Supreme Court scraps NEET; Says MCI lacks jurisdiction over admissions to medical courses; Justice Dave dissents

The Supreme Court yesterday quashed the notifications issued by Medical Council of India (MCI) and Dental Council of India (DCI) prescribing a National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) for admission into graduate and post graduate courses in medicine..Chief Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice Vikramajit Sen delivered the majority opinion and allowed the petitions filed by private medical colleges while Justice Anil R Dave gave a dissenting judgment..The notifications issued by the MCI and the DCI were challenged by private medical colleges on the grounds that the MCI and the DCI had no authority under the Medical Council of India Act, 1956 to regulate the admission process into medical colleges run by State, private individuals and religious and linguistic minorities. They also, inter alia, contended that the said notification impinged their constitutional rights under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 30..In the majority judgment which runs 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”..The Court, however, ruled that all the admissions which already took place through NEET will be valid for all purposes..Justice Anil R Dave, however, 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..Senior Advocates Harish Salve, Rajiv Dhawan, K. Parasaran, K.K. Venugopal, and R. Venkataramani appeared for various private institutions while Additional Solicitor General Siddharth Luthra represented the Union of India and Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta represented the MCI..Justice Altamas Kabir, who delivered the majority judgement, retired from office yesterday. In his farewell speech he said that he was leaving with a sense of fulfilment and also cautioned the media to be careful while publishing news, lest the image of the judiciary be tarnished..You can read the full judgment below.