User:A.R.V. Ravi/sandbox

NEET
NEET was initially proposed to take place from 2012 onwards. Following the announcement from the Medical Council of India that it would introduce the NEET-UG exam in 2012, several states including Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Gujarat, West Bengal and Tamil Nadu strongly opposed the change, stating that there was a huge variation in the syllabus proposed by the MCI and their state syllabi.

Important Dates for NEET as per The Indian Express
Amidst all the confusions regarding NEET and the future of state-organized medical entrance examinations, the indianexpress.com brought a chronology on how the decisions regarding NEET or AIPMT have been changed over the years.

Before 2012: CBSE used to conduct All India Pre-Medical Test (AIPMT). There were two papers in the older AIPMT format.

2012: The Government introduces the one-country, one-test, NEET for medical admissions. The test was initially proposed to take place from 2012 onwards. However, due to oppositions from the various states and private colleges, the CBSE and Medical Council of India deferred NEET by a year.

February 2013: More than 80 cases opposing the the undergraduate NEET filed; two of these by state governments and the rest by private and minority institutes. Private institutes oppose the test because they want a greater say in the content, while minority institutions are worried they would be able to retain minority character.

May 5, 2013: Test held for the first time.

July 18, 2013: 'In a 2-1 split verdict on the validity of the NEET, a Bench led by former Chief Justice Altamas Kabir holds that the MCI and the Dental Council of India lacked legal authority to control admissions to MBBS, BDS and post-graduate courses. This view is shared by Justice Vikramjit Sen. However, Justice Anil R Dave differs.'

'On 18 July 2013, SC gave the decision in favour of 115 petitions and cancelled the NEET exam and announced that the MCI could not interfere with the admission process done by colleges. The Supreme Court of India quashed the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) for admissions into all medical and dental colleges on 18 July 2013. The apex court ruled that the Medical Council of India cannot conduct a unified examination. NEET was declared illegal and unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of India.'

Case: "Christian Medical College Vs UOI"

In this Judgment Chief Justice Altomas Kabir and Justice Vikramjit Sen, as majority had Quashed the Notification for NEET Examination.

The Descending View was taken by Justice Anil R Dave, who supported NEET.

October 23, 2013: A review petition challenging the judgment is filed by the MCI; Supreme Court issues notice.

May, 2014: CBSE conducts AIPMT. The final decision on NEET UG is planned to be taken after the verdict of the Supreme Court of India.

The Changing Scenario:

Justice Altamas Kabir retired on: 18.07.2013

Justice Vikramjit sen retired on: 30.12.2015

So, the only remaining member of the Bench was Justice Anil. R. Dave.

The Matter went wrong on the retirement of Justice Altamaskabir and Justice Vikramjit Sen.

April 7, 2016: The Supreme Court, after carefully considering submissions, reserves the judgment.

April 11, 2016: The Constitution bench of the Supreme Court recalls 2013 judgment passed by it striking down a common entrance examination for all medical colleges in India. The judgment delivered by the then Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir on the day of his retirement.

The apex court order revives government’s December 21, 2010 notification for holding a single common entrance test through NEET with a clarification that any challenge on the issue would directly come before it and no high court can interfere in it.

April 28, 2016: The Supreme Court clears decks for holding of NEET in two phases for the academic year 2016-17 with May 1 AIPMT exam to be considered NEET-1 and NEET-2 for those candidates who have not appeared in the first phase exam.

With this clarification, the three-judge bench led by Justice Anil R Dave make it unequivocal that all other admission tests, already held or scheduled for later, for admission to government colleges, deemed universities, private medical colleges, minority and linguistic minority colleges, stand scrapped.

April 29, 2016: The Government moves the Supreme Court seeking modification of yesterday’s order to allow state governments and private colleges to hold separate entrance examinations for MBBS and BDS courses for the academic year 2016-17.

