# CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [2020] 5 S.C.R. 516
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2020-04-29
- **Bench:** Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran, M. R. Shah
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/christian-medical-college-vellore-association-v-union-of-india-and-others-34561
- **Pages:** 109

## Headnote

Education/Educational Institutions - National Eligibility-cumEntrance Test (NEET) if violates fundamental rights guaranteed
u/Arts.19(1)(g), 25, 26, 29(1) & 30 - Notifications issued by Medical
Council of India (MCI) and Dental Council of India (DCI) - NEET
introduced for admission to MBBS course, Post- graduate course,
BDS, MDS - Initially notifications were quashed - However, the
said judgment was later recalled - During the pendency of petitions,
s.10D, 1956 Act providing for uniform entrance examination for
undergraduate and post-graduate level has come into force - s.10D,
1948 Act containing similar provisions w.r.t uniform entrance
examination has also been inserted - Held: Notifications questioned
and the amendment made to s.10D as introduced in the 1956 Act
and regulations as amended by MCI and similar provisions inserted
in 1948 Act & Regulations, cannot be said to be violating the rights
of the unaided/aided minority to administer institutions
u/Arts.19(1)(g) & 30 r/w Arts. 25, 26 & 29(1) by prescribing the
uniform examination of NEET for admissions in the graduate and
postgraduate professional courses of medical as well as dental
science - Provisions of the Act and regulation cannot be said to be
ultra vires the rights guaranteed u/Art. 30(1) r/w Arts. 19(1)(g), 14,
25, 26 & 29(1) - It is open to provide regulatory mechanism for
admission for such courses as held in T.M.A. Pai Foundation - A
decision has been taken to regulate admission in professional
colleges on national basis to wipe out corruption and various evils
from the system - There cannot be any exemption, otherwise, there
would be no end to such claims and multiple examinations - Minority
and private institutions have to admit students based on merit in the
permissible category, based on NEET as per procedure prescribed
under the Act and Regulations - Rights u/Art.19(1)(g) are not
516
[2020] 5 S.C.R. 516
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
517
absolute and are subject to reasonable restriction in the interest of
student's community to promote merit, recognition of excellence, and
to curb the malpractices - Uniform Entrance Test qualifies the test
of proportionality and is reasonable - Constitution of India - Arts.
14, 19(1)(g), 19(6), 25, 26 & 29(1), 30, 46, 47, 51A(j) - Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956 - s.10D - Regulation on Graduate
Medical Education, 1997 - Dentists Act, 1948 - s.10D - Post
Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 - Regulations on
Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) 2010 (Part II) - PostGraduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulation, 2010 (PartII) - Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment)
2017 - Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational
Institution (Regulation of Admissions & Fees) Act, 2015.
Disposing of the matters, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The notifications, which are questioned in the
matters and the amendment made to Section 10D as introduced
in the Act of 1956 and regulations as amended by the MCI and
similar provisions inserted in the Dentists Act & Regulations,
cannot be said to be taking away the rights of the unaided minority
institutions or private institutions of making admission in any
manner as it is permissible to provide regulatory mechanism at
the national level and the entrance test applies even to All India
Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) - the most reputed Institute
of India. It is open to provide the regulatory mechanism for
admission for such courses as held in T.M.A. Pai Foundation the
qualification and conditions of eligibility in the interest of academic
standards can be provided, and there could be regulatory
measures for ensuring educational standards and maintaining
excellence in the matter of professional institution. Thus, the
decision in T.M.A. Pai Foundation rendered by 11-Judge Bench
is juxtaposedto the submission raised on behalf of petitioners. In
P.A. Inamdar, the Court laid down the triple test of a fair,
transparent and non-exploitative mechanism and if the admission
procedure a

## Text

_Characters 0–39,938 of 265,779. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39938 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
516
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE ASSOCIATION
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(Transferred Case (Civil) No. 98 of 2012)
APRIL 29, 2020
[ARUN MISHRA, VINEET SARAN AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions - National Eligibility-cumEntrance Test (NEET) if violates fundamental rights guaranteed
u/Arts.19(1)(g), 25, 26, 29(1) & 30 - Notifications issued by Medical
Council of India (MCI) and Dental Council of India (DCI) - NEET
introduced for admission to MBBS course, Post- graduate course,
BDS, MDS - Initially notifications were quashed - However, the
said judgment was later recalled - During the pendency of petitions,
s.10D, 1956 Act providing for uniform entrance examination for
undergraduate and post-graduate level has come into force - s.10D,
1948 Act containing similar provisions w.r.t uniform entrance
