Supreme Court of India
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORSversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2013 INSC 482
- Decided
- 18 July 2013
- Disposal
- Case Allowed
- Bench
- ALTAMAS KABIR
Holding
The NEET notifications and the amended regulations are ultra vires the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the Dentists Act, 1948 and the Constitution, and are therefore invalid.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined four notifications issued by the Medical Council of India (MCI) and the Dental Council of India (DCI) that introduced a single National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to MBBS, BDS and postgraduate medical courses. Petitioners, including Christian Medical College Vellore and other minority institutions, argued that the notifications infringed Articles 19(1)(g), 25, 26, 29(1) and 30 of the Constitution by stripping them of the right to admit students according to their own procedures. The Court held that the MCI and DCI lacked statutory authority to conduct a nationwide entrance test and that the regulations were ultra vires the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the Dentists Act, 1948 and the Constitution. Consequently, the notifications were quashed, but admissions already made under them were left undisturbed. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that the right to administer an educational institution includes the right to admit students, subject only to reasonable standards and not to wholesale regulation by the State.
Issues considered
- The statutory power of the MCI and DCI to prescribe and conduct a common entrance test (NEET) for medical and dental admissions.
- Whether the NEET regulations violate fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g), 25, 26, 29(1) and 30 of the Constitution.
- The requirement under Section 19A(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 to consult State governments before amending regulations.
- The interplay between Union List Entry 66 and Concurrent List Entry 25 concerning regulation of medical education.
- The effect of Presidential Orders under Article 371D on State legislation concerning medical admissions.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Art.19(1)(g), s. Art.19(6), s. Art.25, s. Art.254, s. Art.26, s. Art.29(1), s. Art.30, s. Art.371D
- Dentists Act, 1948s. 20
- Indian Medical Council Act, 1956s. 10A, s. 19A, s. 1OA, s. 33
- University Grants Commission Act, 1956s. Sec.3 (definition of deemed university)
Subjects
NEETMedical Council of IndiaDental Council of IndiaAdmission regulationsConstitutional lawArticle 19(1)(g)Article 30Minority institutionsDelegated legislationUltra viresFederalismEducational standards
Judgment
[2013] 7 S C.R. 908
A CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS
V.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(T.C. (C) No. 98 of 2012 etc.)
JULY 18, 2013.
B
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI, ANIL R. DAVE AND
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.]
EDUCATION/EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS:
c
Medical and Dental education - Admission to MBBS,
Post-Graduate Medical Courses, BOS and MOS courses -
National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) introduced by
Notification No. MCl-31 (1)12010-MED/49068 dated
D 21.12.2010 described as "Regulations on Graduate Medical
Education (Amendment) 2010, (Part //)" amending
Regulations on Graduate Medical Education 1997,
Notification No. MCI. 18(1 )1201 O-MED/49070 dated
21.12.2010 described as "Post-graduate Medical Education
E (Amendment) Regulation, 2010 (Part//)" amending the Post-
Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 and two
similar Notifications both bearing No. DE-22-2012 and dated
31.5.2012, as regards BOS and MOS courses - Held (per
majority) (Anil R. Dave, J. dissenting): The Notifications and
the 2010 (Amendment) Regulations whereby MCI introducing
F the single National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test and the
corresponding amendments in the Dentists Act, 1948 are ultra
vires the provisions of Arts. 19(1)(g), 25, 26(a), 29(1) and 30(1)
of the Constitution, since they have the effect of denuding the
States, State-run Universities and all medical colleges and
G institutions, including those enjoying the protection of these
constitutional provisions, from admitting students to their
M.B.B.S., B.D.S. and Post-graduate courses, according to
their own procedures, beliefs and dispensations, which is an
H 908
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v. 909
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
integral facet of the right to administer - MCI or DC/ has no A
authority under the relevant Acts to take away the right of
educational institutions to admit students - MCI is not
empowered under 1956 Act to conduct NEET - Regulations
cannot prevail over the constitutional guarantees under Arts.
19(1)(g), 25, 26, 29(1) and 30 of the Constitution -- Further, B
standard of education all over the country being not the same,
and there being need of such doctors who may not be
specialists, but are available as general physicians to treat
the large number of people who live in the villages in difficult
conditions, single entrance examination would not be apt -- C
Impugned Notifications are quashed - This will not, however,
invalidate actions so far taken under the amended
Regulations, including the admissions already given on the
basis of the NEET conducted by MCI, DC/ and other private
medical institutions, and the same shall be valid for all
purposes - Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - s. 33 read with D
ss. 19 and 20 - Dentists Act, 1948 - s. 20 - Constitution of
India, Arts. 19(1)(g), 25, 26(a), 29(1) and 30(1) - Seventh
Schedule, List /, Entry 66 - List Ill, Entry 25.
CONSTITUTION OF /NOIA, 1950: E
Arts. 19(1)(g), 25, 26 and 30 - National Eligibility-cum-
Entrance Test (NEET) for Medical and Dental courses - Held:
(Per majority) (Ani/ R. Dave, J. dissenting): The course of
action adopted by the MCI and the DC/ would not qualify as F
a reasonable restriction, but would amount to interference with
the rights guaranteed under Art. 19(1 )(g) and, more
particularly, Art.30, which is not subject to any restriction
similar to Art. 19(6) of the Constitution - Admissions to
educational institutions have been held to be part and parcel G
of their right to administer and the same cannot be regulated,
except for the purpose of laying down standards for
maintaining excellence of education being provided in such
institutions.
H
910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 7 S.C.R.
A IND/AN MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT, 1956:
s.19-A(2) - Furnishing of copies of regulations and
amendments by MCI to States - Held: (Per majority) (Anil R.
Dave, J. dissenting): Submission of draft amended
Regulations to State Governments for their views is a pre-
8
condition and cannot be said to be directory, since MCI has
to take into consideration the comments, if any, received from
any State Government in respect thereof, before submitting
the same to Central Government for sanction.
C ADMINISTRATIVE LAW:
Delegated Legislation/Subordinate legislation - MCI and
DC/ introducing NEET by amending the relevant Regulations,
for admission to medical and dental courses - Held:(Per
0 majority) (Anil R. Dave, J. dissenting): Freedoms and rights
flowing from Arts. 19(1)(g), 25, 26, 29(1) and 30 of the
Constitution cannot be superseded by Regulations framed by
a statutory authority by way of delegated legislation - The fact
that such power was exercised by MCI and DC/ with previous
E approval of Central Government, as contemplated uls 33 of
1956 Act and uls 20 of the 1948 Act, would not bestow upon
the Regulations framed by MCI and DC/, which are in the
nature of subordinate legislation, primacy over the
Constitutional provisions.
F WORDS AND PHRASES:
Expression 'regulate' - Connotation of - Explained.
The Medical Council of India (MCI) introduced single
eligibility-cum-entrance examination, namely, National
G Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for MBBS course
and Post Medical Courses by Notification No. MCl-31(1)/
2010-MED/49068 dated 21.12.2010 described as
"Regulations on Graduate Medical Education
(Amendment) 2010, (Part II)" amending the "Regulations
H
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS v.911
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
on Graduate Medical Education, 1997", and Notification A
No.MCl.18(1 )/201 O-MED/49070 dated 21.12.2010 described
as "Post-graduate Medical Education (Amendment)
Regulation, 2010 (Part II)" amending the "Post Graduate
Medical Education Regulations, 2000". Two similar
Notifications both bearing No. DE-22~2012 and dated B
31.5.2012 were published by the Dental Council of India
(DCI) as regards BOS and MOS courses. All the four
notifications were challenged in writ petitions before the
High Courts. The said writ petitions were transferred to
the Supreme Court and such transferred cases were c
heard and decided along with the writ petitions filed
before it.
Allowing the transferred cases and writ petitions, the
Court
D
HELD: (per Altamas Kabir, CJI for himself and for
Vikramajit Sen, J.):
1.1 The impugned Notifications dated 21.12.2010 and
31.5.2012 and the amended Regulations directly affect the E
right of private institutions to admit students of their
choice by conducting their own entrance examinations,
as they have been doing all along. [para 134] [1004-B]
1.2 The direction contained in sub-s. (2) of s.19A of
the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (the 1956 Act) makes F
it a pre-condition for the Regulations and all subsequent
amendments to be submitted to the Central Government
for sanction. The MCI is required to take into
consideration the comments of any State Government
within three months from furnishing of copies of draft G
Regulations and/or subsequent amendments thereto.
There is nothing to show that the MCI ever sent the draft
amended Regulations to the different State Governments.
for their views. Submission of the draft Regulations and
H
912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 7 S.C.R.
A all subsequent amendments thereto cannot be said to be
directory, since upon furnishing of the draft Regulations
and all subsequent amendments thereto to all the State
Governments, the MCI has to take into consideration the
comments, if any, received from any State Government
B in respect thereof, before submitting the same to the
Central Government for sanction. In the instant case, it
is not a case of consultation, but a case of inputs being
provided by the State Governments in regard to the
Regulations to be framed by the MCI or the DCI. An
C invalid provision cannot be validated simply by acting on
the basis thereof. [para 136-138] [1005-E-H; 1006-A-D]
State of U.P. Vs. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava (1958) SCR
533- distinguished.
D 1.3 The four Notifications dated 21.12.2010 and
31.5.2012 make it clear that all admissions to the M.B.B.S.
and the 8.0.S. courses and the respective Post-graduate
courses, shall have to be made solely on the basis of the
results of the respective NEET, thereby preventing the
E States and their authorities and privately-run institutions
from conducting any separate examination for admitting
students to the courses run by them. Although, Art. 19(6)
of the Constitution recognizes and permits reasonable
restrictions on the right guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(g),
F the course of action adopted by the MCI and the DCI
would not qualify as a reasonable restriction, but would
amount to interference with the rights guaranteed under
Art. 19(1)(g) and, more particularly, Art.30, which is not
subject to any restriction similar to Art. 19(6) of the
G Constitution. [para 141] [1007-A-C]
1.4 By purporting to take measures to maintain high
educational standards to prevent maladministration, the
MCI and the DCI cannot resort to the amended
Regulations to circumvent the judicial pronouncements
H
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. 913
v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
in this regard. The Supreme Court has consistently held A
that the right to administer an educational institution
would also include the right to admit students, which
right 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, B
to do so. [para 142-143) [1007-G-H; 1008-A-B]
St. Stephen's College Vs. University of Delhi 1991 (3)
Suppl. SCR 121 = (1992) 1 SCC 558; Islamic Academy of
Education Vs. State of Karnataka 2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 474
= (2003) 6 SCC 697; T. Varghese George Vs. Kora K. C
George 2011 (12) SCR 1070 = (2012) 1 SCC 369; and
T. M.A. Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka 2002 ( 3)
=
Suppl. SCR 587 (2002) 8 sec 481 - relied on.
1.5 From the various observations made in the o
decisions on this issue, commencing from the Kerala
Education Bill case* to recent times, it is evident 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 E
regulated, except for the purpose of laying down
stan.dards for maintaining the excellence of education
being provided in such institutions. In the case of aided
institutions, jt..has been held that the State and other
authorities may direct a certain percentage of students F
to be: admitted- other than by the method adopted by the
institution. However, in cases of unaided institutions, the
position is that except for laying down standards for
maintaining the excellence of education, the right to admit
students into the different courses could not be interfered
with. In the case of aided minority institutions, it has been G
held that the authority giving aid has the right to insist
upon the admission of a certain percentage of students
not belonging to the minority community, so as to
maintain the balance of Art. 19(2) and Art. 30(1) of the
Constitution. Even with regard to unaided minority H
914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 7 S.C.R.
A institutions, the view is that while the majority of students
to be admitted should be from the minority community
concerned, a certain percentage of students from other
communities should also be admitted to maintain the
sec~lar character of education in the country in what has
B been described as a "sprinkling effect". [para 157] [1016-
E-H; 1017-A-C]
*Kera/a Education Bill (1959) S.C.R. 995; D.A. V. College
Vs. State of Punjab (1971) 2 SCC 269; and Ahmedabad St.
Xavier's College Society Vs. State of Gujarat 1975 (1) SCR
c 173 = (1974) 1 sec 717 - referred to.
1.6 The MCI and the DCI are creatures of statutes,
having been constituted under the 1956 Act, and the
Dentists Act, 1948 (the 1948 Act), and have, therefore, to
D exercise the jurisdiction vested in them by the statutes
and they cannot wander beyond the same. Under s. 33
of the 1956 Act and s.20 of the 1948 Act, power has been
reserved to the two Councils to frame Regulations to
carry out the purposes of their respective Acts; and
E pursuant to such power the MCI and the DCI have framed
the Regulations of 1997, 2000 and 2007, which set the
standards for maintaining excellence of medical
education in India. The right of the MCI and the DCI to
prescribe such standards has been duly recognised by
F the Courts. However, such right cannot be extended to
controlling all admissions to M.B.B.S., B.D.S. and Post-
graduate courses being run· by different medical
institutions in the country. At best, a certain degree of
control may be exercised in regard to aided institutions,
where on account of the funds being provided by the
G Government, it may have a say in the affairs of such
institutions. [para 143] [1008-B-F]
1.7 The rights of private individuals to establish and
administer educational institutions under Art. 19(1)(g) of
H the Constitution are now well-established. The right to
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS, v. 915
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
admit students in the different educational and medical A
institutions is an integral part of the right to administer
and cannot be interfered with except in cases of
maladministration or lack of transparency. The impugned
Regulations, which are in the nature of delegated
legislation, will have to make way for the Constitutional B
provisions. [para 145] [1009-8-E]
1.8 The freedom and rights guaranteed under Arts.
19(1 )(g), 25, 26 and 30 of the Constitution to all citizens to
practise any trade or profession and to religious minorities
to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, C
practise and propagate religion, subject, to public order,
morality and health and to the other provisions of Part Ill
of the Constitution, and further to maintain institutions for
religious and charitable purposes as guaranteed under
Arts. 25 and 26, read with the rights guaranteed under Art. D
30, are also well-established by various pronouncements
of this Court. Over and above these freedoms and rights
is the right of citizens having a distinct language, script
or culture of their own, to conserve the same under Art.
29(1). [para 145] [1009-E-G] E
1.9 Section 33(1) of the 1956 Act does not empower
the MCI to hold the entrance examination, as has been
purported to be done by the holding of the NEET. The
power to frame regulations for the conduct of
professional examinations is different from holding the F
examinations and the two cannot be equated. Nowhere
in the 1956 Act nor in the Regulations, has the MCI been
vested with any authority to either conduct examinations
or to direct that all admissions into different medical
colleges and institutions in India would have to be on the G
basis of one common National Eligibility-cum-Entrance
Test, thereby effectively taking away the right of the
different medical colleges and institutions, including
those run by religious and linguistic minorities, to make
admissions on the basis of their own rules and H
916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A procedures. The role attributed to and the powers
conferred on the MCI and the DCI under the provisions
of the 1956 and the 1948Act, do not contemplate anything
different and are restricted to laying down standards
which are uniformly applicable to all medical colleges and
· B institutions in India to ensure the excellence of medical
education in India. The role assigned to the MCI u/ss 10A
and 19A (1) of the 1956 Act vindicates such a conclusion.
This Court holds that the MCI is not empowered under
the 1956 Act to conduct the NEET. [para 146, 161 and 162)
C [1010-A-D; 1020-A-C)
1.10 The right of the MCI to frame Regulations under
Entry 66, List I of the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution is of no avail, since the freedoms and rights
sought to be enforced by the petitioners flow from Arts.
D 19(1)(g), 25, 26, 29(1) and 30 which cannot be superseded
by Regulations framed by a statutory authority by way of
delegated legislation. The fact that such power was
exercised by the MCI and the DCI with the previous
approval of the Central Government, as contemplated u/
E s 33 of the 1956 Act and u/s 20 of the 1948 Act, would not
bestow upon the Regulations framed by the MCI and DCI,
which are in the nature of subordinate legislation, primacy
over the Constitutional provisions. [para 147] [1010-F-H;
1011-A]
F 1.11 There is no material on record to even suggest
that the linguistic minority institutions and other privately-
run institutions, aided and unaided, have indulged in any
malpractice in matters of admission of students or that
they had failed the triple test referred to in P.A. lnamdar's
G case. [para 148) [1011-D-E]
P.A. lnamdar vs. State of Maharashtra 2005 (2) Suppl.
=
SCR 603 (2005) 6 sec 537 - relied on.
1.12 Art. 26(a) indicates that subject to public order,
H
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v. 917
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
morality and health, every religious denomination or any A
section thereof shall have the right to establish and
maintain institutions for religious and charitable
purposes. The emphasis is not on religious purposes
alone, but extends to charitable purposes also, which
would include the running of a hospital to provide low- B
cost, but efficient medical care to all, which private
missionary hospitals of different denominations are
doing. So long as a private institution satisfies the triple
test indicated in P.A. lnamdar's case, no objection can be
taken to the procedure followed by it over the years in c
the matter of admission of students into its M.B.B.S. and
Post-graduate courses in medicine and other disciplines.
[para 149] [1011-H; 1012-A-C]
1.13 The concept of "Rag Bag" legislation would not
apply, since the amendments to the Regulations of 1997, D
2000 and 2007 were effected under Entry 66, List I of the
Seventh Schedule and no recourse was taken to Entry
25 of the Concurrent List by the MCI and DCI while
amending the said Regulations. [para 158] [1017-C-D]
E
2. As regards the impact of the Presidential Orders
made under Art. 371 D of the Constitution of India, special
enactments have been made in the States of Andhra
Pradesh and Tamil Nadu regarding admission of students
in the different medical colleges and institutions being run F
in the said States. The said legislation are under Entry 25
of List Ill of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Art.
371-D of the Constitution empowers the President to make
special provisions with respect to the State of Andhra
Pradesh, including making orders with regard to G
admission in educational institutions. Accordingly, the
enactments made in the States of Andhra Pradesh and
Tamil Nadu will remain unaffected by the impugned
Regulations. [para 159] [1017-E-H; 1018-B]
3.1 Apart from the legal aspects, the practical aspect H
918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A of holding a single National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test
needs to be considered. The standard of education all
over the country is not the same. Each State has its own
system and pattern of education, including the medium
of instruction. Children in the metropolitan areas enjoy
B greater privileges than their counter-parts in most of the
rural areas as far as education is concerned, and the
decision of the Central Government to support a single
entrance examination would perpetuate such divide in
the name of giving credit to merit. Given the large number
C of people who live in the villages in difficult conditions,
the country today has more need of such doctors who
may riot be specialists, but are available as general
physicians to treat those in need of medical care and
treatment in the far flung areas of the country, which is
the essence of what was possibly envisaged by the
D framers of the Constitution in including Art. 30 in Part Ill
of the Constitution. [para 160] [1018-D-H; 1019~A-B]
3.2 The "Regulations on Graduate Medical Education
(Amendment) 2010 (Part II)" and the "Post Graduate
E Medical Education (Amendment) Regulation, 2010 (Part
II)", whereby the MCI introduced the single National
Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test and the corresponding
amendments in the Dentists Act, 1948, are ultra vires the
provisions of Arts. 19(1 )(g), 25, 26(a), 29(1) and 30(1) of
F the Constitution, since they have the effect of denuding
the States, State-run Universities and all medical colleges
and institutions, including those enjoying the protection
of the above provisions, from admitting students to their
M.B.B.S., 8.0.S. and Post-graduate courses, according to
G their own procedures, beliefs and dispensations, which
has been found by this Court in the T.M.A. Pai Foundation
case, to be an integral facet of the right to administer. The
impugned Notifications Nos. MCl-31(1)/2010-MED/49068,
and MCl.18(1)/2010-MED/49070, both dated 21.12.2010,
H published by the Medical Council of India along with
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS v. 919
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Notification Nos. DE-22-2012 dated 31.5. 2012, published A
by the Dental Council of India and the amended
Regulations sought to be implemented thereunder are
quashed. This will not, however, invalidate actions so far
taken under the amended Regulations, including the
admissions already given on the basis of the NEET B
conducted by the Medical Council of India, the Dental
Council of India and other private medical institutions,
and the same shall be valid for all purposes. (para 161
and 163] (1019-F-H; 1020-D-F]
Indian Medical Association Vs. Union of India 2011 (6 )
c
SCR 599 = (2011) 7 SCC 179; Dr. Preeti Srivastava Vs. State
of M.P. 1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 249 = (1999) 7 sec 120;
Commr. H.R.E. Vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri
Shirur Mutt 1954 SCR 1005; Unni Krishnan Vs. State of U.P.
(1993) 1 SCC 645; Ratilal Panachand Gandhi Vs. The State D
of Bombay & Others 1954 SCR 1055; State of A.P. Vs. Lavu
Narendranath (1971) 1 SCC 607; Indian Express
=
Newspapers Vs. Union of India 1985 (2) SCR 287 (1985)
1 SCC 641; Deep Chand Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Others (1959) Suppl. 2 SCR 8; State of Orissa Vs. M.A. E
Tulloch & Co. (1964) 4 SCR 461; Ujagar Prints etc. Vs. Union
of India 1988 (3) Suppl. SCR 770 = (1989) 3 SCC 488;
lshwari Khetan Vs. State of U.P. 1980 (3) SCR 331 = (1980)
4 SCC 136; Pradeep Jain Vs. Union of India 1984 (3) SCR
942 = (1984) 3 SCC 654; Society for Unaided Private F
Schools of Rajasthan Vs. Union of India 2012 (2) SCR 715
= (2012) 6 SCC 1; Rajan Purohit Vs. Rajasthan University
of Health Sciences 2012 (11 ) SCR 299 = (2012) 10 SCC
770; State of M.P. Vs. Nivedita Jain 1982 (1) SCR 759 =
(1981) 4 SCC 296; Ajay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar G
(1994) 4 SCC 401; State of Karnataka Vs. H. Ganesh
Karnath 1983 (2) SCR 665 = (1983) 2 SCC 402; St. John's
Teachers Training Institute Vs. Regional Director, National
Council for Teacher Education 2003 (1) SCR 975 = (2003) 3
920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A SCC 321; Om Prakash Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (2) SCR 900
= (2004) 3 SCC 402; State of Karnataka Vs. Dr. T.M.A. Pai
Foundation & Ors. (2003) 6 SCC 790; Dr. Dinesh Kumar Vs.
Motilal Nehru Medical Colleges, Allahabad & Ors. (1985) 3
SCC 727; Jagdish Sharan & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
B 1980 (2) SCR 831 = (1980) 2 SCC 768; MCI Vs. State of
Karnataka 1998 (3) SCR 740 = (1998) 6 SCC 131; Bharati
Vidyapeeth (Deemed University) and Ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Anr. 2004 (2) SCR 775 = (2004) 11 SCC 755;
Prof. Yashpal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 2005 (2) SCR 23 =
c (2005) 5 SCC 420; State of M.P. Vs. Gopal D. Teerthani 2003
(1) Suppl. SCR 797 = (2003) 7 SCC 83; Harish Verma Vs.
Rajesh Srivastava 2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 833 = (2003) 8 SCC
69; and Medical Council of India Vs. Rama Medical College
Hospital & Research Centre 2012 (6) SCR 449 = (2012) 8
D SCC 80; Gujarat University, Ahemadabad Vs. Krishna
Ranganath Mudholkar (1963) Supp. 1 SCR 112;
Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia Vs. Union of India 1970 (1)
SCR 479 =(1969) 2 SCC 166; ITC Vs. Agricultural Produce
Market Committee 2002 (1) SCR 441 = (2002) 9 SCC 232;
and Banarasi Dass Vs. WTO 1965(2) SCR 355; State of
E Punjab Vs. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. 2003 (5) Suppl.
SCR 930= (2004) 11 sec 26; Annamalai University Vs.
Information & Tourism Department 2009 (3 ) SeR 355 =
(2009) 4 SCC 590; U.P. Power Corporation Vs. NTPC Ltd.
2009 (3 ) SeR 1060 = (2009) 6 sec 235; Veterinary Council
F of India Vs. Indian Council of Agricultural Research 2000 (1)
SCR 43 = (2000) 1 SCC 750; State of Kera/a Vs. Very Rev.
Mother Provincial 1971 (1) SCR 734 = (1970) 2 SCC 417;
Sri Sri Sri Lakshmana Yatendru/u Vs. State of A.P. 1996 (1)
SCR 929 = (1996) 8 sec 705; Govt. of A.P. Vs. Mohd.
G Ghouse Mohinuddin 2001 (2) Suppl. SCR 180 = (2001) 8
SCC 416; V. Jaganadha Rao Vs. State of A.P. 2001 (5)
Suppl. SCR 179 = (2001) 10 SCC 401; and NTR University
of Health Sciences Vs. G. Babu Rajendra Prasad 2003 (2)
SCR 781 = (2003) 5 SCC 350; State of M.P. Vs. Gopa/ D.
H " Tirthani 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 797 = (2003) 7 SCC 83 - cited.
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. 921
v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Per Anil R. Dave, J. (Dissenting) A
1.1 The MCI has power to regulate medical education
and similarly the DCI has also the power to regulate the
education in the field of Dentistry. Sections 19A and 20
of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (the Act) permit 8
the MCI to prescribe the minimum standards of medical
education. Section 33 of the Act also empowers the MCI
to make regulations to carry out the purposes of the Act.
Thus, the said provisions enable the MCI to regulate the
system of medical education throughout the country.