April 30, 2016: The Court declines to issue an urgent order to modify its directive to hold the common all-India medical entrance test in two phases even as the central government cited “practical difficulties” in conducting the exam for the 2016-17 session.

Members from the BJP, Congress, Shiv Sena and other smaller parties say the exam on May 1, being held as the first phase of NEET, will leave aspirants with almost no time to prepare. They demand that the exam be held on July 24, the scheduled date for the second phase of the exam.

May 1, 2016: CBSE conducted the first phase of NEET. As many as six lakh candidates appeared for the exam.

May 3, 2016: The Supreme Court agreed to hear a fresh plea of few states, including Jammu and Kashmir and some private medical colleges. The Court has asked the Health Ministry and MCI to respond to the plea.

May 5, 2016: The Supreme Court clarified that private colleges would not be allowed to conduct separate exams for medical admissions. The Centre has to answer the state’s plea tomorrow.

May 6, 2016: The MCI on Friday has asked the Supreme Court to allow the states to conduct separate medical admission tests for 2016-17. However, the Centre has asked the apex court to give them time till Monday.

NEET-II, scheduled for July 24, will allow only those candidates who have not appeared in the May 1 NEET-I exam irrespective of whether or not they had filled up the forms. According to the court order, CBSE’s AIPMT on May 1 has to be considered as first phase of NEET.

May 9, 2016: The Supreme Court has rejected pleas of state governments and minority institutions to allow them to hold separate entrance exams for MBBS and BDS courses for the academic year 2016-17 saying only NEET provides for conducting such test for admission to these courses.

However, the Court has allowed all candidates who could not appear in NEET-I and those who had appeared but have apprehension that they had not prepared well, be permitted to appear in NEET-II, subject to seeking an option from the said candidates to give up their candidature for NEET-I.

May 10, 2016: The Supreme Court said it will consider Centre’s plea seeking permission to hold the entrance examination for MBBS and BDS for the academic year 2016-17 in six vernacular languages — Tamil, Telugu, Marathi, Assamese, Bengali and Gujarati.

May 20: Amid strong reservations expressed by several states against conducting the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) this year, the NDA government Friday paved the way for an ordinance to keep state governments’ exams out of the ambit of the common test.

May 24: President Pranab Mukherjee gave his assent to the ordinance on uniform medical entrance examination NEET, ahead of his four-day visit to China. The ordinance was sent to the president on Saturday.

May 25: The President has passed the Ordinance. Therefore, the state boards can skip the NEET for a year. The ordinance is aimed at “partially” overturning the Supreme Court order. Therefore, the state governments will get an opportunity to appear for this year (2016-17) undergraduate examination.

July 18: The Lok Sabha passed a bill mandating the conduct of a single common exam for medical and dental courses. The new measure will also cover private colleges.

The Bill will replace the ordinances promulgated by the government to circumvent a Supreme Court order, which had called for the implementation of NEET from this session.

August 1: The Rajya Sabha passed by voice vote the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Bill, 2016, and the Dentists (Amendment) Bill, 2016, that provide for putting the NEET in place for admission to medical and dental courses across the country from next year.

August 3: A petition is filed in the Supreme Court demanding retest on the basis of alleged paper leak of NEET 2 paper from Uttarakhand.

August 8: President Pranab Mukherjee gives nod to the two Bills

August 9: The Supreme Court refused to interfere in the plea seeking probe by the Uttarakhand Police into the alleged NEET paper leak.

August 23: A fresh petition filed in the Court alleging that NEET 2 was tougher than the earlier one and CBSE came out with a common result without “normalisation” or rationalisation of marks obtained by the medical aspirants in these two tests.

No NEET till 2016
However, it was restored on 11 April 2016, after a five-judge Constitution bench recalled the earlier verdict and allowed the Central Government and the Medical Council of India (MCI) to implement the common entrance test until the court decides afresh on its validity. Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court of India

'Medical Council Of India vs Christian Medical College ... on 11 April, 2016'

Author: ..............J.

