Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

ASSOCIATION OF MANAGEMENTS OF UNAIDED PRIVATE MEDICAL & DENTAL COLLEGE & ANR. NTAL COLLEGE & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS. (INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 2) (FOR DIRECTIONS)

Citation
2016 INSC 396
Decided
9 May 2016
Disposal
Disposed off

Holding

The NEET regulation is constitutionally valid and does not infringe on state or private college rights; eligible candidates may be permitted to appear in NEET‑2, and the earlier order directing NEET for 2016‑17 stands modified accordingly.

Summary

Private unaided medical and dental colleges, along with some states, sought modification of the Supreme Court's order directing that the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) be conducted for the 2016-17 academic year. The Court examined whether the NEET regulation infringed on the constitutional rights of states or private institutions, affected minority rights or reservation, and whether candidates who missed or were unprepared for NEET‑1 could be allowed to appear in a second test (NEET‑2). Relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in Modern Dental College & Ors. v. State of M.P., the Court held that the regulation is valid, as admission standards fall within Entry 66 of List I and implementation under Entry 25 of List III, and that NEET does not impinge on minority or reservation rights. The Court directed that eligible candidates who could not appear for NEET‑1 or were apprehensive may be permitted to sit for NEET‑2, subject to surrendering their NEET‑1 candidature, and ordered the Oversight Committee to supervise the examination. All applications seeking modification of the earlier order were dismissed and the writ petitions disposed of.

Issues considered

  • Whether the NEET regulation infringes on the constitutional rights of states or private unaided medical and dental colleges.
  • Whether the NEET regulation affects minority rights or reservation provisions.
  • Whether candidates who missed or were unprepared for NEET‑1 can be allowed to appear in a subsequent NEET‑2.
  • Whether the State has legislative competence to enact the NEET regulation under Entries 66 of List I and 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule.

Legislation cited

Subjects

NEETmedical educationadmission eligibilityconstitutional lawstate legislative competenceminority rightsreservationeligibility test

Judgment

                            [2016] 3 S.C.R. 542



A    ASSOCIATION OF MANAGEMENTS OF UNAIDED PRIVATE
            MEDICAL & DENTAL COLLEGE & ANR.
                                     v.
                        UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

B                     (Interlocutory Application No. 2)
                               (For directions)
                                     Ill

                 (Transfer Case (C) No.(s).7 of2013 etc.)
                               MAY9, 2016
c
        [ANIL R. DAVE, SHIVA KIRT! SINGH AND ADARSH
                      KUMAR GOEL, JJ].
           Education/Educational Institutions - Admission for MBBSI
    BDS course - Notification dated 21.12.2010 introducing National
D   Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEETJ - For admission to MBBSIBDS
    courses - Notification struck down in Christian Medical College
    case~ However, that order recalled by order dated 11.4.2016 -
    Writ.petition No. 26112016 filed seeking direction to conduct NEET
    for the academic session 2016-17 - Assurance by the parties
    concerned that NEET would be conducted for the academic session
E
    2016-17 giving schedule for the same - Court by order dated
    28.4.2016 directed to hold the NEET as assured - Present
    applications seeking modification of the orders dated 11.4.2016
    and 28.4.2016 - Held: There is no infirmity in NEET regulation on
    the ground that it affects the rights of the States or the private
F   institutions as the same provides only for conducting entrance test
    for eligibility for admission - It is further directed that all such
    eligible candidates who could not appear in NEET-I and those who
    had appeared but have apprehension that they had not prepared
    well, be permitted to appear in NEET-Jl, subject to seeking an option
    from the candidates to give up their candidature for NEET-1 - All
G   the applications and writ petitions disposed of.
          Modern Dental College & Ors. v. State of MP. & Ors.
          2016(4) JT 476 - relied on.
          Christian Medical College, Vellore v. Union of India
H         2013 (7) SCR 908 = 2014 (2) SCC 305 - referred to.
                               542
ASSOCIATION OF MANAGEMENTS OF UNAIDED PRIVATE MEDICAL&                      543
       DENTAL COLLEGE &ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA& ORS.

