- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sankalp Charitable Trust And Another v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The proceedings arise out of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 261 of 2016, in which the petitioner sought a mandamus directing the conduct of a single National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for admissions to MBBS and BDS courses for the academic year 2016-2017.
On 27-4-2016 the matter was taken on board and the Court recorded the readiness of the Medical Council of India (MCI), Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and the Union of India to hold NEET. A proposed examination schedule was sought for the next day. Subsequent orders dated 28-4-2016, 2-5-2016, 5-5-2016, 6-5-2016 and 9-5-2016 dealt with implementation issues, interim objections by various State governments and private medical colleges, and consolidation of connected applications.
The final order dated 9-5-2016 disposed of all applications seeking modification of the 28-4-2016 direction, confirmed that NEET would be the sole entrance examination for MBBS/BDS admissions in 2016-2017, and disposed of the main writ petition.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Notifications dated 21-12-2010 issued by MCI and DCI mandating a single NEET examination are valid and enforceable for the academic year 2016-2017, notwithstanding earlier contrary orders.
- Whether conducting NEET infringes upon the legislative competence of States or the autonomy/rights of private and minority medical institutions.
- Whether students who took, or did not take, NEET Phase I (AIPMT 2016) should be allowed another opportunity in NEET Phase II.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- Requested issuance of a mandamus compelling the conduct of NEET nationwide for MBBS admissions in 2016-2017.
Respondents’ (MCI, CBSE & Union of India) Arguments
- Expressed willingness to conduct NEET based on the 21-12-2010 Notifications.
- Proposed a two-phase schedule: Phase I on 1-5-2016 (AIPMT 2016) and Phase II on 24-7-2016, with a combined result on 17-8-2016.
- Assured logistical support and readiness to declare an all-India rank for counselling.
States and Private Medical Colleges
- Sought modification of the 28-4-2016 order, contending that NEET impinged on their rights and caused hardship to students.
- Argued that, in light of the judgment in Christian Medical College, Vellore v. Union of India (2014) 2 SCC 305, NEET should not proceed, or that State-level examinations should be permitted.
- Highlighted difficulties faced by students who either missed NEET Phase I or were inadequately prepared.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Christian Medical College, Vellore v. Union of India (2014) 2 SCC 305 | Had struck down the 21-12-2010 NEET Notifications. | Court noted the decision was recalled on 11-4-2016; therefore it no longer barred NEET. |
| Medical Council of India v. Christian Medical College, Vellore (2016) 4 SCC 342 | Order recalling the 2014 judgment. | Formed the basis for holding that the 2010 Notifications are presently operative. |
| Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of M.P. (2016) 7 SCC 353 | Upheld State competence to conduct entrance tests and delineated the overlap between Entry 66 (List I) and Entry 25 (List III). | Court relied on this to reject the argument that NEET violated State or institutional autonomy. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. The Court first observed that the 2014 judgment invalidating NEET had been expressly recalled on 11-4-2016, thereby reviving the 21-12-2010 statutory regulations mandating a single national entrance test.
2. Relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Modern Dental College, the Bench held that prescribing minimum standards for medical education falls under Entry 66, List I, where Union competence prevails. Hence, NEET does not impermissibly trench upon State powers or the autonomy of private/minority institutions.
3. The Bench emphasised that NEET concerns only the eligibility test; matters such as reservation policy or minority rights in admissions remain untouched.
4. Applications seeking modification of the 28-4-2016 order were rejected as lacking merit. However, to mitigate perceived hardship, the Court allowed:
- All eligible candidates who missed NEET I, and those who appeared but felt inadequately prepared, to sit for NEET II.
- Such candidates must, however, opt to forgo their NEET I candidature.
- CBSE may reschedule NEET II if required, and an Oversight Committee (constituted in Modern Dental College) will supervise the examination to ensure credibility.
5. A categorical clarification was issued that no separate entrance examinations by private colleges, associations, deemed universities or States would be permissible for MBBS/BDS admissions in academic year 2016-2017.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: All applications and writ petitions seeking to modify the 28-4-2016 direction stand dismissed; NEET is affirmed as the sole entrance examination for MBBS/BDS admissions for 2016-2017. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 261 of 2016 is consequently DISPOSED OF.
Implications: The decision operationalises a uniform, nationwide entrance test for medical and dental admissions in 2016-2017, overriding prior contrary orders. States, private colleges and minority institutions must admit students solely on the basis of NEET ranks, though their internal policies on reservation or minority status remain unaffected. Students unable to appear, or dissatisfied with their performance, in NEET I are granted a fresh opportunity in NEET II, ensuring fairness without derailing the unified admission process.
Order dated 27-4-2016
(Before Anil R. Dave, Shiva Kirti Singh and Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ.)