examination has also been inserted - Held: Notifications questioned
and the amendment made to s.10D as introduced in the 1956 Act
and regulations as amended by MCI and similar provisions inserted
in 1948 Act & Regulations, cannot be said to be violating the rights
of the unaided/aided minority to administer institutions
u/Arts.19(1)(g) & 30 r/w Arts. 25, 26 & 29(1) by prescribing the
uniform examination of NEET for admissions in the graduate and
postgraduate professional courses of medical as well as dental
science - Provisions of the Act and regulation cannot be said to be
ultra vires the rights guaranteed u/Art. 30(1) r/w Arts. 19(1)(g), 14,
25, 26 & 29(1) - It is open to provide regulatory mechanism for
admission for such courses as held in T.M.A. Pai Foundation - A
decision has been taken to regulate admission in professional
colleges on national basis to wipe out corruption and various evils
from the system - There cannot be any exemption, otherwise, there
would be no end to such claims and multiple examinations - Minority
and private institutions have to admit students based on merit in the
permissible category, based on NEET as per procedure prescribed
under the Act and Regulations - Rights u/Art.19(1)(g) are not
516
[2020] 5 S.C.R. 516
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
517
absolute and are subject to reasonable restriction in the interest of
student's community to promote merit, recognition of excellence, and
to curb the malpractices - Uniform Entrance Test qualifies the test
of proportionality and is reasonable - Constitution of India - Arts.
14, 19(1)(g), 19(6), 25, 26 & 29(1), 30, 46, 47, 51A(j) - Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956 - s.10D - Regulation on Graduate
Medical Education, 1997 - Dentists Act, 1948 - s.10D - Post
Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 - Regulations on
Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) 2010 (Part II) - PostGraduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulation, 2010 (PartII) - Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment)
2017 - Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational
Institution (Regulation of Admissions & Fees) Act, 2015.
Disposing of the matters, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The notifications, which are questioned in the
matters and the amendment made to Section 10D as introduced
in the Act of 1956 and regulations as amended by the MCI and
similar provisions inserted in the Dentists Act & Regulations,
cannot be said to be taking away the rights of the unaided minority
institutions or private institutions of making admission in any
manner as it is permissible to provide regulatory mechanism at
the national level and the entrance test applies even to All India
Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) - the most reputed Institute
of India. It is open to provide the regulatory mechanism for
admission for such courses as held in T.M.A. Pai Foundation the
qualification and conditions of eligibility in the interest of academic
standards can be provided, and there could be regulatory
measures for ensuring educational standards and maintaining
excellence in the matter of professional institution. Thus, the
decision in T.M.A. Pai Foundation rendered by 11-Judge Bench
is juxtaposedto the submission raised on behalf of petitioners. In
P.A. Inamdar, the Court laid down the triple test of a fair,
transparent and non-exploitative mechanism and if the admission
procedure adopted by private institution does not satisfy all or
any of the triple tests, it held that the admission procedure can
be taken over by the State substituting its process. This aspect
was gauged in Modern Dental College and Research Centre in a
broader perspective considering prevailing situation of capitation
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE ASSOCIATION
v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
518
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
fee and education becoming saleable commodity. A decision has
been taken to regulate admission in professional colleges on
national basis so as to wipe out the corruption and various evils
from the system. Even, the NEET has been made applicable to
such premier institution like All India Institute of Medical
Sciences (AIIMS) and so many others. The decision has been
taken considering the overall national scenario, there cannot be
any exemption, otherwise, there would be no end to such claims
and multiple examinations. It would not be possible to eradicate
evils. Overall derogatory situation which prevailed before
introduction of NEET cannot be restored. Still, there are several
loopholes, which are to be plugged in the admission procedure.
Unscrupulous practices are being adopted by private colleges of
not admitting students sponsored by centralised counselling
committee.The minority and private institutions have to admit
students based on merit in the permissible category, based on
NEET as per procedure prescribed under the Act and
Regulations. [Paras 35, 37 and 38][610-G-H; 611-A-F]
T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka
and Ors. (2002) 8 SCC 481 : [2002] 3 Suppl. SCR
587; P. A. Inamdar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
and Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 537 : [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR
603; Modern Dental College and Research Centre and
Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (2016) 7
SCC 353 : [2016] 3 SCR 579 - followed.
