2013 (10) TMI 432 - SC - Indian Laws

Federalism - Single National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test - Violation of constitutional provisions - Held that - The direction contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 19A of the 1956 Act makes it a pre-condition for the Regulations and all subsequent amendments to be submitted to the Central Government for sanction. The Council is required to take into consideration the comments of any State Government within three months from the furnishing of copies of the draft Regulations and/or subsequent amendments thereto. There is nothing to show that the MCI ever sent the draft amended Regulations to the different State Governments for their views. The submission of the draft Regulations and all subsequent amendments thereto cannot be said to be directory, since upon furnishing of the draft Regulations and all subsequent amendments thereto by the Council to all the State Governments, the Council has to take into consideration the comments, if any, received from any State Government in respect thereof, before submitting the same to the Central Government for sanction. Right to administer an educational institution would also include the right to admit students, which right, in our view, 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, to do so. The MCI and the DCI are creatures of Statute, having been constituted under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and the Dentists Act, 1948, and have, therefore, to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them by the Statutes and they cannot wander beyond the same. Of course, under Section 33 of the 1956 Act and Section 20 of the 1948 Act, power has been reserved to the two Councils to frame Regulations to carry out the purposes of their respective Acts. It is pursuant to such power that the MCI and the DCI has framed the Regulations of 1997, 2000 and 2007, which set the standards for maintaining excellence of medical education in India. The right of the MCI and the DCI to prescribe such standards has been duly recognised by the Courts. However, such right cannot be extended to controlling all admissions to the M.B.B.S., the B.D.S. and the Post-graduate Courses being run by different medical institutions in the country. At best, a certain degree of control may be exercised in regard to aided institutions, where on account of the funds being provided by the Government, it may have a say in the affairs of such institutions. The rights of private individuals to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution are now well-established and do not require further elucidation. The rights of unaided and aided religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice under Article 19(1)(g), read with Article 30 of the Constitution, have come to be crystalised in the various decisions of this Court referred to hereinabove, which have settled the law that the right to admit students in the different educational and medical institutions is an integral part of the right to administer and cannot be interfered with except in cases of maladministration or lack of transparency. The impugned Regulations, which are in the nature of delegated legislation, will have to make way for the Constitutional provisions. The freedom and rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(g), 25, 26 and 30 of the Constitution to all citizens to practise any trade or profession and to religious minorities to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of Part III of the Constitution, and further to maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes as guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, read with the rights guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution, are also well-established by various pronouncements of this Court. Over and above the aforesaid freedoms and rights is the right of citizens having a distinct language, script or culture of their own, to conserve the same under Article 29(1) of the Constitution. Right to admit students, being an essential facet of the right to administer educational institutions of their choice, as contemplated under Article 30 of the Constitution, the State Government or the University may not be entitled to interfere with that right, so long as the admission to the unaided educational institutions was on a transparent basis and merit was adequately taken care of. The learned Judges went on to indicate that the right to administer, not being absolute, there could be regulatory measures for ensuring educational standards and maintaining excellence thereof, and it was more so in the matter of admissions to professional institutions. Whether the rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice would include the procedure and method of admission and selection of students - minority institution may have its own procedure and method of admission as well as selection of students, but such a procedure must be fair and transparent and the selection of students in professional and higher educational colleges should be on the basis of merit and even an unaided minority institution should not ignore the merit of the students for admission while exercising its right to admit students to professional institutions. On the question whether the rights of minority institutions regarding admission of students and to lay down the procedure and method of admission would be affected, in any way, by receipt of State aid, the learned Judges were of the view that while giving aid to professional institutions, it would be permissible for the authority giving aid to prescribe conditions in that regard, without, however, affecting the right of such institutions to actually admit students in the different courses run by them. Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) 2010 (Part II) and the Post Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulation, 2010 (Part II) , whereby the Medical Council of India introduced the single National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test and the corresponding amendments in the Dentists Act, 1948, are ultra vires the provisions of Articles 19(1)(g), 25, 26(a), 29(1) and 30(1) of the Constitution, since they have the effect of denuding the States, State-run Universities and all medical colleges and institutions, including those enjoying the protection of the above provisions, from admitting students to their M.B.B.S., B.D.S. and Post- graduate courses, according to their own procedures, beliefs and dispensations, which has been found by this Court in the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case (2002 (10) TMI 739 - SUPREME COURT), to be an integral facet of the right to administer. In our view, the role attributed to and the powers conferred on the MCI and the DCI under the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and the Dentists Act, 1948, do not contemplate anything different and are restricted to laying down standards which are uniformly applicable to all medical colleges and institutions in India to ensure the excellence of medical education in India. The role assigned to the MCI under Sections 10A and 19A(1) of the 1956 Act vindicates such a conclusion.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Powers of the Medical Council of India (MCI) and Dental Council of India (DCI) to regulate admissions.
2. Whether NEET offends the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g).
3. Whether NEET violates the rights of religious and linguistic minorities under Article 30.
4. Whether subordinate legislation can override fundamental rights.
5. Impact of the Constitution Forty-Second (Amendment) Act, 1976, on the primacy of MCI and DCI regulations over state legislation.
6. Adequacy of answers provided in previous landmark cases.
7. Impact of the views expressed in Dr. Preeti Srivastava Vs. State of M.P. on the issues raised.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Powers of MCI and DCI to Regulate Admissions:
The judgment scrutinized the authority of MCI and DCI under Section 19A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The MCI and DCI issued notifications to introduce a single National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for MBBS and postgraduate courses. The court questioned whether the Councils had the power to regulate admissions for all medical colleges, including those run by state governments and private entities, under the guise of maintaining educational standards.

2. Whether NEET Offends Article 19(1)(g):
The court examined if NEET infringes the fundamental right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade, or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The petitioners argued that NEET stifled their right to admit students based on their criteria. The court found that while the state can impose reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6), NEET's imposition interfered with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g).

3. Whether NEET Violates Article 30:
The judgment analyzed whether NEET infringes the rights of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice under Article 30 of the Constitution. The court noted that Article 30 provides minorities the right to manage their institutions, including the admission process. The imposition of NEET was found to be contrary to the essence of Article 30, as it deprived minority institutions of their autonomy in admissions.

4. Subordinate Legislation vs. Fundamental Rights:
The court considered whether the regulations framed by MCI and DCI, being subordinate legislation, could override fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25, 26, 29(1), and 30 of the Constitution. It was held that the regulations could not supersede constitutional provisions, and the rights under Article 30 could not be curtailed by subordinate legislation.

5. Impact of the Constitution Forty-Second (Amendment) Act, 1976:
The court examined the effect of the amendment that moved Entry 11 from the State List to Entry 25 of the Concurrent List. It was argued that this amendment allowed the Union Government to legislate on education matters, impacting the primacy of state legislation. However, the court found that the amendment did not empower MCI and DCI to override the constitutional rights of minority institutions.

6. Adequacy of Previous Landmark Cases:
The judgment referenced previous landmark cases such as T.M.A. Pai Foundation, Islamic Academy of Education, P.A. Inamdar, and Indian Medical Association, which addressed the rights of minority institutions and the regulatory powers of the state. The court concluded that these cases had adequately addressed the issues, and the imposition of NEET was inconsistent with the principles established in these judgments.

7. Impact of Dr. Preeti Srivastava Vs. State of M.P.:
The court considered whether the views expressed in Dr. Preeti Srivastava's case had any bearing on the current issues. It was noted that while the case dealt with the standards of medical education, it did not address the specific issue of a single entrance test for admissions. The judgment emphasized that the right to administer educational institutions includes the right to admit students, which could not be overridden by MCI and DCI regulations.

Conclusion:
The court held that the MCI and DCI regulations introducing NEET were ultra vires Articles 19(1)(g), 25, 26(a), 29(1), and 30 of the Constitution. The regulations were found to denude states, state-run universities, and private institutions, including minority institutions, of their right to admit students according to their procedures. The court quashed the impugned notifications and amended regulations, allowing the existing admissions based on NEET to remain valid. The judgment emphasized the importance of maintaining the autonomy of educational institutions, especially those run by religious and linguistic minorities, in line with constitutional provisions.