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 261 of 2016
1. Taken on Board. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assured this Court that he will remove the office objections by tomorrow. At his request, Respondent 4 is deleted from the array of parties. All the three respondents are represented by their respective counsel and they have assured this Court that they are ready and willing to hold NEET Examination for admission to MBBS and BDS courses for the academic year 2016-2017.
2. As the counsel representing CBSE would like to take necessary instructions, hearing is adjourned for tomorrow. Proposed schedule of the examination to be held shall be submitted in the Court tomorrow.
3. The learned counsel shall also see that a responsible officer of CBSE, who can take on the spot decision, remains present in the Court.
4. List the matter tomorrow i.e. 28-4-2016 at 12.00 p.m.
Order dated 28-4-2016
(Before Anil R. Dave, Shiva Kirti Singh and Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ.)
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 261 of 2016
5. The following prayer has been made in this petition:
“(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to conduct the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to MBBS course throughout the country for the academic session 2016-2017;
(b) Issue or pass any writ, direction or order, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.”
6. When the matter was heard on 27-4-2016, the following order was passed by this Court:
“1. Taken on Board. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assured this Court that he will remove the office objections by tomorrow. At his request, Respondent 4 is deleted from the array of parties. All the three respondents are represented by their respective counsel and they have assured this Court that they are ready and willing to hold NEET Examination for admission to MBBS and BDS courses for the academic year 2016-2017.
2. As the counsel representing CBSE would like to take necessary instructions, hearing is adjourned for tomorrow. Proposed schedule of the examination to be held shall be submitted in the Court tomorrow.
3. The learned counsel shall also see that a responsible officer of CBSE, who can take on the spot decision, remains present in the Court.
4. List the matter tomorrow i.e. on 28-4-2016 at 12.00 p.m.”
7. The matter has been thereafter heard today. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for all the respondents that it is proposed to hold the examination in pursuance of the Notifications dated 21-12-2010 issued by the Medical Council of India and the Dental Council of India (“DCI”, for short).
8. As per the said Notifications, a common entrance test i.e. National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) shall be held. It was further submitted, inter alia, as follows:
“1. AIPMT 2016 to be held on 1-5-2016 shall be Phase I of NEET.
2. Phase II of NEET for the left out candidates shall be held on 24-7-2016 by inviting applications with fee.
3. Combined result of both the Tests shall be declared on 17-8-2016.
4. CBSE will provide all-India rank. Admitting authorities will invite applications for counselling and merit list shall be drawn based on all-India rank.
5. All associated with conduct of Exam including the Central Government, the State Government, 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 stakeholders may approach this Hon'ble Court.”
9. The learned counsel have also given the details with regard to the time when the result would be declared and counselling would take place.
10. 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.
11. 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 v. Union of India (2014) 2 SCC 305, it would not be proper to hold NEET and this order should not affect pending matters.
12. We do not agree with the first submission for the reason that the said judgment has already been recalled on 11-4-2016 (2016) 4 SCC 342 and therefore, the Notifications dated 21-12-2010 are in operation as on today.
13. 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.
Order dated 2-5-2016
(Before Dr T.S. Thakur, C.J. and R. Banumathi and Uday U. Lalit, JJ.)
Writ Petition (C) No. 261 of 2016 with IA No. … of 2016 in TC (C) No. 11 of 2013, IA No. … of 2016 in WP (C) No. 261 of 2016, IA No. … of 2016 in TCs (C) Nos. 98-99 of 2012, IAs Nos. 4-6 of 2016 in TCs Nos. 132-34 of 2012, WP (C) No. 275 of 2016
14. Subject to the convenience of the Hon'ble Judges list all the applications/writ petition, mentioned above, tomorrow i.e. on Tuesday, 3-5-2016 along with IA No. 2 in TC No. 7 of 2013.
Order dated 5-5-2016
(Before Anil R. Dave, Shiva Kirti Singh and Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ.)
IAs Nos. 2 to 30 in Writ Petition (C) No. 261 of 2016
IAs Nos. 15 and 16
15. Mr Tushar Mehta, learned ASG appearing for the State of Gujarat, started his arguments at 2.00 p.m. and concluded at 2.50 p.m.
IAs Nos. 20 and 21
16. Then, Mr Gopal Subramanium, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of J&K, started his arguments and concluded at 3.10 p.m.
IAs Nos. 33 and 43
17. IAs Nos. 33 and 43 are taken on record.
18. Mr P.P. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh, made his submissions till 3.20 p.m., who was followed by Mr Basava Prabhu Patil, learned Senior Counsel. He concluded his submissions at 3.30 p.m. Thereafter, Dr Bhimsen, learned counsel, made his submissions for the State of J&K for few minutes.
IAs Nos. 9 and 10 and IAs Nos. 41 and 42
19. IAs Nos. 41 and 42 are taken on record.
20. Mr Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra, made his submissions till 3.50 p.m., who was followed by Mr C.U. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, who made his submissions for five minutes.
