Christian Medical College Vellore Association vs Union of India and Others

Disposing of the matters, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The notifications, which are questioned in the matters and the amendment made to Section 10D as introduced in the Act of 1956 and regulations as amended by the MCI and similar provisions inserted in the Dentists Act & Regulations, cannot be said to be taking away the rights of the unaided minority institutions or private institutions of making admission in any manner as it is permissible to provide regulatory mechanism at the national level and the entrance test applies even to All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) – the most reputed Institute of India. It is open to provide the regulatory mechanism for admission for such courses as held in T.M.A. Pai Foundation the qualification and conditions of eligibility in the interest of academic standards can be provided, and there could be regulatory measures for ensuring educational standards and maintaining excellence in the matter of professional institution. Thus, the decision in T.M.A. Pai Foundation rendered by 11-Judge Bench is juxtaposedto the submission raised on behalf of petitioners. In P.A. Inamdar, the Court laid down the triple test of a fair, transparent and non-exploitative mechanism and if the admission procedure adopted by private institution does not satisfy all or any of the triple tests, it held that the admission procedure can be taken over by the State substituting its process. This aspect was gauged in Modern Dental College and Research Centre in a broader perspective considering prevailing situation of capitation fee and education becoming saleable commodity. A decision has been taken to regulate admission in professional colleges on national basis so as to wipe out the corruption and various evils from the system. Even, the NEET has been made applicable to such premier institution like All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and so many others. The decision has been taken considering the overall national scenario, there cannot be any exemption, otherwise, there would be no end to such claims and multiple examinations. It would not be possible to eradicate evils. Overall derogatory situation which prevailed before introduction of NEET cannot be restored. Still, there are several loopholes, which are to be plugged in the admission procedure. Unscrupulous practices are being adopted by private colleges of not admitting students sponsored by centralised counselling committee.The minority and private institutions have to admit students based on merit in the permissible category, based on NEET as per procedure prescribed under the Act and Regulations. [Paras 35, 37 and 38][610-G-H; 611-A-F] T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2002) 8 SCC 481 : [2002] 3 Suppl. SCR 587; P. A. Inamdar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 537 : [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 603; Modern Dental College and Research Centre and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (2016) 7 SCC 353 : [2016] 3 SCR 579 – followed.

1.2 The notifications issued, amendment made to Section 10D of the Act of 1956 and regulations framed by MCI and similar provisions for dental courses providing for NEET cannot be said to be impinging upon the rights of the minority and the provisions of the Act and regulations framed by MCI under the Act of 1956, in DCI Act and regulations are required to be observed by each and every institution. The regulatory measures under the Act/Regulations cannot be said to be averse to the interest of such institutions, and such reasonable measurescan be carved out. They do not impinge upon the rights of institutions guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 25 and 30 of the Constitution of India. There is no reason why conditions for the welfare of students and teachers should not be made, but any law or rule or regulation that would put the educational institutions run by the minorities at a disadvantage when compared to the institutions run by the others will have to be struck down. The law of the land includes rules and regulations that must apply equally to the majority as well as minority institutions. The minority institutions must be allowed to do what non-minority is permitted to do. They have to comply with the conditions of recognition, which cannot be such as to whittle down the right guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution. [Paras 41, 42][614-B-C, F-H]

1.3 The NEET has been prescribed by the Legislature in the larger public interest that has to prevail. The provisions found to be reasonable conditions of recognition/affiliation are binding for the very existence of all such institution whether they are run by majority or minority failing which they cannot exists and impart education. The conditions are reasonable and cannot be said to be taking away any of the constitutional rights of minority institutions, they are reasonable, fair and intended to bring transparency in the professional education imparted by institutions. They are applicable for all institutions alike minorities are not placed on a disadvantageous platform. There is no doubt as to the concept of limited Government and least interference is welcomed, but in which field and to what extent balancing with the larger public and national interest is required. The individual autonomy, rights, and obligations are to be free from official interference except where the rational basis for intrusion exists. The Constitution provides a limitation on the power of the State to interfere with life, liberty, and rights, however, the concept of limited government cannot be extended to a level when it defeats the very national interest. The maladies with which professional education suffers in this country are writ large. The regulatory framework created by the MCI/ DCI is concomitant of conditions, affiliation and recognition, and providing central examination in the form of NEET cannot be said to be violative of the rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 30. The regulatory framework is not restrictive, but caters to the effective enjoyment of the rights conferred under the aforesaid provisions. The provisions qualify the doctrine of proportionality considered in Modern Dental College and Research Centre. What has been held therein for State level examination holds good for NEET also. 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 stepin furtherance of the duty of the State enshrined in the Directive Principles of the State Policy contained in Article 47 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, Article 46 aims at promotion of educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, 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 maladythe 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 endeavour 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, there is no violation of the aforesaid 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 the national interest. [Paras 46-48][618-C-G; 619-A-E]

