MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE ASSOCIATION versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
[2020] 5 S.C.R. 516, Supreme Court of India, 2020
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
598
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
administrative staff, and an activity is carried on that results in
the imparting of knowledge to the students, must necessarily
be regarded as an occupation, even if there is no element of
profit generation. It is difficult to comprehend that education,
per se, will not fall under any of the four expressions in Article
19(1)(g). “Occupation” would be an activity of a person
undertaken as a means of livelihood or a mission in life. The
abovequoted observations in Sodan Singh case, (1989) 4 SCC
155, correctly interpret the expression “occupation” in Article
19(1)(g).”
40. It becomes necessary to point out that while treating the
managing of educational institution as an “occupation”, the Court
was categorical that this activity could not be treated as “business”
or “profession”. This right to carry on the occupation that
education is, the same is not put on a par with other occupations
or business activities or even other professions. It is a category
apart which was carved out by this Court in T.M.A. Pai
Foundation, (2002) 8 SCC 481. There was a specific purpose
for not doing so. Education is treated as a noble “occupation” on
“no profit no loss” basis. Thus, those who establish and are
managing the educational institutions are not expected to indulge
in profiteering or commercialising this noble activity. Keeping this
objective in mind, the Court did not give complete freedom to the
educational institutions in
respect of right to admit the students
and also with regard to fixation of fee. As far as admission of
students is concerned, the Court was categorical that such
admissions have to be on the basis of merit when it comes to
higher education, particularly in professional institutions.”
(i) In Modern Dental College and Research Centre (supra),
the Court considered decision in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra), and
observed that Government is permitted to frame regulations for unaided
private professional educational institutions, thus:
“42. In order to see that merit is adjudged suitably and
appropriately, the Court candidly laid down that the procedure for
admission should be so devised which satisfies the triple test of
being fair, transparent and non-exploitative. The next question was
as to how the aforesaid objective could be achieved? For
determining such merit, the Court showed the path in para 59 by
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
599
observing that such merit should be determined either by the marks
that students obtained at qualifying examination or at CET
conducted by the institutions or in the case of professional colleges,
by government agencies. Para 59 suggesting these modes reads
as under: (T.M.A. Pai Foundation case,(2002) 8 SCC 481, SCC
p. 546)
“59. Merit is usually determined, for admission to professional
and higher education colleges, by either the marks that the
student obtains at the qualifying examination or school leaving
certificate stage followed by the interview, or by a common
entrance test conducted by the institution, or in the case of
professional colleges, by government agencies.”
This paragraph very specifically authorises CET to be conducted
by government agencies in the case of professional colleges.
43. In order to ensure that the said CET is fair, transparent and
merit-based, T.M.A. Pai Foundation, (2002) 8 SCC 481, also
permitted the Government to frame regulations for unaided private
professional educational institutions. Paras 67 and 68 which permit
framing of such regulations are reproduced below: (SCC p. 549)
“67. We now come to the regulations that can be framed
relating to private unaided professional institutions.
68. It would be unfair to apply the same rules and regulations
regulating admission to both aided and unaided professional
institutions. It must be borne in mind that unaided professional
institutions are entitled to autonomy in their
administration while,
at the same time, they do not forego or discard the principle of
merit. It would, therefore, be permissible for the university or
the Government, at the time of granting recognition, to require
a private unaided institution to provide for merit-based selection
while, at the same time, giving the management sufficient
discretion in admitting students. This can be done through various
methods. For instance, a certain percentage of the seats can
be reserved for admission by the management out of those
students who have passed the common entrance test held by
itself or by the State/university and have applied to the college
concerned for admission, while the rest of the seats may be
filled up on the basis of counselling by the State agency. This
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE ASSOCIATION
v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
600
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
will incidentally take care of poorer and backward sections of
the society. The prescription of percentage for this purpose
has to be done by the Government according to the local needs
and different percentages can be fixed for minority unaided
and non-minority unaided and professional colleges. The same
principles may be applied to other non-professional but unaided
educational institutions viz. graduation and postgraduation non-
professional colleges or institutes.”
44. A plea was raised by the appellants that by exercising the
power to frame regulations, the State could not usurp the very
function of conducting this admission test by the educational
institutions. It was argued that it only meant that such a CET is to
be conducted by the educational institutions themselves and the
Government could only frame the regulations to regulate such
admission tests to be conducted by the educational institutions
and could not take away the function of holding CET.
45. This argument has to be rejected in view of the unambiguous
and categorical interpretation given by the Supreme Court in P.A.