Meaning of the word 'to regulate' would also include C
controlling entry of undeserving or weak students into
the profession, who cannot be groomed in normal
circumstances as good doctors or dentists. The term
'regulate' would normally mean to control something by
means of rules or by exercise of control over a system. D
It is an admitted fact that one of the functions of these
· apex bodies of the profession is to regulate the system
of education. The MCI and the DCI are competent to
exercise their right to regulate the education system
under the provisions of the Act and under the provisions E
of the Dentists Act, 1948, which permit them to determine
the standard of students who are to be admitted to these
professional courses. [para 5 and 15] [1022-A-B; 1026-G-
H; 1027-A-C]
F
1.2 The MCI and the .DCI are entitled to regulate the
admission procedure by virtue of the provisions of the
respective Acts, which enable them to regulate and
supervise the overall professional standards. [para 16]
[1027-C-D]
G
1.3 The legal provisions which permit the MCI and the
DCI, to conduct the NEET, so as to regulate admission
of the students to medical and dental institutes, are in
accordance with legal and Constitutional provisions.
[para 17] [1027-D] H
922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A 1.4 In view of entry 25 of List Ill of the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution, Union as well as the States
have power to legislate on the subject of medical
education, subject to the provisions of Entry 66 of List I
of the Seventh Schedule, which deals with determination
B of standards in institutions for higher education. In the
circumstances, a State has the right to control education,
including medical education, so long as the field is
unoccupied by any Union legislation. By virtue of Entry
66 in List I, the Union can make laws with respect to
c determination of standards in institutions for higher
education. Similarly, subject to enactments, laws made
with respect to the determination of standards in
institutions for higher education under power given to the
Union in Entry 66 of List I, the State can also make laws
relating to education, including technical education and
0
medical education. In view of the position clarified in the
case of Dr. Preeti Srivastava, the NEET can be conducted
under the supervision of the MCI as per the regulations
framed under the Act. Regulations made under the 1956
Act and the Dentists Act, 1948 must be treated as part of
E the Act. Therefore, conducting the NEET is perfectly legal.
[para 17-18] [1027-F-H; 1028-A-B, E]
Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Another vs. State of M.P. and
Others 1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 249 = (1999) 7 SCC 120; and
F Veterinary Council of India vs. Indian Council of Agricultural
=
Research, 2000(1) SCR 43 (2000) 1 sec 750 - relied on
- relied on.
1.5 In the case of Dr. Preeti Srivastava, this Court has
held that for the purpose of maintaining standards of
G education, it is necessary to see that the students to be
admitted to higher educational institutions· are of high
caliber and therefore, in the process of regulating
educational standards in the fields of medicine and
dentistry also, the same principle should be followed and
H the apex professional bodies should be permitted to
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS 923
v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
conduct examinations in the nature of the NEET. [para A
18] [1028-C-E]
2.1 In order to have doctors well versed in the subject
of medicine and having proficiency in their field, there
should be suitable and deserving students who should 8
be imparted good medical education and there should be
strict supervision over the education system. To achieve
this ide,al, the system should be such that it should have
effective regulations at three different stages - The first
stage is the admission of the students to medical C
colleges. The students who are admitted to the medical
course should be suitable and should have the right
aptitude so that they can be shaped well into the medical
profession after being imparted proper education. The
second stage is with regard to determination of syllabus
and the manner of imparting education and for the said D
purpose, the regulating authorities should see that
proper medical training is given to the students and for
the said purpose sufficiently equipped hospitals should
be there as teaching institutes. Thirdly and finally, the
examinations, which the students have to pass to prove E
their worth as successful students should also be strictly
regulated. If there is any lacuna or short-coming at any
of these three stages, it would adversely affect the
professional standards of the students passing out from
the educational institutions as doctors. To maintain F
medical facilities, existence of trained and well groomed
good doctors is a sine qua non. All these facts equally
apply to dentists. [para 6-7] [1022-C-H; 1023-A, C]
2.2 By virtue of introduction of the NEET to be G
conducted under the supervision of the MCI, standards
of the students at the stage of their admission to the
medical colleges, be it for admission to the M.B.B.S.
course or the post graduation studies in medical faculties,
would be regulated. Similarly, for imparting education to H
924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A the students studying in the field of Dentistry, the DCI has
to regulate admissions so as to see that eligib.le and
suitable students are admitted to the different courses in
the field of dentistry. [para 8) [1023-C-E]
2.3 The NEET would be a nationwide common
8 examination to be held at different places in the country
so that all students aspiring to have medical education,
can appear in the examination and ultimately, on the basis
of the result of the examination, suitability and eligibility
of the students for admission to the medical profession
C can be determined. This system is a part of regulation
whereby entry to the field of medical education is
regulated in such a way that only eligible and suitable
students are given admission to medical colleges.
0 There would not be any discrimination or influence
in the process of selection. 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
E 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 institutions concerned, who want to give priority to
the students belonging to a particular class or caste or
F 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 medical or dental college concerned.
Thus, the purpose with which Arts. 25, 26, 29, and 30 are
incorporated in the Constitution of India would be fully
G respected and implemented. [para 9-10) [1024-C-D; 1025-
A-B]
2.4 Furthermore, centralization of the selection
process in holding the NEET would help the students to
H appear at the examination from any corner of the nation.
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS v. 925
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
The result of the examination would be published at the A
same time on one particular day and with the same
standard. The process of selection would be equal, fair,
just and transparent. The students would be benefited
because they will not have to appear at different places
on different days at different examinations for the same B
purpose. These factors, in practical life, would surely help
the students, the profession and the institutions which
are not money minded and are sincere in their object of
imparting medical education to the aspiring students. The
cost of appearing at the NEET would be much less as the c
aspiring students will not have to purchase several
expensive admission forms and will not have to travel to
different places. [para 11] [1025-B-D, F-H]
2.5 The policy with regard to the reservation can be very
well implemented if the NEET is introduced because the D
NEET would determine standard or eligibility of a student
who is to be imparted education in the field of medicine. The
institution imparting medical education will have to see that
the student to be admitted is having minimum standard of
suitability and the institution will be at liberty to select E
students of its choice if it wants to promote a particular class
of persons. [para 12] [1026-B-E]
2.6 Moreover, the policy with regard to reservation for
certain classes, followed by the States would not be F
adversely affected. From the deserving eligible students,
who have procured qualifying marks at the NEET and
who belong to the reserved classes would be given
preference so as to fulfill the policy with regard to
reservation. Thus, the students belonging to the reserved G
classes would also not suffer on account of holding the
NEET. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that
introduction of the NEET would adversely affect the
policy with regard to the reservation or the policy of the
States pertaining to upliftment of downtrodden persons
H
".926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 7 S.C.R.
A belonging to certain classes. The apprehension that
autonomy of the petitioner educational institutions would
be lost if the NEET is permitted is also not well founded.
The Government authorities or the professional bodies
·concerned would not be creating any hindrance in the
B administrative affairs of the institutions. [para 13,14 and
22] [1026-D-F; 1031-C-D]
3. The provision of forwarding the copies of the draft
Regulations to State Governments, as required u/s 19A
of the Act, as is evident from the language of the section,
C is not mandatory and therefore, non-supply of the draft
regulations would not adversely affect the validity of the
Regulations and the NEET. [para 18] [1028-F-G]
4.1 The rights guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(g) of the
D Constitution with regard to practising any profession or
carrying on any occupation, a trade or business, are not
unfettered. Art. 19(6) permits the State to enact any law
imposing reasonable restrictions on the rights conferred
by Art. 19(1)(g) in relation to the professional or technical
E qualifications necessary for practising any profession.
The 1956 Act and the Dentists Act, 1948, including
Regulations made thereunder, which regulate the
professional studies cannot be said to be violative of the
Constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioners under
F Art. 19(1)(g). To be permitted to practise a particular
profession, especially when the profession is such
which would require highly skilled person to perform the
professional duties, the State can definitely regulate the
profession. Institutions engaged in business of imparting
G education cannot also have unfettered right of admitting
undeserving students so as to make substandard
doctors and dentists. The function w.ith regard to
regulating educational activity would be within the
domain of the professional bodies and their decision .
must be respected so as to see that the society gets well
H
CHRISTIAN. MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v. 927
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
groomed bright doctors and dentists. Thus, the A
introduction of the NEET would not violate the right
guaranteed to the petitioners under the prbvisions of Art.
19(1)(g). [para 20] [1029-D-H; 1030-A-D]
4.2 So far as the rights guaranteed to the petitioners 8
under the provisions of Arts. 25, 26, 29 and 30 are
concerned, none of the said rights would be violated by
permitting the NEET. It is always open to the petitioners
to select a student subject to his being qualified by
passing the examination conducted by the highest C
professional body. This is to assure that the students
who are to undergo the professional training are suitable
for the same. Minorities -- be it religious or linguistic - can
impart training to students found worthy to be .given
education in the field of medicine or dentistry by the
professional apex body. The Regulations and the NEET D
would not curtail or adversely affect any of the rights of
such minorities as apprehended by the petitioners. [para
21] [1030-E-F; 1031-A-B]
4.3 It cannot be said that introduction of the NEET E
would either violate any of the fundamental or legal rights
of the petitioners or even adversely affect the medical or
dental profession. Introduction of the NEET would ensure
more transparency and less hardship to the students
eager to join the medical profession. Further, if only one F
examination in the country is conducted and admissions
are given on the basis of the result of the said
examination, unscrupulous businessmen operating in
the field of education would be constrained to stop their
corrupt practices and it would help a lot, not only to the G
deserving students but also to the nation in bringing
down the level of corruption. [para 23] [1031-G-H; 1032-
A, E-F]
4.4 Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any
of the reliefs prayed for in the petitions. The impugned H
928 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A notifications are not only legal in the eyes of law but are
also a boon to the students aspiring to join medical
profession![para 24] [1032-G]
Case Law Reference:
B As per CJI.
2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 cited para 2
2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 474 cited para 2
2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 603 relied on para 2
c
2011 (6) SCR 599 cited para 2
1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 249 cited para 2
i
(1959] S.C.R. 995 referred to para 13
D 1954 SCR 1005 cited para 15
2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 relied on para 16
1954 SCR 1005 cited para 33
E 1954 SCR 1055 cited para 34
1991 (3) Suppl. SCR 121 relied on para 40
1985 (2) SCR 287 cited para 46
(1959) Suppl. 2 SCR 8 cited para 47
F
1988 (3) Suppl. SCR 770 cited para 51
1980 (3) SCR 331 cited para 51
1984 (3) SCR 942 cited para 59
G 2012 (2) SCR 715 cited para 69
2012 (11) SCR 299 cited para 70
1982 (1) SCR 759 cited para 72
(1994) 4 sec 401 cited para 72
H
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v. 929
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
1983 (2) SCR 665 cited para 74 A
2003 (1) SCR 975 cited para 74
2004 (2) SCR 900 cited para 75
2011 (12) SCR 1070 relied on para 91
B
(2003) 6 sec 190 cited para 96
1980 (2) SCR 831 cited para 104
(1985) 3 sec 121 cited para 104
c
1998 (3) SCR 740 cited para 107
2004 (2) SCR 775 cited para 110
2005 (2) SCR 23 cited para 110
2012 (6) SCR 449 cited para 110 D
(1963) Supp. 1 SCR 112 cited para 110
1998 (3) SCR 74ll cited para 110
1970 (1) SCR 479 cited para 110 E
2002 (1) SCR 441 cited para 110
1965 (2) SCR 355 cited para 110
2003 (5) Suppl. SCR 930 cited para 110
F
2009 (3) SCR 355 cited parC1 110
2009 (3) SCR 1060 cited para 110
2000 (1) SCR 43 cited para 111
G
(1958) SCR 533 distinguished Para 113
1975 (1) SCR 173 referred to para 116
1971 (1) SCR 734 cited Para 120
H_
930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A 1996 (1) SCR 929 cited Para 120
2001 (2) Suppl. SCR 180 cited para 123
2001 (5) Suppl. SCR 179 cited para 123
2003 (2) SCR 781 cited para 123
B
2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 797 cited para 124
(1971 > 2 sec 269 referred to para 153
As per Dave, J.
c
1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 249 relied on para 17
2000 (1) SCR 43 relied on para 19
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Transferred Case (Civil)
D No. 98 of 2012.
Under Article 139 of the Constitution of India.
WITH
T.C.(C} N0.99/2012
E T.C.(C} N0.101/2012
T.C.(C} N0.100/2012
T.C.(C} N0.102/2012
T.C.(C). N0.103/2012
I F W.P.(C} N0.480/2012
T.C.(C} N0.104/2012
T.C.(C} N0.105/2012
W.P.(C} N0.468/2012
G W.P.(C) N0.467/2012
W.P.(C} N0.478/2012
T.C.(C) N0.107/2012
T.C.(C) N0.108/2012
H
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS v. 931
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
W.P.(C) N0.481/2012 A
W.P.(C) N0.464/2012
T.C.(C) N0.110/2012
T.C.(C) NOS.132-134/2012
T.C.(C) NOS.117-118/2012 B
T.C.(C) NOS.115-116/2012
T.C.(C) NOS.125-127/2012
T.C.(C) NOS.113-114/2012
T.C.(C) NOS.128.-130/2012 c
T.C.(C) NOS.121-122/2012
T.C.(C) N0.112/2012
T.C.(C) N0.131/2012
T.C.(C) NOS.123-124/2012 D
T.C.(C) N0.111/2012
T.C.(C) N0.120/2012
T.C.(C) N0.119/2012
T.C.(C) NOS.135-137/2012 E
T.C.(C) NOS.138-139/2012
W.P.(C) N0.495/2012
W.P.(C) N0.511/2012
W.P.(C) N0.512/2012 F
W.P.(C) N0.514/2012
W.P.(C) N0.516/2012
W.P.(C) N0.519/2012
W.P.(C) N0.535/2012 G
T.C.(C) N0.142/2012@ T.P.(C) N0.364/2012
W.P.(C) N0.544/2012
W.P.(C) N0.546/2012
W.P.(C) N0.547/2012 H
932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A T.C.(C) N0.144/2012@ T.P.(C) N0.1524/2012 & 1447/
2012
T.C.(C) N0.145/2012
T.Cc(C) N0.1/2013@ T.P.(C) N0.1527/2012
B T.C.(C) NOS.14-15/2013@ T.P.(C) NOS.1672-1673/
2012
T.C.(C) N0.76/2013@ T.P.(C) N0.1702/2012
T.C.(C) N0.12-13/2013
T.C.(C) N0.4/2013
c
T.C.(C) N0.11/2013
T.C.(C) NOS.21-22/2013 @ T.P.(C) N0.1714-1715/2012
T.C.(C) N0.5/2013@ T.P.(C) N0.1718/2012
W.P.(C) N0.2/2013
D
W.P.(C) N0.1/2013
T.C.(C) N0.60/2013@ T.P.(C) N0.12/2013
W.P.(C) N0.13/2013
W.P.(C) N0.15/2013
E W.P.(C) N0.16/2013
W.P.(C) N0.20/2013
T.C. (C) NO. 107/2013
T.C.(C) N0.2/2013@ T.P.(C) N0.1532/2012
.F T.C.(C) N0.8/2013
T.C.(C) N0.3/2013@ T.P.(C) N0.1533/2012
W.P.(C) N0.24/2013
T.C.(C) N0.9/2013
G T.C.(C) N0.17/2013@ T.P.(C) N0.1588/2012
W.P.(C} N0.483/2012
W.P.(C) N0.501/2012
W.P.(C) N0.502/2012
W.P.(C) N0.504/2012
H
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS v. 933
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
W.P.(C) N0.507/2012 A
T.C.(C) N0.10/2013
T.C.(C) N0.7/2013@ T.P.(C) N0.1644/2012
T.C.(C) N0.18/2013@ T.P.(C) N0.1645/2012
T.C.(C) N0.75/2013@ T.P.(C) N0.1647/2012 B
T.C.(C) N0.19/2013@ T.P.(C) N0.1653/2012
T.C.(C) N0.20/2013@ T.P.(C) N0.1654/2012
T.C.(C) N0.59/2013 @ T.P.(C) N0.1656/2012
T.C.(C) N0.53/2013@ T.P.(C) N0.1658/2012
c
T.C.(C) N0.25/2013@ T.P.(C) N0.1671/2012
T.C.(C) N0.23-24/2013@ T.P.(C) N0.1697-1698/2012
T.C.(C) N0.58/2013@ T.P.(C) N0.1/2013
D
W.P.(C) N0.27/2013
T.C.(C) N0.72/2013@ T.P.(C) N0.58/2013
T.C.(C) N0.16/2013
T.C.(C) N0.61/2013 E
T.C.(C) N0.73/2013@ T.P.(C) N0.75/2013
T.C.(C) N0.108/2013@ T.P.(C) N0.79/2013
T.C.(C) N0.62/2013
W.P.(C) N0.47/2013 F
T.C.(C) N0.28-29/2013
T.C.(C) N0.30/2013
T.C.(C) N0.31-32/2013
T.C.(C) N0.33-36/2013 G
T.C.(C) N0.37-38/2013
T.C.(C) N0.39/2013
T.C.(C) N0.40/2013
H
934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A T.C.(C) N0.41/2013
T.C.(C) N0.42/2013
T.C.(C) N0.43/2013
T.C.(C) N0.44/2013
B T.C.(C) N0.45/2013
T.C.(C) N0.46/2013
T.C.(C) N0.47/2013
T.C.(C) N0.48/2013
c T.C.(C) N0.49/2013
W.P.(C) N0.66/2013
W.P.(C) N0.76/2013
W.P.(C) N0.74/2013
D
T.C.(C) NOS.63-65/2013
T.C.(C) NOS.66-69/2013
T.C.(C) NOS.70-71/2013
E W.P.(C) N0.41/2013
W.P.(C) N0.228/2013
Sidharth Luthra, ASG, L. Nageshwara Rao, A.K. Panda,
Harish N. Salve, K. Parasaran, P. Vishwanatha Shetty, R.
F Venkataramani, Anoop George Chaudhuri, June Chaudhuri,
Nidhesh Gupta, T.R. Andhiyarujina, Mukul Gupta, K.K.
Venugopal, Madhu R. Naik, S. Gurukrishna Kumar, V. Giri, Ajit
Kumar Sinha, K. Radhakrishnan, Uday U. Lalit, Subramonium
Prasad, Dr. Manish Singhvi, AAG, Allanki Ramesh, G.
Madhavi, Y. Rajesh Kumar, D. Geetha, Manju, C.S.N. Mohan
G Rao, Lingaraj Sarangi, Satyajit Behera, Pravin H. Parekh, E.R.
Kumar, Aparajita Singh, Gayatri Goswami, Geethi Ara, Chetna,
R. Bobde, Ritika Sethi, Vishal Prasad (for Parekh & Co.), G.N.
Reddy, Sanjay Misra, Sangita Chauhan, Rakesh K. Sharma,
Senthil Jagadeesan, K.K. Mani, Neeraj Shekhar, Ashutosh
H Thakur, Sadique Mohd., Sanjay R. Hegde, S. Nithin, Amit
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. 935
v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Kumar Mishra, G. Umapathy, Satish Parasaran, M.A. A
Venkatasubranian, R. Mekhala, Amit Kumar, Meenakshi Arora,
A. Ramesh, Y. Rajesh Kumar, Manju Jana, Shilpi, Lokesh
Kumar Sharma, B. Balaji, Dr. Sushil Balwada, Shashi Kiran
Shetty, Sharan Thakur, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Bina
Madhavan, Praseena E. Joseph, Shivendra Singh (for B
Lawywer's Knit & Co.), R. Jagannath G., E.R. Sumathy, Naveen
R. Nath, L.M. Bhat, Hetu Arora, Amrita Sharma, Darpan K.M.,
Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Jayanth
Muth Raj, Malavika J.,Sureshan P., Radha Shyam Jena, Rajiv
Yadav, Amit Anand Tiwari, Ashwarya Sinha, Jayesh Gaurav, c
Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Ambar Qamaruddin, G.S. Kannur,
Rajesh Kumar, Savita Danda, Lokesh Kumar, Nirada Das,
Vaijayanthi Girish, P. George Giri, Gaurav Sharma, Surbi
Mehta, Naveen Prakash, S. Chandra Shekhar, V.G. Pragasam,
S.J. Aristotle, S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Supriya Garg: D
Neelam Singh, Shodhan Babu, E.C. Agrawala, Abhijat P.
Medh,V. Balachandran, Gopal Balwant Sathe, G. Umapathy, S.
Gowthaman, Ranjith B., Shivaji M. Jadhav, Prity Kunwar, A.
Venayagam Balan, K.K. Trivedi, Priyank Adyaru, K.V.
Sreekumar, R.P. Goyal, K. Rajeev, L.R. Singh, Namita E
Choudhary, E.M.S. Anam, Dushyant Parashar, Ravindra
Keshavrao Adsure, Shakil Ahmed Syed, Mohd. Parvei Dabas,
S.A. Saud, Amit Kumar, Atul Kumar, Rekha Bakshi, Ashish
Kumar, Ankit Rajagaria, Supriya Juneja, Gargi Khanna, Arjun
Diwan, Akansha Tandan, V. Prabhakar, R. Chandrachud, Jyoti
Prashar, Tara Chandra Sharma, Neelam Sharma, Rajeev F
Sharma, Ajay Sharma, Rupesh Kumar, G.S. Kannur,
Vaijayanthi Girish, Ravi Shah, Rudreshwar Singh, Rakesh
Gosain, Kaushik Poddar, Garvesh Kabra, Y. Raja Gopala Rao,
R. Rakesh Sharma, Suruchi Aggarwal, Anjali Chauhan, Rishab
Kaushik, Nandani Gupta, Hemantika Wahi, G.N. ·Reddy, B. G
Debojit,Shasank Babu, Sodhan Babu, Neelam Singh, Amitesh
Kumar, Ravi Kant, C.S. Singh, Gopal Singh, Abhigya, Abhay
Singh Kushwaha, Pradeep Kumar Dubey, Sarthak Mehrotra,
Navin Chawala, Bina Gupta, Amit Anand Tiwari, Tejveer Singh
Bhatia, Prathibha M. Singh, Surbhi Mehta, Gaurav Sharma, H
936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A Farah Fathima (for Lawyers Knit & Co.), Arputham Aruna & Co.,
Abdhesh Choudhary, Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, Bhavani Shankar
V. Gadnis, Sunita B. Rao, K.H. Nobin Singh, Sapam Biswajit
Meitie, lrshad Ahmad for the appearing parties.
The Judgments of the Court was delivered by
B
ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI. 1. Four notifications, two dated
21.12.2010 and the other two dated 31.5.2012, issued by the
Medical Council of India and the Dental Council of India, are
the subject matter of challenge in all these matters which have
c been heard together by us. Notification No. MCl-31 (1)/2010-
MED/49068 described as "Regulations on Graduate Medical
Education (Amendment) 2010, (Part II)" has been published by
the Medical Council of India to amend the "Regulations on
Graduate Medical Education, 1997". Notification No.MCl.18(1)/
0 201 O-MED/49070 described as "Post-graduate Medical
Education (Amendment) Regulation, 2010 (Part II)" has been
issued by the said Council to amend the "Post Graduate
Medical Education Regulations, 2000". Both the Regulations
came into force simultaneously on their publication in the Official
E Gazette. The third and fourth Notifications both bearing No. DE-
22-2012 dated 31.5.2012, relating to admission in the BOS and
MOS courses published by the Dental Council of India, are
similar to the notifications published by the MCI.
2. The four aforesaid Notifications have been challenged
F on several grounds. The major areas of challenge to the
aforesaid Notifications are:
(i) The powers of the Medical Council of India and the
Dental Council of India to regulate the process of
admissions into medical colleges and institutions
G run by the State Governments, private individuals
(aided and unaided), educational institutions run by
religious and linguistic minorities, in the guise of
laying down minimum standards of medical
education, as provided for in Section 19A of the
H Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and under Entry
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS v. 937
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. {ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the A
Constitution.
(ii) Whether the introduction of one National Eligibility-
cum-Entrance Test (NEET) offends the fundamental
right guaranteed to any citizen under Article 19(1 )(g) B
of the Constitution to practise any profession or to
carry on any occupation, trade or business?
(iii) Whether NEET violates the rights of religious and
linguistic minorities to establish and administer
educational institutions of their choice, as c
guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution?
(iv) Whether subordinate legislation, such as the right
to frame Regulations, flowing from a power given
under a statute, can have an overriding effect over D
the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles
25, 26, 29(1) and 30 of the Constitution?
(v) Whether the exclusion of Entry 11 from the State
List and the introduction of Entry 25 in the
Concurrent List by the Constitution Forty Second E
(Amendment). Act, 1976, makes any difference as
far as the Regulations framed by the Medical
Council of India under Section 33 of the 1956 Act
and those framed by the Dental Council of India
under Section 20 of the Dentists Act, 1948, are F
concerned, and whether such Regulations would
have primacy over State legislation on the same
subject?
(vi) Whether the aforesaid questions have been G
adequately answered in T.M.A. Pai Foundation Vs.
State of Kamataka [(2002) 8 SCC 481), and in the
subsequent decisions in Islamic Academy of
Education Vs. State of Karnataka [(2003) 6 SCC
697), P.A. lnamdar Vs. State of Maharashtra
H
938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 7 S.C.R.
A [(2005) 6 SCC 537) and Indian Medical
Association Vs. Union of India [(2011) 7 SCC
179]? and
(vii) Whether the views expressed by the Constitution
Bench comprised of Five Judges in Dr. Preeti
B
Srivastava Vs. State of M.P. [(1999) 7 SCC 120)
have any impact on the issues raised in this batch
of matters?