1.2 The notifications issued, amendment made to Section
10D of the Act of 1956 and regulations framed by MCI and similar
provisions for dental courses providing for NEET cannot be said
to be impinging upon the rights of the minority and the provisions
of the Act and regulations framed by MCI under the Act of 1956,
in DCI Act and regulations are required to be observed by each
and every institution. The regulatory measures under the Act/
Regulations cannot be said to be averse to the interest of such
institutions, and such reasonable measurescan be carved out.
They do not impinge upon the rights of institutions guaranteed
under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 25 and 30 of the Constitution of India.
There is no reason why conditions for the welfare of students
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
519
and teachers should not be made, but any law or rule or regulation
that would put the educational institutions run by the minorities
at a disadvantage when compared to the institutions run by the
others will have to be struck down. The law of the land includes
rules and regulations that must apply equally to the majority as
well as minority institutions. The minority institutions must be
allowed to do what non-minority is permitted to do. They have to
comply with the conditions of recognition, which cannot be such
as to whittle down the right guaranteed under Article 30 of the
Constitution. [Paras 41, 42][614-B-C, F-H]
1.3 The NEET has been prescribed by the Legislature in
the larger public interest that has to prevail. The provisions found
to be reasonable conditions of recognition/affiliation are binding
for the very existence of all such institution whether they are run
by majority or minority failing which they cannot exists and impart
education. The conditions are reasonable and cannot be said to
be taking away any of the constitutional rights of minority
institutions, they are reasonable, fair and intended to bring
transparency in the professional education imparted by
institutions. They are applicable for all institutions alike minorities
are not placed on a disadvantageous platform. There is no doubt
as to the concept of limited Government and least interference
is welcomed, but in which field and to what extent balancing with
the larger public and national interest is required. The individual
autonomy, rights, and obligations are to be free from official
interference except where the rational basis for intrusion exists.
The Constitution provides a limitation on the power of the State
to interfere with life, liberty, and rights, however, the concept of
limited government cannot be extended to a level when it defeats
the very national interest. The maladies with which professional
education suffers in this country are writ large. The regulatory
framework created by the MCI/ DCI is concomitant of conditions,
affiliation and recognition, and providing central examination in
the form of NEET cannot be said to be violative of the rights
under Articles 19(1)(g) and 30. The regulatory framework is not
restrictive, but caters to the effective enjoyment of the rights
conferred under the aforesaid provisions. The provisions qualify
the doctrine of proportionality considered in Modern Dental
College and Research Centre. What has been held therein for State
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE ASSOCIATION
v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
520
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
level examination holds good for NEET also. The prescription of
NEET is definitely in order to improve the medical education,
co-related to the improvement of public health, thus, it is a stepin furtherance of the duty of the State enshrined in the Directive
Principles of the State Policy contained in Article 47 of the
Constitution of India. Similarly, Article 46 aims at promotion of
educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, and other weaker sections. By prescription of
one equivalence examination of NEET, the interest of their merit
is also equally protected and its aims of preventing various
malpractices, which crept into system and prevent economic
exploitation by selling seats with which maladythe professional
medical education system suffered. Article 51A(j) deals with the
duty to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and
collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher
levels of endeavour and achievement. For that purpose,
recognition of merit is necessary, and one has to be given a full
opportunity in pursuit of his/her aim. The prescription of NEET
is to provide equal opportunity and level launching platform to
an individual to perform his duty as enshrined under Article 51A(j).
Thus, there is no violation of the aforesaid provisions as argued
by appellants, rather action is in furtherance of the constitutional
aims and directions to achieve intendment of Article 51A(j) and
is in the national interest. [Paras 46-48][618-C-G; 619-A-E]
1.4 In view of the law laid down in T.M.A. Pai Foundation, it
is apparent that NEET/common entrance test is a devise to
standardise and computing equivalence between different kinds
of qualifications. It does not interfere with the rights of the unaided
minority institutions as it has been imposed in national interest
considering the malpractices of granting illegal admission by
virtually selling the seats in derogation to rights of meritorious
students. The charitable activity of education became a saleable
commodity and prerogative of wealthy persons and poor students
were forced to get education funded from Banks making it difficult
for them to come out of tentacular octave of interest. They are
exploited in bud before they bloom into flower. The ill-reputation
developed by MCI forced to change its entire structure. The
national interest requires further improvement in the system to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
521
eradicate evils from the system. The situation is still grim and
require to be dealt with firm hand and steely determination. Thus,
it is apparent that the provisions in question which have been
incorporated in the Act relating to Medical/Dental education, the
Government, MCI and DCI cannot be said to be an invasion of
the fundamental rights. The intendment is to ensure fairness in
the selection, recognition of merit, and the interests of the
students. In the national interest, educational institutions are
basically for a charitable purpose. By and large, at present
education is devoid of its real character of charity, it has become
a commodity. To weed out evils from the system, which were
eating away fairness in admission process, defeating merit and
aspiration of the common incumbent with no means, the State
has the right to frame regulatory regime for aided/ unaided
minority/ private institutions as mandated by Directives
Principles, Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The first step
has been taken to weed out the evils from the system, and it
would not be in the national interest to step back considering the
overall scenario. If the old system is reverted to, posterity is not
going to forgive us. Still, complaints are galore that merit is being
ignored by private institutions; there is still a flood of litigation.
