But the validity of NEET has a chequered legal history.
A three-judge bench headed by then Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir had then struck down NEET as unconstitutional on 18 July 2013.
Justice Vikramajit Sen joined Justice Kabir in his majority verdict, while Justice Anil R. Dave delivered the dissenting opinion.
The NEET judgment was Justice Kabir’s last as a judge. He retired a day after the verdict, on 19 July 2013.
Review petitions were filed challenging this judgment. By the time these petitions were decided, the two judges in the majority had retired. Usually, review benches are supposed to have the same judges who delivered the original judgment, but they have to be replaced if they retire by the time review petitions are heard.
The 2013 judgment was then “recalled” three years later by a bench headed by Justice Dave, in April 2016, with just a four-page order.
Why did the Supreme Court declare NEET unconstitutional in 2013 and how did the exam survive judicial scrutiny? ThePrint explains.
Also Read: In eye of NEET storm, a look at origins of India’s testing agency NTA & past controversies
Why NEET was held unconstitutional
Four notifications were passed, two each by the Medical Council of India in December 2010 and Dental Council of India in May 2012. These notifications amended the regulations related to graduate and post-graduate medical and dental education rules, to introduce one National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET).
The court had found the notifications unconstitutional, noting that “they have the effect of denuding the states, state-run universities and all medical colleges and institutions, including those enjoying the protection of the above provisions, from admitting students to their M.B.B.S., B.D.S. and Post-graduate courses, according to their own procedures, beliefs and dispensations, which has been found by this Court…to be an integral facet of the right to administer.”
It ruled that the regulations violated Articles 19(1)(g) (freedom to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business), 25 (freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion), 26(a) (freedom to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes), 29(1) (protection of interests of minorities) and 30(1) (right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions) of the Constitution.
The court opined that the role attributed to the MCI and DCI under the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act 1956, and the Dentists Act 1948, “do not contemplate anything different and are restricted to laying down standards which are uniformly applicable to all medical colleges and institutions in India to ensure the excellence of medical education in India”.
Apart from legal aspects, the majority verdict had also considered the practical aspects of conducting NEET. It had taken note of the facts that children in metropolitan areas enjoy greater privileges than their counterparts in most rural areas as far as education is concerned, and opined that “in a single window competition, the disparity in educational standards in different parts of the country cannot ensure a level playing field.”
It further highlighted the need for doctors who may not be specialists, but are available as general physicians to treat those in need of medical care and treatment in the far flung areas of the country.
“While the country certainly needs brilliant doctors and surgeons and specialists and other connected with health care, who are equal to any in other parts of the world, considering ground realities, the country also has need for “barefoot doctors”, who are committed and are available to provide medical services and health care facilities in different areas as part of their mission in becoming doctors,” the court had then observed.
Justice Dave’s dissent
In his dissent, Justice Dave had noted that prior to preparation of the draft judgments, “we had no discussion on the subject due to paucity of time and therefore, I have to express my different views”.
Conducting NEET under the supervision of the apex professional body, he said, would “inspire confidence in the system” and ensure that “no extraneous consideration would come into play in the process of selection”.
He opined that the MCI and DCI are competent to exercise their right to regulate the education system under the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act 1956 and the Dentists Act 1948.
He also felt that the two laws “permit them to determine the standard of students who are to be admitted to these professional courses”.
Justice Dave, therefore, ruled that the introduction of NEET “would ensure more transparency and less hardship to the students eager to join the medical profession”. He even went on to envision the consequence of apex bodies in the medical profession not being permitted to conduct NEET.
“A student, who is good at studies and is keen to join the medical profession, will have to visit several different States to appear at different examinations held by different medical colleges or institutes so as to ensure that he gets admission somewhere. If he appears only in one examination conducted by a particular University in a particular State and if he fails there, he would not stand a chance to get medical education at any other place,” he explained.
Justice Dave further felt that if one examination is conducted for the entire country and admissions are given on the basis of the result of this examination, “unscrupulous and money minded businessmen operating in the field of education would be constrained to stop their corrupt practices and it would help a lot, not only to the deserving students but also to the nation in bringing down the level of corruption”.
However, his opinion was the dissenting judgment, and therefore, NEET was struck down as unconstitutional on the basis of the majority verdict.
‘No discussion’
The judgment was marred by allegations of it being leaked before it was pronounced on 18 July 2013.
A blog written by Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan was quoted at the time by legal news outlets as alleging that Supreme Court corridor gossip for around a week had hinted at knowledge about not just the outcome of the case but also the number of pages and paragraphs of the judgment. ThePrint couldn’t locate the original blog.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan also made similar allegations in an interview to Live Law, saying, “It (the judgment) was obviously given to the private medical colleges well before it was given to his brother judge Justice Dave.”
Three years later, on 11 April 2016, a five-judge bench recalled the judgment, allowing review petitions filed against it. This bench comprised Justices A.K. Sikri, R.K. Agrawal, Adarsh Kumar Goel and R. Banumathi. “After giving our thoughtful and due consideration, we are of the view that the judgment delivered in Christian Medical College (supra) needs reconsideration. We do not propose to state reasons in detail at this stage so as to see that it may not prejudicially affect the hearing of the matters,” the court had observed.
It asserted that the majority view in the 2013 verdict had “not taken into consideration some binding precedents”.
It also observed that it found that “there was no discussion among the members of the Bench before pronouncement of the judgment”.
On 28 April, a three-judge bench comprising Justices A.R. Dave, S.K. Singh and A.K. Goel gave a go-ahead for NEET to be conducted in two phases for admission to undergraduate medical and dental courses, for the academic year 2016-17.
The 1 May 2016 AIPMT exam that year was considered NEET-1, and another, NEET-2, was conducted for those candidates who had not appeared in the first.
Subsequently, the same year, Parliament passed the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Bill 2016 and the Dentists (Amendment) Bill 2016 to put NEET in place for admission to medical and dental courses across the country.
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)
Also Read: Great Indian exam scandal: NEET, UGC-NET & now CSIR-UGC NET, frustrated students say NTA ‘incapable’