Wednesday 16 April 2014

Rights to administer minority institution do not include right to maladminister



Christian Medical College v. Union of India, (2014) 2 SCC 305
Constitution of India
Arts. 19(1)(g), 19(6), 21, 25, 26(a), 29 & 30 and Sch. VII List I Entry 66 & List III Entries 25 & 26 - Autonomy available to
unaided non-minority and minority educational institutions, particularly in field of medicine/dentistry - Scope of - Whether
such institutions have an unfettered right to conduct examinations for admitting students - Whether Triple Test laid down
in P.A. Inamdar, (2005) 6 SCC 537 that admission procedure must be (1) Fair, (2) Transparent, and (3) Non-exploitative,
was being violated with impunity by gross malpractices of charging huge amounts of capitation fees or demanding huge
donation amounts in the garb of exercising autonomy i.e. medical and dental seats were being `sold' to the highest bidder

- Held (per majority), freedom to run private educational institutions includes the right to conduct examinations for
admitting students and it cannot be taken away by MCI and DCI as has been done by the impugned notifications - NEET
cannot be regarded as a reasonable restriction [Ed.: vide order dt. 23-10-2013 in MCI v. CMC, Vellore, (2014) 2 SCC
392, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has allowed MCI/DCI's applications for oral hearing of review petitions
against the present judgment] - Per minority, right to carry on business of imparting education/to establish and
administer educational institutions under Arts. 19(1)(g)/26(a)/29/30 does not include the right to admit sub-standard
students so as to produce sub-standard doctors by selling the medical/dental seats to the highest bidder who pays/gives
maximum capitation fees or donations, and merit is completely disregarded - Rights under Arts. 19(1)(g)/26(a)/29/30 are
not unfettered, do not include the right to maladminister, and are subject to reasonable restrictions which may be
imposed in the public interest/national interest/to maintain excellence, especially in a profession like medicine/dentistry
which critically affect something as vital as every person's fundamental right to life and health under Art. 21 - Function of
regulatory bodies like MCI and DCI is to regulate educational activities in medicine/dentistry so as to attain the above
objectives - And in respect of professional courses, said bodies can also regulate admission and conduct single all-India
common entrance exam for selecting students on merit to maintain standard of education - It is not understandable as to
why the petitioners are keen to admit undeserving or ineligible students when eligible and suitable students are available -
Except some institutions having some oblique motive behind selecting students who could not prove their mettle at the
common examination, all educational institutes should feel happy to get a suitable and eligible lot of students, without
making any effort for selecting them - From and among those students, who have secured the prescribed qualifying
marks in the national entrance test, the institutions concerned, who want to give priority to the students belonging to a
particular class or caste or 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/dental college concerned - Moreover, the common all-India examination
would curb the corrupt practices of unscrupulous and money-minded businessmen and help deserving students and
serve the national cause - Thus, the purpose with which Arts. 25, 26, 29, and 30 are incorporated in our Constitution
would be fully respected and implemented - Thus introduction of NEET by MCI and DCI does not at all violate Arts.
19(1)(g)/26(a)/29/30, 
Professional Colleges/Education
Admission - Admission procedure - Entrance examination/Common entrance examination - National Eligibility-cum-
Entrance Test (NEET), that is, a single entrance exam for entire country conducted by MCI and DCI replacing multiple
entrance exams conducted by various State Governments and private institutions (including religious and charitable
institutions/aided and unaided non-minority and minority institutions) - NEET Regulations placed before Supreme Court
in Simran Jain v. Union of India, (2014) 2 SCC 393, wherein it was held in para 4 that MCI has to take steps as are
necessary to implement the amended Regulations. No interim orders of the Supreme Court are called for in these
proceedings in that behalf. Question of validity of NEET Regulations was held not to be the subject matter of those
proceedings - Validity, reasonability and justifiability of NEET, considering the following eight issues: - Issue one:
whether Triple Test laid down in P.A. Inamdar, (2005) 6 SCC 537 that admission procedure must be (1) Fair, (2)
Transparent, and (3) Non-exploitative, was being violated with impunity by gross malpractices of charging huge amounts
of capitation fees or demanding huge donation amounts in the garb of exercising autonomy, for granting admission i.e.
medical and dental seats were being `sold' to the highest bidder; - Issue two: whether impugned notifications in effect
preventing the State Governments from conducting their entrance examination was: (i) in breach of delegated legislative
powers of MCI and DCI under Central legislation to issue the said notifications, and (ii) in breach of various State statutes
framed under Sch. VII List III Entries 25 and 26 of the Constitution; - Issue three: whether impugned notifications in
effect preventing private medical colleges from conducting their own entrance examination affected their autonomy and
fundamental right under Art. 19(1)(g) and such prevention cannot be regarded as a reasonable restriction under Art.
19(6) of the Constitution; - Issue four: whether impugned notifications in effect preventing minority and religious and
charitable institutions from conducting their own entrance examination adversely affected their autonomy and their
fundamental rights under Arts. 25, 26, 29 and 30 of the Constitution; - Issue five: whether impugned notifications were
invalid on account of non-submission of draft Regulations to State Governments for comments and consideration as per

