# CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2013] 7 S.C.R. 908
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2013-07-18
- **Bench:** Altamas Kabir, Anil R. Dave, Vikramajit Sen
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/christian-medical-college-vellore-ors-v-union-of-india-and-ors-29265
- **Pages:** 125

## Headnote

EDUCATION/EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS:
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 PostGraduate 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-cumEntrance 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
8
Regulations to State Governments for their views is a precondition 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 Legisla

## Text

_Characters 0–39,632 of 253,150. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39632 for what follows._

[2013] 7 S C.R. 908
A
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS
B
c
V.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(T.C. (C) No. 98 of 2012 etc.)
JULY 18, 2013.
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI, ANIL R. DAVE AND
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.]
EDUCATION/EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS:
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 PostGraduate 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-cumEntrance 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
8
Regulations to State Governments for their views is a precondition 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
HELD: (per Altamas Kabir, CJI for himself and for
Vikramajit Sen, J.):
D
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]
H
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
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] [1016E-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 Postgraduate 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 privatelyrun 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.
H
1.12 Art. 26(a) indicates that subject to public order,
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 lowB
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]
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
E
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 7 40 = (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)
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
A
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-GH; 1027-A-C]
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]
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.
F
G
[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
0
relating to education, including technical education and
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; 1025A-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; 1032A, 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
c
2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 603
relied on
para 2
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.