                         Case Law Reference                                 A
        2013 (7) SCR 908          referred to        para 4
        2016(4) JT 476            relied on          para 7
      CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Interlocutory Application
No. 2 in Transfer Case (C) No. 7 of 2013                                     B
                                 WITH
        Interlocutory Application No. 3 in Transfer Case (C) No(s). 58 of
2013
     Interlocutory Application Nos.4-6 in Transfer Case (C) No(s).
132-134of2012
                                                                             c
     Interlocutory Application No. I 0 in Transfer Case (C) No(s). 98
of2012
        Interlocutory Application No. 2 in Transfer Case (C) No(s). 99 of
2012                                                                         D
        Writ Petition (C) No. 275 of2016
        Interlocutory Application No. I in Transfer Case (C) No(S). 11 of
2013
     Interlocutory Application Nos. 2 to 30 in Writ petition (C) No(s).      E
26lof2016
        Writ Petition (C) No. 292of2016 & Writ petition (C) No. 293 of
2016.
       Ranjit Kumar, SG, Ms. Pinky Anand, Tushar Mehta, ASGs, Vikas
Singh, Soli J. Sorabjee, P.P. Rao, V. Giri, S. Prasad, K.K. Venugopal, K.    F
Shashikiran Shetty, Gopal Subramanium, P.H. Parekh, Basava Prabhu
Patil, Jayant Bhushan, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, H.P. Raval, A.K. Ganguli,
Ravindra Srivastava,Ajit Kumar Sinha, S. Ganesh, Dr. K.P. Kylasanatha
Pillay, Huzefa Ahmadi, J.C. Gupta, Mukul Talwar, Sr. Advs. J.
Ramachandra Rao, AAG, A. Mariarputham, Madhusudan Naik, A.N.S.
Nadkarni, Vikramjeet Banerjee, A Gs, Ms. Rekha Pandey, R.K. Rathore,
                                                                             G
M.P. Gupta, R.S. Nagar, Ms. Binu Tamta, S.S. Rawat, R.R. Rajesh,
Prabal Bagchi, Akash Jindal, Rishabh Jain, (For D.S. Mahra), Ms. H.
Wahi, Gaurav Sharma, Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Prateek Bhatia, Dhawal
Mohan, Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Kapish Seth, Ms. Vara Gaur, Tara Chandra
Sharma, Ajay Sharma, Rupesh Kumar, Rajeev Sharma, Ms. Neelam                 H
544            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2016] 3 S.C.R.



A     Sharma, Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava, V. Balaji, M.S.M. Asaithambi, Atul
      Sharma, C. Kannan, Ms. Sripradha Krishnan, B. Balaji, G. Pramod
      Kumar, Vijay Kumar Paradeshi, Ms. Fara Fathima, Ramesh Babu M.R.,
      E.R. Kumar, Krishna Srinivasan, Ms. Geethi A., Abhinay, Ms. S. Lakshmi
      Iyer, (For Mis. Parekh & Co.), Mahesh Agarwal, Shashank Manish,
      Himanshu Satija, E.C. Agrawala, Prateek Chadha, Ankur Kashyap,
B
      Raghav Chadha, Zulnoor Ali Ahmad, G. Prabhakar, Ms. Prerna Singh,
      Ms. Liz Mathew, Ms. Krishna Sarma, Avijit Roy, Navnit Kumar, Ms.
      Deepika, (For Mis. Corporate Law: Group), Naveen R. Nath, Ranjit B
      Raut, Ms. Bina Gupta, P.V. Reddy, Prashant Kr. Tyagi, (For Mis. Venkat
      Palwai Law Ass.), Venkitasubramoniam T.R., Prasanth P., C. Kannan,
c     Yunus Malik, Ekansh Agarwal, Ms. Rajeeta Raj, Sanjeev Agarwal; V.G.
      Pragasam, S.P. Ramasubramanian, Seshachari, T.V. Lakshmanan, V.S.
      Lakshmi, A. Venayagam Balan, Amol Chitale, G.B. Sathe, K.P.
      Narayanan, K. Mayil Samy, Ananda Selvam, (For P. Somasundaram),
      Ms. Aruna Mathur, Yusuf Khan, Ms. Anuradha Arputham, (For Mis.
      Arputham Aruna & Co.), Ms. Anita Sahani, Purnima Bhat, Ms. Anitha
D
      Shenoy, Ms. Nishruti Vijay, S. Bhatnagar, Anshumani Srivastava, S.S.
      Rebello,Jai Dehadrai,Amogh Prabhudesai, Edward Belho, Ms. K. Enatoli
      Serna, K.L. Mechael, Amit Kumar Singh, Elix Gangmei, A. Ramesh,
      Syed Ahmad Naqvi, Ms. Shilpi Gupta, Rakesh K. Shanna, Ms.
      Shubharangini Iyengar, Ms. Sangita Chauhan, Arun Bharadwaj, Jai
E     Wadhwa, Ronak Karan Gupta, Sriram, Vishwapal Singh, Srilok Nath
      Rath, Kulbir Singh Malik, J.M. Wadhwa, Dr. Sushil Balwada, R.K.
      Kapoor, Ms. Shweta Kapoor, Ms. Kheyali Sarkar, Ms. Rekha Giri,Anis
      Ahmed Khan, A.P. Mayee, Charudatta Mahindrakar, A. Selvin Raja,
      Rauf Rahim, Raj iv Kr. Jha, P. Das, Amit Kumar, Rekha Bakshi, Avijit
      Mani Tripathi, Shaurya Sahay, Manish, Sunil Fernandes, Ms. Astha
F
      Sharma, Puneeth K.G., Ms. Mithu Jain, K.K. Trivedi, Rabin Majumdar,
      O.P. Shukla, Abdhesh Chaudhary, Alok Shukla, Ajay Choudhary, Amit
      Sharma, Amit Anand Tiwari, Sandeep R. Limbani, N.K. Mishra, Dr.
      Ajay Kumar, R.K.S. Yadav, Chimony Khaladkar, Ms. Pragya Baghel,
      G.S. Mani, A. Arockiaraj, R. Sathish, D.N. Ray, Lokesh K. Choudhary,
G     Ms. Sumita Ray, Mrinal Kanti Manda!, Parijat Sinha, Joydeep Mazumdar,
      Rohit Dutta, Ms. Reshmi Rea Sinha, Ravindra K. Adsure, V.N.
       Raghupathy, Ms. Sushma Suri, Ms. Pragati Neekhra, R. Chandrachud,
      Ms. Vaijayanthi Girish, Ms. Astha Tyagi, Mis. Lawyer's Knit & Co.,
      Nimimesh Dubey, N .R. Katneshwarkar, Prashant Bhushan, Sudhanshu
      S. Choudhari, Vikash Singh, Ram Kishor Singh Yadav, Advs for the
H
ASSOCIATION OF MANAGEMENTS OF UNAIDED PRIVATE MEDICAL&                             545
       DENTAL COLLEGE &ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA& ORS.


