SUPREME COURT: NEET compulsory for admission in Minority medical colleges. (Download Full Judgement)

Latest Judgement

Supreme Court of India

Christian Medical college Vellore Association Vs. Union of India and Others

Transferred Case (CIVIL) No.98 of 2012 along with 76 other similar petitions.

Decided on 29.04.2020

The Supreme Court while deciding various appeals by the private medical colleges, deemed universities, and state governments who wanted to hold their own separate entrance tests granting admission to MBBS and BDS courses held that The National Eligibility Entrance Test, or NEET, the single entrance exam for all medical colleges, will apply to minority institutions providing medical courses.

Christian Medical College, Vellore, had challenged the NEET route for admissions, arguing that it violated the institution’s minority rights enshrined under Article 30.

On NEET, Supreme Court ruled single window National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) would be mandatory for admissions to medical and dental courses offered by private unaided minority medical/dental colleges.

The institute had insisted that its selection process was designed to select candidates who would be willing to serve in the country’s rural areas, not just cities. For this reason, it said, they had heavily subsidised the medical course.

The Court Held that:-

"There is no violation of the rights of the unaided/aided minority to administer institutions under Articles 19(1) (g) and 30 read with Articles 25, 26 and 29(1) of the Constitution of India by prescribing the uniform examination of NEET for admissions in the graduate and postgraduate professional courses of medical as well   as   dental   science."

The rights available under Article 30 are not violated by provisions carved out in Section 10D of the   MCI   Act   and   the   Dentists   Act   and   Regulations   framed   by MCI/DCI.

"The provisions   of  the   Act   and regulation cannot be said to be ultra vires or taking away the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India under Article 30(1) read with Articles 19(1)(g), 14, 25, 26 and 29(1)." 

The three-judge bench comprising justices Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran and MR Shah clarified that-

“The rights available under Article 30 (of the Constitution which secures the right of religious and linguistic minorities to run educational institutions) are not violated by provisions carved out in Section 10D of the MCI Act (Medical Council of India Act) and the Dentists Act and Regulations framed by MCI/DCI,”

As a single entrance examination to medical and dental colleges, NEET was first introduced in 2013. But this exam was scrapped by the Supreme Court within a few months. A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court revisited this verdict and restored it in 2016.

Over 15.9 lakh students have registered for this year’s entrance exam to study medicine across the country.

The three-judge bench observed that NEET was introduced for better administration in view of several instances of maladministration by several private colleges.

The  Supreme Court said that:-

“The regulatory measures are intended for the proper functioning of institutions and to ensure that the standard of education is maintained and does not fall low under the guise of an exclusive right of management to the extent of maladministration,”

In this Judgement, the bench led by Justice Arun Mishra also set aside challenges to NEET by private medical colleges, deemed universities, and state governments who wanted to hold their own entrance tests for admission to MBBS and BDS courses.

On the merits to hold NEET, The court held- 

"Prescribing NEET is to bring the education within the realm of charity which character it has lost. It intends to weed out evils from the system and various malpractices which decayed the system. The regulatory measures in no way interfere with the rights to administer the institution by the religious or linguistic minorities... Education is not a commodity to be purchased by money power and deserving one as per merit cannot be deprived of the right to obtain it. The State cannot remain a mute spectator, and it must step in to prevent exploitation," 

Read the full Judgement below:-