Eligibility Criteria for MBBS Admission: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Disqualification for Open School Candidates, Upholds Upper Age Limit

Introduction

The case of Shorya Raghav v. Union of India & Others was adjudicated by the Delhi High Court on May 11, 2018. The petitioners challenged amendments made by the Medical Council of India (MCI) to the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997. Specifically, the amendments declared candidates who completed their 10+2 education from recognized Open School Boards, such as the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS), as ineligible for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) required for admission to the Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) course. Additionally, the amendments introduced upper age limits for NEET candidates. The key issues revolved around the constitutional validity of these amendments under Articles 19(1)(g) and 14 of the Indian Constitution.

Summary of the Judgment

The Delhi High Court delivered a comprehensive judgment addressing multiple facets of the amendments. The Court held that the proviso to Clause 4(2)(a) of the MCI Regulations, which disqualified open school candidates from appearing in NEET, was unconstitutional as it violated the fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 14 of the Constitution. However, the Court upheld the upper age limits imposed on NEET candidates, deeming them as reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public. The judgment emphasized the necessity of maintaining fairness and equality in medical admissions while ensuring a streamlined and competitive selection process.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court referenced several landmark cases and constitutional provisions to substantiate its decision:

• Article 19(1)(g): Guarantees the right to practice any profession, subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6).
• Article 14: Ensures equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
• V.G. Row v. State of Madras: Laid down the test of reasonableness for restrictions on fundamental rights.
• Unni Krishnan J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh: Recognized the implicit right to education under Article 21.
• Dinesh Singh Chauhan v. Union of India: Addressed retrospective application of laws and reasonableness.
• Suresh Pal and Others v. State of Haryana: Discussed eligibility criteria based on academic qualifications.

Legal Reasoning

The Court meticulously dissected the amendments under challenge, focusing on two main provisions:

• Disqualification of Open School Candidates: The Court found that excluding candidates from recognized open schools like NIOS inherently discriminated against a segment of aspirants seeking medical education. This exclusion lacked a reasonable basis and was not in line with constitutional mandates for equality and non-discrimination.
• Upper Age Limits: Imposing an upper age limit of 25 years for general candidates and 30 years for reserved categories was deemed a reasonable restriction. The Court acknowledged the massive competition in NEET and the need to prevent perpetual attempts by older candidates, thereby ensuring a level playing field for younger aspirants.

Under Article 19(1)(g), while the right to practice any profession is fundamental, it is subject to reasonable restrictions outlined in Article 19(6). The disqualification of open school candidates did not satisfy the criteria of being a reasonable restriction in the public interest, thereby violating Article 19(1)(g). Conversely, the upper age limit was in line with ensuring fairness and reducing undue pressure on candidates, thus falling within permissible restrictions.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for the medical education landscape in India:

• Inclusivity in Medical Admissions: Open school candidates from recognized boards are now eligible to compete in NEET, promoting greater inclusivity and equality in access to medical education.
• Age Regulation: The upheld upper age limits ensure a more structured and fair competition environment, discouraging repeated attempts that could disadvantage younger aspirants.
• Policy Revisions: Medical education authorities may need to reassess and potentially revise their admission policies to align with constitutional mandates, ensuring non-discriminatory practices.
• Legal Precedent: The judgment sets a precedent for future cases challenging educational policies, emphasizing the necessity of balancing individual rights with public interest.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion