamental rights of minority unaided institutions, more specifically, with the right to administer and maintain educational 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. With lawyers such as Nidhesh Gupta, the regulatory council 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..The judgment.July 18, 2013 – 10.30 AM: The 3-judge Bench presided by then Chief Justice of India, Altamas Kabir and comprising Justices Anil R Dave and Vikramajit Sen pronounced its judgment. The judgment was not unanimous – Chief Justice Kabir wrote the majority opinion scrapping NEET and Justice Vikramajit Sen concurred with this majority opinion..Justice Anil R Dave, however, dissented and held in favour of NEET and against private medical colleges..Majority judgment.In the majority judgment, running up to 175 pages, the Court placed extensive reliance on the TMA Pai Foundations’ case and held that,.“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, in our view, 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………The Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to administer an educational institution would also include the right to admit students, which right, in our view, could not be taken away on the basis of Notifications issued by the MCI and the DCI which had no authority, either under the 1956 Act or the 1948 Act, to do so. 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……”.Relying on various precedents, the Court went on to lay down that right to administer an educational institution includes the right to conduct its admissions:.“What can ultimately be culled out from the various observations made in the decisions on this issue, commencing from the Kerala Education Bill case (supra) to recent times, is that 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”..With regard to the contention that the right of the MCI emanated from Entry 66 List I, the Court held the following:.“As already indicated hereinbefore, 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”..Dissenting voice: Justice Anil R Dave.Justice Anil R Dave dissented from the majority view and held as follows:.“If the NEET is conducted under the supervision of the apex professional body, it would inspire confidence in the system and in that event, the selection of the students for admission to the medical profession would be on merit based selection. No extraneous consideration would come into play in the process of selection…….I may add here that 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”..He also observed that the cost of appearing at the NEET would be much less as the aspiring students will not have to purchase several expensive admission forms and will not have to travel to different places. Dave relied on the case of Preeti Srivastava & Anr. v. State of MP & Ors. [(1999) 7 SCC 120], and held that the MCI has power to regulate medical education and the DCI has the power to regulate the education in the field of Dentistry..8.30 AM – the same day: Article on Bar & Bench brings Chief Justice Altamas Kabir under scanner.Unknown to Justice Kabir and company, a huge storm was brewing; and no story about NEET would be complete without that story!.At 8.30 AM, Bar & Bench had published an article penned by advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan. The article, which was an analysis of Justice Kabir’s performance as the Chief Justice, however went a bit further. It ended on a daring note by predicting (correctly, as it turned out two hours later) the outcome of the NEET case..“In a little while, on his last day in office, the Chief Justice’s court will deliver the much awaited judgment concerning the validity of the national medical entrance test to be conducted by the Medical Council of India. For the better part of the last week, senior counsel and junior advocates alike have without compunction shared a story that the appeals by the private colleges will be allowed with a declaration that the MCI has no jurisdiction, and that Justice Dave will dissent from this view. The judgment, it is confidently touted, runs into more than 190 pages and in excess of 300 paragraphs. It is my fervent hope that this tale is false – a figment of some perverse and destructive mind. In a few hours, we will know the truth.”.Unfortunately, Sankaranarayanan’s hope for the rumours to be “a figment of some perverse and destructive mind” were dashed. Chief Justice Altamas Kabir was now in the line of fire..Justice Kabir goes on the defensive.It was Justice Kabir’s last day in office but not the kind of send-off that he would have liked to have. The news of the article would have reached Kabir’s ears after the pronouncement of judgment, for he had words of caution for the media at his farewell function organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association. He said that the media should confirm the veracity of any news before publishing it lest the image of judiciary be tarnished..Subsequently, in a television interview to Karan Thapar, Justice Kabir said he had no knowledge that the NEET judgment was leaked..“I wouldn’t know because I didn’t know it was leaked. I had no knowledge whatsoever”, said Justice Kabir on air..However, these attempts hardly helped as even judges had earlier alleged bias by Justice Kabir while heading the Collegium. The damage, it would appear, was done..The Review.August 5, 2013: Despite a decision by a 3-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, the litigation was far from over. NGO Sankalp approached the Supreme Court with a review petition..Sankalp, represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan, argued that the NEET judgment did not consider the apex court’s own decision in Preeti Srivastava, and P Inamdar which 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..January 21, 2016: Three years after notice was issued, the matter came up for final hearing. A 3-judge Bench after hearing the parties felt that the matter should be heard by a larger Bench..The Court therefore, directed the Registry to place the cases pertaining to NEET before the Chief Justice of India so that an appropriate Bench can be constituted to hear the matter..March 17, 2016: Hearing commenced before a Constitution Bench presided by Justice Anil R Dave, the same judge who had dissented in 2013 against the majority opinion and batted for NEET. The other judges on the Bench were Justices AK Sikri, RK Agarwal, AK Goel and R Banumathi..April 7, 2016: The Court reserved its judgment in the review petitions..2013 judgment recalled.April 11, 2016: 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 in 2013..Hence, the review petition was allowed and the court “recalled” the 2013 judgment. However, it also directed that the matter should be “heard afresh”. The judgment was, however, not clear about what would happen in the interim. This led to confusion and further litigation which is discussed below..The confusion begins.The timing of the judgment was the first factor that left the stakeholders in a lurch. It was pronounced just a few months before most of the medical entrance exams were scheduled. Most States had already made elaborate preparations for conducting their entrance exams. Students had also prepared in