Bench: Anil R. Dave, A.K. Sikri, R.K. Agrawal, Adarsh Kumar Goel, R. Banumathi

                                                                            

                       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                 REVIEW PETITION (C)NOS.2159-2268 OF 2013

                                    AND

                 REVIEW PETITION (C) NOS.2048-2157 OF 2013

                                    IN

             TRANSFERRED CASE (C) NOS.98-105, 107-108,110-139,

            142, 144-145 OF 2012 & 1-5, 7-25, 28-49, 53, 58-73,

                          75-76 & 107-108 OF 2013

''    MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA                  ... PETITIONER(S)''

                                VS.

''    CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)''

                                   WITH

             R.P.(C) NO.1956 OF 2013 IN T.C.(C) NO.101 OF 2012

                          O R D E R

''These review petitions have been filed against the judgment of this Court dated 18th July, 2013 passed in Christian Medical College Vellore & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 305. The review petitions were placed before a Three-Judge Bench and notices were issued on 23rd October, 2013 and thereafter, it was brought to the notice of the Bench that Civil Appeal No.4060/2009 and connected matters involving an identical issue, had been referred to a Five-Judge Bench. Accordingly, on 21st January, 2016, these review petitions were ordered to be heard by a Five-Judge Bench.''

''On 21st January, 2016, notice was ordered to be served through substituted service and in pursuance of the said order, necessary publication was made in two newspapers and proof thereof was filed on 15th February, 2016. Thereafter, we have heard the matters.''

Civil Appeal No.4060/2009 and its connected matters have been heard and order has been reserved on 16th March, 2016.

We have heard the counsel on either side at great length and also considered the various judgments cited by them, which include judgments cited by the non-applicants on the scope of review in Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and Others (2013) 8 SCC 320, Union of India vs. Namit Sharma (2013) 10 SCC 359 and Sheonandan Paswan vs. State of Bihar and others (1987) 1 SCC 288.

''After giving our thoughtful and due consideration, we are of the view that the judgment delivered in Christian Medical College (supra) needs reconsideration. We do not propose to state reasons in detail at this stage so as to see that it may not prejudicially affect the hearing of the matters. For this purpose we have kept in mind the following observations appearing in the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Sheonandan Paswan (supra) as under:''

''“.... If the Review Bench of the apex court were required to give reasons, the Review Bench would have to discuss the case fully and elaborately and expose what according to it constitutes an error in the reasoning of the Original Bench and this would inevitably result in pre-judgment of the case and prejudice its re-hearing. A reasoned order allowing a review petition and setting aside the order sought to be reviewed would, even before the re- hearing of the case, dictate the direction of the re-hearing and such direction, whether of binding or of persuasive value, would conceivably in most cases adversely affect the losing party at the re-hearing of the case. We are therefore of the view that the Review Bench in the present case could not be faulted for not giving reasons for allowing the Review Petition and directing re-hearing of the appeal. It is significant to note that all the three Judges of the Review Bench were unanimous in taking the view that “any decision of the facts and circumstances which … constitutes errors apparent on the face of record and my reasons for the findings that these facts and circumstances constitute errors apparent on the face of record resulting in the success of the review petition, may have the possibility of prejudicing the appeal which as a result of my decision has to be re-heard....” Suffice it is to mention that the majority view has not taken into consideration some binding precedents and more particularly, we find that there was no discussion among the members of the Bench before pronouncement of the judgment.''

''We, therefore, allow these review petitions and recall the judgment dated 18th July, 2013 and direct that the matters be heard afresh. The review petitions stand disposed of as allowed.''

..............J.

[ANIL R. DAVE] .............J.

[A.K. SIKRI] ..............J.

[R.K. AGRAWAL] ...................J.

[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL] .............J.

[R.BANUMATHI] New Delhi;

April 11, 2016.

News updated 28 April 2016
The Supreme Court on Thursday said students aspiring for admission to under-graduate medical courses will have to appear in the National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET) as it declined pleas for exemption by Tamil Nadu, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.