It seems that unfettered by a large number of regulatory
measures, unscrupulous methods and malpractices are yet being
adopted. Building the nation is the main aspect of education, which
could not be ignored and overlooked. They have to cater to
national interest first, then their interest, more so, when such
conditions can be prescribed for recognition, particularly in the
matter of professional education. The learned counsel argued
that it is open to some of the institutions to impose higher
standards of merit. Firstly, conditions of affiliation are binding
apart from that, it is found that when it comes to national standards
and the objects sought to be achieved by NEET, to conduct
individual examinations by some institutions cannot be permitted.
The system is not yet out of clutches of unscrupulous devices
and dubious means are adopted to defeat merit, the interest of
education would further suffer and very purpose of centralised
examination would be defeated. It is not possible to prescribe
further examination over and above NEET that cannot be said to
be workable, no exemption can be granted from NEET,
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE ASSOCIATION
v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
522
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
considering the objective with which it has been introduced. The
uniform Entrance Examination cannot be said to be unreasonable
regulatory framework. Considering the terms and conditionsfor
affiliation and recognition for professional medical and such other
professional courses are binding, and no relaxation can be
permitted in the conditions. [Paras 53, 55 and 57][621-C-E;
G-H; 622-A-D, F-H; 623-A]
1.5 Rights under Articles 19(1)(g)and 30 read with Articles
25, 26 and 29(1) of the Constitution of India do not come in the
way of securing transparency and recognition of merits in the
matter of admissions. It is open to regulating the course of study,
qualifications for ensuring educational standards. It is open to
imposing reasonable restrictions in the national and public
interest. The rights under Article 19(1)(g) are not absolute and
are subject to reasonable restriction in the interest of the student's
community to promote merit, recognition of excellence, and to
curb the malpractices. Uniform Entrance Test qualifies the test
of proportionality and is reasonable. The same is intended to
check several maladies which crept into medical education, to
prevent capitation fee by admitting students which are lower in
merit and to prevent exploitation, profiteering, and
commercialisation of education. The institution has to be a capable
vehicle of education. The minority institutions are equally bound
to comply with the conditions imposed under the relevant Acts
and Regulations to enjoy affiliation and recognition, which apply
to all institutions.In case they have to impart education, they are
bound to comply with the conditions which are equally applicable
to all. The regulations are necessary, and they are not divisive or
disintegrative. Such regulatory measures enable institutions to
administer them efficiently. There is no right given to
maladminister the education derogatory to the national interest.
The quality of medical education is imperative to sub-serve the
national interest, and the merit cannot be compromised. The
Government has the right for providing regulatory measures that
are in the national interest, more so in view of Article 19(6) of
the Constitution of India. The rights of the religious or linguistic
minorities under Article 30 are not in conflict with other parts of
the Constitution. Balancing the rights is constitutional intendment
in the national and more enormous public interest. Regulatory
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
523
measures cannot be said to be exceedingthe concept of limited
governance. The regulatory measures in question are for the
improvement of the public health and is a step, in furtherance of
the directive principles enshrined in Articles47 and 51(A)(j) and
enable the individual by providing full opportunity in pursuance
of his objective to excel in his pursuit. The rights to administer
an institution under Article 30 of the Constitution are not above
the law and other Constitutional provisions. Reasonable
regulatory measures can be provided without violating such rights
available under Article 30 of the Constitution to administer an
institution. Professional educational institutions constitute a class
by themselves. Specific measures to make the administration of
such institutions transparent can be imposed. 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 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. The regulatory measures by 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.
Resultantly, there is no violation of the rights of the unaided/
aided minority to administer institutions under Articles19 (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 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).
[Paras 58-60][623-B-H; 624-A-F]
Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society and Anr. v. State
of Gujarat and Anr. (1974) 1 SCC 717 : [1975] 1 SCR
173; St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi (1992)
1 SCC 558 : [1991] 3 Suppl. SCR 121 - followed.
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE ASSOCIATION
v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
524
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association
v. Union of India and Others (1986) 4 SCC 707 : [1987]
1 SCR 238; Bihar State Madarasa Education Board,
Patna v. Madarasa Hanfia Arabic College, Jamalia and
Others (1990) 1 SCC 428 : [1989] 2 Suppl. SCR 399;
Brahmo Samaj Education Society v. State of West Bengal
(2004) 6 SCC 224 : [2004] 2 Suppl. SCR 214; Sindhi
Education Society and Anr. v. Chief Secretary,
Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. (2010) 8 SCC
49 : [2010] 8 SCR 81; Secretary, Malankara Syrian
Catholic College v. T. Jose and Ors. (2007) 1 SCC 386
: [2006] 9 Suppl. SCR 644 - relied on.
Sankalp Charitable Trust and Anr. v. Union of India
and Ors. (2016) 7 SCC 487; Gobind v. State of Madhya
Pradesh and Anr. (1975) 2 SCC 148 : [1975] 3 SCR
946; K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC
1: [2017] 10 SCR 569; Islamic Academy of Education
and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2003) 6 SCC
697 : [2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 474; Christian Medical
College Vellore v. Union of India (2014) 2 SCC 305 :
[2013] 7 SCR 908; State of Madhya Pradesh v.
Jainarayan Chouksey and Ors. (2016) 9 SCC 412; State
of Maharashtra v. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth and Ors. (2016)
9 SCC 401; Dar-us-Salam Educational Trust and Ors.
v. Medical Council of India and Ors. (2017) 6 SCALE
320; Yatin kumar Jasubhai Patel and Ors. v. State of
Gujarat and Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 1 : [2019] 12 SCR
848; Re The Kerala Education Bill 1957 AIR 1958 SC
956 : [1959] SCR 995; Rev. Sidhajbhai Sabhai and
Ors. v. State of Bombay and Anr. [1963] 3 SCR 837;
Rev. Father W. Proost and Ors. v. State of Bihar and
Ors. AIR 1969 SC 465 : [1969] 2 SCR 73; The Gandhi
Faiz-e-am College, Shahjahanpur v. University of Agra
and Anr. (1975) 2 SCC 283 : [1975] 3 SCR 810; Sk.
Md. Rafique v. Managing Committee, Contai Rahamania
High Madrasah and Ors. (2020) 1 SCALE 345;
Chandana Das (Malakar) v. State of West Bengal and
Ors. (2015) 12 SCC 140 : [2014] 13 SCR 796; Faculty
Association of All India Institute of Medical Sciences v.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
525
Union of India and Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 246 : [2014]
14 SCR 1634; Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Anr. v. State of
M.P. and Ors. (1999) 7 SCC 120 : [1999] 1 Suppl. SCR
249 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2016) 7 SCC 487
referred to
Para 15
[2016] 3 SCR 579
followed
Para 15
[2002] 3 Suppl. SCR 587
followed
Para 15
[1975] 3 SCR 946
referred to
Para 15
[2017] 10 SCR 569
referred to
Para 15
[2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 474
referred to
Para 15
[2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 603
followed
Para 15
(2016) 7 SCC 487
referred to
Para 17
[2013] 7 SCR 908
referred to
Para 17
(2016) 9 SCC 412
referred to
Para 17
(2016) 9 SCC 401
referred to
Para 17
(2017) 6 SCALE 320
referred to
Para 17
[2019] 12 SCR 848
referred to
Para 17
[1959] SCR 995
referred to
Para 20
[1963] 3 SCR 837
referred to
Para 21
[1969] 2 SCR 73
referred to
Para 21
[1975] 1 SCR 173
followed
Para 22
[1975] 3 SCR 810
referred to
Para 23
[1987] 1 SCR 238
relied on
Para 24
[1989] 2 Suppl. SCR 399
relied on
Para 25
[1991] 3 Suppl. SCR 121
followed
Para 26
(2020) 1 SCALE 345
referred to
Para 26
[2004] 2 Suppl. SCR 214
relied on
Para 28
[2010] 8 SCR 81
relied on
Para 30
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE ASSOCIATION
v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
526
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
[2014] 13 SCR 796
referred to
Para 30
[2014] 14 SCR 1634
referred to
Para 39
[1999] 1 Suppl. SCR 249
referred to
Para 39
[2017] 10 SCR 569
referred to
Para 45
[2006] 9 Suppl. SCR 644
relied on
Para 49
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Transferred Case (Civil)
No. 98 of 2012.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.10.2012 of this Hon'ble
Court passed in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 365 of 2012.