3. In order to appreciate the challenge thrown to the four
C notifications, it is necessary to understand the functions and
duties of the Medical Council of India under the Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956, and the Dental Council of India constituted
under the Dentists Act, 1948. The submissions advanced in
regard to the MBBS and Post-graduate courses will apply to
D the BOS and MDS courses also.
4. The Indian Medical Council Act, 1933, was replaced by
the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as
"the 1956 Act", inter alia, with the following objects in mind :-
E "(a) to give representation to licentiate members of the
medical profession, a large number of whom are still
practicing in the country;
(b) to provide for the registration of the names of citizens
F of India who have obtained foreign medical qualifications
which are not at present recognized under the existing Act;
(c) to provide for the temporary recognition of medical
qualifi-cations granted by medical institutions in countries
outside India with which no scheme of reciprocity exists
G in cases where the medical practitioners concerned are
attached for the time being to any medical institution in
India for the purpose of teaching or research or for any
charitable objects;
H (d) to provide for the formation of a Committee of Post-
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v. 939
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
graduate Medical Education for the purpose of assisting A
the Medical Council of India to prescribe standards of post-
graduate medical education for the guidance of
universities and to advise universities in the matter of
securing uniform standards for post-graduate medical
education throughout India; B
(e) To provide for the maintenance of an all-India
register by the Medical Council of India, which will contain
the names of all the medical practitioners possessing
recognized medical qualifications." c
5. The Medical Council of India, hereinafter referred to as
"MCI", has been defined in Section 2(b) of the 1956 Act to
mean the Medical Council of India constituted under the said
Act. The Council was constituted under Section 3 of the Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956. Section 6 of the aforesaid Act D
provides for the incorporation of the Council as a body
corporate by the name of Medical Council of India, having
perpetual succession and a common seal, with power to
acquire and hold property, both movable and immovable, and
to contract, and to sue and be sued by the said name. E
6. The powers vested in the MCI are essentially
recommendatory in nature. Section 1OA, which was introduced
in the 1956 Act by Amending Act 31 of 1993, with effect from
27th August, 1992, inter alia, provides that notwithstanding F
anything contained in the Act or any other law for the time being
in force:-
(a) no person shall establish a medical college; or
(b) no medical college shall :- G
(i) open a new or higher course of study or
training (including a postgraduate course ofstudy
or training) which would enable a student of such
H
940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 7 S.C.R.
A course or training to qualify himselffor the award of
any recognised medicalqualification; or
(ii) increase its admission capacity in anycourse
of study or training (including ap o st g r a d u ate
course of study or training),
B .
except with the previous permission of the Central Government
obtained maccordance with the provisions of this section.
Under Section 10A the function of the MCI is purely
c recommendatory for the purpose of grant of permission by the
Central Government to establish a new medical college or to
introduc~ a new course of study.
7. Section 19A which was introduced into the 1956 Act by
Act 24 of 1964 with effect from 16th June, 1964, provides for
.o the Council to prescribe "minimum standards of medical
education". Since Section 19A will have some bearing on the
judgment itself, the same is extracted hereinbelow in full :-
"19A. Minimum standards of medical education - (1)
E The Council may prescribe the minimum standards of
medical education required for granting recognised
medical qualifications (other than postgraduate medical
qualifications) by universities or medical institutions in
India.
F (ii) Copies of the draft regulations and of all subsequent
amendments thereof shall be furnished by the Council to
all' State Governments and the Council shall before
submitting the regulations or any amendment thereof, as
• the case may be, to the Central Government for sanction,
G take into consideration the comments of any State
Government received within three months from the
furnishing of the copies as aforesaid.
(3) The Committee shall from time to time report to the
H Council on the efficacy of the regulations and may
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v. 941
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
recommend to the Council such amendments thereof as A
it may think fit."
8. Section 20 of the 1956 Act, provides for a Post-gradu11te
Medical Education Committee to assist the Medical Council of
India to prescribe standards of post-graduate medical education · 8
for the guidance of the Universities. For the sake of reference,
the relevant portions of Section 20 of the 1956 Act ~ith which
we are concerned, are also extracted hereinbelow :- · ·
"20. Post-graduate Medical Education Committee for
assisting Council in matters relating to post-graduate C
medical education - (1) The Council may prescribe
standards of Postgraduate Medical Education for the"
guidance of Universities, and may advise Universities in
the matter of securing uniform standards for Postgraduate
Medical Education through out India, and for this purpose D •
the Central Govt. may constitute from among the members
of the Council a Postgraduate Medical Education
Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Post-graduate
Committee).
E
9. By the first of the two Notifications dated 21st
December, 2010, being MCl-31(1)/2010-Med./49068, the
Medical Council of India, in purported exercise of the powers
conferred by Section 33 of the 1956 Act, made various
amendments to the 1997 Regulations on Graduate Medical
Education. The most significant amendment, which is also the F
subject matter of challenge in some of these writ petitions and
transferred cases, is clause 5 in Chapter :I of the Regulations.
The relevant paragraph in the Amendment Notification reads
as follows: •
G
"6. In Chapter II, Clause 5 under the heading "Procedure
for selection to MBBS Course shall be as follows" shall be
substituted as under:-
I. There shall be a single eligibility cum entrance H
942 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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.
II. In order to be eligible for admission to MBBS course
for a particular academic year, it shall be necessary for a
c candidate to obtain minimum of 50% (Fifty Percent) marks
in each paper of National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test held
for the said academic year. However, in respect of
candidates belonging to Scheduled Casts, Scheduled
Tribes and Other Backward Classes, the minimum
D percentage shall be 40% (Forty Percent) in each paper
and in respect of candidates with locomotory disability of
lower limbs, the minimum percentage marks shall be 45%
(Forty Five Percent) in each paper of National Eligibility-
cum-Entrance Test:
E
Provided when sufficient number of candidates belonging
to respective categories fail to secure minimum marks as
prescribed in National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test in any
academic year for admission to MBBS Course, the
Central Government in consultation with Medical Council
F
of India may at its discretion lower the minimum marks
required for admission to MBBS Course for candidates
belonging to respective categories and marks so lowered
by the Central Government shall be applicable for the said
year only.
G
Ill. The reservation of seats in medical colleges for
respective categories shall be as per applicable laws
· prevailing in States/ Union Territories. An all India merit list
as well as State-wise merit list of the eligible candidates
H shall be prepared on the basis of the m<:>rks obtained in
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS v. 943
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
/
National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test and candidates shall A
be admitted to MBBS course from the said lists only.
IV. No candidate who has failed to obtain the minimum
eligibility marks as prescribed in Sub Clause(ii) above
shall be admitted to MBBS Course in the said academic 8
year.
V. All admissions to MBBS course within the respective
categories shall be based solely on marks obtained in the
National Eligibility-cum·Entrance Test.
(Dr. P. Prasannaraj)
c
Additional Secretary
Medical Council of India"
10. Similarly, by virtue of Notification No. MCl.18(1)/201 O-
Med./49070, in purported exercise of the powers conferred by D
Section 33 of the 1956 Act, the Me.dical Council of India, with
the previous approval of the Central <3overnment, made similar
amendments to the Postgraduate Medical Education
Regulations, 2000, providing for a single eligibility cum entrance
examination. For the sake of reference, the portion of the E
notification which is relevant for our purpose is extracted
herein below:
"No. MCl.18(1 )/201 O-Med./49070. - In exercise of the
powers conferred by Section 33 of the Indian Medical F
Council Act, 1956(102 of 1956), the Medical Council of
India with the previous approval of the Central Government
hereby makes the following regulations to further amend
the "Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000",
namely:-
G
1. (i) These Regulations may be called the Postgraduate
Medical Education (Amendment) Regulations, 2010 (Part-
11)".
(ii) They shall come into force from the date of their H
944 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A publication in the Official Gazette.
2. In the "Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations,
2000", the following additions /modifications/ deletions I
substitutions, shall be as indicated therein:-
B 3. Clause 9 under the heading 'SELECTION OF
POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS' shall be substituted as
under:-
"9. Procedure for selection of candidate for Postgraduate
c courses shall be as follows:
I. There shall be a single eligibility cum entrance
examination namely 'National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test
for admission to Postgraduate Medical Courses' in eac.h
academic year. The overall superintendence, direction and
D 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
E Postgraduate courses'."
Two similar Notifications both bearing No.DE-22-2012
dated 31.5.2012, were published by the Dental Council of India
for the same purpose.
F
11. The challenge to these Notifications has thrown up
various issues, which include the powers of the Central and the
State Governments to legislate on matters relating to education
under Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the
G Constitution and Entry 25 of List Ill which was introduced by way
of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976,
having particular regard to the fact that the previous Entry No.
11 in the State List, was omitted by the said amendment, doing
away with education as a State subject and denuding the State
of its powers to legislate on matters relating to education except
H
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS, v. 945
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
in accordance with Entry 25 of the Concurrent List. In fact, what A
has been pointed out on behalf of some of the parties is that
by omitting Entry 11 from the State List and including Entry 25
in the Concurrent List of the Seventh. Schedule, the Union
Government acquired the authority to also legislate on matters
relating to education, which it did not have previously. ·· B
---·---- ....
12. Another common submission, which is of great
significance as far as th,ese matters are concerned, was with
regard to the adverse impact of the single entrance examination
on the fundamental right guaranteed to all citizens under Article
19(1)(g) of the Constitution to practise any profession, or to C
carry on any occupation, trade or business. The provisions of
Article 30 1 preserving the right of both religious and linguistic ·
minorities, to establish and administer educational institutions
of their choice, were also highlighted by learned counsel for
some of the Petitioners. D
13. The major challenge, however, was with regard tq the
MCI's attempt to regulate admissions to the M.B.B.S. and Post-
graduate Courses in all medical colleges and medical
institutions in the country run by the different State Governments E
and by private agencies falling within the ambit of Article
19(1)(g) and in some cases Article 30 of the Constitution as
well by introducing NEET. One of the facets of such challenge
was the inter-play of Article 29(2) and Article 30(1), a8 also
Article 30(2) of the Constitution. Various authorities have been F
cited on behalf of the diff~rent parties, harking back to the
Presidential Reference iri the Kera/a Education Bill case
[(1959] S.C.R. 995], and the subsequent views, which have
been expressed on most of the aforesaid issues by various
combinations of Judges, which include combinations of Eleven- G
Judges, Nine-Judges, Seven"Judges, Five-Judges and Three-
Judges, of this Court. While most of the decisions touch upon
the main theme in these, matters regarding the right of either
the Central Government or the State Government or the MCI
to regulate admissions into medical colleges, the issue.raised
H
946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 7 S.C.R.
A before us concerning the authority of the MCI and the DCI to
conduct an All India Entrance Examination, which will form the
basis of admissions into the M.B.B.S. as well as Post-graduate
Courses in all medical colleges and institutions all over the
country, could not be considered in the earlier judgments. As
B a result, after the introduction of NEET, admissions to the
M.B.B.S. and Post-graduate courses and the BOS and MOS
courses can be made only on the basis of the Select List
prepared in accordance with the results of the All India Entrance
Test, which would not only eliminate a large number of
c applicants from admission to the medical colleges, but would
also destroy the very essence qf Articles 25, 26, 29(1) and 30
of the Constitution, since admission is one of the more
important functions of an institution.
14. The submissions in these cases were commenced by
D Mr. Harish Salve, learned senior counsel appearing for the
Christian Medical College, Vellore, and the Christian Medical
College, Ludhiana, the Petitioners in Transferred Cases (C)
Nos. 98-99 of 2012. Mr. Salve's submissions were
supplemented by Mr. K. Parasaran, Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, Mr. K.K.
E Venugopal and Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel,
and several others appearing for some of the religious and
linguistic minorities referred to in Article 30 of the Constitution .
. - 15. Mr. Salve submitted that the two Notifications both
F dC;tted 21st December, 2010, incorporating amendments in the
·"Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 and the
Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, and
introducing a single National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test
(NEET) for admission to the MBBS course and the Post-
graduate course in each academic year throughout the country,
G had been challenged by the Petitioners before the Madras High
Court, in Writ Petition Nos.24109 of 2011 and 24110 of 2011.
Mr. Salve urged that the said amendments stifled and stultified
the fundamental rights guaranteed to religious minorities under
Articles 25, 26, 29(1) and 30 of the Constitution of India. Mr.
H
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v. 947
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS l<ABIR, CJI.]
Salve submitted that Article 25 secures to every person, subject A
to public order, health and morality and to the other provisions
of Part-Ill of the Constitution, freedom of conscience and the
right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. The
said right guarantees to every person freedom not only to
entertain such religious belief, but also to exhibit his belief in 8
such outward acts as he thought proper and to propagate or
disseminate his ideas for the edification of others. Mr. Salve
urged that this proposition was settled by this Court as far back
as in 1954 by a Bench of Seven-Judges in Commr., H.R.E.
Vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954 C
SCR 1005].
16. Mr. Salve submitted that subject to public order, morality
and health, Article 26 of the Constitution guarantees to every
reiigious denomination or a section thereof, the right to
establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable D
purposes and to manage its own affairs in matters of religion.
Mr. Salve urged that in regard to affairs in matters of religion,
the right of management given to a religious body is a
guaranteed fundamental right which no legislation can take
away. Mr. Salve submitted that Article 30(1) of the Constitution E
gives religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and
to administer educational institutions of their choice, which was
reiterated and emphasised in T.M.A. Pai Foundation Vs. State
of Karnataka [(2002) 8 SCC 481], decided by a Bench of
Eleven Judges. F
17. Mr. Salve submitted that the Christian Medical College,
Vellore, hereinafter referred to as "CMC Vellore", was
established 113 years ago as a one-bed clinic by one Dr. Ida
Sophia Scudder, the daughter of an American Medical
Missionary. She started training Compounders (Health G
Assistants) in 1903 and Nurses in 1909, and was able to
establish a Missionary Medical School for women leading to
the Licentiate in Medical Practice in 1918 which was upgraded
to the MBBS course affiliated to the Madras University.
H
948 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A Admission was thrown open to men for the MBBS course in
1947. As the college grew, from 1948 it started admitting
students by an All-India Entrance Examination, followed by an
in-depth interview. By 1950, the affiliation to the University was
confirmed and the intake was increased to 60 under-graduate
8 MBBS students in 1964, which has now increased to 100
MBBS students. To meet the needs of the local population, a
large number of Higher Speciality Courses, Post-graduate
Medical Courses, Allied Health Sciences Courses and
Courses _in Nursing, have also been developed over the years.
C 18. Currently, there are 11 Post-graduate Medical Diploma
Courses; 23 Post-graduate Medical Degree Courses and 17
Higher Specialty Courses approved by the Medical Council of
India and affiliated to the Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical
University. Today, the CMC Vellore, a minority, unaided, non-
0 capitation fee educational institution, is run by the Petitioner
Association comprised of 53 Christian Churches and Christian
Organizations belonging to the Protestant and Orthodox
traditions. The stated object of the Petitioner Association,
as mentioned in its Memorandum of Association,
E Constitution and the Bye-laws is "the establishment,
maintenance and development of a Christian Medical
College and Hospitals, in India, where women and men
shall receive education of the highest grade in the art and
science of medicine and of nursing, or in one or other of
F the related professions, to equip them in the spirit of
Christ for service in the relief of suffering and the
promotion of health".
19. Out of 100 seats available for the under-graduate
MBBS Course, 84 are reserved for candidates from the
G Christian community and the remaining are available for
selection in the open category with reservation for candidates
belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Similarly, 50% of the Post-graduate seats are reserved for
Christian candidates and the remaining 50% are available for
H
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v. 949
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJL]
open selection on an All-India basis. Mr. Salve submitted that A
all students selected for the MBBS course are required to sign
a bond agreeing to serve for a period of two years in areas of
need, upon completion of their courses. Similarly, Post-
graduate students selected in the Christian minority category
have also to give a similar undertaking. B
• 20. Mr. Salve submitted that the Medical Colleges and
institutions run by the Writ Petitioners charge fees which are
subsidised and are even lower than the fees charged by
Government Medical Colleges. Liberal scholarships are given C
by· the College to those who have difficulty in making the
payments, which include boarding, lodging and University
charges (which are considerably higher). Learned counsel 1
submitted that the institution was established by a Christian
minority doctor in response to her religious beliefs and the
command of Jesus Christ exhorting His disciples and followers D
to heal the sick and has evolved an admission process for both
its undergraduate and post graduate courses in order to ensure
that the selected candidates are suitable for being trained
according to the ideology professed at Vellore. Mr. Salve urged
that the selection process is comprised of an All India Entrance E
Test followed by a searching. interview and special test devised
in 1948. Such process has been improved and fine-tuned over
the years so that the candidates are not only trained as health
professionals, but to also serve in areas of need in difficult
circumstances. F
21. It was pointed out that this system of admission
resorted to by the Petitioner has successfully reflected the ideals
with which the medical college was founded and a survey
conducted in 1992 established the fact that the majority of G
graduates and post-graduates, who have passed out from the
college, have been working in India for more than 10 years after·
their graduation and the majority among them were working in
non-metropolitan areas of the country. This evaluation remained
the same, even during surveys conducted in 2002 and 2010, H
950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 7 S.C.R.
A and is in striking contrast to similar surveys carried out by other
medical institutions of equal standard, where only a small
number of graduates have been working in non-metropolitan
areas.
22. Mr. Salve submitted that in 1993, an attempt was made
8
by the Government of Tamil Nadu to interfere with the admission
process in the institution by a letter dated 7th May, 1993,
directing the Petitioner to implement the scheme framed by this
Court in the case of Unni Krishnan Vs. State of U.P. [(1993)
1 sec 645], insofar as the undergraduate course in Nursing
C was concerned. The Petitioner-institution filed Writ Petition
No.482 of 1993 before this Court challenging the State
Government's attempts to interfere with the admission process
of the institution as being contrary to and in violation of the rights
guaranteed to it under Article 30 of the Constitution. In the
D pending Writ Petition, various interim orders were passed by
the Constitution Bench of this Court permitting the institution to
take resort to its own admission procedure for the
undergraduate course in the same manner in which it had been
doing in the past. The said Writ Petition was heard in 2002,
E along with the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case (supra), wherein
eleven questions had been framed.
While hearing the matters, the Chief Justice formulated five
issues to encompass all the eleven questions, on the basis of
F which the hearing was conducted, and the same are extracted
below:
"1. Is there a fundamental right to set up educational
institutions and, if so, under which provision?
G 2. Does Unni Krishnan case [(1993) 4 sec 111] require
reconsideration?
3. In case of private institutions (unaided and aided), can
there be government regulations and,· if so, to what extent?
H
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS v. 951 ·
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
4. In order to determine the existence of a religious or A
linguistic minority in relation to Article 30, what is to be the
· unit - the State or the country as a whole?
5. To what extent can the rights of aided private minority
institutions to administer be regulated?" B
Out of the eleven questions framed by the Bench,
Questions 3(b), 4 and 5(a) are extremely relevant for deciding
the questions raised in the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner-
institution. For the sake of reference, the said three Questions
are extracted hereinbelow: C
"Q3(b). To what extent can professional education be
treated as a matter coming under minorities rights under
Article 30?
04. Whether the admission of students to minority D
educational institutions, whether aided or unaided, can be
regulated by the State Government or by the University to
which the institution is affiliated?
Q5(a). Whether the minority's rights to establish and E
administer educational institutions of their choice will
include the procedure and method of admission and
selection of students?"
23. Mr. Salve submitted that the answer given by the
F
Eleven-Judge Bench to the first Question is that Article 30(1)
re-e'mphasises the right of religious and linguistic minorities to
establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
The use of the words "of their choice" indicates that even
professional educational institutions would be covered by
G
Article 30.
24. The answer to the second Question is that, except for
providing the qualifications and minimum conditions of eligibility
in the interest of academic standards; admission of students
to unaided minority educational institutions cannot be regulated H
952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A by the State or University concerned. Mr. Salve pointed out that
a note of caution was, however, introduced and it was observed
that the right to administer, not being an absolute right, there
could be regulatory measures for ensuring proper educational
standards and maintaining the excellence thereof, particularly
B in regard to admissions to professional institutions. It was
further held that a minority institution does not cease to be so,
when it receives grant-in-aid and it would, therefore, be entitled
to have a right to admit students belonging to the minority group,
but at the same time it would be required to admit a reasonable
c number of non-minority students so that rights under Article
30(1) were not substantially impaired and the rights of a citizen
under Article 29(2) of the Constitution were not infringed.
However, the concerned State Governments would have to
notify the percentage of non-minority students to be admitted
0 in the institution. Amongst students to be admitted from the
minority group, inter se merit would have to be ensured and, in
the case of aided professional institutions, it could also be
submitted that in regard to the seats relating to non-minority
students, admission should normally be on the basis of the
E common entrance test held by the State agency, followed by
counselling wherever it exists.
25. In reply to the third Question, it was held that a minority
institution may have its own procedure and method of
admission as well as selection of students, but such a
F procedure would have to be fair and transparent and the
selection of students in professional and higher educational
colleges should be on the basis of merit. The procedure
selected for admission by the minority institution ought not to
ignore the merit of students for admission while exercising the
G right to admit students by the colleges aforesaid, as in that
event, the institution will fail to achieve excellence. The said
procedure should not amount to maladministration.
26. Some of the issues decided in the T.M.A. Pai
H Foundation case came up for clarification in the Islamic
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v. 953
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
Academy of Education case (supra) and for further A
interpretation in P.A. lnamdar's case (supra), before a Bench
of Seven-Judges, wherein the Petitioner-Association was duly
represented. The Hon'ble Judges reiterated the views
expressed in the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case that there cannot
be any reservation in private unaided institutions, which had the B
right to have their own admission process, if the same was fair,
transparent, non-exploitative and based on merit. Mr. Salve
referred to paragraph 125 of the judgment in P.A. lnamdar's
case (supra), which is relevant for our purpose, and reads as
follows: c
"125. As per our understanding, neither in the judgment of
Pai Foundation [(2002) 8 SCC 481] nor in the Constitution
Bench decision in Kera/a Education Bill [1959 SCR 995]
which was approved by Pai·Foundation, is there anything
which would allow the State to regulate or control D
admissions in the unaided professional educational
institutions so as to compel them to give up a share of the
available seats to the candidates chosen by the State, as
if it was filling the seats available to be filled up at its
discretion in such private institutions. This would amount E
to nationalisation of seats which has been specifically
disapproved in Pai Foundation [(2002) 8 SCC 481]. Such
imposition of quota of State seats or enforcing reservation
policy of the State on available seats in unaided
professional institutions are acts constituting serious F
encroachment on the right and autonomy of private
professional educational institutions. Such appropriation of
seats can also not be held to be a regulatory measure in
the interest of the minority within the meaning of Article
30(1) or a reasonable restriction within the meaning of G
Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India. Merely because
the resources of the State· in providing professional
education are limited, private educational institutions,
which intend to provide better professional education,
cannot be forced by the State to make admissions H
954 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A available on the basis of reservation policy to less
meritorious candidates. Unaided institutions, as they are
not deriving any aid from State funds, can have their own
admissions if fair, transparent, non-exploitative and based
on merit."
8
27. Mr. Salve submitted that after this decision, the
Petitioner Institution continued to admit students to its various
graduate and post-graduate courses by following its own
admission procedure, as it had been doing for the last several
decades. Mr. Salve submitted that the Committee set up by the
C Government of Tamil Nadu has permitted the Institution to follow
its own admission procedure for undergraduate M.8.8.S.
course for the academic year 2012-2013.
28. While matters were thus poised, the Medical Council
D of India framed the impugned amended Regulations, which,
according to Mr. Salve, not only violated the fundamental rights
guaranteed under Articles 25, 26 and 30 of the Constitution to
minority run institutions, but if implemented, would destroy the
very objective with which the hospital had been set up in
E response to Christ's mission of healing the sick. Mr. Salve
submitted that the impugned Notifications were inconsistent
with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in its various
decisions dealing with the rights of unaided, non-capitation fee
minority institutions to admit students of their choice.
F 29. Mr. Salve submitted that right from the decision in Unni
Krishnan's case (supra), when the State Government first
sought to interfere with the admission process adopted by the
Petitioner Institution, this Court has, by virtue of different interim
and final orders, held that there could be no reservation of seats
G in institutions like the ones run by the Petitioner, which are
wholly unaided and have always been permitted to admit
students of their choice, in keeping with their status as minority
unaided professional institutions. It was urged that Clause 9(vi)
of the Post-Graduate Notification, which provides for
H reservation, is ultra vires the provisions of Article 30(1) of the
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS v. 955
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
Constitution. Furthermore, when the State Government tried to A
reserve 50% of the seats in the Under-graduate courses, this
Court granted a stay which continues to be operative.
30. Mr. Salve submitted that the question of reservation of
seats in minority institutions, which has been introduced by the B
impugned amendments, both in respect of the Under-graduate
and the Post-Graduate courses, does violence to the rights
conferred on minorities under Article 30(1) of the Constitution
of India, as interpreted by this Court in various judgments
starting from 1957 till 2002, when the question was finally C
decided by an Eleven-Judge Bench in the T.M.A. Pai
Foundation case (supra). Even the reservation created for NRls
in Unni Krishnan's case (supra) case was declared to be ultra
vires the Constitution of India.
