Full Judgment Text
CORRECTED REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.2
(For directions)
IN
TRANSFER CASE (C) NO(S).7 OF 2013
ASSOCIATION OF MANAGEMENTS OF UNAIDED
PVT. MEDICAL & DENTAL COLLEGE & ANR. ... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)
&
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.3
(For directions)
IN
TRANSFER CASE (C) NO(S).58 OF 2013
P.A. INAMDAR & ORS. ... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)
&
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS.4-6
(For directions)
IN
TRANSFER CASE (C) NO(S).132-134 OF 2012
KARNATAKA PVT. MEDICAL DENTAL COLLEGE
& ANR. ... PETITIONER(S)
JUDGMENT
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)
&
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.10
(For impladment)
IN
TRANSFER CASE (C) NO(S).98 OF 2012
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. ... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)
&
Page 1
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.2
(For stay)
IN
TRANSFER CASE (C) NO(S).99 OF 2012
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE ASSO. ... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)
&
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.275 OF 2016
SWAMI RAMA HIMALAYAN UNIVERSITY ... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S)
&
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.1
(For stay)
IN
TRANSFER CASE (C) NO(S).11 OF 2013
DATTA MEGHE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
SCIENCES & ORS. ... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)
&
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS.2 TO 30
(For impleadment, modification of Court's order
JUDGMENT
intervention and directions)
IN
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.261 OF 2016
SANKALP CHARITABLE TRUST & ANR. ….PETITIONER(S)
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)
&
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.292 OF 2016
KOMAL TAPASVI THROUGH HER GUARDIAN & ORS. ... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
Page 2
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S)
&
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.293 OF 2016
MIHIR ABHIJIT PATHAK & ORS. THROUGH
HIS GUARDIAN ... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
These applications have been filed by the private
medical colleges and also by some of the States seeking
th
modification of order dated 28 April, 2016 in W.P.
(C)No.261 of 2016.
The Medical Council of India (MCI) and the Dental
st
Council of India (DCI) issued notifications dated 21
December, 2010, amending the existing statutory regulations
to provide for a single National Eligibility-cum-Entrance
Test (NEET) for admission to the MBBS/BDS course.
JUDGMENT
The said notifications were struck down in Christian
Medical College, Vellore Vs. Union of India, 2014 (2) SCC
305.
The said judgment stands recalled vide order dated
th
11 April, 2016 in Review Petition (C) Nos.2159-2268 of
2013.
th
On 28 April, 2016, in W.P.(C)No.261/2016 a statement
was made by the learned counsel for MCI, CBSE and Union of
Page 3
India that for the academic year 2016-17, NEET would be
held.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
nd
In recent Constitution Bench judgment dated 2 May,
2016, in Modern Dental College & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. &
Ors. in Civil Appeal No.4060 of 2009 etc., the stand of the
private medical colleges (including minorities) that
conducting of entrance test by the State violated right of
autonomy of the said colleges, has been rejected. The
State law providing for conducting of entrance test was
upheld, rejecting the contention that the State had no
legislative competence on the subject. At the same time,
it was held that the admission involved two aspects.
First, the adoption of setting up of minimum standards of
education and coordination of such standards which aspect
was covered exclusively by Entry 66 of List I. The second
aspect is with regard to implementation of the said
standards which was covered by Entry 25 of List III. On
JUDGMENT
the said aspect, the State could also legislate. The two
entries overlap to some extent and to that extent Entry 66
of List I prevailed over the subject covered by Entry 25.
Prima facie, w e do not find any infirmity in the NEET
regulation on the ground that it affects the rights of the
States or the private institutions. Special provisions for
reservation of any category are not subject matter of the
NEET nor rights of minority are in any manner affected by
NEET. NEET only provides for conducting entrance test for
Page 4
eligibility for admission to the MBBS/BDS course.
We thus, do not find any merit in the applications
th
seeking modification of order dated 28 April, 2016.
Only other contention relates to perceived hardship
to the students who have either applied for NEET-I but
could not appear or who appeared but could not prepare
fully thinking that the preparation was to be only for 15%
All India seats and there will be further opportunity to
appear in other examinations. To allay any such
apprehension, we direct that all such eligible candidates
who could not appear in NEET-I and those who had appeared
but have apprehension that they had not prepared well, be
permitted to appear in NEET-II, subject to seeking an
option from the said candidates to give up their
candidature for NEET-I. It would be open to the
respondents to reschedule the date of holding NEET-II, if
necessary. To this extent the earlier orders stand
modified.
JUDGMENT
We may also add here that to ensure total credibility
of the examination to be held by the CBSE, the Oversight
Committee appointed by this Court vide the aforesaid
nd
judgment dated 2 May, 2016 shall also oversee the NEET-II
examination to be conducted by the CBSE.
In view of the above, it is also clarified that only
NEET would enable students to get admission to MBBS or BDS
studies.
In view of the above order, all the applications and
Page 5
th
writ petitions seeking modification of order passed on 11
April, 2016, stand disposed of.
W.P.(C)261/2016 :
In view of the above order, W.P.(C)No.261/2016 also
does not survive and that is also disposed of.
............J.
[ANIL R. DAVE]
.................J.
[SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]
.................J.