With
Transferred Case (Civil) Nos. 102, 99, 104, 105, 107, 108, 119,
120, 125-127, 110, 111, 112, 113-114, 115-116, 117-118, 123-124, 128130, 131, 132-134, 138-139, 142, 144, 145 of 2012, 5, 2, 3, 4, 7, 1, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12-13, 16, 14-15, 23-24, 19, 20, 21-22, 17, 18, 25, 28-29, 48, 49, 39, 40,
42, 41, 43, 44, 46, 45, 47, 37-38, 30, 31-32, 33-36, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63-65,
66-69, 70-71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 108 of 2013, 25 of 2019, Writ Petition. (Civil)
Nos. 443, 750 of 2016, Special Leave Petition.(C) No. 28223 of 2016.
Vikas Singh, R. Venkataramani, Jayanth Muthraj, Sr. Advs., Gaurav
Sharma, Dhawal Mohan, Prateek Bhatia, Ms. Deepeika Kalia, V.G.
Pragasam, Prabu Ramasubramanian, S. Manuraj, Yashraj Singh Bundela,
Praveen Vignesh, M. Yogesh Kanna, S Raja Rajeshwaran, Karthik
Rajendran, Ms. Uma Prasuna Bachu, Rohit Rathi, Ms. Sheena Taqui,
Ms. Bina Gupta, Kshitij Vaibhav, K.S.T. Thambi Pillai, Hitesh Kumar
Sharma, Akhileshwar Jha, Ms. Miria Jasmin, Samrat Shinde, Sachin Patil,
Anil Kumar Mishra, Idrish Mohammed, Supantha Sinha, A.K. Mishra,
G.N. Reddy, T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, A.P. Mayee, A. Rajarajan, Rupesh
Kumar, Mrs. Pankhuri Shrivastava, Rajeev Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma,
V.N. Raghupathy, Manendra Pal Gupta, Md. Apzal Ansari, Amol Chitale,
Ms. Pragya Baghel, P.V. Dinesh, Ms. Sindhu T.P., Bineesh K., Mukund
P. Unny, Ashwini Kumar Singh, M/s. India Law, Mahesh Thakur,
Ms. Sheffali Chaudhary, Mrs. Vipasha Singh, Dr. Sushil Balwada,
Ramesh Allanki, Syed Ahmad Naqvi, Ms. Savita Devi, N.V.R.S.S.S.
Vara Prasad, Ms. Aruna Gupta, Ganni Krishna, R. Radha Krishna,
Ms. Shilp Gupta, C.S.N. Mohan Rao, Anil Kumar Mishra-I, Shivaji M.
Jadhav, Ashwarya Sinha, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Mrs. Bina Gupta,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
527
Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Ramesh Babu M.R., Rakesh K. Sharma,
Dushyant Parashar, Lakshmi Raman Singh, Ms. Udita Singh, Vivek Singh,
A. Venayagam Balan, Alok Shukla, M/s. Arputham Aruna and Co., E.R.
Kumar, Krishna Srinivasan, Ms. Geeti Aara, Udayaditya Banerjee,
Sudipto Sircar, Bhav Ratab, Ms. Tanya Chaudhry, Raghav Bansal,
Ms. Nitika Pandey, M/s. Parekh & Co., Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Amit
Anand Tiwari, Ms. Shakun Sharma, K.K. Singh, Ms. Mary Mitzy, Ms.
E.R. Sumathy, M/s. Lawyer's Knit & Co., K.K. Mani, Rameshwar
Prasad Goyal, Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Vipin Kumar Jai, Ms. Binu Tamta,
Ms. Rekha Pandey, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal,
M.Y. Deshmukh, Amit Kumar, Ms.Sushma Suri, T.C. Sharma, Prashant
Bhushan, Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish, Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Nishant
Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, K.V. Vijayakumar, B. Balaji, Gopal Singh,
Kaushik Poddar, R. Chandrachud, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Astha
Tyagi, Ms. Farah Fathima, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ARUN MISHRA, J.