A bench of Justice Anil R Dave, Justice Shiva Kirti Singh and Justice AK Goel gave its nod to two-phase holding of the NEET by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) on 1 May and 24 July, the declaration of results on 17 August this year, and counselling and admissions later.

The court also made it clear that by its 11 April order, recalling its 18 July, 2013 order, the 21 December, 2010 notification making NEET mandatory for admission in undergraduate and post graduate courses stood restored.

By its 18 July, 2013 order, the apex court in a split verdict of 2-1 had held that NEET was flawed both procedurally and substantially. While then Chief Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice Vikramajit Sen (since both retired) had junked the NEET, Justice Dave disagreed with the majority view.

Appearing for one of the parties seeking to be heard, senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan said: “I can’t say that the dissenting judge was pushing his case” and the recall of does not mean that it has been set aside.

The 11 April order, by which 18 July, 2013 order was recalled, was passed by the five judge constitution bench of Justice Dave, Justice Goel, Justice AK Sikri, Justice RK Agrawal, and Justice R Banumathi.

The CBSE had divided it into NEET-I and NEET-II, which Additional Solicitor General Pinki Anand informing the court that about 6.5 lakh students would be taking entrance exam in NEET-I and another 2.5 lakh in NEET-II

“We don’t agree with the submission” that it was “not proper to hold NEET”, said the bench, declining plea by three states that they have their own statutory regime for holding their separate entrance examinations.

However, the order passed on Thursday today made it clear that not accepting of the plea by Tamil Nadu, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh would not affect their petitions challenging the 2010 notification of NEET

Similarly the court rejected the plea by the associations of private medical colleges from Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh that they be allowed to admit students on the basis of exams conducted by them. The CMC Vellore too urged the court it may be allowed to admit students’ in undergraduate medical courses on the strength of entrance test conducted by it.

Senior counsel PP Rao, L Nagashwar Rao and Harin Rawal appearing for the Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Telangana respectively, argued that the medical admissions in their states were done on the basis of qualifying or entrance examinations conducted as per their statutory regime.

They told the court that their regime had the sanction of article 371(d) of the constitution and had received the president’s assent, and contended that unless the court hold their statutory regime as void, they could not be asked to follow the NEET route for admission in undergraduate and post graduate medical courses.

Appearing for Tamil Nadu, Nagashwar Rao said that since 2007, the admission in medical course in the state were on the basis of the qualifying marks obtained by the aspirants. He said that if NEET was thrust on them suddenly at this stage, they many not succeed in the competitions at all as all India competition requires a lot of preparation.

The bench held in its judgment: "In view of the submissions made on behalf of the respondents, we record that NEET shall be held as stated by the respondents. We further clarify that notwithstanding any order passed by any Court earlier with regard to not holding NEET, this order shall operate. Therefore, no further order is required to be passed at this stage.

''It may be mentioned here that some learned counsel representing those who are not parties to this petition have made submissions that in view of the judgment passed in Christian Medical College, Vellore & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2014) 2 SCC 305, it would not be proper to hold NEET and this order should not affect pending matters.''

We do not agree with the first submission for the reason that the said judgment has already been recalled on 11th April, 2016 and therefore, the Notifications dated21st December, 2010 are in operation as on today.

It may however be clarified that by this order hearing of the petitions which are pending before this Court will not be affected.The petition be now listed in due course." The counsel for the respondents had submitted, according to the judgment:

“1. AIPMT 2016 to be held on 1 st May, 2016 shall be phase I of NEET.

2. Phase II of NEET for the left out candidates shall be held on 24th July, 2016 by inviting applications with fee.

3. Combined result of both the Tests shall be declared on 17th August, 2016.

4. CBSE will provide All India Rank. Admitting Authorities will invite applications for Counseling and merit list shall be drawn based on All India Rank.