31. It was urged that in a recent decision of this Court in D
the Indian Medical Association case (supra), it has, inter alia,
been held that the level of regulation that the State could impose
under Article 19(6) on the freedoms enjoyed pursuant to Sub-
C I a use (g) of Clause (1) of Article 19 by non-minority
educational institutions, would be greater than what could be . E
imposed on minority institutions under Article 30(1) thereof,
which continued to maintain their minority status by admitting
students mostly belonging to the minority community to which
the minority institutions claim to belong, except for a sprinkling
of non-minority students, an expression which has been used F
in P.A. lnamdar's case and earlier cases as well. Mr. Salve
contended that the Petitioner Institution, from its very inception
reserved up to 85% of its seats in the Under-graduate courses
and 50% of the Post-Graduate seats for Christian students
exclusively. In the remaining 15% of the seats in the Under- G
graduate courses, reservations have been made for Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates.
32. Mr. Salve contended that the impugned Notifications
and the amendments to the MCI Regulations sought to be
introduced thereby are contrary to the judgments delivered by H
956 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A the Constitution Bench. Learned counsel submitted that till the
amendments were introduced, the concerned institutions had
been conducting their own All India Entrance Tests for
admission to the MBBS and Post-Graduate medical courses.
Mr. Salve urged that there has been no complaint of
B maladministration as far as the institutions run by the Petitioner
Association are concerned. ·
33. If was further submitted that all the Petitioners in this
batch of cases are either religious minority educational
C institutions or linguistic minority institutions; non-minority self-
financing colleges, self-financing "Deemed to be Universities"
under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act and
the State Governments which run State medical colleges.
However, it is the Christian Medical College, Vellore, which is
among the very few institutions that fall in the first category. The
D learned counsel urged that without demur, the Christian Medical
College, Vellore, has been consistently rated among the top ten
medical colleges in the country and usually ranked first or
second. The excellence of patient care and academic training
has been recognised, both at the national and international
E levels, and its contribution to health research has also been
recognised as pioneering work by both national and
international research funding agencies. Mr. Salve submitted
that a part of the teachings of Jesus Christ, as documented in
the Gospels, which form part of the New Testament, was to
F reach out to and to heal the sick, which command has been
institutionalised by the Petitioner ever since it was established
as a one-bed mission clinic-cum-hospital in 1900. Mr. Salve
submitted that the activities of the Petitioner Institution clearly
attract the provisions of Article 25 of the Constitution and
G through the Christian Medical College, Vellore, its activities are
designed to achieve the avowed objective of providing human
resources for the healing ministry of the Church. The activity of
running medical courses and allied health sciences and nursing
courses, in order to ensure constant supply of doctors and other
H para-medical staff to those hospitals, engaged in the healing
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v. 957
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
of the sick, are acts performed by the Petitioner in furtherance A
of its religious faith and beliefs. It was submitted that in the
decision of the Constitution Bench of Seven Hon'ble Judges
in the case of Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments,
Madras Vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur
Mutt (1954 SCR 1005), this Court held that Article 25 of the B
Constitution, protects not only the freedom of religious opinion,
but also acts done in pursuance of religious beliefs, as is clear
from the expression "practice of religion"
34. Mr. Salve also referred to the decision in the case of
Ratilal Panachand Gandhi Vs. The State of Bombay & C
Others, reported in 1954 SCR 1055, which was also a decision
rendered by a Constitution Bench of this Court relying upon the
decision in the Shirur Mutt case {supra), wherein similar
sentiments were expressed. Various other decisions on the
same issue were also referred to, which, however, need not D
detain us.
35. Mr. Salve further urged that the Petitioner Institution is
still one of the largest tertiary care hospitals in the country, where
patients come from all over India for expert treatment. The E
medical college combines both medical treatment and
education which, besides being a religious activity, is also a
charitable activity, thereby bringing it within the ambit of Article
26(a) and (b) of the Constitution. Mr. Salve submitted that, in
fact, the said activities had been recognised by this Court in F
the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case {supra), wherein in paragraph
26, it was held as follows :-
"26. The right to establish and maintain educational
institutions may also be sourced to Article 26(a), which
grants, in positive terms, the right to every religious G
'• denomination or any section thereof to establish and
maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes,
subject to public order, morality and health. Education is
a recognised head of charity. Therefore, religious
denominations or sections thereof, which do not fall within H
958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A the special categories carved out in Article 29(1) and
30(1), have the right to establish and maintain religious
and educational institutions."
36. Today the Petitioner has in place a selection process
for admission to its Under-graduate and Post-graduate courses,
8
by which it seeks to select candidates imbibed in the spirit of
Christ for the purpose of healing the sick and to dedicate their
lives to serve the needy, both in the Petitioner Institution and
also in far flung areas, where people have no ready access to
C medical care, through the Christian Mission Hospitals run by
the members of the Petitioner Association. Mr. Salve submitted
that the doctors, who are the product of the Petitioner Institution,
are not only well-trained in medicine, but have also been
imparted with values in the treatment of the sick and the needy
in keeping with the teachings of Christ, who looked on
D everybody with compassion. Mr. Salve urged that the
admission process has proved to be highly successful and
effective, and in the case of St. Stephen's College Vs.
University of Delhi [(1992) 1 SCC 558], this Court upheld the
same as it was found to meet the objectives for which the
E Institution itself had been established, despite the fact that it
was an aided minority institution. Mr. Salve pointed out that in
paragraph 54 of the judgment, this Court had occasion to deal
with the expression "management of the affairs of the institution"
and it was held that this management must be free from control
F so that the founder or their nominees could mould the Institution
as they thought fit and in accordance with the ideas of how the
interests of the community in general and the institution in
particular could be served.
G 37. As far as unaided, non-capitation fee, religious minority
institutions are concerned, Mr. Salve submitted that so long as
the admission procedure adopted is fair, transparent and non-
exploitative and there is no complaint of maladministration, it
would be grossly unjust and unconstitutional to interfere with the
administration of such an institution, in complete violence of the
H
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS v. 959
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
freedoms guaranteed under Articles 25, 26 and 30 of the A
Constitution. Mr. Salve submitted that if the National Eligibility-
cum-Entrance Test was to be applied and followed in the case
of minority institutions protected under Article 30 of the
Constitution, it would result in complete denudation of the
freedoms and rights guaranteed to such institutions under the B
Constitution, as it would run counter to the very principles on
which admissions in such institutions are undertaken.
38. Mr. Salve submitted that neither Section 10A nor
Section 19A of the 1956 Act, which were inserted in the C
principal Statute by amendment, contemplate that the MCI
would itself be entitled to conduct entrance tests for admission
into different medical colleges and hospitals in India. Learned
counsel submitted that the main purpose of constituting the MCI
was to ensure excellence in the field of medical education and
for the said purpose, to regulate the standards of teaching and D
the infrastructure available for establishment of a new medical
college or to introduce a new course of study in an existing
college. What is made clear from Section 1OA is that no new
medical college could be established and recognised by the
Central Government without the recommendation of the Medical E
Council of India. Such recognition would be dependent upon
inspection and satisfaction that the proposed new medical
college satisfied all the conditions stipulated by the Medical
Council of India for starting a new medical college. Section
19A, which was inserted into the principal Act much before F
Section 1OA, speaks of the minimum standards of medical
education, other than post-graduate medical qualification, which
the Medical Council of India may prescribe as being required
for grant of recognition to medical institutions in India.
G
39. Mr. Salve urged that while Section 33 of the 1956 Act
empowered the Council, with the previous sanction of the
Central Government, to make Regulations to carry out the
purposes of the Act and clause (I} empowered the Council to
make Regulations with regard to the conduct of professional
examinations, qualifications of examiners and the conditions of H
960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A admission to such examinations, the same did not empower
the Council to actually conduct the examinations, which
continues to be the prerogative of the institution concerned.
40. Mr. Salve submitted that in State of A.P. Vs. Lavu
B Narendranath[(1971) 1 SCC 607], this Court had considered
the validity of a test held by the State Government for admission
to medical colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh and had
held that although the Andhra University Act, 1926, prescribed
the minimum qualification of passing HSC, PUC, ISC
C examinations for entry into a higher course of study, owing to
the limited number of seats, the Government, which ran the
medical colleges, had a right to select students out of the large
number of candidates who had passed the entrance
examination prescribed by it. It was also held that merely
because the Government had supplemented the eligibility rules
D by a written test in the subjects with which the candidates were
already familiar, there was nothing unfair in the test prescribed
nor did it militate against the powers of the Parliament under
Entry 66 of List I, which is not relatable to a screening test
prescribed by the Government or by a University for selection
E of students out of a large number of students applying for
admission to a particular course of study. This Court held that
such a test necessarily partakes of the character of an eligibility
test as also a screening test. Mr. Salve urged that in such a
situation, minimum qualifying marks were necessary, but the
F said question has not been addressed at all in Lavu
Narendranath's case (supra), since it did not arise in that case.
41. Mr. Salve submitted that the Petitioner Institution has
been supplementing the primary duty enjoined on the State
G under Articles 21 and 47 of the Constitution in providing health
care to the people in different parts of the country, including the
rural and remote areas, through the several hospitals run by
Christian Churches and organizations. Any interference with the
manner in which these -minority institutions are being
administered, except where the standards of excellence are
H
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v. 961
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
compromised, would not only strike at the very reason for their A
existence, but would disturb the health care services being
provided by them. Mr. Salve submitted that the MCI, which is a
creature of Statute, cannot travel beyond the powe{s vested in
it by the Statute and its attempt to regulate and control the
manner in which admissions are to be undertaken in these B
institutions, by introducing a single entrance examination, goes
against the very grain of the fundamental rights vested in the
religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer
educational institutions of their choice and to impart their
religious values therein, so long as the same was not against c
the peace and security of the State.
42. Mr. Salve urged that the amended provisions of the
MCI Regulations as impugned, were liable to be struck down
as being contrary to the provisions of Articles 25, 26 and 30 of
the Constitution, read with Sections 10A and 19A of the Indian D
Medical Council Act, 1956.
43. Having heard Mr. Harish Salve on the rights. claimed
by religious minority medical institution enjoying' the protection
of Articles 25, 26, 29(1) and 30 of the Constitution, we may now E
turn to the submissions made by Mr. K. Parasaran, learned
Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Vinayaka Missions
University, run by a linguistic minority, also enjoying the rights
guaranteed under Article 19(1 )(g) and the protection of Article
30 of the Constitution. F
44. Mr. Parasaran began by reiterating Mr. Salve's
submission that while minority institutions enjoyed the
fundamental rights guaranteed to any other individual or
institution under Article 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution, in addition,
linguistic minorities, like religious minorities, enjoy the special G
protection afforded under Article 30 of the Constitution. Mr.
Parasaran submitted that just as in the case of religious
minorities, linguistic minorities also have the right to establish
and administer educational institutions of their choice, which
included the right to admit students therein. H
962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A 45. Mr. Parasaran submitted that the impugned
Regulations are ultra vires, unconstitutional and violative of
Article 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution, not only in respect of
institutions run by minorities, but also to all institutions covered
by NEET .. Mr. Parasaran submitted that if the Indian Medical
B Council Act, 1956, is to be understood to empower the MCI to
nominate the students for admission, it would be invalid, since
the said Act and the amendments to the Act. which are relevant
for the present cases, were enacted before the 42nd
Constitution Amendment, whereby Entry 11 was removed from
c List II of the Seventh Schedule and was relocated as Entry 25
in List Ill of the said Schedule, came into force on 3rd January,
1977.
46. Mr. Parasaran also urged that as was held by this Court
in Indian Express Newspapers Vs. Union of India [(1985) 1
D sec 641], even if the Regulations are accepted to be
subordinate legislation, the same were also open to challenge:
(a) on the ground on which plenary legislation is
questioned .
.E
(b) on the ground that it does not conform to the statute
under which it is made.
(c) on the ground that it is contrary to some other statute
as it should yield to plenary legislation, and/or
F
(d) that it is manifestly unreasonable.
47. Mr. Parasaran submitted that in Deep Chand Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [(1959) Suppl. 2 SCR 8)
wherein the validity of certain provisions of the Uttar Pradesh
G Transport Service (Development) Act, 1955, came to be
considered on the passing of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment)
Act, 1956, the majority view was that the entire Act did not
become wholly void under Article 254(1) of the Constitution, but
continued to be valid in so far as it supported the Scheme
H
..
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v. 963
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
already framed under the U.P. Act. A
48. Mr. Parasaran contended that a standard must have
general application and inter se merit does not relate to
standards, but is a comparison of an assessment of merit
among the eligible candidates. B
49. Mr. Parasaran submitted that the legislative power
under Entry 11 of List II stood transferred to List Ill only by virtue
of the Forty-second Amendment with effect from 3rd January,
1977 and the power so acquired by virtue of the amendment,
could not validate an Act enacted before the acquisition of such C
power. Mr. Parasaran urged that while the Indian Medical
Council Act was enacted in 1956, Section 19A on which great
reliance was placed by Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned Advocate
appearing for the MCI, was brought into the Statute Book on
16th June, 1964. Consequently the 1956 Act, as also the D
Regulations, are ultra vires, except to the extent covered by
Entry 66 of List I, which is confined to "co-ordination and
determination of standards".
50. Referring to the decision of this Court in State of Orissa E
Vs. M.A. Tulloch & Co. [(1964) 4 SCR 461), Mr. Parasaran
contended that as the State's powers of legislation are subject
to Parliamentary legislation under Entry 66 of List I, when
Parliament legislates, to that extent alone the State is denuded
of its legislative power. A denudation of the power of the State F
legislature can be effected only by a plenary legislation and not
by subordinate legislation. The Regulations, which are not
plenary in character, but have the effect of denuding the power
of the State legislature, are, therefore, ultra vires.
51. Another interesting submission urged by Mr. Parasaran G
was that the principle of "Rag Bag" legislation, as was
explained by this Court in Ujagar Prints etc. Vs. Union of India
[(1989) 3 sec 488), cannot be invoked by combining the
Entries in List I and List Ill in cases where the field of legislation
in List Ill is expressly made subject to an Entry in List I. In such H
964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A cases, while enacting a legislation on a subject in List Ill,
Parliament is also subject to the Entry in List I in the same way
as the State legislature, as the field of legislation in the
Concurrent List is the same as far as the Parliament and the
State legislatures for admission of students to professional
B courses, are concerned. Mr. Parasaran urged that the decision
in Preeti Srivastava's case (supra) has to be interpreted
harmoniously with the decision in M.A. Tu/loch's case (supra),
lshwari Khetan Vs. State of U.P. [(1980) 4 SCC 136] and Deep
Chand's case (supra), as otherwise the findings in Preeti
C Srivastava's case (supra) would be rendered per incuriam for
not taking note of the fact that the power of Parliament under
Entry 25 of List Ill was an after acquired power. Mr. Parasaran
emphasised the fact that the reasoning in Preeti Srivastava's
case (supra) related only to the question of the State's power
to prescribe different admission criteria to the Post-graduate
0
courses in Engineering and medicine and cannot be held to
govern the admission of students to the said courses. Learned
counsel submitted that the decision in Preeti Srivastava's case
(supra) has to be confined only to eligibility standards for
admission and not to issues relating to admission itself. Mr.
E Parasaran also pointed out that in Preeti Srivastava's case
(supra), the decision in Deep Chand's case (supra) had not
been considered and the fact that Parliament had no power to
legislate with regard to matters which were then in Entry 11 of
List II had been overlooked. The Court, therefore, erroneously
F proceeded on the basis of the powers given to Parliament by
virtue of Entry 25 of List Ill by the Forty-second Amendment. Mr.
Parasaran urged that to the extent it is inconsistent with the
decision in the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case (supra), as to the
right of admission by private institutions, the decision in Preeti
G Srivastava's case (supra) will have to yield to the principles laid
down by the larger Bench in the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case
(supra). Mr. Parasaran submitted that the effect of the
impugned Regulations in the context of the prevailing law is that
private institutions may establish educational institutions at
H huge costs and provide for teaching and lectures, but without
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v. 965
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
any right, power or discretion to run the college, even to the A
extent of admitting students therein. Mr. Parasaran contended
that by the introduction of NEET the States and Universities in
States stand completely deprived of the right to deal with
admissions, which has the effect of destroying the federal
structure of the Constitution. B
52. Mr. Parasaran urged that the executive power of the
State, which is co-extensive with the legislative power with
regard to matters in the Concurrent List, cannot be taken away
except as expressly provided by the Constitution or by any law C
made by Parliament. It was urged that the power of
subordinate legislation or statutory power conferred by a
Parliamentary legislation cannot be exercised to take away the
legislative power of the State legislature, which could only be
done by plenary legislation under Article 73 of the Constitution.
Mr. Parasaran submitted that the impugned Regulations, not D
being plenary legislation, are unconstitutional and ultra vires the
Constitution.
53. Mr. Parasaran submitted that the impugned
Regulations provide that if sufficient number of candidates in E
the respective categories fail to secure minimum marks as
prescribed in NEET, held both for Post-graduate and graduate
courses, the Central Government, in consultation with the
Medical Council of India, may at its discretion lower the
minimum marks for admission, which itself indicates that the F
Regulations are concerned not with determination of standards,
but with admissions.
54. Mr. Parasaran further submitted that the Scheme
framed in Unni Krishnan's case (supra) completely excluded
the discretion of the institution to admit students and the same G
was, therefore, overruled in the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case
as having the effect of nationalising education in respect of
important features viz. right of a private unaided institution to
give admission and to fix the fees. Mr. Parasaran submitted
that the impugned Regulations suffer from the same vice of a H
966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A complete take-over of the process of admission, which
rendered the impugned Regulations unconstitutional.
55. Mr. Parasaran further urged that minorities, whether
based on religion or language, also have a fundamental right
under Article 19(1)(g), like any other citizen, to practise any
8
profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business in
the interest of the general public, but subject to reasonable
restrictions that may be imposed by the State on the exercise
of such rights. In addition, minorities have the right guaranteed
under Article 30 to establish and administer educational
C institutions of their choice. Considering the right of both minority
and non-minority citizens to establish and administer
educational institutions, this Court had in the T.M.A. Pai
Foundation case (supra) held that the said right includes the
right to admit students and to nominate students for admission
D and even when students are required to be selected on the
basis of merit, the ultimate decision to grant admission to the
students who have otherwise qualified for the said purpose,
must be left with the educational institutions concerned. Mr.
Parasaran submitted that in the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case
E (supra), this Court, inter alia, observed that the fixing of a rigid
fee structure, compulsory nomination of teachers and staff for
appointment or nominating students for admission would be
unreasonable restrictions.
F 56. Mr. Parasaran also urged that the right of minority
institutions under Article 30 is in the national interest and as
indicated in the decision in Unni Krishnan's case (supra), the
hard reality that emerges is that private educational institutions
are a necessity in the present-day circumstances. It is not
possible today without them because the Governments are in
G no position to meet the demand, particularly in the sectors of
medical and technical education, which call for substantial
investments and expenses. Mr. Parasaran submitted that the
impugned Regulations were not in the national interest and
would only discourage good private institutions being
H established by people dedicated to the cause of providing
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS v. 967
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
health care to all sections of the citizens of this country and, in A
particular, the marginalized sections in the metropolitan and
rural areas.
57. Mr. Parasaran then urged that 50% of the total seats
available, as per Clause VI of the Post-Graduate Medical 8
Education Regulations, were to be filled up by the State
Governments or the Authorities appointed by them. The
remaining 50% seats are to be filled up by the concerned
medical colleges and institutions on the basis of the merit list
prepared according to the marks obtained in NEET. Mr. C
Parasaran submitted that there is a similar provision in the 1997
Regulations applicable to the Graduate M.B.B.S. course.
Noticing the same, this Court in P.A. /namdar's case (supra)
categoricalfy indicated that nowhere in the T.M.A. Pai
Foundation case (supra), either in the majority or in the minority
views, could any justification be found for imposing seat sharing D
quota by the State on unaided private professional educational
institutions. Clarifying the position this Court observed that
fixation of percentage of quota are to be read and understood
as consensual arrangements which may be reached between
unaided private professional institutions and the State. Mr. E
Parasaran urged that the Regulations providing for a quota of
50% are, therefore, invalid.
58. Mr. Parasaran urged that in P.A. lnamdar's case
(supra), this Court had held that private institutions could follow F
an admission procedure if the same satisfied the triple test of
being fair, transparent and non-exploitative. It is only when an
institution failed the triple test, could the State interfere and
substitute its own fair and transparent procedure, but the same
cannot become a procedure by destroying the very right of the G
private institutions to hold their own test in the first instance. Mr.
Parasaran urged that the purpose of a common entrance test
is to compute the equivalence between different kinds of
qualifications and to ensure that those seeking entry into a
medical institute did not have to appear for multiple tests, but H
968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 7 S.C.R.
A it could not justify the extinguishing of the right to admit and to
reject candidates on a fair, transparent and non-exploitative
basis from out of the eligible candidates under NEET. Mr.
Parasaran reiterated that ultimately it is the institutions which
must have the right to decide the admission of candidates.
B
59. Mr. Parasaran submitted that in Pradeep Jain Vs.
Union of India ((1984) 3 SCC 654], this Court has held that
university-wise distribution of seats is valid, The learned Judges
fully considered the mandate of equality and pointed out the
C need to take into account different considerations relating to
differing levels of social, economic and educational
development of different regions, disparity in the number of
seats available in different States and tjle difficulties that may
be faced by students from one region, if they get a seat in
another region. This Court held that an All India Entrance
D Examination would only create a mirage of equality of
opportunity and would, in reality, deprive large sections of
underprivileged students from pursuing higher education. _
Though attractive at first blush, an All India Entrance
Examination would actually be detrimental to the interests of the
E students hoping for admission to the M.B.B.S. and Post-
graduate courses.
60. Mr. Parasaran submitted that since all judgments on
the subject were by Benches which were of lesser strength as
F compared to the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case (supra), all other
decisions of this Court, both before and after the decision in
the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case (supra), would, therefore, have
to be read harmoniously with the principles enunciated in the
T.M.A. Pai Foundation case (supra). In case some of the
G cases cannot be harmoniously read, then the principles laid
down in _the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case (supra) will have
primacy and will have to be followed. Mr. Parasaran submitted
that the observations as to standard and merit in Preeti
Srivsatava's case (supra) and in P.A. lnamdar's case (supra),
have to be understood as conforming to the decision in the
H
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v. 969
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
T.M.A. Pai Foundation case (supra). Mr. Parasaran submitted A
that the flourish of language in the judgments of Benches of
lesser strength cannot be read so as to dilute the ratio of the
decision of Benches of larger strength. Mr. Parasaran urged
that consequently the right to admit students by unaided private
institutions, both aided and unaided minority institutions, as part B
of their right to administer the institution, as guaranteed under
Articles 19(1)(g), 25, 26, 29(1) and 30 of the Constitution,
cannot be taken away even by way of plenary jurisdiction, which
the impugned Regulations are not.
61. Mr. Parasaran submitted that in the case of aided non- C
minority institutions, the State may by Regulation provide for a
larger role for the State in relation to matters of admission. Mr.
Parasaran urged that the impugned Regulations being only
regulatory in character, they cannot destroy the right itself.
D
62. Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, learned senior counsel, who
appeared on behalf of Yenepoya University in Transferred Case
Nos. 135-137 of 2012 and also for the Karnataka Religious
and Linguistic Minority Professional Colleges Association in
Transferred Case Nos. 121-122 of 2012, submitted that E
although the issues involved in the said cases have already
been argued in extenso by Mr. Salve and Mr. Parasaran, as
part of the main issue., it has to be decided whether NEET
violates the fundamental right guaranteed to minorities, both
religious and linguistic, to impart medical education, as
F
explained in the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case (supra) and other
subsequent decisions and even if found to be intra vires, is it
manifestly unjust and arbitrary? It was further urged that it would
also have to be decided whether the doctrine of severability,
reading down and proportionality, could be effected to the G
impugned Regulations.
63. Dr. Dhawan urged that the T.M.A. Pai Foundation
case (supra) resolved several issues where there was still
some doubt on account of decisions rendered in different
cases. Dr. Dhawan urged that it was held that the decision in H
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 7 S.C.R
A the Unni Krishnan's case (supra) was wrong to the extent that
"free seats" were to go to the privileged and that education was
being nationalised which took over the autonomy of institutions
It was also observed that the expanding needs of education
entailed a combined use of resources both of the Government
8 and the private sector, since the imparting of education was
too large a portfolio for the Government alone to manage.
64. Dr. Dhawan urged that the other issue of importance,
which was also decided, was the right of autonomy of
institutions which were protected under Article 30 of the
C Constitution, which, inter alia, included the right to admit
students.
It was also settled that unaided institutions were to have
maximum autonomy while aided institutions were to have a
D lesser autonomy, but not to be treated as "departmentally run
by government".
65. Dr. Dhawan submitted that the decision in the TM.A.
Pai Foundation case (supra) also settled the issue that
affiliation and recognition has to be available to every institution
E that fulfills the conditions for grant of such affiliation and
recognition. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that
surrendering the total process of selection to the State was
unreasonable, as was sought to be done in the Scheme
formulated in Unni Krishnan's case (supra). The said trend of
F the decisions was sought to be corrected in the T.M.A. Pai
Foundation case (supra) where it was categorically held that
minority institutions had the right to "mould the institution as they
think fit", bearing in mind that "minority institutions have a
personality of their own, and in order to maintain their
G atmosphere and traditions, it is but necessary that they must
have a right to choose and select the students who can be
admitted in their course of study." It is for this reason that in
the St. Stephen's College case (supra), this Court upheld the
Scheme whereby a cut-off percentage was fixed for admission
H after which the students were interviewed and, thereafter,
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS v. 971
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
selected. It was also laid down that while the educational A
institutions cannot grant admission on its whims and fancies
and must follow some identifiable or reasonable methodology
of admitting students, any scheme, rule or regulation that does
not give the institution the right to reject candidates who might
otherwise be qualified according to, say their performance in B
an entrance test, would be an unreasonable restriction under
Article 19(6), though appropriate guidelines/ modalities can
always be prescribed for holding the entrance test in a fair and
transparent manner.