1. Most of the cases have a chequered history. Initially, petitioners
have questioned four notifications - two notifications dated 21.12.2010
issued by Medical Council of India (for short, 'the MCI') and other two
notifications dated 31.5.2012, issued by Dental Council of India (for short,
'the DCI'). The MCI by virtue of Regulations on Graduate Medical
Education (Amendment) 2010, (Part II) notified by the Government of
India, amended theRegulationson Graduate Medical Education,
1997.Similarly, the other notification issued by MCIcalled "Post-Graduate
Medical Education (Amendment) Regulation, 2010 (Part-II)" to amend
the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000. The regulations
came into force on their publication in the Official Gazette. The other
two notifications dated 31.5.2012 issued by DCI were relating to admission
in the BDS and MDS courses.
2. The MCI issued notifications in exercise of power conferred
by Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short, 'the
Act of 1956'). The amendments were made in the Regulation on Graduate
Medical Education, 1997. The change was made in Clause 5 in Chapter
II of the Regulations. Clause 5 provided for procedure for selection
thus:
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE ASSOCIATION
v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
528
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
"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 examination,
namely, 'National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for admission to
MBBS course' in each academic year. The overall
superintendence, direction, and control of the National Eligibilitycum-Entrance Test shall vest with the Medical Council of India.
However, the Medical Council of India, with the previous approval
of the Central Government, shall select organisation(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 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 the Scheduled
Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, and the Other Backward Classes,
the minimum 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% (fortyfive percent) in each paper of National Eligibility-cum-Entrance
Test:
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 the Medical Council 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.
(iii) 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 shall be prepared on the basis
of the marks obtained in National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
529
and candidates shall 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 year.
(v) All admissions to MBBS course within the respective categories
shall be based solely on marks obtained in the National Eligibilitycum-Entrance Test."
(emphasis supplied)
3. Similarly, amendments to the Post Graduate Medical Education
Regulations, 2000 were made. The relevant portion of the amendments
made are extracted hereunder:
 "No. MCI. 18(1)/2010-Med./49070. - In exercise of the powers
conferred by Section 33 of the Indian Medical 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:
1. (i). These Regulations may be called 'the Postgraduate Medical
Education (Amendment) Regulations, 2010 (Part II)'.
(ii) They shall come into force from the date of their publication
in the Official Gazette.
2. In the 'Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000',
the following additions/ modifications/ deletions/ substitutions, shall
be as indicated therein:
3. Clause 9 under the heading 'SELECTION OF
POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS' shall be substituted as under:
"9. Procedure for selection of candidate for Postgraduate
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 each academic year. The
overall superintendence, direction and control of National
Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test shall vest with Medical Council
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE ASSOCIATION
v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
530
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
of India. However, the Medical Council of India, with the
previous approval of the Central Government shall select
organisation(s) to conduct National Eligibility-cum-Entrance
Test for admission to Postgraduate courses"'."
4. Similar notifications were issued by DCI providing for procedure
for selection of candidates for MBBS Course and Post-graduate Course
and also for BDS and MDS.Thus, National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test
(for short, 'the NEET') for admission to the MBBS course and the
Post-graduate course and similarly for BDS and MDS came to be
introduced. Now the statutory provisions underSection 10D of the Act
of 1956 providing for uniform entrance examination for undergraduate
and post-graduate level which came into force on 24.5.2016. Section
10D is extracted hereunder:
"10D.Uniform entrance examination for undergraduate and
post-graduate level.-There shall be conducted a uniform
entrance examination to all medical educational institutions at the
undergraduate level and post-graduate level through such
designated authority in Hindi, English and such other languages
and in such manner as may be prescribed and the designated
authority shall ensure the conduct of uniform entrance examination
in the aforesaid manner:
Provided that notwithstanding any judgment or order of any
court, the provisions of this section shall not apply, in relation to
the uniform entrance examination at the undergraduate level for
the academic year 2016-17 conducted in accordance with any
regulations made under this Act, in respect of the State
Government seats (whether in Government Medical College or in
a private Medical College) where such State has not opted for
such examination."
(emphasis supplied)
Section 10D of the Dentists Act, 1948,containing similar provisions
with respect of uniform entrance examination hasalso been inserted,
same is extracted hereunder:
"10D. Uniform entrance examination for undergraduate and
post-graduate level.-There shall be conducted a uniform
entrance examination to all dental educational institutions at the
undergraduate level and post-graduate level through such
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
531
designated authority in Hindi, English and such other languages
and in such manner as may be prescribed and the designated
authority shall ensure the conduct of uniform entrance examination
in the aforesaid manner:
Provided that notwithstanding any judgment or order of any
court, the provisions of this section shall not apply, in relation to
the uniform entrance examination at the undergraduate level for
the academic year 2016-17 conducted in accordance with any
regulations made under this Act, in respect of the State
Government seats (whether in Government Dental College or in
a private Dental College) where such State has not opted for
such examination."