anticipation of State entrance tests; they had understandably not even contemplated a NEETand understandably so..But with the Supreme Court “recalling” the 2013 judgment, the question was whether the impugned notifications of the MCI and DCI would spring back to life? In ordinary course, it would but there was nothing in the judgment that expressly stated so. Furthermore, the fact that the matter would be reheard meant that the Court had not given a final decision on the Constitutionality of NEET..So would NEET revive despite absence of an express direction to that effect? Or would the fact that Constitutionality of NEET will be reheard meant that there would be no NEET till the matter is decided..This would become clear only with a PIL filed in the Supreme Court by the very NGO that was, and is, at the heart of the controversy: Sankalp Charitable Trust..NGO Sankalp Charitable Trust demands NEET for 2016.April 27, 2016: NGO Sankalp Charitable Trust preferred not to wait and watch. It filed a public interest litigation seeking direction that NEET be held starting this academic year for admissions to medical and dental colleges..When the matter was mentioned before a Bench comprising Justices Anil R Dave, Shiva Kirti Singh and AK Goel, the court took the case on board. Counsel for CBSE and MCI, who were also present for the hearing, said that they are “ready and willing” to conduct NEET for the academic year 2016-17. They sought time to take further instructions in the matter..NEET in two phases.April 28, 2016: CBSE proposed conducting NEET in two phases. The AIPMT exam which scheduled for May 1 would be considered as phase 1 of NEET. Those Students who had not applied for AIPMT would be allowed to sit for the second phase of NEET which would be held on July 24..The issue of whether NEET has been restored or not was raised by Senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan. He strongly objected to holding the exam this year, arguing that the April 11 order of the Supreme Court only recalled the earlier judgment but not overruled it..“Does ‘recall’ mean overruled? No. The 3-judge Bench judgment has been recalled for hearing by Constitution Bench. It does not mean NEET is restored, submitted Dhavan..The Court categorically answered this submission holding against the colleges..“We do not agree with the first submission for the reason that the said judgment has already been recalled on 11th April, 2016 and therefore, the Notifications dated 21st December, 2010 are in operation as on today.”.The Supreme Court, therefore, accepted the schedule presented by CBSE and directed that NEET be held starting this academic year..Once again, it appeared that the matter had been put to rest. But it was not.April 29, 2016: After the Court agreed to the proposal by CBSE to hold NEET in two phases, discontented students took to online and other media alleging unequal treatment. A majority of the discontented students were those who had applied for AIPMT (the entrance exam for AIIMS) for the experience of writing the entrance test but were, in fact, focusing on the concerned State medical entrance exam..The State entrance exams are based on the syllabus of the concerned State and are considered to be easier..With the Supreme Court order of April 28, such students had no choice but to give the AIPMT exam which now became phase 1 of NEET. Those students who did not apply for AIPMT would get to sit for phase 2 of NEET which would be held on July 24 – nearly 3 months more time to prepare..This anomaly was pointed out by Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi on April 29. Rohatgi also pointed out the fact that the first phase of the exam, which is the AIPMT, will be held only in 2 languages – English and Hindi..He said that this might inconvenience students who are not proficient in English, and from non-Hindi States. He also made a suggestion that the State exams should not be scrapped. The Court, however, refused to give a hearing..Phase 1 “went smoothly”, CBSE to Supreme Court.May 3, 2016: Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand appeared for CBSE and told the court that phase 1 of NEET “went smoothly” and around 6.5 lakh students sat for the exam..Meanwhile, various private medical colleges and State governments had approached the Supreme Court contending that NEET should not be held this year. Various State governments which had already held their State exams or had made all arrangements for the same argued that the status quo should not be tinkered with for this academic year. A battery of Senior Advocate appeared for State governments and private colleges..Finally: Phase 1 candidates can appear for phase 2; Lodha J. Panel to oversee .May 9, 2016: Putting to rest the confusion surrounding NEET, Supreme Court.held that candidates who had appeared for phase I of the exam will be allowed to appear for phase II. However, this would be subject to them giving up candidature of phase I..In other words, if a candidate who had sat for phase I sits for phase II, the score/rank secured in the phase II exam alone would be considered for his admission..Further, the Committee comprising former Chief Justice RM Lodha, which was earlier appointed to supervise the functioning of MCI was tasked to oversee phase-II of NEET..This decision of Supreme Court found acceptance among most candidates but the matter was not over yet..An Ordinance.There was still discontent amongst both, students and the State governments due to scrapping of the State exams. There were speculation that the Central government getting would overturn the Supreme Court order by way of ordinance; initially the Centre denied this possibility..Ultimately, the rumours proved to be true as President Pranab Mukherjee signed an ordinance on May 24 exempting State government colleges and government seats in private colleges from the ambit of NEET..This was, however, subject to a State choosing to exercise that option. This ordinance has been challenged before the Supreme Court though an early hearing was refused by the vacation Bench..What now.Phase II of NEET will be held on July 24. Candidates who appeared for phase I of NEET are also entitled to sit for phase II..However as far as undergraduate course is concerned, State owned Medical and dental colleges, and government seats in private colleges will be governed by the State entrance exams if a State government so decides. All other seats would be filled up through NEET..Seven states – Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, Rajasthan, Chandigarh and Odisha – will accept the NEET score from this year itself. Five states, Gujarat, Karnataka, Tripura, Maharashtra and Kerala have already conducted their medical entrance tests and will not opt for NEET this year. In these 5 States, NEET would apply only for admission to non-government seats..The petition challenging the ordinance issued by Centre exempting State medical colleges is likely to be heard on July 4 by the Supreme Court..Clarity on the NEET, and the future of the country’s doctors, remains to be achieved. And the matter at the very centre, that of the Constitutionality of the NEET itself, is yet to be fully heard..Image courtesy:.Medical Council of India.NEET Protests