High CourtDivision Bench2016-05-09Applications disposed of; NEET-II directed for ...

Association of Managements of Unaided Private Medical & Dental College & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case / Petition Number:Interlocutory Application No. 2 in Transfer Case (C) No. 7 of 2013; W.P.(C) No. 261 of 2016

Neutral Citation:[2016] 3 S.C.R. 542

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Anil R. Dave
Shiva Kirti Singh
Adarsh Kumar Goel
Judgment Date: 2016-05-09
Court Decision / Holding: There is no infirmity in the NEET regulation on the ground that it affects the rights of the States or the private institutions. The judgment recalls the earlier position and holds that NEET provides for entrance test for eligibility only. The Court directs that eligible candidates who could not appear in NEET-I or who appeared but were underprepared may appear in NEET-II, with an option to give up NEET-I; the date may be rescheduled if necessary. An Oversight Committee will supervise NEET-II. All applications and writ petitions seeking modification of the 11th April 2016 and 28th April 2016 orders stand disposed of; W.P.(C) No. 261/2016 is also disposed of.
Final Disposition: Applications disposed of; NEET-II directed for 2016-17; Oversight by Court; W.P.(C) No. 261/2016 disposed of; overall modification to NEET implementation as described in the order.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Association of Managements of Unaided Private Medical & Dental College & Anr.

Respondents

Union of India and Others

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court interlocutory matter concerns the regulation of admissions to MBBS/BDS courses through a unified National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET). NEET was introduced by MCI and DCI in 2010 but struck down in Christian Medical College, Vellore v. Union of India, and recalled in 2016. Following assurances by MCI, CBSE and the Union of India that NEET would be held for the 2016-17 academic year, petitions for modification of earlier orders were heard. The Court considered constitutional entries relating to education and admission standards (Entry 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III), and concluded that the NEET regime does not violate states’ rights or the autonomy of private institutions, since NEET governs only eligibility for admission. The Court directed that candidates who could not appear in NEET-I or who had concerns about their preparation could take NEET-II, with an option to give up NEET-I, and it allowed rescheduling if necessary. An Oversight Committee appointed by the Court shall oversee NEET-II to ensure credibility. All applications and writ petitions seeking modification of the 11th and 28th April 2016 orders were disposed of. The proceedings also disposed of W.P.(C) No. 261/2016.

Provisions of Law Cited

Entry 66 of List IEntry 25 of List III

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contended that the NEET framework and the 2010 regulatory amendments encroach upon the autonomy of private medical colleges and minority institutions. They sought modification of the 11 April 2016 and 28 April 2016 orders and argued for preserving flexibility in admission processes, including state-level testing where appropriate, to avoid hardship to candidates and institutions. They urged consideration of alternatives to NEET for 2016-17 and raised concerns about abrupt shifts in admissions policies affecting students who could not appear or were inadequately prepared.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued for a uniform, centrally credible NEET as the sole entry test for eligibility, citing the need for standardization and integrity in admissions. They relied on jurisprudence such as Modern Dental College (Constitution Bench) to support state regulation of admission standards and asserted that NEET relates to eligibility rather than the autonomy of private or minority institutions. They sought to ensure smooth implementation and oversight of the examination.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Christian Medical College, Vellore v. Union of India	2013 (7) SCR 908 = 2014 (2) SCC 305	Mentioned Only	Cited as background authority; the judgment was struck down and later recalled in review, used for context rather than as controlling authority.
Modern Dental College & Anr. v. State of MP & Ors.	2016(4) JT 476	Positive	Cited and relied upon for the proposition that the State can regulate admission standards and that the private/ minority institutions’ autonomy is not absolute; supports the Court’s endorsement of NEET framework in this context.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Association of Managements of Unaided Private Medical & Dental College & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2016] 3 S.C.R. 542 A ASSOCIATION OF MANAGEMENTS OF UNAIDED PRIVATE MEDICAL & DENTAL COLLEGE & ANR. ## v. ## UNION OF INDIA & ORS. B (Interlocutory Application No. 2) (For directions) Ill (Transfer Case (C) No.(s).7 of2013 etc.) c ## MAY9, 2016 ## **[ANIL R. DAVE, SHIVA KIRT! SINGH AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ].** _Education/Educational Institutions_ - _Admission for MBBSI BDS course_ - _Notification dated 21.12.2010 introducing National_ **D** _Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEETJ_ - _For admission to MBBSIBDS courses_ - _Notification struck down in Christian Medical College_ case~ _However, that order recalled by order dated 11.4.2016_ - _Writ.petition No. 26112016 filed seeking direction to conduct NEET_ - _for the academic session 2016-17 Assurance by the parties concerned that NEET would be conducted for the academic session_ **E** _2016-17 giving schedule for the same_ - _Court by order dated 28.4.2016 directed to hold the NEET as assured_ - _Present applications seeking modification of the orders dated 11.4.2016 and 28.4.2016_ - _Held: There is no infirmity in NEET regulation on the ground that it affects the rights of the States or the private_ **F** _institutions as the same provides only for conducting entrance test for eligibility for admission_ - _It is further directed 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-Jl, subject to seeking an option from the candidates to give up their candidature for NEET-1_ - _All_ G _the applications and writ petitions disposed of._ _Modern Dental College & Ors. v. State of MP. & Ors._ **2016(4) JT 476 - relied on.** _Christian Medical College, Vellore v. Union of India_ **2013** (7) **SCR 908 = 2014 (2) SCC 305 - referred to.** 542 **H** ASSOCIATION OF MANAGEMENTS OF UNAIDED PRIVATE MEDICAL& 543 DENTAL COLLEGE &ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA& ORS. Case Law Reference A 2013 (7) SCR 908 referred to para 4 2016(4) JT 476 relied on para 7 CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Interlocutory Application No. 2 in Transfer Case (C) No. 7 of 2013 B ## WITH Interlocutory Application No. 3 in Transfer Case (C) No(s). 58 of 2013 Interlocutory Application Nos.4-6 in Transfer Case (C) No(s). c 132-134of2012 > Interlocutory Application No. I 0 in Transfer Case (C) No(s). 98 of2012 Interlocutory Application No. 2 in Transfer Case (C) No(s). 99 of 2012 D Writ Petition (C) No. 275 of2016 Interlocutory Application No. I in Transfer Case (C) No(S). 11 of 2013 Interlocutory Application Nos. 2 to 30 in Writ petition (C) No(s). E 26lof2016 Writ Petition (C) No. 292of2016 & Writ petition (C) No. 293 of 2016. Ranjit Kumar, SG, Ms. Pinky Anand, Tushar Mehta, ASGs, Vikas Singh, Soli J. Sorabjee, P.P. Rao, V. Giri, S. Prasad, K.K. Venugopal, K. F Shashikiran Shetty, Gopal Subramanium, P.H. Parekh, Basava Prabhu Patil, Jayant Bhushan, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, H.P. Raval, A.K. Ganguli, Ravindra Srivastava,Ajit Kumar Sinha, S. Ganesh, Dr. K.P. Kylasanatha Pillay, Huzefa Ahmadi, J.C. Gupta, Mukul Talwar, Sr. Advs. J. Ramachandra Rao, AAG, A. Mariarputham, Madhusudan Naik, A.N.S. G Nadkarni, Vikramjeet Banerjee, A Gs, Ms. Rekha Pandey, R.K. Rathore, M.P. Gupta, R.S. Nagar, Ms. Binu Tamta, S.S. Rawat, R.R. Rajesh, Prabal Bagchi, Akash Jindal, Rishabh Jain, (For D.S. Mahra), Ms. H. Wahi, Gaurav Sharma, Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Prateek Bhatia, Dhawal Mohan, Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Kapish Seth, Ms. Vara Gaur, Tara Chandra Sharma, Ajay Sharma, Rupesh Kumar, Rajeev Sharma, Ms. Neelam H 544 [2016] 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS - A Sharma, Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava, V. Balaji, M.S.M. Asaithambi, Atul Sharma, C. Kannan, Ms. Sripradha Krishnan, B. Balaji, G. Pramod Kumar, Vijay Kumar Paradeshi, Ms. Fara Fathima, Ramesh Babu M.R., E.R. Kumar, Krishna Srinivasan, Ms. Geethi A., Abhinay, Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer, (For Mis. Parekh & Co.), Mahesh Agarwal, Shashank Manish, Himanshu Satija, E.C. Agrawala, Prateek Chadha, Ankur Kashyap, - B