#NEET: Domicile rules to remain, as Bombay High Court refuses to interfere [Read Order]

In a huge relief to students with Maharashtra domicile, the Bombay High Court’s Chief Justice Manjula Chellur and MS Sonak J refused to interfere in the rules brought under Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Fees) Act in August this year..“At least prima facie, we are unable to accept the petitioners’ contention that the impugned rules impose any unreasonable restrictions.”.The above was stated in the order with reference to the arguement made by the petitioners that the domicile criteria brought under the rules framed in August 2016 was a case of ‘wholeslae reservation on basis of domicile’ and these rules impose ‘unreasonable restrictions’..This decision would mean that private medical colleges would not be able to conduct a separate admission process. In other words, the Centralised Admission Process, which includes the domicile rule, will be the only admission process to be followed this year. The bench also rejected the arguments of the minority institutions that these rules (domicile) were not applicable to them..Students from outside the state now only have the option of the 15% seats that were made available after the state government had amended its rules in September this year to include them in the ‘institutional quota’ which was only meant for NRI students earlier..Senior Counsel Vineet Naik, appearing for an association of private medical colleges, had argued that such colleges have a right to conduct their own admission process under the NEET..State’s argument.Dismissing the arguments made by the petitioners, Acting AG Rohit Deo had said,.“We are accountable to the students of Maharashtra not the petitioners. They are giving the impression that this 15% [quota] available for outside students is their right but the truth is that it is a shackle put on the state by the apex court on the state’s right to provide such restrictions!”.The bench has observed in the order that since the petitioner’s are questioning a legislative exercise (rules), they are required to make out their case and.“It is not sufficient to merely raise some arguable point and on the said basis seek a stay upon a legislation or implementation of legislation.”.Read the order below.