appearing parties.                                                                 A
       The following Order of the Court was delivered
                                ORDER
      1. These applications have been filed by the private medical
colleges and also by some of the States seeking modification of order               B
dated 28th April, 2016 in W.P.(C)No.261 of2016.
       2. The Medical Council oflndia (MCI) and the Dental Council of
India (DCI) issued notifications dated 21st December, 2010, amending
the existing statutory regulations to provide for a single National Eligibility-
cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to the MBBS/BDS course.
                                                                                    c
      3. The said notifications were struck down in Christian Medical
College, Vellore Vs. Union oflndia, 2014 (2) SCC 305.
      4. The said judgment stands recalled vide order dated 11th April,
2016 in Review Petition (C) Nos.2159-2268of2013.
      5. On 28th April, 2016, in W.P.(C)No.261/2016 a statement was                 D
made by the learned counsel for MCI, CBSE and Union oflndia that for
the academic year 2016-17, NEET would be held.
       6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
        7. In recent Constitution Bench judgment dated 2nd May, 2016,               E
in Modern Dental College & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. in Civil
Appeal No.4060 of2009 etc., the stand of the private medical colleges
(including minorities) that conducting ofentrance test by the State violated
right of autonomy of the said colleges, has been rejected. The State law
providing for conducting of entrance test was upheld, rejecting the
contention that the State had no legislative competence on the subject.             F
At the same time, it was held that the admission involved two aspects.
First, the adoption of setting up of minimum standards of education and
coordination of such standards which aspect was covered exclusively
by Entry 66 of List I. The second aspect is with regard to implementation
of the said standards which was covered by Entry 25 of List III. On the             G
said aspect, the State could also legislate. The two entries overlap to
some extent and to that extent Entry 66 of List 1 prevailed over the
subject covered by Entry 25.
      8. Prima facie, we do not find any infinnity in the NEET regulation
on the ground that it affects the rights of the States or the private
                                                                                    H
546            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                              [2016] 3 S.C.R.



A     institutions. Special provisions for reservation of any category are not
      subject matter of the NEET nor rights of minority are in any manner
      affected by NEET. NEET only provides for conducting entrance test
      for eligibility for admission to the MB BS/BOS course.
            9. We thus, do not find any merit in the applications seeking
8     modific:ation of order dated 28th April, 2016.
             I 0. Only other contention relates to perceived hardship to the
      students who have either applied for NEET-1 but could not appear or
      who appeared but could not prepare fully thinking that the preparation
      was to be only for 15% All India seats and there will be fmiheropportunity
c     to appear in other examinations. To allay any such apprehension, we
      direct that all such eligible candidates who could not appear in NEET-1
      and those who had appeared but have apprehension that they had not
      prepared well, be permitted to appear in NEET-11, subject to seeking an
      option from the said candidates to give up their candidature for NEET-1.
      It would be open to the respondents to reschedule the date of holding
D     NEET-11, if necessary. To this extent the earlier orders stand modified.
             11. We may also add here that to ensure total credibility of the
      examination to be held by the CBSE, the Oversight Committee appointed
      by this Court vi de the aforesaid judgment dated 2nd May, 2016 shal I also
      oversee the NEET-11 examination to be conducted by the CBSE.
E
            12. In view of the above, it is also clarified that onlyNEETwould
      enable students to get admission to MBBS or BOS studies.
            13. In view of the above order, all the applications and writ petitions
      seeking modification of order passed on 11th April, 2016, stand disposed
      of.
 F
             W.P.(C)26l/2016
             14. In view of the above order, W.P.(C)No.261/2016 also does
      not survive and that is also disposed of.

G
      Kalpana K. Tripathy                  Applications nnd Writ Petitions disposed of.


Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "NEET"Sign in to search

For a digitally signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's own website. Only the court can issue one.