66. Again in paragraphs 158 and 159 of the judgment in
c
the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case (supra), it has been very
picturesquely expressed that India is a kaleidoscope of different
peoples of different cultures and that all pieces of mosaic had
to be in harmony in order to give a whole picture of India which
would otherwise be scarred. Their Lordships very poetically D
indicated that each piece, like a citizen of India, plays an
important part in the making of the whole. The variations of the
colours as well as different shades of the same colour in a map
are the result of these small pieces of different shades and
colours or marble, but even when one small piece of marble is E
removed, the whole map would be disfigured, and the beauty
of the mosaic would be lost.
67. Referring to the separate decision rendered by Ruma
Pal, J., in the TM.A. Pai Foundation case (supra), Dr. Dhawan F
submitted that the learned Judge had also artistically
distinguished Indian secularism from American secularism by
calling Indian secularism "a salad bowl" and not a "melting pot".
68. Dr. Dhawan urged that a combined reading of the
decision in Islamic Academy's case (supra) and P.A. G
lnamdar's case (supra) suggests that (i) no unaided institutions
can be compelled to accept reservations made by the State,
except by voluntary agreement; and (ii) the right to (a) admit
and select students of their choice by pursuing individual or
H
972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A associational tests and (b) fix fees on a non-profit basis is a
right available t~ all educational institutions, but the admissions
were to be made on a fair, transparent and non exploitative
method, based on merit.
B 69. On Article 15(5) of the Constitution, Dr. Dhawan
contended that the same was included in the Constitution by
the Constitution (93rd Amendment) Act, with the object of over
turning the decision in P.A. lnamdar's case (supra) on voluntary
reservations. Dr. Dhawan submitted that the said provision
would make it Clear that the State reservations do not apply to
C "minority institutions" enjoying the protection of Article 30 and
it is on such basis that in the Society for Unaided Private
Schools of Rajasthan Vs. Union of India [(2012) 6 SCC 1],
this Court held that a minority institution could not be forced to
accept the statutory reservation also. Dr. Dhawan urged that
D the impact of the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case (supra) and
subsequent decisions is that all institutions, and especially
minority institutions, have the constitutional right to select and
admit students of their choice and conduct their own tests,
subject to minimum standards which could be enhanced but not ·
E lowered by the States.
70. Dr. Dhawan also referred to the issue of equivalence
between various Boards and uniformity and convenience.
Learned counsel submitted that the distinction was recognized
F in the case of Rajan Purohit Vs. Rajasthan University of
Health Sciences [(2012) 10 SCC 770], wherein it was
observed that the problem of equivalence could be resolved by
the college or group of colleges, either by finding a method of
equivalence to reconcile difference of standards between
G various Boards, or by the college or group of colleges evolving
a Common Entrance Test to overcome the problem of
equivalence. Dr. Dhawan submitted that the said issue had
been addressed in the T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra), which
continues to hold the field in respect of common issues. Dr.
Dhawan urged that consistent with the views expressed in the
H
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS v. 973
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJL]
TM.A Pai Foundation case (supra) and the importance of A
autonomy and voluntarism, the same could not be impinged
upon by nationalizing the process of admission itself for both
the purposes of eligibility and selection, unless a college failed
to abide by the triple requirements laid down in P.A. lnamdar's
case (supra). B
71. In regard to the decision in Lavu Narendranath's case
(supra), which had been relied upon by Mr. K. Parasaran, Dr.
Dhawan contended that the same was based upon the
understanding that Entry 66 of List I had no relation with tests C
for screening and selecting students prescribed by the States
or Universities for admission, but only to coordinate standards.
The scope of the said Entry did not deal with the method of
admission, which was within the constitutional powers of the
State and the Universities. Dr. Dhawan submitted that the
decision rendered in Preeti Srivastava's case (supra) also D
expressed similar views regarding laying down of standards for
admission into the Post-graduate medical courses, which
meant that government and universities had exclusive control
over admission tests and the criteria of selection in higher
education, subject to minimum standards laid down by the E ,
Union, unless Union legislation, relatable to Entry 25 of List Ill,
. was passed to override the States' endeavours in this regard.
72. Dr. Dhawan contended that the demarcation sought to
be made in Lavu Narendranath's case (supra) found favour in F
subsequent cases, such as in the case of State of M.P. Vs.
Nivedita Jain [(1981) 4 SCC 296], wherein a Bench of Three
Judges took the view that Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution relates to "coordination and
determination of standards in institutions for higher education G
or research and scientific and technical institutions". The said
sentiments were reiterated by this Court in Ajay Kumar Singh
Vs. State of Bihar [(1994) 4 SCC 401]. However, in Preeti
Srivastava's case (supra), the Constitution Bench overruled the
decision in the said two cases. But, as urged by Dr. Ohawan, H
974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.CR
A by holding that Entry 66 of List I was not relatable to a
screening test prescribed by the Government or by a University
for selection of students from out of a large number for
admission to any particular course of study, the Constitution
Bench also accepted that the powers of the MCI under List I,
B Entry 66, did not extend to selection of students. Dr. Dhawan
urged that although Preeti Srivastava's case (supra) had been
confined to its facts, it went beyond the same on account of
interpretation of the scope of List I, Entry 66 and extending the
same to the admission process, simply because admission
c also related to standards and upon holding that the Union
Parliament also had the power to legislate for the MCI in the
matter of admission criteria under Entry 25, List Ill.
Dr. Dhawan submitted that the two aforesaid issues had
the potentiality of denuding the States and the private
D institutions, including minority institutions enjoying the protection
of Article 30, of their powers over the admission process and
in the bargain upset the Federal balance
73. The validity of the impugned Regulations was also
E questioned by Dr. Dhawan on the ground that Sections 19A and
20 of the 1956 Act authorises the MCI to prescribe the
minimum standards of medical education required for granting .
recognised medical qualifications in India, but copies of the
draft regulations and of all subsequent amendments thereof are
required to be furnished by the Council to all State
F
Governments and the Council, before submitting the
Regulations or any amendment thereto to the Central
Government for sanction, is required to take into consideration
the comments of any State Government received within three
G months from the furnishing of copies of the said Regulations.
Dr. Dhawan submitted that such consultation was never
undertaken by the MCI before the Regulations were amended,
which has rendered the said Regulations invalid and by virtue
of the decisions rendered in Lavu Narendranath's case (supra)
and Preeti Srivastava's case (supra), they cannot be reinstated
H by virtue of Entry 25 List Ill.
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS v. 975
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
74. Dr. Dhawan urged that while the power of the MCI to A
frame Regulations is under Section 33 of the 1956 Act, the role
of the MCI is limited to that of a recommending or a consulting
body to provide standards which are required to be maintained
for the purpose of running the medical institution. and would not
include admission of students to the Under-graduate and the B
Post-graduate courses. Dr. Dhawan urged that the said powers
could not have been extended to controlling admissions in the
medical colleges and medical institutions run by the State and
private authorities. Dr. Dhawan submitted that as was held by
this Court in State of Kamataka Vs. H. Ganesh Karnath ((1983) c
2 SCC 402], "It is a well-settled principle of interpretation of
statutes that the conferment of rule-making power by an Act
does not enable the rule-making authority to make a rule which
travels beyond the scope of the enabling Act or which is
inconsistent therewith or repugnant thereto." While accepting D
that delegated legislation is necessary, Dr. Dhawan urged that
it must remain within the contours of the rule or regulation-
making power and the purpose for which it is given, as was
held by this Court in St. John's Teachers Training Institute Vs.
Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education E
[(2003) 3 sec 3211.
75. Dr. Dhawan also questioned the vires of the amended
provisions of the MCI Rules on the ground of unreasonableness
and arbitrariness and urged that in both cases the Court would
be justified in invoking the doctrine of proportionality, as was F
observed by this Court in Om Prakash Vs. State of U.P. ((2004)
3 SCC 402]. Dr. Dhawan submitted that the only way in which
the impugned Regulations could possibly be saved is by
reading them down to bring them in conformity with the
constitutional legislation and the law laid down by the Supreme G
Court.
76. Dr. Dhawan urged that admission of students in all the
medical institutions in India on the basis of a single eligibility-
cum-entrance examination, was not only beyond the scope of H
976 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A the powers vested in the Medical Council of India to make
Regulations under Section 33 of the 1956 Act, but the same
were also arbitrary and unreasonable, not having been framed
in consultation with the States and without obtaining their
response in respect thereof. More over, the same runs counter
B to the decision of this Court in the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case
(supra) making it clear that the MCI was only a regulatory and/
or advisory body having the power to lay down the standards
in the curricula, but not to interfere with the process of
admission, which would be the obvious fall-out of a single NEET
c conducted by the MCI. Dr. Dhawan concluded on the note that
uniformity for its own sake is of little use when the end result
does not achieve the objects for which the Regulations have
been introduced.
77. Appearing for Sri Ramachandra University in
·D Transferred Case Nos.1 & 3 of 2013, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha,
learned Senior Advocate, questioned the vires of the impugned
regulations more or less on the same grounds as canvassed
by Mr. Salve, Mr. K. Parasaran and Dr. Dhawan. Mr. Sinha also
reiterated the fact that in Preeti Srivastava's case (supra), this
.E Court did not notice the decision in Deep Chand's case (supra)
and overlooked the fact that Parliament had no power to
legislate with regard to matters which were then in Entry 11 of
List II of the Seventh Schedule. Mr. Sinha submitted that the
decision in Preeti Srivastava's case (supra) must, therefore, be
F held to be per incuriam.
78. Mr. Sinha urged that neither Section 19A nor Section
2(h) contemplates the holding of a pre-medical entrance test
for admission into all medical institutions in the country,
G irrespective of who had established such institutions and were
administering the same. Mr. Sinha urged that the impugned
Regulations were liable to be struck down on such ground as
well, as it sought to unlawfully curtail the powers of the persons
running such medical institutions in the country.
H 79. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned Senior Advocate, who initially
.,CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS v. 977
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
appeared for the State of Andhra Pradesh in Transferred Case A
No.102 of 2012, submitted that as far as the State of Andhra
Pradesh is concerned, admission into educational institutions
was governed by a Presidential Order dated 10th May, 1979,
issued under Article 371 D of the Constitution, inter alia,
providing for minimum educational qualifications and conditions B
of eligibility for admission to the MBBS, B.Sc. Course, etc. Mr.
Rao submitted that being a special provision it prevails in the
State of Andhra Pradesh over other similar legislations.
80. Subsequently, Mr. L. Nageshwara Rao, learned Senior C
Advocate, appeared for the State of Andhra Pradesh in the
said Transferred Case and also in Transferred Cases Nos.100
and 101 of 2012, 103 of 2012, Transfer Petition (C) Nos.1671
and 1645 of 2012 and Writ Petition (C) No.464 of 2012. In
addition, Mr. Nageswara Rao also appeared for the State of
Tamil Nadu in Transferred Case Nos.110 and 111 of 2012 and D
for the Tamil Nadu Deemed University Association in
Transferred Cases Nos. 356 and 357 of2012 and Writ Petition
(C) No.27 of 2013.
81. Continuing from where Mr. P.P. Rao left off, Mr. E
Nageswara Rao submitted that in conformity with the aforesaid
Presidential Order, the State of Andhra Pradesh enacted the
A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and
Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983, defining, inter alia,
"local area", "local candidate", "educational institutions" and F
".relevant qualifying examinations". Mr. Rao pointed out that
Section 5 of the Act provides for reservation in non-State- Wide
Universities and Education Institutions in favour of local
candidates while Section 6 provides for reservation in State-
wide Universities and State-wide Educational Institutions for G
local candidates. Mr. Rao submitted that the impugned
Notification of the Medical Council of India cannot be given
effect to in view of the Presidential Order made under Article
371 D of the Constitution and the 1983 Act enacted in
pursuance of the said Order.
H
•
978 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A 82. Mr. Rao submitted that if the Medical Council of India
could or should hold a National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test. it
would have the effect of denuding the State and the educational
institutions of their right to establish and administer educational
institutions which enjoy the protection of Articles 19(1 )(g), 25,
s 26 and 30 of the Constitution.
83. With regard to the State of Tamil Nadu and the
Deemed University Association, Mr. Rao confined his
submissions to Entry 25 of List Ill, in relation to Entry 66 of List
I. Mr. Rao reiterated the submissions made earlier that the
C subject matter of Entry 66 of List I is for "coordination and
determination of standards" in institutions for higher education
and that the determination of standards also falls within Entry
25 of List Ill only when coordination and determination of
standards are dealt together with the State enactment made
D subject to legislation under Entry 66 of List I. Mr. Rao submitted
that the· denudation of the legislative power of the State
Legislature could only be by plenary legislation made under
Entry 66 of List I read with Article 246 of the Constitution and
not by subordinate legislation which renders the impugned
E regulations ultra vires the aforesaid provisions of the
Constitution.
84. While dealing with the aforesaid questions, Mr. Rao
also submitted that the Notification contemplates the conducting
F of a common entrance test for all the dental colleges throughout
India, without considering the different streams of education
prevalent in India such as CBSE, ICSE, State Boards, etc.,
prevailing in different States. The different standards of
education prevalent in different States had not been taken into
G consideration and in such factual background, the holding of c:
Single Common Entrance Test for admission to the B.D.S. and
the M.D.S. courses in all the dental colleges throughout India,
would lead to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, since
there is no intelligible object sought to be achieved by sue~
amended regulations.
H
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v. 979
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
85. Mr. Rao also questioned the provision made by the A
amendment dated 15th February, 2012, to the Notification
dated 21st December, 2010, reserving admission to Post-
graduate Diploma Courses for Medical Officers in the
Government Service, who acquired 30% marks, as being wholly
unrelated to merit in the entrance examination and, therefore, B
making such reservation arbitrary and irrational. Mr. Rao
submitted that there is no rationale in giving this benefit only to
whose who are serving in Government/public authorities with
regard to service in remote/difficult areas. Mr. Rao urged that
the Government of Tamil Nadu has consistently opposed the c
proposal to apply the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test to
determine admission to different medical colleges and
institutions. Mr. Rao submitted that when the Notification was
first issued on 27th December, 2010, the Government of Tamil
Nadu challenged the same by way of Writ Petition No. 342 of D
2011 and in the said Writ Petition, the High Court stayed the
operation of the Notification for UG NEET Entrance
Examination in so far as it related to the State of Tamil Nadu,
and the stay continues to be in force. Mr. Rao urged that in
· respect of Tamil Nadu there are many constitutional issues, as E
Tamil Nadu had abolished the Common Entrance Test based
on the Tamil Nadu Admission in Professional Educational
Institutions Act, 2006, which was given effect to after receiving
the President's assent under Article 254(2) of the Constitution.
86. Mr. Rao submitted that the introduction of NEET by F
virtue of the amended Regulations would run counter to the
policy of the State Government which has enacted the aforesaid
Act by abolishing the practice of holding an All India Entrance
Test for admission to the professional courses in the State. Mr.
Rao submitted that the decision regarding admission to the G
Post-graduate Medical and Dental Examinations would be the
same as that for admission in Under-graduate courses.
87. Mr. Rao contended that the MCI had no jurisdiction to
issue the impugned Notifications as the Council lacks the
H
980 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 7 S.C.R.
A competence to amend the State Act which had been enacted
in 2006 and the validity whereof has been upheld by the High
Court. Mr. Rao repeated and reiterated the submissions earlier
made with regard to the vires of the impugned Regulations and
prayed for proper directions to be issued to allow the State of
B Tamil Nadu to continue its existing system of admission to both
Under-graduate and Post-graduate courses .
. 88. Learned senior counsel, Mr. R. Venkataramani,
appearing for the Government of Puducherry, in T.C. No. 17 of
2013, adopted the submissions made by Mr. Salve, Mr.
C Parasaran and Dr. Dhawan. Mr. Venkataramani submitted that
the Notifications, whereby the impugned Regulations were
sought to be introduced by the Medical Council of India, were
beyond the scope of the powers conferred under Section 33
of the 1956 Act, rendering them ultra vires and invalid. Mr.
D Venkataramani submitted that the failure of the MCI to consult
the Government of Puducherry, as was required under Sections
19A and 20 of the 1956 Act, before amending the Regulations
and notifying the same, rendered the same invalid. Mr.
Venkataramani also reiterated the submission made earlier that
E there are different streams of education prevailing in different
States, having different syllabi, curriculum, Board of
Examinations and awarding of marks and it would be
unreasonable to conduct a single examination by taking
recourse to a particular stream of education which would have
F the effect of depriving effective participation of other students
educated in different streams.
89. Mr. Venkataramani submitted that this Court had
consistently held that unaided educational institutions are free
G to devise their own admission procedures and that the
impugned Regulations were against social justice and would
impinge on the rights of unaided educational institutions as wel!
as the institutions enjoying the protection of Article 30 of the
Constitution in the Union Territory of Puducherry.
H 90. Appearing for the Karnataka Private Medical anc
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS v. 981
UNION OF !NOIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
Dental Colleges' Association consisting of Minority and Non- A
Minority private unaided Medical Colleges and educational
institutions in the State of Karnataka; Mr. K.K. Venugopal,
learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the Association had
filed several Writ Petitions before the Karnataka High Court
challenging the validity of the Notifications dated 21.12.2010 . B
and 5.2.2012, by which the Medical Council of India has
attempted to foist a Common Entrance Test (NEET) on all
medical insti!utions in the country, which have been transferred
to this Court for consideration along with other similar matters
where the issues were common. c
91. Mr. Venugopal reiterated that the imposition of NEET
was contrary to the decisions of this Court in the T.M.A. Pai
Foundation case (supra) and in P.A. lnamdar's case (supra).
Mr. Venugopal contended that the right of the Members of the
Association to carry on the business and vocation of imparting D
medical education had been upheld not only in the two
aforesaid cases, but also in the Islamic Academy of Education
case (supra) and in T. Varghese George Vs. Kora K. George
((2012) 1 SCC 369), Society for Unaided Private Schools of
Rajasthan case (supra) and Rajan Purohit's case (supra). E
Mr. Venugopal urged that the aforesaid right has been
based on the fact that a non-minority professional college has
the same fundamental right which is also possessed by a
minority institution under Article 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution, but F
is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) of the
Constitution.
92. Mr. Venugopal also voiced the issues common to all
these cases as to whether it would be open to the Government
or the MCI, a creature of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, G
to regulate the admission of students to all medical colleges
and institutions. Mr. Venugopal urged that since the question
had been troubling the Courts in the country for a considerable
period of time, a Bench of Eleven (11) Judges was constituted
to settle the above issues and other connected issues and to H
982 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A put a quietus to the same. The said Bench heard a number of
matters in which the issue had been raised and it delivered its
verdict in what is referred to as the TM.A. Pai Foundation case
(supra), answering all the questions raised. Certain common
issues contained in ttie judgment came up for consideration
B later and were subsequently referred to a Bench of Seven
Judges in P.A. /namdar's case (supra) where the issue was
finally put to rest.
93. Mr. Venugopal firmly urged that in dealing with the
C issues raised in these matters, none of the decisions rendered
by this Court in the past were required to be re-opened and
the said issues will have to be considered and decided by this
Court by merely testing their validity against the ratio of the
earlier judgments, and, in particular, the decision in the TM.A.
Pai Foundation case (supra).
D
94. Mr. Venugopal's next submission was with regard to
the provisions of the Karnataka Professional Educational
Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee)
(Special Provisions) Act, 2011, hereinafter referred to as the
E "Karnataka Act of 2011", which provides for a consensual
arrangement between the State Government and the Petitioner
Association for filling up the seats in the unaided medical
colleges being taken over by the State Government to the extent
agreed upon between the parties. The said Act also regulates
F the fees to be charged in these private institutions. Mr.
Venugopal urged that the said Act still holds the field, since its
validity has not been challenged. As a result, the impugned
Regulation, now made by the Medical Council of India,
purportedly under Section 33 of the 1956 Act, cannot prevail
G over the State law. Mr. Venugopal submitted that the impugned
Regulations are, therefore, of no effect in the State of
Karnataka.
95. Mr. Venugopal also urged that having regard to the
decision of this Court in the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case
H (supra) and the other decisions referred to hereinabove, the
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS v. 983
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
impugned Notifications imposing NEET as a special vehicle A
for admission into medical colleges denuding the State and the
private medical institutions from regulating their own procedure,
must be held to be ultra vires Section 33 of the 1956 Act.
96. Mr. Venugopal reiterated the submissions made on B
behalf of the other Petitioners and concluded on the
observations made in paragraph 3 of the decision of this Court
in State of Kamataka Vs. Dr. T.M.A. Pai Foundation-& Ors.
[(2003> 6 sec 1901. which made it clear that au Etatutory
enactments, orders, schemes, regulations would hlive to-be
brought in conformity with the decision of the Constitution C
Bench in the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case (supra), dErtided on
31.10.2002. Mr. Venugopal submitted that it, therefore, follows
that the Regulations of 2000, 2010 and 2012, to the e~.ent that
they are inconsistent with the decision in the T.ff,f.A. Pai
Foundation case (supra), would be void and would ha"1e to be D
struck down.
97. Mr. G.S. Kannur, learned Advocate, who appear~d in
support of the application for intervention, being I.A. No.~. in
Transferred Case No.3 of 2013, repeated the submissiQns E
made by Mr. K. Parasaran, Dr. Dhawan and Mr. L. NageshW?r
Rao, that the existence of various Boards in a particular Sta~
is bound to cause inequality and discrimination if the Common
Entrance Test was introduced as the only criteria for admission
into any medical college or institution in the country. -F
_ 98. Appearing for the Christian Medical College Ludhiana
Society and the medical institutions being run by it, Mr. V. Giri,
learned Senior Advocate, reiterated the submissions made by
Mr. Harish Salve, on behalf of the Christian Medical College
Vellore Association, but added a new dimension to the G
submissions made by submitting that the impugned Regulations
had been issued by the Board of Governors, which had been
in office pursuant to the supersession of the Medical Council,
under Section 3A of the 1956 Act. Mr. Giri submitted that the
Board of Governors, which was only an ad hoc body brought H
984 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A into existence to exercise the powers and perform the functions
of the Council under the Act pending its reconstitution, was not
competent as an Ad hoc body to exercise the delegated
legislative power under Section 33 of the said Act and to
discharge the functions of the Medical Council, as contemplated
B under Section 3 of the 1956 Act.
99. Mr. Giri urged that though Section 33 of the 1956 Act
confers power on the Medical Council of India to make
Regulations generally for carrying out the purposes of the Act,
it also enumerates the different functions of the Council and its
C powers and duties which are referable to the substantial
provisions of the Act itself. Learned counsel pointed out that
clause (I) deals with the conduct of professional examinations,
qualification of examiners and conditions of admission to such
examinations. Mr. Giri urged that Sections 16 to 18 of the above
D Act deals with the substantive power available to the Medical
Council of India to require of every University or Medical
Institution information as to the courses of study and
examinations and if necessary, to take steps for inspecting the
same. Accordingly, the Regulation-making power contemplated
E under Section 33 of the 1956 Act is referable to the substantive
functions to be discharged by the Council under Sections 16
to 18 of the Act. Mr. Giri contended that no provision in the Act
contemplates that the Council may actually conduct the
examinations. Relying on the views expressed in the T.M.A. Pai
F Foundation case (supra), Mr. Giri urged that the impugned
Regulations were in direct violation of the rights guaranteed to
a minority educational institutions under Article 19(1)(g) read
with Articles 25, 26, 29(1) and 30 of the Constitution.
G 100. Mr. Giri submitted that the Petitioner is a minority
educational institution admitting students from the minority
community in a fair, transparent and non-exploitative manner,
based on inter se merit, and cannot be subjected to the NEET
for the purposes of admission to the Under-graduate MBBS
and Post-graduate degrees in medicine. Reemphasising Mr. ·
H
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v. 985
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
Salve's submissions, Mr. Giri submitted that the activity of A
. running medical, allied health sciences and nursing courses, in
order to ensure constant supply of doctors and other para-
medical staff to. the hospitals and other facilities engaged in the
healing of the sick, are acts done in furtherance· of the
Petitioner's religious faith, which stand protected under Articles B
25, 26 and 30 of the Constitution.
101. Mr. Giri submitted that the Government of Punjab, in
its Department of Medical Education arid Research, vide its
Notification No. 5/7/07.3HBITl/2457 dated 21.05.2007, for C
admission to MBBS, BDS, BAMS and BHMS courses and vide
Notification No. 5/8/2007-3HB3/1334 dated 21.03.2007, for
admission in Post-graduate Degree/ Diploma courses in the
State of Punjab, excluded the Christian Medical College and
Christian Dental College, Ludhiana, from the admission
process conducted by Baba Farid University of Health D
Sciences, Faridkot, on behalf of the State Government for
various Under-graduate and Post-graduate Medical Degree
courses. Mr. Giri submitted that the impugned Regulations,
being ultra vires the provisions of Articles 19(1)(g) and Articles
25, 26, 29(1} and 30 of the Constitution, having been E
promulgated by an ad hoc body, were liable to be struck down.
102. Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Advocate,
appeared for the Annoor Dental College and Hospital, situated
in the State of Kerala, adopted the submissions made by the F
other counsel and urged that the submissions advanced, as far
as medical colleges and institutions are concerned, apply
equally to dental colleges, which are under the authority of the
Dental Council of India and is governed by the Dentists Act,
1948. Mr. Radhakrishnan submitted that the impugned G
Regulations were also ultra vires the Dentists Act, 1948,
Section 20 whereof empowers the Dental Council of India to
pr~scribe conditions for admission to the courses for training
of dentists and dental hygienists, but does not authorize the
Oental Council of India or any agency appointed by it to conduct
H
986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A admission tests for selection of students for the BOS and MOS
courses. Mr. Radhakrishnan also urged that the impugned
Regulations which attempted to enforce NEET, were ultra vires
the provisions of the Dentists Act, 1948, as also the relevant
provisions of the Constitution and are, therefore, liable to be
B struck down.
103. Transferred Case No.8 of 2013 which arises out of
Writ Petition No.5939 (M/S) of 2012, was filed by the U.P.
Unaided Medical Colleges Welfare Association and Others.
C Appearing for the said Association, Mr. Guru Krishnakumar,
learned Senior Advocate, while adopting the submissions
already made, reiterated that the functional autonomy of
institutes is an integral right under Article 19(1 )(g) of the
Constitution, as clearly set out in the decision rendered in the
TM.A. Pai Foundation case (supra). Learned Senior counsel
D submitted that the fundamental right guaranteed under Article
19(1 )(g) includes the right to admit students in the privately run
professional colleges, including medical, dental and
engineering colleges, and viewed from any angle, the
impugned Regulations were impracticable, besides causing
E violence to Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Mr. Guru
Krishnakumar submitted that the impugned Regulations and
the Notifications promulgating the same, were liable to be
struck down.
F 104. Mr. C.S.N. Mohan Rao, learned Advocate, who
appeared for the Writ Petitioner, Vigyan Bharti Charitable Trust
in Writ Petition (C) No.15 of 2013, submitted that the Petitioner
was a registered charitable trust running two medical colleges
and a dental college in the State of Odisha. The various
G submissions made by Mr. Rao were a repetition of the
submissions already made by Mr. Harish Salve and others. Mr.
Rao, however, referred to a Two-Judge Bench decision of this
Court in Dr. Dinesh Kumar Vs. Motilal Nehru Medical
Colleges, Allahabad & Ors. [(1985) 3 SCC 727], wherein, while
considering the question of admission to medical colleges and
H
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v. 987
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
the All India Entrance Examination, it was, inter alia, held that A
it should be left to the different States to either adopt or reject
the National Eligibility Entrance Test proposed to be conducted
by the Medical Council of India. Mr. Rao submitted that as
stated by Justice V. Krishna Iyer in the case of Jagdish Sharan
& Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. ((1980) 2 SCC 768], merit 8
cannot be measured in terms of marks alone, but human
sympathies are equally important. The heart is as much a factor
as the head in assessing the social value of a member of the
medical profession.
105. In Writ Petition (Civil) No.535 of 2012, Saveetha
c
Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, a Deemed
'
University, declared as such under Section 3 of the University
Grants Commission Act, 1956, has questioned the impugned
Notifications and the amended Clauses of the MCI Regulations
on the same grounds as in the earlier cases. Mr. Jayanth Muth D
Raj, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, repeated
and reiterated the submissions made earlier in regard to the
law as laid down in the TM.A. Pai Foundation case (supra)
and in P.A. lnamdar's case (supra) and urged that the
impugned Notifications had been issued in violation of the E
decisions rendered in the said two cases and in other
subsequent cases indicating that private institutions had the
right to evaluate their admission procedure based on principles
of fairness, transparency and non-exploitation. Mr. Muth Raj
submitted that in the absence of any consensual arrangement F
in the case of the Petitioner, the MCI or the Dental Council of
India could not compel the Petitioner to accept the National
Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test on the basis of the impugned
Regulations. Learned counsel submitted that to that extent, the
impugned amended Regulations and the Notifications issued G
to enforce the same were ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and
26 of the Constitution and were liable to be struck down.
106. Writ Petition (Civil) No.495 of 2012 and Transfered
Case No.108 of 2012 involve common questions regarding the H
/
988 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A conducting of NEET in English and Hindi in the State of Gujarat,
where the medium of instructions under the Gujarat Board of
Secondary Education is Gujarati. The submissions made both
on the behalf of the Petitioners and the State of Gujarat were
ad idem to the extent that Entry 66 of List I restricts the
B legislative powers of the Central Government to "co-ordination
and determination of standards of education". Thus, as long as
the Common Entrance Examination held by the State or the
other private institutions did not impinge upon the standards
laid down by Parliament, it is the State which can, in terms of
c Entry 25 of List Ill, prescribe such a Common Entrance Test in
the absence of any Central Legislation relatable to Entry 25 of
List Ill. Mr. K.K. Trivedi, learned Advocate, appearing for the ·
Petitioners submitted that the impugned Regulations and
Notifications were, ultra vires Section 33 of the 1956 Act, since
prescribing a Common Entrance Test is not one of the stated
0
purposes of the Act and were, therefore, liable to be struck
d~. /
107. Appearing for the Medical Council of India, Mr.
Nidhesh Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, .submitted that the
E Medical Council of India Act, 1956, is traceable to Entry 66 of
List I, as was held in MCI Vs. State of Kamataka [(1998) 6
SCC 131]. In paragraph 24 of the said decision it was
categorically indicated that the Indian Medical Council Act being
relatable to Entry 66 of Listi, prevails over any State enactment
F to the extent the State enactment is repugnant to the provisions
of the Act, even though the State Acts may be relatable to Entry
25 or 26 of the Concurrent List.
108. Mr. Gupta submitted that Entry 66 in List I empowers
G the Central Government to enact laws for coordination and
determination of standards in institutions for higher education
or research and scientific and technical institutions. Learned
counsel also urged that Section 19-A (1) of the Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956, provides that the Council may prescribe_ the
minimum standards of medical education required for granting
H
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS v. 989
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
recognised medical qualifications (other than postgraduate A
medical qualifications) by universities or medical institutions in
India. Mr. Gupta submitted that Section 20 relating to post-
graduate medical education could also prescribe similar
standards of Postgraduate Medical Education for the guidance
of Universities. Mr. Gupta submitted that Section 33 of the 1956 B
Act, empowers the Medical Council of India, with the previous
approval of the Central Government to make Regulations, and
provides that the Council may make Regulations generally to
carry out the purposes of the Act, and, without prejudice to the
generality of this power, such Regulations may provide for "any c
other matter for which under the Act provision may be made
by Regulations". Mr. Gupta urged that it is the accepted
position that standards of education are to be determined by
the MCI. The questions which have been posed on behalf of
the Petitioners in these various matters, challenging the vires D
of the Regulations, are whether the power of determination of
standards of education includes the power to regulate the
admission process and determine the admission criteria, and
whether the determination of standards of education also
include the power to conduct the examinations.
E
109. Responding to the two questions, Mr. Gupta
submitted that once the 1997 Regulations were accepted by
the various Medical Colleges and Institutions as being in
accordance with law and the powers vested under Entry 66 of
List I, the first issue stands conceded, since the 1997 F
Regulations prescribing the eligibility criteria for admission in
medical courses had been accepted and acted upon by the
medical institutions. In addition to the above, Mr. Gupta
contended that Section 33(1) of the 1956 Act vested the MCI
with powers to frame regulations to provide for the conduct of G
professional examinations, qualifications of examiners and the
conditions of admission to such examinations. Mr. Gupta
submitted that, under the said provision, it can be said that the
MCI was within its rights to conduct the NEET and stipulate the
H
990 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A qualifications of examiners and the conditions of admission to
such examinations. ·
110. Mr. Gupta submitted that it would be incorrect to say
that standards of education can have no direct impact on norms
B of admission. Learned senior counsel pointed out that in
paragraph 36 of the judgment in Preeti Srivastava's case
(supra), it had been indicated that the standards of education
are impacted by the caliber of students admitted to the
institution and that the process of selection and the criteria for
C selection of candidates has an impact on the standards of
medical education. Mr. Gupta submitted that the views
expressed by this Court in the decisions rendered in Nivedita
Jain's case (supra) and that of Ajay Kumar Singh's case
(supra), which had taken a contrary view, were overruled in
Preeti Srivastava's case (supra). Mr. Gupta also relied on the
D decision of this Court in Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed
University) and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [(2004)
11 SCC 755], wherein while following the decision in Preeti
Srivastava's case (supra), it was reiterated that prescribing
standards would include the process of admission. Mr. Gupta
E submitted that the said decision had, thereafter, been followed
in Prof. Yashpal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh ((2005) 5 SCC 420);
State of M.P. Vs. Gopal D. Teerthani ((2003) 7 SCC 83],
Harish Verma Vs. Rajesh Srivastava ((2003) 8 SCC 69] and
in Medical Council of India Vs. Rama Medical College
F Hospital & Research Centre ((2012) 8 SCC 80]. Learned
senior counsel urged that the expression "standard" used in
Entry 66 of List I has been given a very wide meaning by this
Court in Gujarat University, Ahemadabad Vs. Krishna
Ranganath Mudholkar [(1963) Supp. 1 SCR 112] and
G accordingly anything concerned with standards of education
would be included within Entry 66 of List I and would be deemed
to be excluded from other Lists. Mr. Gupta also placed reliance
on MCI Vs. State of Kamataka (1998 (6) SCC 131], wherein
it was held that it was settled law that while considering the
H amplitude of the entries in Schedule VII of the Constitution, the
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v. 991
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
widest amplitude is to be given to the language of such Entries. A
Mr. Gupta ·urged that without prejudice to the contention that
Entry 66 of List I directly permits the admission process and
the examination itself being regulated and/or conducted by the
MCI, even if the Entries did not directly so permit, the MCI was
entitled to regulate the said functions since even matters which B
are not directly covered by the Entries, but are ancillary thereto,
can be regulated. Mr. Gupta submitted that in Krishna
Ranganath Mudholkar's case (supra), it was held that power.
to legislate on a subject should normally be held to extend to
all ancillary or subsidiary matters, which can fairly and c
reasonably be .said to be comprehended in that subject.
Reference Was also made to the decisions of this Court in
Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia Vs. Union of India [(1969)
2 SCC 166]; ITC Vs. Agricultural Produce Market Committee
[(2002) 9 SCC 232]; and Banarasi Dass Vs. WTO [1965 (2) D
SCR 355], wherein the same principle has been reiterated. Mr.
Gupta submitted that Regulations validly made become a part
of the Statute itself, as was indicated in State of Punjab Vs.
Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. [(2004) 11 SCC 26];
Annamalai University Vs. Information & Tourism Department E
f(2009) 4 SCC 590] U.P. Power Corporation Vs. NTPC Ltd.
[(2009) 6 SCC 235] and the St. Johns Teachers Training
Institute case (supra). According to Mr. Gupta, the NEET
Regulations having been validly_ made and the requisite
legislation being available in Sections 19A, 20 and 23 of the
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the NEET Regulations must F
be deemed to be part of the Act itself.
111. Regarding the MCI's power to conduct the NEET, Mr.
Gupta urged that once it had been held in Preeti Srivastava's
case (supra) that the standard of education is impacted by the G
process of selection, the power to determine the said process
of selection is implicit. In fact, Mr. Gupta-submitted that the
aforesaid question stands concluded by the judgment of this
Court in Veterinary Council of India Vs. Indian Council of
Agricultural Research [(2000) 1 SCC 750], wherein, while H
992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A considering the provisions of the Veterinary Council of India .Act
which were materially the same as those of the Indian Medical
Council Act, it was held relying on the judgment in Preeti
Srivastava's case (supra) that the Veterinary Council of India
was competent to and had the requisite powers to hold the All
B India Entrance Examination.
112. Mr. Gupta urged that this Court had repeatedly
emphasised how profiteering and capitation fee and other
malpractices have entered the field of medical admissions,
which adversely affect the standards of education in the country.
C Such malpractices strike at the core of the admission process
and if allowed to continue, the admission process will be
reduced to a farce. It was to put an end to such malpractices
that the MCI introduced NEET and was within its powers to do
so. -
D
113. On the necessity of furnishing draft Regulations to the
State Governments, as stipulated under Section 19A(2) and for
Committees under Sectiqn 20, Mr. Gupta urged that the same
was merely directory and not mandatory. Referring to the
E decision of this Court in State of U.P. Vs. Manbodhan Lal
Srivastava [1958 SCR 533], learned counsel submitted that
this Court while considering the provisions of Article 320(3) of
the Constitution, which provides for consultation with the Union
Public Service Commission or the State Public Service
F Commission, held that the said requirement in the Constitution
was merely directory and not mandatory. Drawing a parallel to
the facts of the said case with .the facts of the present set of
cases, Mr. Gupta urged that the provisions of Section 19A(2)
must be held to be directory and not mandatory and its non- ·
G compliance could not adversely affect the amended
Regulations and the Notifications issued in pursuance thereof.
Mr. Gupta submitted that before amending the Regulations,
detailed interaction had been undertaken with the State
Governments· at various stages. Learned counsel submitted that
H as far back as on 14.9.2009, 5.2.2010 and 4.8.2010, letters
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v. 993
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
had been written to various State Governments and the A
responses received were considered. There were joint
meetings between the various State representatives and the
other concerned parties and the concerns of most of the State
Governments were fully addressed.
B
114. On the question of federalism and the powers of the
State under Article 254 of the Constitution, Mr. Gupta contended
that since the MCI derived its authority from Entry 66 of List I, it
is a subject which is exclusively within the domain of the Union.
Mr. Gupta submitted that all the arguments advanced on behalf
of the Petitioners were on the erroneous assumption that the C
Regulations had been made under Entry 25 of List Ill. Mr. Gupta
pointed out that in paragraph 52 of the judgment in Preeti
Siivastava's case (supra), this Court had held that the impugned
Regulations had been framed under Entry 66, List I and that
the Regulations framed by the MCI are binding and the States D
cannot in .exercise of powers under Entry 25 of List Ill make
Rules and Regulations which are in conflict with or adversely
impinge upon the Regulations framed by the MCI for Post-
graduate medical education. Mr. Gupta urged that since·the
standards laid down by the MCI are in exercise of powers E
conferred by Entry 66 of List I, the same would prevail over all
State laws on the same subject.
115. Mr. Gupta also urged that the ratio of Lava
Narendranath's case (supra) had been misunderstood on F
behalf of the Petitioners and the arguments raised on behalf
of Yenepoya University was based on the ratio that Entry 66 of
List I is not relatable to a screening test prescribed by the
Government or by a University for selection of students from out
of a large number applying for admission to a particular course
of study. Mr. Gupta pointed out that the ratio of the decision in G
Preeti Srivastava's case (supra) and in Lavu Narendranath's
case (supra) show that the Government which ran the colleges
had the right to make a selection out of a large number of
candidates and for this purpose they could prescribe a test of
H
994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A their own which was not contrary to any law. It was urged that
in the said case, there was no Central legislation occupying the
field. Mr. Gupta urged that NEET is not a mere screening test,
but an eligibility test which forms the basis of selection. Mi.
Gupta submitted that any test which might be prescribed by a
B State Government would be against the law in the present case,
· being in the teeth of the NEET Regulations.
116. With regard to the submissions made on behalf of
the minority institutions enjoying the protection of Article 30, Mr.
Gupta contended that reliance placed on behalf of CMC,
C Vellore, on the judgment in the Ahmedabad St. Xavier's
College Society Vs. State ofGujarat[(1974) 1SCC717], was
entirely misplaced, and, in fact, the said judgment supports a
test such as NEET. Mr. Gupta submitted that on a proper
analysis of the said judgment and in particular the judgment
D delivered by Chief Justice Ray, (as His Lordship then was), it
would be evident that even in the said judgment th.e right of
religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer
educational institutions of the choice of the minorities had been
duly recognised. Chief Justice Ray also observed that if the
E scope of Article 30(1) is made an extension of the· right under
Article 29(1) as a right to establish and administer educational
institutions for giving religious instruction or for imparting
education in their religious teachings or tenets, the fundamental
right of minorities to establish and administer educational
F institutions of their choice would be taken away. It was also
observed in the judgment that every section of the public, the
majority as well as minority, has rights in respect of religion as
contemplated in Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Mr.
Gupta urged that the whole object of conferring the right on
G minorities under Article 30 is to ensure that there would be
equality between the majority and the minority. It was urged that
it is tor the aforesaid reason that whenever the majority
community conferred upon itself a special power to overrule or
interfere with the administration and management of the minority
H institutions, the Supreme Court struck down the said power. Mr.
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v. 995
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
Gupta submitted that whenever an attempt was made to A
interfere with the rights guaranteed to religious and linguistic
minorities, as in the St. Xavier's case (supra), the same being
arbitrary and unreasonable, was struck down. Reliance was
also placed on the decision in the case of Rev. Fathe.r W.
Proost, and in the case of Rt. Rev. Bishop S.K. Patro, where B
the impugned order of the Secretary to the Government dated
22nd May, 1967, set aside the order passed by the Presidenf
of the Board of Secondary Education: Mr. Gupta urged that in
the very initial stage of judicial consideration in these matters,
in State of Kera/a Vs. Very Rev. Mother Provincial ((1970) 2 c
sec 417], the impugned provisions required nominees of the .
University and the Government to be included in the Governing
Body. The same being a direct infringement on the rights of the
minorities to establish and administer institutions of their choice,
the impugned provision was struck down. D
117. Mr. Gupta submitted that in each of the aforesaid
cases, ·an attempt was made by the majority to take over the
management and to impose its substantive views. Learned
counsel submitted that NEET does nothing of the sort, since it
did not infringe any of the rights guaranteed either under Article E
.19(1)(g) or Articles 25, 26, 29 and 30 of the Constitution. Mr.
Gupta urged that the various questions raised on behalf of the
Pf~titioners herein have been fully answered in P.A. lnamdar's
case (supra). They also meet the tests prescribed in the St.
Xavier's case (supra) as well. Mr. Gupta urged that Justice F
Khanna in paragraph 105 of the judgment observed that
Regulations which are calculated to safeguard the interests of
teachers would result in security of tenure and would attract
competent persons for the posts of teachers and are, therefore,
in the interest of minority educational institutions, and would not G
violate Article 30(1) of the Constitution. Mr. Gupta urged that
by the same reasoning, Regulations. which are in the interest
of the students and will attract the most meritorious students,
are necessarily in the interest of the minority instituti_ons and do
H
996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A not, therefore, violate their rights under Article 30(1) of the
Constitution.
118. Mr. Gupta submitted that in the St. Xavier's case
(supra), Justice Khanna had indicat_ed in his separate judgment
the dual tests of reasonableness and of making the institution
8
an effective vehicle of education for the minority community and
others who resort to it. Mr. Gupta submitted that NEET meets
the test of reasonableness and fully assists in making the
institution an effective- vehicle of education, since It ensures
admission for the most meritorious students and also negates
C any possibility of admissions being made for reasons other than
meri~ within each category. Mr. Gupta submitted that, in fact, in
paragraph 92 of the judgment, Justice Khanna had observed
that "~ regulation which is designed to prevent
maladministration of an educational institution cannot be said
D to offend Clause (1) of Article 30". Mr. Gupta re-emphasized
that NEET was not in any way against the rights vested in
educational institutions, being run by the miporities, but it was
- in the interest of such minorities to have their most meritorious
students ip the best institutes.
E
119. Dealing with the various tests referred t<? on behalf
of the Petitioners in the different cases, Mr. Gupta submitted
that the ratio in the TM.A. Pai Foundation case (supra) also
supports the NEET Regulations. Mr. Gupta contended that the
F right of minority institutions to admit students was not being
denied, inasmuch as, the concerned institutes could admit
students of their own community, but from the list of successful
candidates who appear for the NEET. Mr. Gupta submitted that
in the aforesaid judgment it was also observed that merit is
usually determined by a common entrance test conducted by
G
the institution or in case of professional colleges, by government
agencies. Mr. Gupta submitted that it had also been
emphasized that Regulations in national interest are to apply
to all educational institutions, whether run by a minority or non-
minorities and that an exception to the right under Article 30 is
H
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v. 997
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
the power of the State to regulate education, educational · A
standards and allied matters. Mr. Gupta submitted that in the
TM.A. Pai Foundation case (supra), it had been indicated that
regulatory measures for ensuring educational standards and
maintaining excellence thereof are no anathema to the
protection conferred by Article 30(1). B
120. Mr. Gupta submitted that the admission process
followed by CMC, Vellore, failed to meet any of the tests
relating to transparency and fairness and lack of arbitrariness.
Mr. Gupta pointed out that, in the case of.a candidate for
admission in the Under-graduate or Post-graduate courses in C
the said institution, a candidate cannot be selected unless he
is sponsored by the Diocese and the competition is limited to
the particular candidates, who had been sponsored by a
particular Diocese, which Mr. Gupta submitted is violative of ·
Article 14 of the Constitution and also the principles of merit. D
Mr. Gupta urged that as far as the application of Articles
25 and 26 of the Constitution in matters relating to
establishment and administration of educational institutions is
concerned, the same has to be read in relation to matters of E
religion and with respect to religious practices which form an
essential and integral part of religion. Learned counsel
submitted that the rights protected under Articles 25 and 26 are
available to individuals and not to organized bodies, such as
CMC, Vellore, or other minority run institutions, .as had been F
held by this Court in Sardar Vs. State of Bombay [1962 Supp.
(2) SCR 496], wherein it was observed that the right guaranteed
by Article 25 is an individual right. The said view was
subsequently endorsed in Sri Sri Sri Lakshmana Yatendrulu
Vs. State of A.P. [{196) 8 SCC 705] .. Mr. Gupta submitted that,
having regard to the above, the various associations and G
minorities, which had challenged the impugned Regulations,
were not entitled to do so and their applications were liable to
be dismissed.
121. Mr. Gupta submitted that the impugned Regulations · H
998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 7 S.C.R.
A would apply equally to "Deemed Universities", declared to be
so under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act,
1956, hereinafterreferred to as the "UGC Act", since it cannot
be argued that the Deemed University will not follow any rules
at all. Mr. Gupta pointed out that in the Bharati Vidyapeeth's
s case (supra); this Court had held that the standards prescribed
by statutory authorities, such as the Medical Council of India,
governed by Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution, must be applied, particularly when the Deemed
Universities seek recognition of the medical courses taught by
c them, under the provisions of the 1956 Act. Mr. Gupta submitted
that the Deemed Universities cannot take the benefit of
recognition under the 1956 Act, but refuse to follow the norms
prescribed therein.
Mr. Gupta pointed out that it had inter alia been indicated
D in paragraph 24 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the
Commission that the Commission was also of the view that all
the constituent medical colleges of "Deemed Universities" may
be asked to comply with the Notification dated 21.12.2010,
issued by the Medical Council of India, in view of Article 6.1 in
E the UGC (Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations,
2010, which states that:
"Admission of students to all deemed to be universities,
public· or private, shall be made strictly on merit based on
F an All India examination as prescribed by the Regulations
and in consistence with the national policy in this behalf,
from time to time.".
122. On the percentile system of grading, which had been
touched upon by Dr. Dhawan, it was submitted that the said
G system of ranking/ grading was being followed internationally
in many of the premier institutions around the globe.
123. Adverting to the submissions made by Mr. L.
Nageshwara Rao, on behalf of the States of Andhra Pradesh
H and Tamil Nadu, regarding the enactment of the A.P.
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v. 999
UNION ·OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
Educational· institutions (Regulation of Admissions and A
Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983, on the basis of the
Presidential Order dated 10th May, 1979, made under Article
371-D of the Constitution, Mr. Gl.Jpta submitted that neither the
said Article nor the Presidential Order was concerned with
standards of .education. Mr. ~upta urged that a reading of Sub- 8
clause (1) of Article 371-D of the Constitution makes it clear
that it confers powers on the President to make an Order with
regard to th-e State of Andhra Pradesh "for equitable
opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to different
parts of the State". Mr. Gupta urged that the State legislation c
providing for State level entrance examination is not relatable
to Article 371-D and, as such, the State legislation had to yield
to the Union legislation, which Mr. Gupta urged had been the
consistent view taken in Govt. of A.P. Vs. Mohd. Ghouse
Mohinuddin [(2001) 8 SCC 416]; V. Jaganadha Rao Vs.· State D
of A.P. [(2001) 10 sec 401]; and NTR University of Health
Sciences Vs. G. Babu Rajendra Prasad [(2003) 5 SCC 350].
124. As to the weightage of marks being given up to a
maximum of 30%, to government servants serving in cremote
areas, Mr. Gupta said that the same had been upheld by this E
Court in State of M.P. Vs. Gopa/ D: Tirthani [(2003) 7 SCC
83].
125. Replying to the submissions made on behalf of some
of the other Petitioners and, in particular, on behalf of the F
Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, in Writ Petition No. 20 of
2012, Mr. Gupta urged that Section 3B of the 1956 Act
empowers the Board of Governors to exercise the powers and
discharge the functions of the Council and, accordingly, even
if the appointment of the members of the Board of Governors G
was ad hoc in nature, it made no difference to their working
;ind discharging the functions ofthe Council.
126. Mr. Gupta urged that private bodies and religious and
linguistic minorities have a fundamental right to establish and
administer medical institutions or other institutions of their H
1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A choice urider Articles 19(1)(g) and 30 of the Constitution, but
such right was rrot unfettered and did not include the right to
maladminister the respective institutions. Learned counsel
urged that in the name of protection under Articles 25, 26 and
30 of the Constitution, an institution run by a religious or
B linguistic minority did not have the right to lower the standards
. of education set by the Medical Council of India or to recruit
staff, who were not properly qualified, or to deprive the students
of the necessary infrastructure to run such courses. Accordingly,
the MCI was within its jurisdiction to lay down proper standards
c and to also conduct an All-India Entrance Examination to
eliminate any possibility of malpractice. Mr. Gupta urged that
the several Writ Petitions filed on behalf of both States and
private individuals and religious and linguistic minorities are,
therefore, liable to be dismissed with appropriate costs.