5. The Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 have
also been amended by Regulations on Graduate Medical Education
(Amendment) 2017. The admission to the medical course eligibility criteria
has been prescribed by amended Clause 4. Following has been substituted:
"3. In Clause 4, under the heading Admission to the Medical
Course-eligibility criteria, and in sub-clause 4 (1) & (1A), the
following shall be substituted:
4. Admission to the Medical Course-Eligibility Criteria: No
candidate shall be allowed to be admitted to the Medical Curriculum
proper of first Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery
course until he /she has qualified the NationalEligibility Entrance
Test, and he/she shall not be allowed to appear for the National
Eligibility-Cum-Entrance Test until:
(1) He/she shall complete the age of 17 years on or before
31stDecember of the year of admission to the MBBS.
(1A) He/She has obtained a minimum of marks in National
Eligibility-Cum-Entrance Test as prescribed in Clause 5 of Chapter
II."
(emphasis supplied)
In Chapter II, Clause 5 under the heading "Procedure for
selection to MBBS" has been substituted by MCI in 2017 as under:
"7. In Chapter-II, Clause 5 under the heading "Procedure for
selection to MBBS course shall be as follows" shall be substituted
as under:-
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE ASSOCIATION
v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
532
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
"Procedure for selection to MBBS course shall be as
follows:"
(1) There shall be a uniform entrance examination to all medical
educational institutions at the undergraduate level namely 'National
Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for admission to MBBS course in
each academic year and shall be conducted under overall
supervision of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Government of India.
(2) The "designated authority" to conduct the 'National EligibilityCum- Entrance Test' shall be the Central Board of Secondary
Education or any other body/organization so designated by the
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, in
consultation with the Medical Council of India.
(3) The language and manner of conducting the 'National
Eligibility-Cum-Entrance Test' shall be determined by the
"designated authority" in consultation with the Medical Council
of India and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of India.
(4) In order to be eligible for admission to MBBS Course for a
academic year, it shall be necessary for a candidate to obtain
minimum of marks at 50thpercentile in 'National Eligibility-cumEntrance Test to MBBS course' held for the said academic year.
However, in respect of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, the minimum marks
shall be at 40thpercentile. In respect of candidates with benchmark
disabilities specified under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act, 2016, in terms of Clause 4(3) above, the minimum marks
shall be at 45th percentile for General Category candidates and
40th percentile for SC/ST/OBC candidates. The percentile shall
be determined on the basis of highest marks secured in the AllIndia common merit list for admission in 'National Eligibility-cumEntrance Test for admission to MBBS course.
Provided when sufficient number of candidates in the respective
categories fail to secure minimum marks as prescribed in National
Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test held for any academic year for
admission to MBBS Course, the Central Government in
consultation with Medical Council of India may at its discretion
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
533
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 academic year only.
(5) 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/Union
Territory-wise merit list of the eligible candidates shall be prepared
on the basis of marks obtained in 'National Eligibility-cum-Entrance
Test and candidates shall be admitted to MBBS course from the
said lists only.
(6) No candidate who has failed to obtain the minimum eligibility
marks as prescribed in Sub-clause (4) above shall be admitted to
MBBS course in the said academic year.
(7) No authority/institution shall admit any candidate to the MBBS
course in contravention of the criteria/procedure as laid down by
these Regulations and/or in violation of the judgments passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of admissions. Any candidate
admitted in contravention/violation of aforesaid shall be discharged
by the Council forthwith. The authority/institution which grants
admission to any student in contravention /violation of the
Regulations and/or the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, shall also be liable to face such action as may be prescribed
by the Council, including surrender of seats equivalent to the extent
of such admission made from its sanctioned intake capacity for
the succeeding academic year/years.
(8) All admission to MBBS course within the respective categories
shall be based solely on the marks obtained in the 'National
Eligibility-Cum-Entrance Test."
(emphasis supplied)
6. Initially, the matters filed in 2012-2013 were heard by a Bench
of three Judges, and the matters were decided vide judgment and order
dated 18.7.2013. As per the majority opinion,the petitions were allowed.
The notifications issued by MCI and DCI providing for NEET were
quashed. However, the admissions, which were made, were not interfered
with.