Raghav Chadha, Zulnoor Ali Ahmad, G. Prabhakar, Ms. Prerna Singh, Ms. Liz Mathew, Ms. Krishna Sarma, Avijit Roy, Navnit Kumar, Ms. Deepika, (For Mis. Corporate Law: Group), Naveen R. Nath, Ranjit B Raut, Ms. Bina Gupta, P.V. Reddy, Prashant Kr. Tyagi, (For Mis. Venkat Palwai Law Ass.), Venkitasubramoniam T.R., Prasanth P., C. Kannan, - c Yunus Malik, Ekansh Agarwal, Ms. Rajeeta Raj, Sanjeev Agarwal; V.G. Pragasam, S.P. Ramasubramanian, Seshachari, T.V. Lakshmanan, V.S. Lakshmi, A. Venayagam Balan, Amol Chitale, G.B. Sathe, K.P. Narayanan, K. Mayil Samy, Ananda Selvam, (For P. Somasundaram), Ms. Aruna Mathur, Yusuf Khan, Ms. Anuradha Arputham, (For Mis. Arputham Aruna & Co.), Ms. Anita Sahani, Purnima Bhat, Ms. Anitha - D Shenoy, Ms. Nishruti Vijay, S. Bhatnagar, Anshumani Srivastava, S.S. Rebello,Jai Dehadrai,Amogh Prabhudesai, Edward Belho, Ms. K. Enatoli Serna, K.L. Mechael, Amit Kumar Singh, Elix Gangmei, A. Ramesh, Syed Ahmad Naqvi, Ms. Shilpi Gupta, Rakesh K. Shanna, Ms. Shubharangini Iyengar, Ms. Sangita Chauhan, Arun Bharadwaj, Jai - E Wadhwa, Ronak Karan Gupta, Sriram, Vishwapal Singh, Srilok Nath Rath, Kulbir Singh Malik, J.M. Wadhwa, Dr. Sushil Balwada, R.K. Kapoor, Ms. Shweta Kapoor, Ms. Kheyali Sarkar, Ms. Rekha Giri,Anis Ahmed Khan, A.P. Mayee, Charudatta Mahindrakar, A. Selvin Raja, Rauf Rahim, Raj iv Kr. Jha, P. Das, Amit Kumar, Rekha Bakshi, Avijit Mani Tripathi, Shaurya Sahay, Manish, Sunil Fernandes, Ms. Astha - F Sharma, Puneeth K.G., Ms. Mithu Jain, K.K. Trivedi, Rabin Majumdar, O.P. Shukla, Abdhesh Chaudhary, Alok Shukla, Ajay Choudhary, Amit Sharma, Amit Anand Tiwari, Sandeep R. Limbani, N.K. Mishra, Dr. Ajay Kumar, R.K.S. Yadav, Chimony Khaladkar, Ms. Pragya Baghel, G.S. Mani, A. Arockiaraj, R. Sathish, D.N. Ray, Lokesh K. Choudhary, - G Ms. Sumita Ray, Mrinal Kanti Manda!, Parijat Sinha, Joydeep Mazumdar, Rohit Dutta, Ms. Reshmi Rea Sinha, Ravindra K. Adsure, V.N. Raghupathy, Ms. Sushma Suri, Ms. Pragati Neekhra, R. Chandrachud, Ms. Vaijayanthi Girish, Ms. Astha Tyagi, _Mis._ Lawyer's Knit & Co., Nimimesh Dubey, N .R. Katneshwarkar, Prashant Bhushan, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Vikash Singh, Ram Kishor Singh Yadav, Advs for the H ASSOCIATION OF MANAGEMENTS OF UNAIDED PRIVATE MEDICAL& 545 DENTAL COLLEGE &ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA& ORS. appearing parties. A The following Order of the Court was delivered ## **ORDER** 1. These applications have been filed by the private medical colleges and also by some of the States seeking modification of order dated 28th April, 2016 in W.P.(C)No.261 of2016. 2. The Medical Council oflndia (MCI) and the Dental Council of India (DCI) issued notifications dated 21st December, 2010, amending the existing statutory regulations to provide for a single National Eligibilitycum-Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to the MBBS/BDS course. B c 3. The said notifications were struck down in Christian Medical College, Vellore Vs. Union oflndia, 2014 (2) SCC 305. 4. The said judgment stands recalled vide order dated 11th April, 2016 in Review Petition (C) Nos.2159-2268of2013. 5. On 28th April, 2016, in W.P.(C)No.261/2016 a statement was made by the learned counsel for MCI, CBSE and Union oflndia that for the academic year 2016-17, NEET would be held. D 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. In recent Constitution Bench judgment dated 2nd May, 2016, E in Modern Dental College & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.4060 of2009 etc., the stand of the private medical colleges (including minorities) that conducting ofentrance test by the State violated right of autonomy of the said colleges, has been rejected. The State law providing for conducting of entrance test was upheld, rejecting the F 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 Entry 66 of List I. The second aspect is with regard to implementation of the said standards which was covered by Entry 25 of List III. On the G said aspect, the State could also legislate. The two entries overlap to some extent and to that extent Entry 66 of List **1** prevailed over the subject covered by Entry 25. 8. Prima facie, we do not find any infinnity in the NEET regulation on the ground that it affects the rights of the States or the private H 546 [2016] 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS - A institutions. Special provisions for reservation of any category are not subject matter of the NEET nor rights of minority are in any manner affected by NEET. NEET only provides for conducting entrance test for eligibility for admission to the MB BS/BOS course. 9. We thus, do not find any merit in the applications seeking 8 modific:ation of order dated 28th April, 2016. I 0. Only other contention relates to perceived hardship to the students who have either applied for NEET-1 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 fmiheropportunity c to appear in other examinations. To allay any such apprehension, we direct that all such eligible candidates who could not appear in NEET-1 and those who had appeared but have apprehension that they had not prepared well, be permitted to appear in NEET-11, subject to seeking an option from the said candidates to give up their candidature for NEET-1. It would be open to the respondents to reschedule the date of holding D NEET-11, if necessary. To this extent the earlier orders stand modified. 11. We may also add here that to ensure total credibility of the examination to be held by the CBSE, the Oversight Committee appointed by this Court vi de the aforesaid judgment dated 2nd May, 2016 shal I also oversee the NEET-11 examination to be conducted by the CBSE. E 12. In view of the above, it is also clarified that onlyNEETwould enable students to get admission to MBBS or BOS studies. F 13. In view of the above order, all the applications and writ petitions seeking modification of order passed on 11th April, 2016, stand disposed of. ## W.P.(C)26l/2016 14. In view of the above order, W.P.(C)No.261/2016 also does not survive and that is also disposed of. G Kalpana K. Tripathy Applications nnd Writ Petitions disposed of.