D 127. Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Additional Solicitor
General, appearing for the Union of India, in the Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare, at the very outset, submitted that
the Union of India fully supported the stand of the MCI. Mr. Luthra
urged that the impugned Notifications amending the
E Regulations in regard to the introduction of NEET for both
graduate medical education and post-graduate medical
education had been validly made under powers conferred upon
the MCI under Section 33 of the 1956 Act, upon obtaining the
previous sanction of the Central Government, as required under
F the said Section. Mr. Luthra ~ubmitted that there was a definite
rationale behind holding a single examination. The learned ASG
urged that the NEET Regulations had been framed by the MCI,
after due deliberations with the Central Government and,
broadly speaking, the logic behind enacting the said
.G Regulations were to introduce uniformity of standards, merit and
transparency and to lessen the hardship of aspiring students.
Mr. Luthra urged that the NEET and the amending Regulations,
which had been impugned, were not ultra vii'es since the 1956
Act is relatable to Entry 66 of the Union List and prevails over
H any State enactment, even though the State Acts may be
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS v.1001
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
relatable fo Entry 25 or 26 of the Concurrent List, to the extent A
the provisions of the State Acts were repugnant to the Central
legislation. Mr. Luthra urged that Regulations framed under
Section 33 of the 1956 Act, with the previous sanction of the
Central Government, have statutory status and the said
Regulations were framed to carry out the purposes of the said B
Act.
128. Mr. Luthra .repeated Mr. Gupta's submission that the
rights of the minorities preserved under Article 30 were not
adversely affected or prejudiced in any way, as had been C
explained in P.A. /namdar's case (supra). The learned ASG
submitted that NEET had been introduced· in the national
interest to ensure that meritorious students did not suffer the •
probl.em of appearing in multiple examinations conducted by
various agencies which also resulted in different standards for
admission, which had the effect of compromising merit. Mr. D
Luthra urged that the earlier system of multiple examinations
was neither in the national interest nor in the interest of
maintaining the standards of medical education, nor did it serve
the interest of poor/middle class students who had to buy forms
of several examinations and travel across the country to appear E
in multiple examinations. It was urged that any Regulation
framed in the national interest. must necessarily apply to all
educational institutions, whether run by the majority or the
minority groups. It was also urged that such a Regulation must
necessarily be read into Article 30 of the Constitution. Mr. F
Luthra referred ·to the views expressed in that behalf in
Paragraph 107 of the judgment in the T.M.A. Pai Foundation
case (supra). The learned ASG submitted that the amended
Regulations do not restrict or in any mannertake away the rights
of the minority institutions under Articles 19(1 )(g) and 30 of the G
Constitution to admit students from their community.
129. Mr. Luthra reiterated the submissions made by Mr.
Gupta that the right conferred on the religious and linguistic
minorities to administer educational institutions of their choice,
H
1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A is not an absolute right and may be regulated in certain special
circumstances.
130. The learned ASG also urged that the merit list to be
published on the results of the NEET, will contain all the details
B of each candidate, including the State, category, minority status,
caste and tribal status in front of his/her name and rank so that
there would be no hindrance whatsoever in implementing the
constitutional principles of reservation and minority rights and
merit. Furthermore, the transparency in the process of
C admission would also be fully achieved.
131. On the question of different mediums of instruction
in schools throughout the country, Mr. Luthra submitted that the
NEET - UG would be conducted in multiple languages, such
as English, Hindi, Telegu, Assamese, Gujarati, Marathi, T<fmil
D and Bengali, and hence, the submissions made that NEET was
not being conducted in the regional languages, is misleading.
132. One other important aspect touched upon by Mr.
Luthra is with regard to the syllabus for NEET, which would be
E based on the CBSE syllabus. The learned ASG submitted that
the syllabus for NEET had been prepared by the MCI, after
obtaining feedback from different stake-holders, including the
National Board and State Boards, across the country. Mr. Luthra
submitted that the Regulations have been amended to
implement the provisions of the Act so as to meet the difficulties,
F which had been raised by some of the States. The learned ASG
submitted that the NEET Regulations were clearly within the
competence and -jurisdiction of the Medical Council in the
discharge of its obligations to carry out the purposes of the Act,
as had been enjoined in the different decisions of this Court
G and, in particular, in Preeti Srivastava's case (supra). The
learned ASG urged that the objections which had been sought
to be taken on behalf of the various Petitioners, including the
State Governments, with regard to the holding of the NEET
examination, were wholly misconceived and were liable to be
H rejected.
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v.1003
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
133. Various issues of singular importance, some of which A
have been considered earlier, arise out of the submissions
made on behalf of the respective parties questioning the vires
of the amended regulations relating to Under-graduate and
·Post-graduate medical education, namely,
B
(i) The validity of the MCI Regulations and the DCI
Regulations and the amendments effected therein with
regard to Under-graduate and Post-graduate courses of
medicine in medical and dental colleges and institutions
in the light of Section 19A(2) of the Indian Medical Council C
ACt, 1956, and the corresponding provisions in the Dentists
Act, .1948.
(ii) The jurisdiction and authority of the MCI and the DCI
to conduct a single National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test
for admission to the M.B.B.S., B.D.S. and Post-graduate D
courses in both the disciplines.
(iii) The rights of the States and private institutions to
establish and administer educational institutions and to
admit students to their M.B.B.S., B.D.S. and Post-graduate E
courses;
(iv) The impact of NEET on the rights guaranteed to ·
.religious and linguistic minorities under Article 30 of the
Constitution. ·
F
(v) Do the impugned Regulations come within the ambit
of Entry 66, List I, of the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution?; ·
(vi) The effect of Presidential orders made under Article
371D of the Constitution of India. G
134. Despite the various issues raised in this batch of
cases, the central issue relates to the validity of the amended
Regulations and the right of the MCI and the DCI thereunder to
introduce and enforce a common entrance test, which has the H
1004 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 7 S.C.R.
A effect of denuding the State and private institutions, both aided
and unaided, some enjoying the protection of Article 30, of their ·
powers to admit students in the M.B.B.S., B.D.S. and the Post-
graduate Courses conducted by them. There is little doubt that
the impugned Notifications dated 21.12.2010 and 31.5.2012,
B respectively, and the amended Regulations directly affect the
right of private institutions to admit students of their choice by
conducting their own entrance examinations, as they have been
doing all along. Attractive though it seems, the decision taken
by the MCI and the DCI to hold a single National Eligibility-cum-
C Entrance Test to the M.B.B.S., B.D.S. and the Post-graduate
courses in medicine and dentistry, purportedly with the intention
of maintaining high standards in medical education, is fraught ·
with difficulties, not the least of which is the competence of the
MCI and the DCI to frame and notify such Regulations. The
ancillary issues which arise in regard to the main issue, relate
0
to the rights guaranteed to citizens under Article 19(1 )(g) and
to religious and linguistic minorities under Article 30 of the
Constitution, to establish and administer educational institutions
of their choice.
E 135. Doubts have been raised regarding the competence
of the MCI and the DCI to amend the 1997 and 2000
. Regulations, or the 2007 Regulation and to issue the impugned
Notifications to cover all the medical institutions in the country,
which have their own procedures relating to admissions to the
F M.B.B.S., B.D.S. and Post-graduate Courses which passed the
triple test indicated in P.A. lnamdar's case (supra). The validity
of the MCI Regulations of 1997 and 2000 and the DCI
Regulations of 2007 and the ame.ndments effected therein has
been questioned with reference to Sections 19A(2) and 20 of
G the 1956 Act and Section 20 of the 1948 Act. While
empowering the MCI and the DCI to prescribe minimum
standards of medical education required for granting
recognised medical qualifications, it has also been stipulated
that the copies of the draft Regulations and all subsequent
H amendments thereof are to be furnished by the Council to all
...
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS v.1005
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
the State Governments and the Council shall, before submitting A
the Regulations or any amendment thereof, as the case may
be, to the Central Government for sanction, take into
· consideration the comments of any State Government received
within three months from the furnishing of such copies. The said
provisions do not appear to have been complied with by the B
MCI or the DCI, which rendered the Regulations and the
amendments thereto invalid. On behalf of the MCI· an attempt
was made to justify the omission by urging that the directions
were only directory and not mandatory. In support of su.ch a
contention reliance was placed on Manbodhan Lal Srivastava's c
case (supra), wherein the provisions of Article 320(3) of the
Constitution providing for consultati.on with the Union Public
Service Commission or the State Public Service Commission,
were held to be directory and not mandatory. A submission was
also made that before the Regulations were amended, MCI had 0
interacted with the State Governments and letters had also been
exchanged in this regard and the responses were taken into
account by the Council while amending the Regulations.
136. We are afraid that the said analogy would not be
applicable to the facts of these cases. The direction contained E
in Sub-section (2) of Section 19A of the 1956 Act makes it a .
pre-condition for the Regulations and all subsequent
amendments to be submitted to the Central Government for
sanction. The Council is required to take into consideration the
comments of any State Government within three months from F
the furnishing of copies of the draft Regulations and/or
subsequent amendments thereto. There is nothing to show that
the MCI ever sent the draft amended Regulations to the
different State Governments for their views. The submission of
the draft Regulations and all subsequent amendments ther~to G
cannot be said to be directory, since upon furnishing of the draft
Regulations and all subsequent amendments thereto by the
Council to all the State Governments, the Council has to take
into consideration the comments, if any, received' from any
H
..
1006 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A State Government in respect thereof, before submitting the
same to the Central Government for sanction.
137. The fact situation in Manbodhan Lal Srivastava's
case (supra) was different from the fact situation in this batch
of cases. Article 320(3) of the Constitution provides for
8
consultation by the Central or State Government with regard to
the matters enumerated therein. In the instant case, it is not a
case of consultation, but a case of inputs being provided by
the ~tate Governments in regard to the Regulations to be ·
C framed by the MCI or the DCI. Realising the difficulty, Mr. Gupta
had argued that since the 1997 and 2000 Regulations had been
acted upon by the concerned parties, the same must be held
to have been accepted and the validity thereof'was no longer
open to challenge.
D 138. Mr. Gupta's aforesaid submissions cannot be
accepted, inasmuch as. an invalid provision cannot be validated
simply by acting on the basis thereof.
· 1'39. Mr. Gupta has also urged that the MCI derived its
E authority for framing the Regulations and/or effecting
amendments thereto from Entry 66, List I, which is within the
domain of the Central Government. Accordingly, the same
would have primacy over all State laws on the subject.
140. Mr. Gupta's said submission finds su_pport in Preeti
F Srivastava's case (supra), wherein it has been held that the
Regulations framed by the MCI is binding upon the States
having been framed under Entry 66, List I of the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution. But, where does it take us as far
as these cases are concerned which derive their rights and
G status under Articles 19(1)(g), 25, 26, 29(1) and 30 of the
Constitution? Can the rights guaranteed to individuals and also
religious and linguistic minorities under the said provisions of
the Constitution, be interfered with by legislation and that too
by way of delegated legislation?
H
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v.1007
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
141. The four impugned Notifications dated 21.12.2010 A
and 31.5.2012 make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that all
admissions to the M.8.8.S. and the B.D.S. courses and their
respective Post-graduate courses, shall have to be made solely
on the basis of the results of the respective NEET, thereby
preventing the States and their authorities and privately-run B
institutions from conducting any separate examination for
admitting students to the courses run by them. 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 c
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. Of course,
over the years this Court has repeatedly observed that the right D
guaranteed under Article 30, gives religious and linguistic
minorities the right to establish and administer educational
institutions of their choice, but not to maladminister them and
that the concerned authorities could impose conditions for
maintaining high standards of education, such as laying down
the qualification of teachers to be appointed in such institutions E
and also the curriculum to be followed therein. The question,
however, is 111.'.hether such measures would also include the right
to regulate the admissions of students in the said institutions.
142. The first, second, third and fourth issues referred to F
hereinabove in paragraph 133, are intermingled and are taken
up together for the sake of convenience. The aforesaid issues
have been considered and answered by this Court in the
Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society case (supra), St.
Stephen's College case (supra), Islamic Academy case G
(supra), P.A. lnamdar's case (supra) and exhaustively in the
T.M.A. Pai Foundation case (supra). Can, therefore, by
purporting to take measures to maintain high educational
standards to prevent maladministration, the MCI and the DCI
resort to the amended MCI and DCI Regulations to circumvent H
1008 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A the judicial pronouncements in this regard? The answer to such
question would obviously have to be in the negative.
143. 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
8
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,
C therefore, to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them by the
Statutes and they cannot wander beyond the same. Of course,
under Section 33 of the 1956 Act and Section 20 of the 1948
Act, power has been reserved to the two Councils to frame
Regulations to carry out the purposes of their respective Acts.
D It is pursuant to such power that the MCI and the DCI has
framed the Regulations of 1997, 2000 and 2007, which set the
standards for maintaining excellence of medical education in
India. The right of the MCI and the DCI to prescribe such
standards has been duly recognised by the Courts. However,
E such right cannot be extended to controlling all admissions to
the M.B.B.S., the B.D.S. and the Post-graduate Courses being
run by different medical institutions in the country. At best, a
certain degree of control may be exercised in regard to aided
institutions, where on account of the funds being provided by
F the Government, it may have a say in the affairs of such
institutions.
144. These questions have already been considered and
decided in the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case (supra), wherein,
G it was categorically held that the right to admit students being
an essential facet of the right of a private medical institution,
and, in particular, minority institutions which were unaided, non-
capitation fee educational institutions, so long as the process
of admission to such institutions was transparent and merit was
adequately taken care of, such right could not be interfered with.
H
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v. 1009
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
Even with regard to aided minority educational institutions it A
was indicated that such institutions would also have the same
right to admit students belonging to their community, but, at the
same time, it should also admit a reasonable number of non-
minority students which has been referred to as the "sprinkling
effect" in the Kera/a Education Bill case (supra). B
145. The rights of private individuals to establish and
administer educational institutions under Article 19(1 )(g) of the
Constitution are now well·established and do not require further
elucidation. The rights of unaided and aided religious and C
linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational
institutions of their choice under Article 19(1)(g), read with
Articl~ 30 of the Constitution, have come to be crystalised in
the various decisions of this Court referred to hereinabove,
which have settled the law that the right to admit students in the
different educational and medical institutions is an integral part D
of the right to administer and cannot be interfered with except
in cases of maladministration or lack of transparency. The
impugned Regulations, which are in the nature of delegated
legislation, will have to make way for the Constitutional
provisions. The freedom and rights guaranteed under Articles E
19(1)(g), 25, 26 and 30 of the Constitution to all citizens to
practise any trade or profession and to religious minorities to
freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise
and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and
health and to the other provisions of Part Ill of the Constitution, F
and further to maintain institutions for religious and charitable
purposes as guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the
Constitution, read with the rights guaranteed under Article 30
of the Constitution, are also well-established by various
pronouncements of this Court. Over and above the aforesaid G
freedoms and rights is the right of citizens having a distinct
language, script or culture of their own, to conserve the same
under Article 29(1) of the Constitution.
146. Nowhere in the 1956 Act nor in the MCI Regulations, H
1010 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A has the Council been vested with any authority to either conduct
examinations or to direct that all admissions into different
medical colleges and institutions in India would have to be on
the basis of one common National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test,
thereby effectively taking away the right of the different medical
B colleges and institutions, including those run by religious and
linguistic minorities, to make admissions on the basis of their
own rules and procedures. Although, Mr. Gupta has contended
that Section 33(1) of the 1956 Act entitles the MCI to make
regulations regarding the conduct of professional examinations,
c the same, in our view, does not empower the MCI to actually
hold the entrance examination, as has been purported to be
done by the holding of the NEET. The power to frame
regulations for the conduct of professional examination§ is a
far cry from actually holding the examinations and the two cannot
be equated, as suggested by Mr. Gupta.
0
147. Although, the controversy has been extended to
include the amendments made to the Entries in the Second
and Third Lists of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and
the deletion of Entry 11 from the State List and the introduction
E of Entry 25 in the Concurrent List, on behalf of the MCI it has
been reiterated that the impugned Notifications and amended
Regulations had been made under Entry 66 of List I by the MCI
acting on its delegated authority and would, therefore, have an
overriding effect over any State law on the subject.
F
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 righ.ts 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
G Regulations framed by a Statutory authority by way of delegated
legislation. The fact that such power was exercised by the MCI
and the DCI with the previous approval of the Central
Government, as contemplated under Section 33 of the 1956
Act and under Section 20 of the 1948 Act, would not bestow
H
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v. 1011
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
upon the Regulations framed by the MCI and DCI, which are in A
the nature of subordinate legislation, primacy over the
Constitutional provisions indicated above. A feeble attempt has
been made by Mr. Gupta to suggest that admission into
institutions run by the Christian Church depended on selection
of students by the Diocese. This procedure, according to Mr. B
Gupta, was against the concept of recognition of merit.
148. In our judgment, such a stand is contrary to the very
essence of Articles 25, 26, 29(1) and 30 of the Constitution. In
view of the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution, the provisions of Article 30 should have been C
redundant, but for the definite object that the framers of the
Constitution had in mind that religious and linguistic minorities
should have the fundamental right to preserve their traditions
and religious beliefs by establishing and administering
educational institutions of their choice. There is no material on D
record to even suggest that the Christian Medical College,
Vellore, or its counter-part in Ludhiana, St. John's College,
Bangalore, or the linguistic minority institutions and other
privately-run institutions, aided and unaided, have indulged in
any malpractice in matters of admission of students or that they E
had failed the triple test referred to in P.A. /namdar's case
(supra). On the other hand, according to surveys held by
independent entities, CMC, Vellore and St. John's Medical
College, Bangalore, have been placed among the top Medical
Colleges in the country and have produced some of the most F
brilliant and dedicated doctors in the country believing in the
philosophy of the institutions based on Christ's ministry of
healing and caring for the sick and maimed.
149. Although, there is some difference of opinion as to G
the right to freedom of religion as guaranteed under Article 25
of the Constitution being confined only to individuals and not
organizations in regard to religious activities, Article 26(a) very
clearly indicates that subject to public order, morality and health,
every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have
H
1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A the right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and
charitable purposes. The emphasis is not on religious purposes
alone, but extends to charitable purposes also, which would
include the running of a hospital to provide low-cost, but efficient
medical care to all, which the CMC, Vellore, and other private
B missionary hospitals of different denominations are doing. So
long as a private institution satisfies the triple test indicated in
P.A. lnamdar's case (supra), no objection can be taken to the
procedure followed by it over the years in the matter of
admission of students into its M.B.B.S. and Post-graduate
c courses in medicine and other disciplines. Except for alleging
that the admission procedure was controlled by the Church,
there is nothing even remotely suggestive of any form of
maladministration on the part of the medical institutions being
run by the Petitioner Association.
D 150. This brings us to the issue regarding the impact of
the NEET on the right of the religious and linguistic minorities
in view of the provisions of Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
Although, the said question has been dealt with to some extent
while dealing with the other issues, certain aspects thereof still
E need to be touched upon. As has been mentioned
hereinbefore, having regard to the provisions of Article 19(1)(g)
·· : of the Constitution, the provisions of Article 30 would have been
redundant had not the framers of the Constitution had some
,.:.' definite object in mind in including Article 30 in the Constitution.
F This Court has had occasion in several matters to consider and
even deal with the question. In the Ahmedabad St. Xavier's
College Society case (supra), it was held that the right under
Article 30(1) is more in the nature of protection and was
intended to instill confidence in minorities against any executive
G or legislative encroachment on their right to establish and
administer educational institutions of their choice. While the
aforesaid observations help in understanding the intention of
the Constituent Assembly in including Article 30 in the
Constitution as a fundamental right untrammeled by any
H restrictions, as in the case of other fundamental rights, the real
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v. 1013
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
spirit of the said Article has been captured by Justice V. Krishna A
Iyer in Jagdish Sharan's case (supra), wherein His Lordship
observed that merit cannot be measured in terms of marks
alone, but human sympathies are equally important. His
Lordship's further observations that the heart is as much a
factor as the head in assessing the social value of a member B
of the medical profession, completes the picture. This, in fact,
is what has been attempted to be conveyed by Mr. Harish
Salve, appearing for the CMC Vellore, while submitting that
under Article 30 of the Constitution an educational institution
must be deemed to have the right to reject a candidate having c
superior marks as against a candidate who having lesser
marks conformed to the beliefs, aspirations and needs of the
institution for which it was established.
151. One of the eleven questions which came to be
considered by the Eleven Judge Bench in the T.M.A. Pai D
Foundation case, namely, Question 5(a), was whether the
minority's rights to establish and administer educational
institutions of their choice would include the procedure and
method of admission and selection of students. While dealing
with one of the five issues reformulated by the Chief Justice as E
to whether there can be Government regulations in case of
private institutions and, if so, to what extent, it was indicated in
the majority judgment that the right to establish and administer
broadly comprises various rights, including the right to admit
students in regard to private unaided non-minority educational F
institutions. It was further observed that, although, the right to
establish an educational institution can be regulated, such
regulatory measures must, in general, be to ensure the
maintenance of proper academic standards, atmosphere and
infrastructure (including qualified staff) and the prevention of G
maladministration by those in-charge of management, and that
the fixing of a rigid fee structure, dictating the formation and
composition of the Governing Body, compulsory nomination of
teachers and staff for appointment or nominating students for
admissions, would be unacceptable restrictions. H
1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A 152. As far as private unaided professional colleges are
concerned, the majority view was that it would be unfair to apply
the same rules and regulations regulating admission to both
aided and unaided professional institutions. In that context, it
was suggested that it would be permissible for the University
B or the Government at the time of granting recognition, to require
a private unaided institution to provide for merit-based
selection, while, at the same time, giving the management
sufficient discretion in admitting students, which could be done
by reserving a certain percentage of seats for admission by the
C management out of those students who had passed a common
entrance test held by itself, while the rest of the seats could be
filled up on the basis of counselling by the State agency, which
would take care of the poorer and backward sections of society.
153. However, as far as the aided private minority
D institutions are concerned, the inter-play between Article 30 and
Article 29(2) of the Constitution was taken note of in the majority
decision and after considering the various decisions on the
said issue, including the decision in D.A. V. College Vs. State
of Punjab [(1971) 2 SCC 269] and the Ahmedabad St.
E Xavier's College Society case (supra), reference was made
to the observations made by Chief Justice Ray, as His Lordship
then was, that, in the field of administration, it was not
reasonable to claim that minority institutions would have
complete autonomy. Checks on the administration would be
F necessary in order to ensure that the administration was
efficient and sound and would serve the academic needs of the
institution. Reference was also made to the concurring
judgment of Khanna, J., wherein the learned Judge, inter alia,
observed that the right conferred upon religious and linguistic
G minorities under Article 30 is to establish and administer
educational institutions of their choice. Administration connotes
management of the affairs of the institution and such
management must be free of control so that the founders or their
nominees could mould the institution as they thought fit and in
H accordance with the ideas of how the interest of the community
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v. 1015
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
in general and the institution in particular would be best served. A
The learned Judge was of the view that the right of the minorities
to administer educational institutions did not prevent the making
of reasonable regulations in respect of such institutions, but
such regulations could not impinge upon the minority character
of the institution and a balance had to be maintained between B
the two objectives - that of ensuring the standard of excellence
of the institution and that of preserving the right of minorities to
establish and administer their educational institutions.
154. The learned Judges also approved the view taken in C
the St. Stephen's College case (supra) regarding the right of
aided minority institutions to give preference to students of its
own community for admission. Their Lordships, however, had
reservations regarding the rigidity of percentage of students
belonging to the minority community to be admitted.
D
155: While answering Question 4 as to whether the
admission of students to minority educational institutions,
whether aided or unaided, can be regulated by the State
Government or by the University to which the institution is
affiliated, the learned Judges held that admission of students E
to unaided minority educational institutions, namely, schools
and under-graduate colleges, cannot be regulated by the State
or the University concerned, except for providing the
qualifications and minimum conditions of eligibility in the
interest of academic standards. The learned Judges further held F
that the right to admit students, being an essential facet of the
right to administer educational institutions of their choice, as
contemplated under Article 30 of the Constitution, the State
Government or the University may not be entitled to interfere
with that right, so long as the admission to the unaided G
educational institutions was on a transparent basis and merit
was adequately taken care of. The learned Judges went on to
indicate that the right to administer, not being absolute, there
could be regulatory measures for ensuring educational
standards and maintaining excellence thereof, and it was more
H
1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A so in the matter of admissions to professional institutions.
156. In answering Question 5(a), as to whether the rights
of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions
of their choice would include the procedure and method of
admission and selection of students, the learned Judges held
8
that a minority institution may have its own procedure and
method of admission as well as selection of students, but such
a procedure must be fair and transparent and the selection of
students in professional and higher educational colleges should
C be on the basis of merit and even an unaided minority institution
should not ignore the merit of the students for admission while
exercising its right to admit students to professional institutions.
On the question whether the rights of minority institutions
regarding admission of students and to lay down the procedure
and method of admission would be affected, in any way, by
D receipt of State aid, the learned Judges were of the view that
while giving aid to professional institutions, it would be
permissible for the authority giving aid to prescribe conditions
in that regard, without, however, affecting the right of such
institutions to actually admit students in the different courses run
E bythem.