5. All associated with conduct of Exam including Central Govt., State Govt., institutions, Police etc. will extend all necessary support to CBSE and permit security measures like use of electronic and communication devices Jammers etc. for timely and fair conduct of the NEET.

6. Any difficulty with regard to implementation of orders of this Court the stake holders may approach this Hon'ble Court."The learned counsel have also given the details with regard to the time when the result would be declared and counseling would take place. The court approved the CBSE schedule for holding NEET exams on May 1, 2016, and July 24, 2016, the declaration of results on August 17 this year, and counseling and admissions late.

NEET-UG syllabus consists of the core concepts of Physics, Chemistry and Biology taught in classes 11 and 12 as prescribed by the NCERT

There are a total of 180 questions asked in the exam, 45 questions each from Physics and Chemistry, 90 questions from Biology. Each correct response fetches 4 marks and each incorrect response gets -1 negative marking. The exam duration is 3 hours (180mins). The exam is of 720 marks (maximum marks)

Even though NEET 2016 is conducted in English and Hindi, it was announced that students can write exams in Tamil, Telugu, Marathi, Bengali, Assamese and Gujarati languages from 2017 onwards. Kannada and Odia languages are added to the list so that students can write the exams in nine Indian languages and English.

Phase One Test
The All India Pre Medical Test, also known as AIPMT, held on 1 May 2016, was considered as the first phase of the NEET. Students who registered for Phase One were given a chance to appear for the next phase of NEET held on 24 July 2016, but with a condition that candidates have to give up their NEET Phase 1 score. The above dates are as per the order of the Supreme Court.

NTA
The National Testing Agency (NTA) has been made the nodal agency for conduct of all India competitive exams and conducts NEET-UG from 2019. The Central Board of Secondary Education conducted NEET between 2013 and 2018 before the setting of NTA.

Anitha case
Shanmugam Anitha (5 March 2000 – 1 September 2017), was a student from Tamil Nadu, India. She scored 1176/1200 in the 12th standard exams in the Tamil Nadu State Board. This would have secured her a medical seat, if only the State Board marks had been considered for admission. In NEET-UG 2017, Anitha secured 12.33 percentile while she scored 86/720 marks. The minimum eligibility cut-off for making it into the merit list was 40 percentile for students in the reserved category.

The minimum eligibility cut-off for making it into the merit list was 40 percentile ( [107 to 130] out of 720 marks ) for students in the reserved category, while it was 50 percentile for general category ( [131 to 697] out of 720 marks ). Anitha scored 12.33 percentile while admission was 14.9 for reserved and 18.2 for general categories for 2018 admission.

Admission to medical colleges is based on NEET rank calculated by the percentage/percentile arrived at with the highest score and not on the marks obtained in NEET exam.

On 1 September 2017, she committed suicide by hanging. Her death created a major controversy in Tamil Nadu where the National Eligibility and Entrance Test for medical admissions was strongly opposed. She has become a cause celebre as a victim of the system.

Background
Anitha belonged  to a  poor Scheduled caste family in Kuzhumur village, Ariyalur district in rural Tamil Nadu. Anitha was the daughter of a daily wage labourer and her mother had died when she was young. She was brought up by her grandmother and lived in a house without even a toilet. She studied in a Tamil Medium school and was amongst the toppers in her district and she was the only student in Ariyalur district to score 100% marks in Physics and Mathematics in the 12th standard examination. Anitha always wanted to become a doctor. She saw that it was not possible for poor rural students to afford expensive coaching needed to prepare for NEET exams and only if medical admission selections were done based on the 12th standard marks alone would rural students be able to get seats. Anitha was unable to meet the cutoff and secure a seat through NEET. Anitha was offered an aeronautical engineering course seat at the Madras Institute of Technology  but as she only wanted to be a doctor she did not take up the offer. She would have been the first from her community in her village to become a doctor.

NEET court case
The Tamil Nadu government originally considered reserving 85% of the seats to Tamil Nadu State Board students. The Madras High Court dismissed it after an appeal. Later Tamil Nadu government had also promised exemption from National Eligibility and Entrance Test for one year. However the Supreme Court of India dismissed Tamil Nadu government's plea after the central government refused to support Tamil Nadu's  ordinance seeking  exemption from NEET for one year.

Anitha implead herself in the petition in the Supreme Court against NEET claiming it was against the interests of rural students after a case was filed by Central Board of Secondary Education students represented by senior advocate Nalini Chidambaram, wife of P. Chidambaram, who argued that admissions should be made only on basis of NEET. After the Supreme Court of India verdict which stated that admissions should be made only based on NEET, Nalini Chidambaram stated, "Any further appeal against NEET can only be done to God," and that the Tamil Nadu government could no longer do anything for State Board students after the Supreme Court verdict.

The BJP led Central Government of India wants to implement NEET, but the state government did not approve NEET. The syllabus of Tamil Nadu schools were different from NEET syllabus. There was no clear understanding of the NEET syllabus. The government also did not take any steps to educate the students. Being from poor family, not having access to any NEET materials she was heart broken. If medical admissions had been held on the basis of Plus Two scores as was in vogue for the past decade, Anitha having scored centum in Physics, 199 in Chemistry and 194 in Biology (she also scored centum in Mathematics), would have secured a cut-off of 196.75 out of 200. Considering that the MBBS cut-off for Scheduled Caste candidates last year was only 191.25 last year, she would have, in all probability, bagged a seat in a sought after Government medical college. However, as admissions were conducted solely on the basis of NEET scores, Anitha did not qualify as she had scored just 86 marks out of 720 in the test.

Anitha committed suicide by hanging herself nine days after the verdict.

M.K.Stalin stated
"'the cruelty of NEET had been explained by the death of Anitha, whose dream of becoming a doctor was killed and all her efforts over two years in higher secondary schooling allowed to go to waste.'"

29.04.2020 Christian Medical College ... vs Union Of India on 29 April, 2020
Author: Arun Mishra

Bench: Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah

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 the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997. Similarly, the other notification issued by MCI called “Post­Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulation, 2010 (Part­II)” 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.

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. Review petitions were filed, which were entertained and were ultimately allowed on 11.4.2016, and judgment dated 18.7.2013 was recalled.

7.  In Writ Petition (C) No.443 of 2016, prayer has been made to protect the rights of the petitioner­institutions guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 25, 26 and 30 of the Constitution of India. In Writ Petition (C) No.750 of 2016, prayer is made to direct the respondents to conduct centralized counselling for admission to all Graduate Medical and Dental Courses throughout the country. In Transferred Case (C) No.25 of 2019, it is stated that vires of the provisions of Maharasthra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institution (Regulation of Admissions & Fees) Act, 2015, applying them to Unaided Private Minority Professional Educational Institutions are bad in law. In S.L.P. (C) No.28223 of 2016, provisions have been questioned on the ground that they cannot take away the rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(g) and 30 read with Articles 25, 26 and 29(1) of the Constitution of India.

8.  Initially, the questions were raised that MCI and DCI could not have introduced NEET as the same offends the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and the rights of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice as guaranteed under Article 30 Constitution of India. Thus, subordinate legislation could not have overriding effect over the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25, 26, 29(1), and 30 of the Constitution of India. Now the amendment made could not take away or abridge the aforesaid rights of minorities. The right to admit students is one of the fundamental rights, thus, rider of clearing NEET examination could not have been imposed.

...

55.  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 we revert to the old system, 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.

56.  In St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi (supra), 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.

57.  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, we find 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, considering the objective with which it has been introduced. We find that 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.

58.  Thus, we are of the opinion that 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 sub­serve 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.

59.  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 measures cannot be said to be exceeding the 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 Articles 47 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.

