Through the decision of several transferred civil cases including Christian Medical College Vellore Association v. Union of India & Others, a 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Vineet Saran and Justice M.R.Shah have held that there is no violation of the rights of the the minority to administer unaided/aided 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.
According to the Court, “the primary issue”, which fell for consideration before it has been as to whether by providing centralized 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 as already mentioned.
The Court has pointed out that 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 47of the Constitution of India. Similarly, Article 46 aims at promotion of educational and economic interests of SCs, STs 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 endeavor and achievement. For that purpose recognition of merit is necessary, and one has to be given a full opportunity in pursuit of his/her aim. The prescription of NEET is to provide equal opportunity and level launching platform to an individual to perform his duty as enshrined under Article 51A(j).
Thus, in the Court’s view there is no violation of the relevant 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 national interest.
It is apparent from the Court’s decisions in the cases – Secretary, Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T. Jose & Others – (2007) 1 SCC 386; P.A. Inamdar & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Others – (2005) 6 SCC 537; Dr Preeti Srivastava & Another v. State of M.P. & Others – (1999) 7 SCC 120; Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. (2016) 7 SCC 353; the provisions in question which have been incorporated in the Act relating to Medical and Dental education, the Government, MCI and DCI cannot be said to be in 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 evil 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 Directive 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, the 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 cannot being 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.
The Court’s finding is that 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.
Thus, the Court is 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 student 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 commercialization of education. The institution has to be a capable vehicle of education. The minority institutions are bound equally to comply with the conditions imposed under the relevant Acts and Regulations to enjoy affiliation and recognition, which apply to all institutions.
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 rights to administer an institution under Article 30 of the Constitution are not above the law and other constitutional provisions. 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 in no way interfere with the rights to administer the institution by the religious or linguistic minorities.
Disposing of the transferred cases, appeal and writ petitions, the Supreme Court has declared that the provisions of the Act and regulations 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) .
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