157. What can ultimately be culled out from the various
observations made in the decisions on this issue, commencing
from the Kera/a Education Bill case (supra) to recent times,
F 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. In
G the case of aided institutions, it has been held that the State
and other authorities may direct a certain percentage of
students to be admitted other than by the method adopted by
the institution. However, in cases of unaided institutions, the
position is that except for laying down standards for maintaining
the excellence of education, the right to admit students into the
H
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v. 1017
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
different courses could not be interfered with. In the case of A
aided minority institutions, it has been held that the authority
giving aid has the right to insist upon the admission of a certain
percentage of students not belonging to the minority community,
so as to maintain the balance of Article 19(2) and Article 30(1)
of the Constitution. Even with regard to unaided minority B
institutions, the view is that while the majority of students to be
admitted should be from the minority community concerned, a
certain percentage of students from other communities should
also be admitted to maintain the secular character of education
in the country in what' has been described as a "sprinkling C
effect".
158. Mr. Parasaran's submissions with regard to the
concept of "Rag Bag" legislation would not apply to the facts
of these cases since the amendments to the Regulations of
1997, 2000 and 2007 were effected under Entry 66, List I of D
the Seventh Schedule and no recourse was taken to Entry 25
of the Concurrent List by the MCI and DCI while amending the
said Regulations.
159. This brings us to the last issue, which has been raised E
before us regarding the impact of the Presidential Orders made
under Article 371 D of the Constitution of India. As pointed out
by Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao, learned Senior Advocate, special
enactments have been made in the States of Andhra Pradesh
and Tamil Nadu regarding admission of students in the different
F
medical colleges and institutions being run in the said States.
The said legislation being under Entry 25 of List Ill of the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution, the question which arises is
whether the amended MCI Regulations would have primacy
over the said State enactments. The question is answered by
Article 371-D of the Constitution which empowers the President G
to make special provisions with respect to the State of Andhra
Pradesh, including making orders with regard to admission in
educational institutions. Clause 10 of Article 371-D provides
as follows:
H
1018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A "The provisions of this article and of any order made by
the President thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding
anything in any other provision of this Constitution or in any
other law for the time being in force."
Accordingly, the enactments made in the States of Andhra
8 Pradesh and Tamil Nadu will remain unaffected by the
impugned Regulations. We have already held that the
Regulations and the amendments thereto have been framed by
the MCI and the DCI with the previous permission of the Central
Government under Entry 66, List I, but that the Regulations
C cannot prevail over the constitutional guarantees under Articles
19(1)(g), 25, 26, 29(1) and 30 of the Constitution.
160. Apart from the legal aspects, which have been
considered at length, the practical aspect of holding a single
D National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test needs to be considered.
Although, it has been submitted by the learned Additional
Solicitor General that a single test would help poor students to
avoid sitting for multiple tests, entailing payment of fees for each
separate examination, it has to be considered as to who such
E poor students could be. There can be no controversy that the
standard of education all over the country is not the same. Each
State has its own system and pattern of education, including
the medium of instruction. It cannot also be disputed that children
in the metropolitan areas enjoy greater privileges than their
F counter-parts in most of the rural areas as far as education is
concerned, and the decision of the Central Government to
support a single entrance examination would perpetuate such
divide in the name of giving credit to merit. In a single window
competition, the disparity in educational standards in different
parts of the country cannot ensure a level playing field. The
G practice of medicine entails something more than brilliance in
academics, it requires a certain commitment to serve humanity.
India has brilliant doctors of great merit, who are located mostly
in urban areas and whose availability in a crisis is quite
uncertain. What is required to provide health care to the general
H
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v.1019
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
masses and particularly those in the rural areas, are committed A
physicians who are on hand to respond to a crisis situation.
Given the large number of people who live in the villages in
difficult conditions, the country today has more need of such
doctors who may not be specialists, but are available as
general physicians to treat those in need of medical care and B
treatment in the far flung areas of the country, which is the
essence of what was possibly envisaged by the framers of the
Constitution in including Article 30 in Part Ill of the Constitution.
The desire to give due recognition to merit is laudable, but the
pragmatic realities on the ground relating to health care, c
especially in the rural and tribal areas where a large section of
the Indian population resides, have also to be kept in mind when
policy decisions are taken in matters such as this. While the
country certainly needs brilliant doctors and surgeons and
specialists and other connected with health care, who are equal D
to any in other parts of the world, considering ground realities,
the country also has need for "barefoot doctors", who are
committed and are available to provide medical services and
health care facilities in different areas as part of their mission
in becoming doctors.
E
161. In the light of our aforesaid discussions and the views
expressed in the various decisions cited, we have no hesitation
in holding that the "Regulations on Graduate Medical Education
(Amendment) 2010 (Part 11)" and the "Post Graduate Medical
Education (Amendment) Regulation, 2010 (Part II)", whereby F
the Medical Council of India introauced the single National
Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test and the corresponding
amendments in the Dentists Act, 1948, are ultra vires the
provisions of Articles 19(1)(g), 25, 26(a), 29(1) and 30(1) of the
Constitution, since they have the effect of denuding the States, G
State-run Universities and all medical colleges and institutions,
including those enjoying the protection of the above provisions,
from admitting students to their M.B.B.S., B.D.S. and Post-
graduate courses, according to their own procedures, beliefs
and dispensations, which has been found by this Court in the H
1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A T.M.A. Pai Foundation case (supra), to be an integral facet of
the right to administer. In our view, the role attributed to and the
powers conferred on the MCI and the DCI under the provisions
of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and the Dentists Act,
1948, do not contemplate anything different and are restricted
B to laying down standards which are uniformly applicable to all
medical colleges and institutions in India to ensure the
excellence of medical education in India. The role assigned to
the MCI under Sections 1OA and 19A(1) of the 1956 Act
vindicates such a conclusion.
c 162. As an off-shoot of the above, we also have no
hesitation in holding that the Medical Council of India is not
empowered under the 1956 Act to actually conduct the NEET.
163. The Transferred Cases and the Writ Petitions are,
D therefore, allowed and the impugned Notifications Nos. MCl-
31 (1 )/2010-MED/49068, and MCl.18(1)/201 O-MED/49070,
both dated 21st December, 2010, published by the Medical
Council of India along with Notification Nos. DE-22-2012 dated
31st May, 2012, published by the Dental Council oflndia and
E the amended Regulations sought to be implemented thereunder
along with Notification Nos. DE-22-2012 dated 31st May, 2012,
published by the Dental Council of India, are hereby quashed.
This will not, however, invalidate actions so far taken under the
amended Regulations, including the admissions already given
F on the basis of the NEET conducted by the Medical Council of
India, the Dental Council of India and other private medical
institutions, ar.d the same shall be valid for all purposes.
164. Having regard to the nature of the cases decided by
this judgment, the parties thereto will bear their own costs.
G
ANIL R. DAVE, J. 1. I have carefully gone through the
elaborate judgment delivered by the learned Chief Justice. After
going through the judgment, I could not persuade myself to
share the same view.
H 2. As the learned Chief Justice is to retire within a few
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v. 1021
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]
days, I have to be quick and therefore, also short. Prior to A
preparation of our draft judgments we had no discussion on the
subject due to paucity of time and therefore, I have to express
my different views but fortunately the learned Chief Justice has
discussed the facts, submissions of the concerned counsel and
the legal position in such a detail that I need not discuss the 8
same again so as to make the judgment lengthy by repeating
the submissions and the legal provisions, especially when I am
running against time.
3. Sum and substance of all these petitions is that the
Medical Council of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the MCI') c
should not be entrusted with a right to conduct National
Eligibility-cum- Entrance Test (hereinafter referred to as 'the
NEET') and whether introduction of the NEET would violate
fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under the
provisions of Articles 19(1 )(g), 25, 26, 29(1) and 30 of the 0
Constitution of India.
4. The submissions are to the effect that if the MCI or any
other body conducts examination in the nature of the NEET, the
petitioners, who are managing medical colleges, would not be
in a position to exercise their discretion in relation to giving E
admission to the students in their colleges and therefore, their
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1 )(g) and the
rights of the minority institutions under Articles 29 and 30 would
be violated. The submission is to the effect that the minority
institutions should have full and unfettered right to select the F
students who are to be imparted education in their colleges.
Any restriction or regulation of whatsoever type, would violate
their fundamental rights. Thus, what is to be seen by this Court
is whether the system sought to be introduced by the MCI under
the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 G
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is violative of any of the legal
or constitutional provisions. In the process of deciding so, in
my opinion, this Court also has to examine whether it would be
in the interest of the society and the students aspiring to study
medicine to have a common examination in the nature of the
NEET. H
1022 SUPREME COURT REPOR rs [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A 5. Sections 19A and 20 of the Act, which have been
reproduced in the judgment delivered by the learned Chief
Justice, permit the MCI to prescribe the minimum standards of
medical education. Section 33 of the Act also empowers the
MCI to make regulations to carry out the purposes of the Act.
8 Thus, the said provisions enable the MCI to regulate the system
of medical education throughout the country.
6. Let me first of all consider the scope of the aforestated
sections and the provisions of the Act in relation to the
regulation of the standards of education to be imparted in
c medical colleges. It is a matter of sound common sense that
to have doctors well versed in the subject of medicine and
having proficiency in their field, we should have suitable and
deserving students who should be imparted good medical
education and there should be strict supervision over the
0 education system so as to see that the students who are not
up to the mark or are not having the highest standards of
education are not declared successful at the examinations.
7. To achieve the aforestated ideal, the system should be
such that it should have effective regulations at three different
E stages - The first stage is the admission of the students to
medical colleges. The students who are admitted to the
medical course should be suitable and should have the right
aptitude so that they can be shaped well into the medical
profession after being imparted proper education. The second
F stage is with regard to determination of syllabus and the manner
of imparting education and for the said purpose, the regulating
authorities.should see that proper medical training is given to
the· students and for the said purpose sufficiently equipped
hospitals should be there as teaching institutes. It should also
G be seen that sufficient number of patients are treated at the
hospitals so that the students can get adequate practical
training where the patients are being treated. Finally, the
examinations, which the students have to pass to prove their
worth as successful students should also be strictly regulated.
If there is any lacuna or short-coming at any of the above three
H
. CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v.1023
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ANIL R. DAVE, J .]
stages, it would adversely affect the professional standards of A
the students passing out. from the educational institutions as
physicians, who are trusted by the citizens of India at critical
moments, when someone's Jife is at stake. I need not state
anything more with regard to the importance of the medical field
or the physicians as it is a matter of common knowledge that B
to maintain good health and to cure the diseases and to avoid
or reduce trauma of a patient, existence of a trained and well
groomed doctor is a sine qua non. All th~se facts equally apply
to dentists and therefore, I am not specially referring to them
every time. c
8. By virtue of introduction of the NEET to be conducted
under the supervision of the MCI, standards of the students at
the stage of their admission to the medical colleges, be it for
admission to the M.B.B.S. course or the post graduation
studies in medical faculties, would be regulated. Similarly, for D
imparting education to the students studying in the field of
Dentistry, Dental Council of India ffor short 'the DCI') has to
regulate admissions so as to see that eligible and suitable
students are admitted to the different courses in the field of
dentistry. E
9. There is no need to discuss the importance of quality
of input, when something is· to be produced, manufactured or
developed. Even when one thinks of manufacturing an article,
the manufacturer is conscious about the quality of the input and
he would invariably select the best input i.e. such raw material F
so as to make his final product excellent. Principle is not
different in the field of education. If an educational institution
wants an excellent output in the nature of a well trained, well
educated, well groomed professional, the institution must see
that suitable and deserving students having an aptitude for G
becoming good doctors are admitted to the medical college.
If among all good students, there are students who are not up
to the mark, who are lagging behind in their studies, who are
weak in studies, it would not be possible to educate or groom .
such students effectively and efficiently. A weak student may
H
1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 7 S.C.R.
A lag behind due to his lower level of grasping or education or
training. In the circumstances, it becomes the duty of the
regulating authority to see that quality of the students at the
stage of admission is thoroughly examined and only deserving
and suitable students are given admission to the medical
B colleges so as to make them suitable members of a noble
profession upon completion of their studies. So as to see that
only deserving and suitable students are admitted to the
medical colleges, the MCI has introduced the NEET. By virtue
of introduction of the NEET, the students aspiring to become
c physicians or pursue further medical studies will have to pass
the NEET. The NEET would be a nationwide common
examination to be held at different places in the country so that
all students aspiring to have medical education, can appear in
the examination and ultimately, on the basis of the result of the
examination, suitability and eligibility of the students for
0
admission to the medical profession can be determined. This
system is a part of regulation whereby entry to the field of
medical education is regulated in such a way that only eligible
and suitable students are given admission to medical colleges.
E 10. 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 selectio.n of the students for
admission to the medical profession would be on merit based .
selection. No extraneous consideration would come into play
F in the process of selection. The process of selection would not
be influenced by irrelevant factors like caste and creed,
community, race, lineage, gender, social or economic standing,
place of residence - whether rural or urban, influence of wealth
or power; and admission would be given only to the students
who really deserve to be well qualified physicians or dentists.
G Thus, there would not be any discrimination or influence 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
H minority to select students of their choice, provided the students
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v.1025
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]
so selected have secured minimum marks prescribed at the A
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 B
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.
11. Furthermore, centralization of the selection process
under holding the NEET would help the students to appear at C
the examination from any corner of our nation. The result of the
examination would be published at the same time on one
particular day and with the same standard. There would not be
any problem with regard to equalizing marks and merits of
different students passing different examinations from different D
regions or states or universities or colleges. The process of
selection would be equal, fair, just and transparent. All the
students would be in a position to compete from a common
platform and the test will have· credibility in the eyes of the
students and the society. There are number of professional E
institutions which are having only one professional examination
and there are some institutions which also have one common
entrance test which would decide competence and capability
of a student for being admitted to the professional course and
the system which is followed by them for years is quite
F
satisfactory and successful. The students would be benefited
because they will not have to appear at different places on
different days at different examinations for the same purpose.
In my opinion, the aforestated factors, in practical life, would
surely help the. students, the profession and the institutions G
which are not money minded and are sincere in their object of
imparting medical education to the aspiring students. 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.
H
1026 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A 12. An apprehension has been voiced by the counsel for
the petitioners that the minority institutions or the educational
institutions belonging to special classes would be adversely
affected because of the introduction of the NEET. In fact, the
said apprehension is not well founded. The policy with regard
B to the reservation can be very well implemented if the NEET is
introduced because the NEET would determine standard or
eligibility of a student who is to be imparted education in the
field of medicine. The institution imparting medical education
will have to see that the student to be admitted is having
c minimum standard of suitability and the institution will be at a
liberty to select a student of its choice if it wants to promote a
particular class of persons. By admitting suitable and deserving
students having an aptitude for becoming doctors, the religious
institutions would be in a position to have better doctors for
fulfilling their objective.
0
13. Moreover, the policy with regard to reservation for
certain classes, followed by the States would also not be
adversely affected. From the deserving eligible students, who
have procured qualifying marks at the NEET and who belong
E to the reserved classes would be given preference so as to fulfill
the policy with regard to reservation. Thus, the students
belonging to the reserved classes would also not suffer on
account of holding the NEET.
14. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that introduction
F of the NEET would adversely affect the policy with regard to
the reservation or the policy of the States pertaining to upliftment
of downtrodder. persons belonging to certain classes.
15. The MCI has power to regulate medical education and
similarly the DCI has also the power to regulate the education
G in the field of Dentistry. Meaning of the word 'to regulate' would
also include controlling entry of undeserving or weak students
into the profession, who cannot be groomed in normal
circumstances as good physicians or doctors or dentists. The
term 'regulate' would normally mean to control something by
H means of rules or by exercise of control over a system. It is an
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v.1027
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]
admitted fact that one of the functions of these apex bodies of A
the professionals is to regulate the system of education. In my
opinion, we cannot put any fetter on the system introduced by
these bodies, whereby they try to control entry of weak or
undeserving or less competent students to the institutes where
medical education is imparted. Thus, in my opinion, the MCI B
and the DCI are competent to exercise their right to regulate
the education system under the provisions of the Act and under
the provisions of the Dentists Act, 1948, which permit them to
determine the standard of students who are to be admitted to
these professional courses. c
16. Hence, I am of the view that the MCI and the DCI are
entitled to regulate the admission procedure by virtue of the
provisions of their respective Acts, which enable them to
regulate and supervise the overall professional standards.
17. I have now to see whether the legal provisions which D
permit the aforestated apex bodies to conduct the NEET, so
as to regulate admission of the students to medical institutes,
are in accordance with legal and Constitutional.provisions. The
aforestated question has been rightly answered by this court
in the case of Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Another vs. State of E
M.P. and Others (1999) 7 sec 120 to the effect that norms of
admission will have a direct impact on the standards of
education. This court has observed that the standards of
education in any institution or college would depend upon
several factors and the caliber of the students to be admitted F
to the institutions would also be one of the relevant factors.
Moreover, in view of entry 25 of List Ill of the Seventh Schedule
to the Constitution, Union as well as the States have power to
legislate on the subject of medical education, subject to the
provisions of entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule, which G
deals with determination of standards in institutions for higher
education. In the circumstances, a State has the right to control
education, including medical education, so long as the field is
unoccupied by any Union legislation. By virtue of entry 66 in List
I to the Seventh Schedule, the Union can make laws with
H
1028 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 7 S.C.R.
A respect to determination of standards in institutions for higher
education. Similarly, subject to enactments, laws made with
respect to the determination of standards in institutions for
higher education under power given to the Union in entry 66 of
List I of the Seventh Schedule, the State can also make laws
B relating to education, including technical education and medical
education. In view of the above position clarified in the case of
Dr. Preeti Srivastava (supra), the NEET can be conducted
under the supervision of the MCI as per the regulations framed
under the Act. As stated hereinabove, Section 33 of the Act
c enables the MCI to make regulations to carry out the purposes
of the Act and therefore, conducting the NEET is perfectly legal.
18. In para 36 of the judgment delivered in the case of Dr.
Preeti Srivastava (supra), this Court has held that for the
purpose of maintaining standards of education, it is very much
o necessary to see that the students to be admitted to the higher
educational institutions are having high caliber and therefore,
in the process of regulating educational standards in the fields
of medicine and dentistry also the above principle should be
followed and the apex professional bodies should be permitted
E to conduct examinations in the nature of the NEET. Regulations
made under the Act and the Dentists Act, 1948 must be treated
as part of the Act and therefore, conducting the NEET cannot
~e said to be illegal. Su.bmissions were made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that as copies of the draft
F Regulations, as required under Section 19A of the Act, were
not forwarded to the State Governments, the said Regulations
cannot be acted upon. The said submission is of no importance
for the reason that I am in agreement with the submission of
the learned counsel appearing for the MCI that the said
G provision is not mandatory and therefore, non-supply of the draft
regulations would not adversely affect the validity of the
Regulations and the NEET. It also appears from the language
used in Section 19A of the Act that the said provision with
regard to furnishing copies of the draft regulations to all the
State Governments is not mandatory and any defect in the said
H
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v. 1029
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]
procedure would not vitiate validity of the Regulations or action A
taken in pursuance of the Regulations,
19. Similar question with regard to having a common test
had arisen for admitting students aspiring to become veterinary
surgeons. The question was whether it was open to the apex
body of the said profession to conduct a common entrance test. B
Ultimately, the issue had been resolved by this court in the
matter of Veterinary Council of India vs. Indian Council of
Agricultural Research, (2000) 1 SCC 750. This court, after
considering several issues similar to those which have been
~aised in these petitions, held. that it was open to the concerned C
regulatory Council to conduct a common entrance test.
20. So far as the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g)
of the Constitution with regard to practising any profession or
carrying on any occupation, a trade or business, are concerned,
it is needless to say that the aforestated rights are not D
unfettered. Article 19(6) of the Constitution permits the State
to enact any law imposing reasonable restrictions on the rights
conferred by Article 19(1)(g) in relation to the professional or
technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession.
Enactments of the Act and the Dentists Act, 1948, including E
Regulations made thereunder, which regulate the professional
studies cannot be said to be violative of the Constitutional rights
guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 19(1 )(g) of the
Constitution. The framers of the Constitution were conscious
of the fact that anybody cannot be given a right to practise any F
profession without having regard to his capacity, capability or
competence. To be permitted to practise a particular
profession, especially when the profession is such which would
require highly skilled person to perform the professional duties,
the State can definitely regulate the profession. Even if we G
assume that all the petitioner institutions are in business of
imparting education, they cannot also have unfettered right of
admitting undeserving students so as to make substandard
physicians and dentists. One may argue here that ultimately,
after passing the final examination, all students who had joined
H
1030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 7 S.C.R.
A the studies would be at par and therefore, even if a very weak
or substandard student is given admission, after passing the
final examination, which is supervised by one of the apex
bodies referred to hereinabove, he would be at par with other
students who were eligible and suitable at the time when they
B were given admission. In practical life, we do find a difference
between a professional who has passed his professional
examination at the first or second trial and the one who has
passed examination after several trials. Be that as it may, it is
for the apex body of the professionals to decide as to what type
C ofstudents should undergo the professional training. The
function with regard to regulating educational activity would be
within the domain of the professional bodies and their decision
must be respected so as to see that the society gets well
groomed bright physicians and dentists. Thus, in my opinion,
the introduction of the NEET would not violate the right
D guaranteed to the petitioners under the provisions of Article
19(1 )(g) of the Constitution of India.
21. So far as the rights guaranteed to the petitioners under
the provisions of Articles 25, 26, 29 and 30 are concerned, in
E my opinion, none of the rights guaranteed under the aforestated
Articles would be violated by permitting the NEET. It is always
open to the petitioners to select a student subject to his being
qualified by passing the examination conducted by the highest
professional body. This is to assure that the students who are
to undergo the professional training are suitable for the same.
F Regulations relating to admission of the students i.e. admitting
eligible, deserving and bright students would ultimately bdng
reputation to the educational institutes. I fail to understand as
to why the petitioners are keen to admit undeserving or
ineligible students when eligible and suitable students are
G available. I am sure that even a scrupulous religious person or
an educational institution would not like to have physicians or
dentists passing through its institution to be substandard so as
to bring down reputation of the profession or the college in
which such a substandard professional was educated.
H
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. v. 1031
UNJON OF INDIA AND ORS. [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]
Minorities - be it religious or linguistic, can impart training to a A
student who is found worthy to be given education in the field
of medicine or dentistry by the professional apex body. In my
opinion, the Regulations and the NEET would not curtail or
adversely affect any of the rights of such minorities as
apprehended by the petitioners. On the contrary, standard B
quality of input would reasonably assure them of sterling quality
of the final output of the physicians or dentists, who pass out
through their educational institutions.
22. An apprehension was voiced by some of the counsel
appearing for the petitioners that autonomy of the petitioner C
institutions would be lost if the NEET is permitted. I fail to
understand as to how autonomy of the said institutions would
be adversely affected because of the NEET. The Government
authorities or the professional bodies named hereinabove
would not be creating any hindrance in the administrative affairs D
of the institutions. Implementation of the NEET would only give
better students to such institutions and from and among such
highly qualified and suitable students, the minority institutions
will have a right to select the students of their choice. At this
stage, the institutions would be in a position to use their E
discretion in the matter of selection of students. It would be
open to them to give weightage to the religion, caste, etc of
the student. The institutions would get rid of the work ~f
conducting their separate examinations and that would be a
great relief to them. Except some institutions having some
F
oblique motive behind selecting students who could not prove
their mettle at the common examination, au educational
institutes should feel happy to get a suitable and eligible lot of
students, without making any effort for selecting them.
23. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, in my opinion, G
it cannot be said that introduction of the NEET would either
violate any of the fundamental or legal rights of the petitioners
or even adversely affect the medical profession. In my opinion,
introduction of the NEET would ensure more transparency and
less hardship to the students eager to join the medical
H
1032 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.
A profession. Let us see the consequence, if the apex bodies of
medical profession are not permitted to conduct the NEET. A
student, who is good at studies and is keen to join the medical
profession, will have to visit several different States to appear _
at different examinations held by different medical colleges or
B institutes so as to ensure that he gets admission somewhere.
If he appears only in one examination conducted by a particular
University in a particular State and if he fails there, he would
not stand a chance to get medical education at any other place.
The NEET will facilitate all students desirous of joining the
c medical profession because the students will have to appear
only at one examination and on the basis of the result of the
NEET, if he is found suitable, he would be in a position to get
admission somewhere in the country and he can have the
medical education if he is inclined to go to a different place.
0 Incidentally, I may state here that learned senior counsel Mr.
G_lJpta had informed the Court that some medical colleges, who
are'tnore in a profiteering business rather than in the noble work
of imparting medical education, take huge amount by way of
donation or capitation fees and give admission to undeserving·
or weak students under one pretext or the other. He had also
E given an instance to support the serious allegation made by him
on the subject. If only one examination in the country is
conducted and admissions are given on the basis of the result
of the said examination, in my opinion, unscrupulous and
money minded businessmen operating in the field of education
F would be constrained to stop their corrupt practices and it would
help a lot, not only to the deserving students but also to the
nation in bringing down the level of corruption.
24. For the aforestated reasons, I am of the view that the
petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for in the
G petitions. The impugned notifications are not only legal in the
eyes of law but are also a boon to the students aspiring to join
medical profession. All the petitions are, therefore, dismissed
with no order as to costs.
H R.P. Transferred Cases & Writ Petitions allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "NEET"Sign in to search