1.4 In view of the law laid down in T.M.A. Pai Foundation, it is apparent that NEET/common entrance test is a devise to standardise and computing equivalence between different kinds of qualifications. It does not interfere with the rights of the unaided minority institutions as it has been imposed in national interest considering the malpractices of granting illegal admission by virtually selling the seats in derogation to rights of meritorious students. The charitable activity of education became a saleable commodity and prerogative of wealthy persons and poor students were forced to get education funded from Banks making it difficult for them to come out of tentacular octave of interest. They are exploited in bud before they bloom into flower. The ill-reputation developed by MCI forced to change its entire structure. The national interest requires further improvement in the system to eradicate evils from the system. The situation is still grim and require to be dealt with firm hand and steely determination. Thus, it is apparent that the provisions in question which have been incorporated in the Act relating to Medical/Dental education, the Government, MCI and DCI cannot be said to be an 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 evils 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 Directives 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 the old system is reverted to, posterity is not going to forgive us. Still, 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 could not be 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 learned counsel argued that it is open to some of the institutions to impose higher standards of merit. Firstly, conditions of affiliation are binding apart from that, it is found that when it comes to national standards and the objects sought to be achieved by NEET, to conduct individual examinations by some institutions cannot be permitted. The system is not yet out of clutches of unscrupulous devices and dubious means are adopted to defeat merit, the interest of education would further suffer and very purpose of centralised examination would be defeated. It is not possible to prescribe further examination over and above NEET that cannot be said to be workable, no exemption can be granted from NEET, considering the objective with which it has been introduced. The uniform Entrance Examination cannot be said to be unreasonable regulatory framework. Considering the terms and conditionsfor affiliation and recognition for professional medical and such other professional courses are binding, and no relaxation can be permitted in the conditions. [Paras 53, 55 and 57][621-C-E; G-H; 622-A-D, F-H; 623-A]

1.5 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 the student’s 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 commercialisation of education. The institution has to be a capable vehicle of education. The minority institutions are equally bound to comply with the conditions imposed under the relevant Acts and Regulations to enjoy affiliation and recognition, which apply to all institutions.In case they have to impart education, they are bound to comply with the conditions which are equally applicable to all. The regulations are necessary, and they are not divisive or disintegrative. Such regulatory measures enable institutions to administer them efficiently. There is no right given to maladminister the education derogatory to the national interest. The quality of medical education is imperative to sub-serve the national interest, and the merit cannot be compromised. The Government has the right for providing regulatory measures that are in the national interest, more so in view of Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India. 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 exceedingthe concept of limited governance. The regulatory measures in question are for the improvement of the public health and is a step, in furtherance of the directive principles enshrined in Articles47 and 51(A)(j) and enable the individual by providing full opportunity in pursuance of his objective to excel in his pursuit. The rights to administer an institution under Article 30 of the Constitution are not above the law and other Constitutional provisions. Reasonable regulatory measures can be provided without violating such rights available under Article 30 of the Constitution to administer an institution. 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 are intended for the proper functioning of institutions and to ensure that the standard of education is maintained and does not fall low under the guise of an exclusive right of management to the extent of maladministration. The regulatory measures by prescribing NEET is to bring the education within the realm of charity which character it has lost. It intends to weed out evils from the system and various malpractices which decayed the system. The regulatory measures in no way interfere with the rights to administer the institution by the religious or linguistic minorities. Resultantly, there is no violation of the rights of the unaided/aided minority to administer institutions under Articles19 (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. The provisions of the Act and regulation 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). [Paras 58-60][623-B-H; 624-A-F]

Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. (1974) 1 SCC 717 : [1975] 1 SCR 173; St. Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi (1992)

1 SCC 558 : [1991] 3 Suppl. SCR 121 – followed. Frank Anthony Public School Employees’ Association v. Union of India and Others (1986) 4 SCC 707 : [1987]

1 SCR 238; Bihar State Madarasa Education Board, Patna v. Madarasa Hanfia Arabic College, Jamalia and Others (1990) 1 SCC 428 : [1989] 2 Suppl. SCR 399; Brahmo Samaj Education Society v. State of West Bengal (2004) 6 SCC 224 : [2004] 2 Suppl. SCR 214; Sindhi Education Society and Anr. v. Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. (2010) 8 SCC

49 : [2010] 8 SCR 81; Secretary, Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T. Jose and Ors. (2007) 1 SCC 386 : [2006] 9 Suppl. SCR 644 – relied on.

Sankalp Charitable Trust and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (2016) 7 SCC 487; Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. (1975) 2 SCC 148 : [1975] 3 SCR 946; K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1: [2017] 10 SCR 569; Islamic Academy of Education and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (2003) 6 SCC

697 : [2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 474; Christian Medical College Vellore v. Union of India (2014) 2 SCC 305 : [2013] 7 SCR 908; State of Madhya Pradesh v.

Jainarayan Chouksey and Ors. (2016) 9 SCC 412; State of Maharashtra v. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth and Ors. (2016)

9 SCC 401; Dar-us-Salam Educational Trust and Ors. v. Medical Council of India and Ors. (2017) 6 SCALE 320; Yatin kumar Jasubhai Patel and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 1 : [2019] 12 SCR 848; Re The Kerala Education Bill 1957 AIR 1958 SC

956 : [1959] SCR 995; Rev. Sidhajbhai Sabhai and Ors. v. State of Bombay and Anr. [1963] 3 SCR 837; Rev. Father W. Proost and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. AIR 1969 SC 465 : [1969] 2 SCR 73; The Gandhi Faiz-e-am College, Shahjahanpur v. University of Agra and Anr. (1975) 2 SCC 283 : [1975] 3 SCR 810; Sk. Md. Rafique v. Managing Committee, Contai Rahamania High Madrasah and Ors. (2020) 1 SCALE 345;

Chandana Das (Malakar) v. State of West Bengal and Ors. (2015) 12 SCC 140 : [2014] 13 SCR 796; Faculty Association of All India Institute of Medical Sciences v. Union of India and Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 246 : [2014]

14 SCR 1634; Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Anr. v. State of M.P. and Ors. (1999) 7 SCC 120 : [1999] 1 Suppl. SCR

249 – referred to.