21. Mr V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, started his arguments at 3.55 p.m. and concluded at 4.05 p.m. Thereafter, Mr Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General, stated his arguments and was on his legs when the Court rose for the day.
22. List the matter tomorrow i.e. on 6-5-2016, at 2.00 p.m.
Order dated 6-5-2016
(Before Anil R. Dave, Shiva Kirti Singh and Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ.)
IAs Nos. 2 to 30 in Writ Petition (C) No. 261 of 2016
23. In view of the request made by the learned Solicitor General, hearing is adjourned to 9-5-2016. However, it is clarified that no examination shall be permitted to be held for admission to MBBS or BDS studies by any private college or association or any private/deemed university.
24. The issue with regard to those students, who had appeared or who are due to appear in examinations conducted by the States in accordance with their State laws, shall be decided after hearing the learned Solicitor General.
25. Those students who had appeared at NEET Phase I shall not be permitted to appear at NEET Phase II but the students who could not appear at NEET Phase I may appear at NEET Phase II.
26. List on 9-5-2016, at 2.00 p.m.
Order dated 6-5-2016
(Before Dr T.S. Thakur, C.J. and R. Banumathi and Uday U. Lalit, JJ.)
Writ Petition (C) No. 275 of 2016
27. Post this matter along with TC (C) No. 98 of 2012 before an appropriate Bench.
Order dated 9-5-2016
(Before Anil R. Dave, Shiva Kirti Singh and Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ.)
IA No. 2 in TC (C) No. 7 of 2013, IA No. 3 in TC (C) No. 58 of 2013, IAs Nos. 4-6 in TCs (C) Nos. 132-34 of 2012, IA No. 10 in TC (C) No. 98 of 2012, IA No. 2 in TC (C) No. 99 of 2012, WP (C) No. 275 of 2016, IA No. 1 in TC (C) No. 11 of 2013, IAs Nos. 2 to 30 in WP (C) No. 261 of 2016, WPs (C) Nos. 292 & 293 of 2016
28. These applications have been filed by the private medical colleges and also by some of the States seeking modification of the order dated 28-4-2016 passed in Sankalp Charitable Trust v. Union of India.
29. Medical Council of India (MCI) and Dental Council of India (DCI) issued Notifications dated 21-12-2010, amending the existing statutory regulations to provide for a single National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to the MBBS/BDS course. The said Notifications were struck down in Christian Medical College, Vellore v. Union of India (2014) 2 SCC 305. The said judgment stands recalled vide order dated 11-4-2016 in Medical Council of India v. Christian Medical College, Vellore (2016) 4 SCC 342.
30. On 28-4-2016, in WP (C) No. 261 of 2016, a statement was made by the learned counsel for MCI, CBSE and the Union of India that for the academic year 2016-2017, NEET would be held.
31. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
32. In a recent Constitution Bench judgment dated 2-5-2016, in Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of M.P. (2016) 7 SCC 353, the stand of the private medical colleges (including minorities) that conducting of entrance test by the State violated the right of autonomy of the said colleges, has been rejected. The State law providing for conducting of entrance test was upheld, rejecting the contention that the State had no legislative competence on the subject. At the same time, it was held that the admission involved two aspects. First, the adoption of setting up of minimum standards of education and coordination of such standards which aspect was covered exclusively by List I Entry 66. The second aspect is with regard to implementation of the said standards which was covered by List III Entry 25. On the said aspect, the State could also legislate. The two entries overlap to some extent and to that extent List I Entry 66 prevailed over the subject covered by Entry 25.
33. Prima facie, we do not find any infirmity in the NEET regulation on the ground that it affects the rights of the States or the private institutions. Special provisions for reservation of any category are not subject-matter of NEET nor are the rights of minority in any manner affected by NEET. NEET only provides for conducting entrance test for eligibility for admission to the MBBS/BDS course.
34. We thus, do not find any merit in the applications seeking modification of the order dated 28-4-2016.
35. Only other contention relates to perceived hardship to the students who have either applied for NEET I but could not appear or who appeared but could not prepare fully thinking that the preparation was to be only for 15% all-India seats and there will be further opportunity to appear in other examinations. To allay any such apprehension, we direct that all such eligible 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. It would be open to the respondents to reschedule the date of holding NEET II, if necessary. To this extent the earlier orders stand modified.
36. We may also add here that to ensure total credibility of the examination to be held by CBSE, the Oversight Committee appointed by this Court vide the aforesaid judgment dated 2-5-2016 (2016) 7 SCC 353 shall also oversee the NEET II Examination to be conducted by CBSE.
37. In view of the above, it is also clarified that only NEET would enable students to get admission to MBBS or BDS studies.
38. In view of the above order, all the applications and writ petitions seeking modification of the order passed on 11-4-2016 (2016) 4 SCC 342 stand disposed of.
WP (C) No. 261 of 2016
39. In view of the above order, WP (C) No. 261 of 2016 also does not survive and that is also disposed of.
Alert