2020 (4) TMI 904 - SC - Indian Laws

Violation of Fundamental Rights - rights of minority section students - Procedure for selection to MBBS course - Validity of notifications dated 21.12.2010 issued by Medical Council of India (MCI) and other two notifications dated 31.5.2012, issued by Dental Council of India (DCI) - single eligibility-cum-entrance examination, namely, National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for admission to MBBS course in each academic year - whether by providing centralised examination system - NEET for admission to MBBS, PG, BDS and MDS by virtue of the provisions made in the Act and Regulations, there is violation of fundamental rights guaranteed Under Articles 19(1)(g), 25, 26, 29(1) and 30 of the Constitution of India? HELD THAT - 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 prescription of NEET is definitely in order to improve the medical education, co-related to the improvement of public health, thus, it is a step-in 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 malady the 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 - there is no violation of the 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. In view of the law laid down in T.M.A. Pai Foundation 2002 (10) TMI 739 - SUPREME COURT , 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 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. In St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi 1991 (12) TMI 276 - SUPREME COURT , it was held that there has to be balancing of interest of rights of minorities. It was observed that 50% of the annual admission has to be given to the members of communities other than the minority community on the basis of merit. Regulations that serve the interest in standards of education amongst the recognised institutions could validly be made. Such general patterns and standards are the need, and such Regulation shall not have the effect of depriving the right of minorities to educate their children in their own institution. The uniform Entrance Examination cannot be said to be unreasonable regulatory framework. Considering the terms and conditions for affiliation and recognition for professional medical and such other professional courses are binding, and no relaxation can be permitted in the conditions - 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. Thus, there is no violation of the rights of the unaided/aided minority to administer institutions Under Articles 19(1) (g) and 30 read with Articles 25, 26 and 29(1) of the Constitution of India by prescribing the uniform examination of NEET for admissions in the graduate and postgraduate professional courses of medical as well as dental science. The 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). Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of NEET notifications issued by MCI and DCI.
2. Impact of NEET on the rights of minority institutions under Articles 19(1)(g), 25, 26, 29(1), and 30 of the Constitution of India.
3. Reasonableness and proportionality of NEET as a regulatory measure.
4. Compliance of NEET with the principles of transparency, merit, and non-exploitation.
5. Balancing the rights of minority institutions with national interest and public health.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of NEET Notifications Issued by MCI and DCI:
The Supreme Court examined the four notifications—two by the Medical Council of India (MCI) and two by the Dental Council of India (DCI)—that introduced the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for MBBS, BDS, and postgraduate courses. The Court upheld the amendments made to the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education and Post Graduate Medical Education, which mandated a single eligibility-cum-entrance examination for admissions. The Court found that these notifications were issued under the powers conferred by Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and similar provisions in the Dentists Act, 1948.

2. Impact of NEET on the Rights of Minority Institutions:
The Court addressed the concerns that NEET infringes upon the fundamental rights of minority institutions under Articles 19(1)(g), 25, 26, 29(1), and 30. It was argued that NEET violated the rights of minority institutions to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. However, the Court held that the right to administer does not include the right to maladminister and that regulatory measures to ensure educational standards and merit-based admissions do not infringe upon these rights. The Court emphasized that the regulations aim to make the institutions effective vehicles of education without destroying their minority character.

3. Reasonableness and Proportionality of NEET:
The Court applied the doctrine of proportionality to assess the reasonableness of NEET as a regulatory measure. It held that NEET serves a legitimate purpose by ensuring merit-based admissions and curbing malpractices like capitation fees. The Court found that the measures undertaken to implement NEET were rationally connected to the objective of improving medical education and public health. It concluded that NEET qualifies as a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) of the Constitution.

4. Compliance of NEET with Principles of Transparency, Merit, and Non-exploitation:
The Court noted that NEET was introduced to address widespread malpractices in medical admissions, including the sale of seats and exploitation of students. It emphasized that NEET aims to ensure a transparent, fair, and non-exploitative admission process based solely on merit. The Court observed that NEET aligns with the principles laid down in previous judgments, including T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Modern Dental College and Research Centre, which stressed the importance of merit and transparency in professional education.

5. Balancing the Rights of Minority Institutions with National Interest and Public Health:
The Court underscored that the regulatory measures imposed by NEET are in the national interest and aim to improve public health by ensuring the selection of competent medical professionals. It held that the rights of minority institutions must be balanced with the larger public interest. The Court found that NEET does not place minority institutions at a disadvantage compared to non-minority institutions and that the regulatory framework is necessary to maintain educational standards and prevent malpractices.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of NEET and the associated regulatory measures, finding them to be reasonable and necessary in the national interest. It concluded that NEET does not violate the constitutional rights of minority institutions and is essential for ensuring transparency, merit, and fairness in medical admissions. The Court emphasized that the regulatory framework aims to improve the quality of medical education and public health, aligning with the directive principles of state policy and the broader objectives of the Constitution.