S. 19-A(2), Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and S. 20, Dentists Act, 1948; - Issue six: whether NEET process was
more troublesome for poor and rural students; - Issue seven: whether NEET would adversely affect medical services to
the poor and downtrodden because minority institutions and State Governments play an important role in selecting
students who are willing to serve in rural and tribal areas; - Issue eight: whether NEET, though seemed attractive and
seemed to be based on merit, was practically really not so because there are regional disparities in educational
standards and medium of instruction - Held (per majority, answering the first issue in the negative and the remaining
seven issues in the affirmative), the impugned notifications are invalid and unreasonable - Neither the regulating making
power of MCI and DCI under S. 33 r/w S. 19-A(2), Indian Medical Council of India Act, 1956 and S. 20, Dentists Act,
1948 nor constitutional provisions permit MCI and DCI to conduct single entrance examination like NEET by replacing
multiple exams conducted by various private institutions and State Governments - NEET though seems to be based on
merit, is not practical - In a single-window competition, the disparity in educational standards in different parts of the
country cannot ensure a level playing field - Though giving recognition to merit is necessary, there is also a need of
committed doctors who are willing to serve in rural and backward areas, which is taken care of by various State
Government schemes and some private institutions - Further, definite object of Constitution is that private non-minority
and minority and religious and charitable institutions should have the autonomy to administer their institutions - The right
to administer educational institutions, not being absolute, there can be regulatory measures for ensuring educational
standards and maintaining excellence thereof in unaided non-minority and minority educational institutions, and it is more
so in the matter of admissions to professional institutions - A minority institution may have its own procedure and method
of admission as well as method of 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 - However, there is no material on record to establish malpractices or failure of Triple
Test as laid down by the seven-Judge Constitution Bench in P.A. Inamdar, (2005) 6 SCC 537 - Therefore, impugned
notifications issued by MCI and DCI are hereby quashed - But clarified that this will not invalidate action so far taken
under the amended Regulations including admissions already given on basis of NEET conducted by MCI, DCI and other
private medical institutions, and the same shall be valid for all purposes - Per minority (answering the first issue in the
affirmative and the remaining seven issues in the negative), the impugned notifications are valid and reasonable and
based on principles of merit - The NEET process is equal, fair, just, transparent, credible and less expensive - In a
centralised selection process like NEET there would not be any problem with regard to equalising marks and merit -
NEET would not adversely affect the autonomy of institutions of any complexion whatsoever - Private institutions would
have complete autonomy to select from highly qualified and suitable students from the NEET shortlist - Institutions would
not only have a discretion to select students from community concerned, caste, religion, etc. (wherever permissible), they
would also get rid of the task of conducting separate examinations - Thus, even minority, religious and charitable
institutions could employ this discretion as a matter of right to select students from the community/group/class concerned
to the permissible extent, and they would not be getting sub-standard and undeserving students - Impugned notifications
are not only advantageous to private institutions but are also a boon to the students aspiring to join medical profession
who would not be required to sit for multiple entrance examinations and pay multiple fees - NEET is advantageous to all
and thus does not adversely affect fundamental rights - So far as violation of the Triple Test laid down in P.A. Inamdar
case is concerned, there is a definite allegation that some private institutions resort to charging huge donation amounts
or capitation fees to grant admissions - NEET would curb the menace of capitation fees or donations and help eliminate
the prevailing corruption - It is not understandable as to why the petitioners are keen to admit undeserving or ineligible
students when eligible and suitable students are available - Except some institutions having some oblique motive behind
selecting students who could not prove their mettle at the common examination, all educational institutes should feel
happy to get a suitable and eligible lot of students, without making any effort for selecting them - From and among those
students, who have secured the prescribed qualifying marks in NEET, the institutions concerned, who want to give
priority to the students belonging to a particular class or caste or 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 college concerned - Thus, the purpose
with which Arts. 25, 26, 29, and 30 are incorporated in our Constitution would be fully respected and implemented -
NEET is also not against the reservation policy of the Government - Therefore, all petitions challenging NEET
Regulations deserve to be dismissed, (2014) 2 SCC 305-B
Constitution of India
Arts. 19(1)(g), 19(6), 25, 26(a), 29 & 30 and Sch. VII List I Entry 66 & List III Entries 25 & 26 and Art. 21 - Expression
standards in Sch. VII List I Entry 66 - Whether should be given a wide interpretation - While differing from the majority
view which held that such power was not available, minority giving a wide interpretation to include the power of
Parliament to regulate admissions in medical/dental colleges including power to conduct a single all-India medical/dental
entrance examination for private and State Government colleges, 
Establishment, Running, Closure and Nationalisation of Medical/Dental Colleges - Norms applicable and Role of Central
Councils like MCI/DCI/IMCI/HCI/VCI - Power of MCI and DCI to regulate standards of medical/dental education -
Expression standards as occurring in Sch. VII List I Entry 66 of Constitution r/w Ss. 33 & 19-A Indian Medical Council
Act, 1956 and S. 20, Dentists Act, 1948 - Whether regulation of standards includes regulation of admission and power to
conduct a single all-India entrance examination like NEET by MCI and DCI for admission to all medical/dental colleges in
the country, including all private colleges and State Government colleges in the country - Held (per majority), fall outside
the said powers of MCI and DCI - While MCI and DCI can issue regulations to check maladministration and maintain
standards of education, it cannot take away the right of private institutions to admit students of their own choice - In fact,
MCI and DCI cannot hold any entrance examination though they have power to regulate the same being conducted by
various State Governments and private institutions - The power to regulate entrance examinations for admission cannot
be equated with the power to actually conduct the entrance examination(s) - Per minority, to effectively maintain
standards of medial/dental education, regulation of standards should be at three different stages, i.e.: (a) admission, (b)
determination of syllabus and manner of imparting education, and (c) examinations - Regulation of admission is
necessary for producing good doctors and dentists - MCI and DCI have competence to issue the impugned regulations
and conduct NEET to regulate admissions - Ss. 33 and 19-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 enable MCI to
regulate the system of medical education throughout the country - MCI can regulate standards of the students at the
stage of their admission to MBBS course or postgraduation studies - Similarly, DCI can regulate admissions to the
different courses in the field of dentistry at all stages - For producing good doctors and dentists there should be strict
supervision of educational system including admission wherein doctors and dentists are made - By virtue of Sch. VII List I
Entry 66 r/w List III Entry 25, Union can make law with respect to determination of standards in institutions for higher
education - Therefore, NEET can be conducted under supervision of MCI and DCI so that the students of higher calibre
are selected thereby maintaining standards of education and medical/dental seats are not sold to the highest bidder who
pays the highest capitation fees/gives the largest donation, and merit is completely disregarded, 
Admission - Admission procedure - Need of strict supervision of education system wherein doctors/dentists are made -
Manner of, and three stages in which said supervision should be conducted, prescribed per Dave, J. (minority view),