60.  Resultantly, we hold that there is no violation of the rights of the unaided/aided minority to administer institutions under Articles 19(1)

(g) and 30 read with Articles 25, 26 and 29(1) of the Constitution of India by prescribing the uniform examination of NEET for admissions in the graduate and postgraduate professional courses of medical as well as dental science. The 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). Accordingly, the transferred cases, appeal, and writ petitions are disposed of.

No costs.

................................J.

[ARUN MISHRA]                                               ................................J.

[VINEET SARAN]                                               ................................J.

[M.R. SHAH] NEW DELHI;APRIL 29, 2020. The judgment passed by a three judge bench of the Apex court headed by Justice Arun Mishra held that by prescribing NEET a uniform entrance examination the court “intends to weed out evils from the system and various malpractices which decayed the system."

The judgment passed by a three judge bench of the Apex court headed by Justice Arun Mishra held that by prescribing NEET a uniform entrance examination the court “intends to weed out evils from the system and various malpractices which decayed the system."

These notifications were originally challenged in the court in 2012 questioning it constitutional validity. In 2016, these notifications were incorporated as statutory provisions under the Medical Council of India Act and the Dentists Act. A bunch of petitioners headed by Christian medical College (CMC), Vellora had their primary argument that the private unaided institutes had their own admission tests and criteria for student’s admission and NEET should not be imposed on them. For CMC, the criteria were the interest of the student to work in rural areas.

The judgment passed by a three judge bench of the Apex court headed by Justice Arun Mishra held that by prescribing NEET a uniform entrance examination the court “intends to weed out evils from the system and various malpractices which decayed the system."

The bench added that 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.

The petitioners had argued that the NEET notification violated the fundamental rights of an unaided minority institution to “establish and administer educational institutions of their choice" protected under the provisions of the Constitution of India, which includes the right to admit students of their own choice.

The bench also comprising Justices Vineet Saran and MR Shah observed in the judgment that the rights granted under the constitution, “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."

In 108 pages long judgement, the court noted the argument of petitioners that State has no power to compel an unaided minority institution to admit students through a single centralized national examination such as NEET. The unaided minority professional colleges have the fundamental rights to choose the method and manner in which to admit its students, subject to satisfying the triple test of having a fair, transparent, and non exploitative process.

Negating this argument, the court held that 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 commercialization of education.

The Supreme Court, on Friday, dismissed a review petition filed by six opposition ruled state governments against an order of the Supreme Court dated August 17 vide which it had allowed the Centre to hold the National Eligibility cum Entrance test (NEET) and Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) in September. fixed as 04.09.2020

2021
Q: Will NEET 2021 be conducted online?

A. No, NEET 2021 will be conducted in an offline (pen and paper) mode only.

NEET 2021: NTA will not conduct the NEET-UG 2021 twice a year. ... National Testing Agency (NTA) will not conduct the NEET-UG 2021 twice a year. The NEET aspirants were expecting that the exam will be conducted twice a year, in view of the Coronavirus pandemic, on lines of multiple attempts for JEE Main.

Is there any chances of NEET 2021 getting postponed?
Also, NEET 2021 aspirants are requested not to believe any rumor and the best is to wait till the official notification is released by NTA. NTA is yet to release the NEET 2021 official brochure. Candidates must also note that under no circumstances will NEET 2021 exam be cancelled. It will only be postponed.

An anonymous official told the New Indian Express that there are a large number of students who do not want to enter the online mode for the national medical and dental entrance exam. Therefore, there is unanimous agreement on how to conduct the NEET review twice a year for the 2021-2022 meeting.

Medical Council of India and Bar Council of India
All india Bar Examination for the Advocates conducted only after obtaining Law decree and not for admission to the Law College.

But Medical Council of India is conducting NEET even for Admission to Medical college.

It should be conducted only after completing the MBBS Degree for those who want to practice All over India, like the Bar Council.

Compensation to the Affected Students
The Affected Students should be given Monetory Compensation.

They Should be allowed to admit in Medical college again by giving Age Relaxation, if the Student desired.