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL]
New Delhi;
th
9 May, 2016.
JUDGMENT
Page 6
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.2
(For directions)
IN
TRANSFER CASE (C) NO(S).7 OF 2013
MEDICAL & DENTAL COLLEGE & ANR. ... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)
&
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.3
(For directions)
IN
TRANSFER CASE (C) NO(S).58 OF 2013
P.A. INAMDAR & ORS. ... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)
&
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS.4-6
(For directions)
IN
TRANSFER CASE (C) NO(S).131-134 OF 2012
KARNATAKA PVT. MEDICAL DENTAL COLLEGE
& ANR. ... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
JUDGMENT
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)
&
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.10
(For impladment)
IN
TRANSFER CASE (C) NO(S).98 OF 2012
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. ... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)
&
Page 7
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.2
(For stay)
IN
TRANSFER CASE (C) NO(S).99 OF 2012
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE ASSO. ... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)
&
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.275 OF 2016
SWAMY RAMA HIMALAYAN UNIVERSITY ... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S)
&
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.1
(For stay)
IN
TRANSFER CASE (C) NO(S).11 OF 2013
DATTA MEGHE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
SCIENCES & ORS. ... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)
&
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS.2 TO 30
(For impleadment, modification of Court's order
JUDGMENT
intervention and directions)
IN
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.261 OF 2016
SANKALP CHARITABLE TRUST & ANR. ….PETITIONER(S)
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)
&
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.292 OF 2016
KAMAL TAPASVI THROUGH HER GUARDIAN & ORS. ... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
Page 8
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)
&
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.293 OF 2016
MIHIR ABHIJIT PATHAK & ORS. THROUGH
HIS GUARDIAN ... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
These applications have been filed by the private
medical colleges and also by some of the States seeking
th
modification of order dated 28 April, 2016 in W.P.
(C)No.261 of 2016.
The Medical Council of India (MCI) and the Dental
st
Council of India (DCI) issued notifications dated 21
December, 2010, amending the existing statutory regulations
to provide for a single National Eligibility-cum-Entrance
Test (NEET) for admission to the MBBS/BDS course.
JUDGMENT
The said notifications were struck down in Christian
Medical College, Vellore Vs. Union of India, 2014 (2) SCC
305.
The said judgment stands recalled vide order dated
th
11 April, 2016 in Review Petition (C) Nos.2159-2268 of
2013.
th
On 28 April, 2016, in W.P.(C)No.261/2016 a statement
was made by the learned counsel for MCI, CBSE and Union of
Page 9
India that for the academic year 2016-17, NEET would be
held.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
nd
In recent Constitution Bench judgment dated 2 May,
2016, in Modern Dental College & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. &
Ors. in Civil Appeal No.4060 of 2009 etc., the stand of the
private medical colleges (including minorities) that
conducting of entrance test by the State violated right of
autonomy of the said colleges, has been rejected. The
State law providing for conducting of entrance test was
upheld, rejecting the contention that the State had no
legislative competence on the subject. At the same time,
it was held that the admission involved two aspects.
First, the adoption of setting up of minimum standards of
education and coordination of such standards which aspect
was covered exclusively by Entry 66 of List I. The second
aspect is with regard to implementation of the said
standards which was covered by Entry 25 of List III. On
JUDGMENT
the said aspect, the State could also legislate. The two
entries overlap to some extent and to that extent Entry 66
of List I prevailed over the subject covered by Entry 25.
Prima facie, w e do not find any infirmity in the NEET
regulation on the ground that it affects the rights of the
States or the private institutions. Special provisions for
reservation of any category are not subject matter of the
NEET nor rights of minority are in any manner affected by
NEET. NEET only provides for conducting entrance test for
Page 10
eligibility for admission to the MBBS/BDS course.
We thus, do not find any merit in the applications
th
seeking modification of order dated 28 April, 2016.
Only other contention relates to perceived hardship
to the students who have either applied for NEET-I but
could not appear or who appeared but could not prepare
fully thinking that the preparation was to be only for 15%
All India seats and there will be further opportunity to
appear in other examinations. To allay any such
apprehension, we direct that all such eligible candidates
who could not appear in NEET-I and those who had appeared
but have apprehension that they had not prepared well, be
permitted to appear in NEET-II, subject to seeking an
option from the said candidates to give up their
candidature for NEET-I. It would be open to the
respondents to reschedule the date of holding NEET-II, if
necessary. To this extent the earlier orders stand
modified.
JUDGMENT
We may also add here that to ensure total credibility
of the examination to be held by the CBSE, the Oversight
Committee appointed by this Court vide the aforesaid
nd
judgment dated 2 May, 2016 shall also oversee the NEET-II
examination to be conducted by the CBSE.
In view of the above, it is also clarified that only
NEET would enable students to get admission to MBBS or BDS
studies.
In view of the above order, all the applications and
Page 11
th
writ petitions seeking modification of order passed on 11
April, 2016, stand disposed of.
W.P.(C)261/2016 :
In view of the above order, W.P.(C)No.261/2016 also
does not survive and that is also disposed of.
............J.
[ANIL R. DAVE]
.................J.
[SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]
.................J.
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL]
New Delhi;
th
9 May, 2016.
JUDGMENT
Page 12