Establishment, Running, Closure and Nationalisation of Medical/Dental Colleges - Norms applicable and Role of Central
Councils like MCI/DCI/IMCI/HCI/VCI - Power of MCI and DCI to regulate medical education delegated by Parliament to
MCI/DCI - Scope of - National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) introduced by 4 impugned notifications of MCI and
DCI - MCI and DCI exercising powers of delegated legislation under primary Central law, whether have primacy over
primary law enacted by State legislatures - Held (per majority), impugned notifications controlling admission throughout
the country were not within the legislative competence of MCI and DCI - Power flowing from delegated legislation cannot
control fundamental rights - Further, power to regulate entrance examination for admission cannot be equated with the
power to actually conduct the entrance examination - Per minority, impugned notifications controlling admissions
throughout the country by mandating one all-India entrance examination, were within the competence of MCI and DCI,

Establishment, Running, Closure and Nationalisation of Medical/Dental Colleges - Norms applicable and Role of Central
Councils like MCI/DCI/IMCI/HCI/VCI - Regulation making powers of MCI and DCI - Compliance with requirements of S.
19-A(2), Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and S. 20, Dentists Act, 1948 - Whether mandatory or directory - Impugned
regulations not sent to State Governments for comments - Held (per majority), mandatory and its non-compliance would
make regulations/notifications invalid - Per minority, the said requirement is not mandatory and thus non-supply of draft
regulations to State Governments would not adversely affect impugned regulations - What is important is maintaining
standards of medical and dental education by selecting students of high calibre and said purpose was served by the
impugned regulations, 
Establishment, Incorporation, Running, Closure and Nationalisation of Educational Institutions/ Universities
Rights of religious and charitable institutions under Arts. 25 and 26(a) of Constitution - Scope of - (a) Whether include
right to run medical colleges and hospitals or are limited to rights in respect of institutions relating to religion and religious
practice only; and (b) whether available to organised bodies like CMC Vellore or are available only to individuals - Held
(per majority), the rights under Arts. 25 and 26 of the Constitution are not confined to religious purposes alone but extend
to charitable purposes also and would include running of hospitals which private institutions are doing, 
Constitution of India
Arts. 371-D, 254(2), 246 and Sch. VII List I Entry 66 & List III Entry 25 - State laws contrary to NEET Regulations
(delegated legislation providing for single all-India entrance examination for all medical/dental colleges in India, under
Central statute pertaining to entry in Union List and entry in Concurring List) - Said State laws receiving Presidential
assent under Art. 371-D/Art. 254(2) in States of Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu - And there being consensual
arrangement between State Government and petitioner association in State of Karnataka under 2011 State Act as to
admission procedure/entrance examination re medical/dental colleges - Held (per majority), said enactments will remain
unaffected in States of Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu in view of Presidential assent for State enactments i.e. 1983 Act
and 2006 Act, 
Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment