NEET ordinance: Validity doubtful, no stay but expedited hearing

The Supreme Court today refused to stay the ordinance on the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET), by which state governments were allowed to conduct exams for admission to government medical colleges and government seats in private medical colleges..A Bench comprising Justices Anil R Dave, Shiva Kirti Singh and AK Goel observed that the validity of the ordinance appears to be doubtful prima facie and expedited the hearing in the petitions challenging the ordinance..Senior Advocate Amarendra Sharan appeared for NGO Sankalp Charitable Trust, while Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi represented the Central government..The Supreme Court on May 9 had ordered that entrance to medical courses will be through NEET starting this year. Subsequently, the Central government had by way of ordinance allowed state governments to opt out of NEET (with respect to government seats). Sixteen States had exercised this option and stayed out of NEET..Subsequently, NGO Sankalp Charitable Trust and activist Dr. Anand Rai had filed PILs in Supreme Court challenging the ordinance..When the matter came up for hearing today, Amarendra Sharan submitted that the Centre should not be allowed to defeat the order of the court. He submitted that if there is a judgment [by the court], then the basis of the same can be altered. But circumventing an order of the court is like exercising appellate power over the Supreme court’s order and staying the same, and it should not be permitted..“This is like exercising appellate power over this court’s order. This is like an ad-interim stay. This would mean that the government can delay the implementation of any order of the court..Basis of a judgment can be removed [by the legislature], I agree. But when the court has passed an order, no authority can stay the same”, said Sharan..Sharan submitted that there could be practical difficulties but the same are not grave and can be resolved..Attorney General Mukul Rohtagi submitted that the court’s order is not a judgment but merely a direction to implement a subordinate legislation..“When this court recalled its 2013 judgment, NEET came back. This court in its May 9 order only said – ‘follow NEET’. There is no judgment by this court. The court merely directed [us] to apply the notification [of MCI]. The notification is a subordinate legislation which is subject to plenary legislation. If I want, I can abolish NEET”, Rohatgi submitted..Rohatgi also made it clear that the ordinance was passed so that States can opt out of NEET [with respect to government seats] if it wishes to. He said that the same was done keeping in mind the interests of lakhs of students who had prepared for State entrance exams and taking into account other practical difficulties..Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for students from Goa, submitted that he is not challenging the ordinance but seeking an interpretation of the same..The Bench after hearing the parties observed that the act of the centre was “not in good taste”. It then recorded in its order that that validity of ordinance is open to doubt. It, however, refused to stay the ordinance but instead issued notice to the Centre and expedited the hearing.