Inamdar, (2005) 6 SCC 537, with respect to certain observations,
particularly in para 68 in T.M.A. Pai Foundation, (2002) 8 SCC
481. In this behalf, we would like to recapitulate that in T.M.A.
Pai Foundation, (2002) 8 SCC 481, a Bench of eleven Judges
dealt with the issues of scope of right to set up educational
institutions by private
aided or unaided, minority or non-minority
institutions and the extent of government regulation of the said
right. It was held that the right to establish and administer an
institution included the right to admit students and to set up a
reasonable fee structure. But the said right could be regulated to
ensure maintenance of proper academic standards, atmosphere
and infrastructure. Fixing of rigid fee structure, dictating the
formation and composition of a governing body, compulsory
nomination of teachers and staff for appointment or nominating
students for admissions would be unacceptable restrictions.
However, occupation of education was not business but profession
involving charitable activity. The State can forbid charging of
capitation fee and profiteering. The object of setting up educational
institution is not to make profit. There could, however, be a
reasonable revenue surplus for development of education. For
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
601
admission, merit must play an important role. The State or the
University could require private unaided institution to provide for
merit-based selection while giving sufficient discretion in admitting
students. Certain percentage of seats could be reserved for
admission by management out of students who have passed CET
held by the institution or by the State/University. Interpretation of
certain observations in para 68 of the judgment in T.M.A. Pai
Foundation, (2002) 8 SCC 481, has been a matter of debate to
which we will advert to in detail hereinafter.
48. The matter was then considered by a larger Bench of seven
Judges in P.A. Inamdar, (2005) 6 SCC 537. It was held that the
two committees for monitoring admission procedure and
determining fee structure as per the judgment in Islamic Academy
of Education, (2003) 6 SCC 697, were permissible as regulatory
measures aimed at protecting the student community as a whole
as also the minority themselves in maintaining required standards
of professional education on non-exploitative terms. This did not
violate Article 30(1) or Article 19(1)(g). It was observed that:
(P.A. Inamdar case, (2005) 6 SCC 537, SCC p. 607, para 145)
“145. … Unless the admission procedure and fixation of
fees is regulated and controlled at the initial stage, the evil
of unfair practice of granting admission on available seats
guided by the paying capacity of the candidates would be
impossible to curb.”
(emphasis supplied)
On this ground,
suggestion of the institutions to achieve the purpose
for which committees had been set up by post-audit checks after
the institutions adopted their own admission procedure and fee
structure was rejected. The committees were, thus, allowed to
continue for regulating the admissions and the fee structure until
a suitable legislation or regulations were framed by the States. It
was left to the Central Government and the State Governments
to come out with a detailed well-thought out legislation setting up
a suitable mechanism for regulating admission procedure and fee
structure. Para 68 in T.M.A. Pai Foundation case, (2002) 8 SCC
481, was explained by stating that observations permitting the
management to reserve certain seats were meant for poorer and
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE ASSOCIATION
v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
602
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
backward sections as per local needs. It did not mean to ignore
the merit. It was also held that CET could be held, otherwise,
merit becomes a casualty. There is, thus, no bar to CET being
held by a State agency when the law so provides.”
(j) The Court held that entrance examination is a regulatory
measure and does not infringe on the rights of the institutions.  It opined:
“49. Thus, the contention raised on behalf of the appellants that
the private medical colleges had absolute right to make admissions
or to fix fee is not consistent with the earlier decisions of this
Court. Neither merit could be compromised in admissions to
professional institutions nor capitation fee could be permitted. To
achieve these objects it is open to the State to introduce regulatory
measures. We are unable to accept the submission that the State
could intervene only after proving that merit was compromised or
capitation fee was being charged. As observed in the earlier
decisions of this Court, post-audit measures would not meet the
regulatory requirements. Control was required at the initial stage
itself. Therefore, our answer to the first question is that though
“occupation” is a fundamental right, which gives right to the
educational institutions to admit the students and also fix the fee,
at the same time, scope of such rights has been discussed and
limitations imposed thereupon by the aforesaid judgments
themselves explaining the
nature of limitations on these rights.
55. It would be necessary to clarify the position in respect of
educational institutions run by minorities. Having regard to the
pronouncement in T.M.A. Pai Foundation, (2002) 8 SCC 481,
with lucid clarifications to the said judgment given by this Court in
P.A. Inamdar, (2005) 6 SCC 537, it becomes clear that insofar as
such regulatory measures are concerned, the same can be adopted
by the State in respect of minority-run institutions as well. Reliance
placed by the appellants in St. Stephen’s College v. University
of Delhi, (1992) 1 SCC 558, may not be of much help as that
case did not concern with professional educational institutions.
67. Undoubtedly, right to establish and administer educational
institutions is treated as a fundamental right as it is termed
“occupation”, which is one of the freedoms guaranteed under
Article 19(1)(g). It was so recognised for the first time in T.M.A.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
603
Pai Foundation, (2002) 8 SCC 481. Even while doing so, this
right came with certain clutches and shackles. The Court made it
clear that it is a noble occupation which would not permit
commercialisation or profiteering and, therefore, such educational
institutions are to be run on “no profit no loss basis”. While
explaining the scope of this right, right to admit students and right
to fix fee was accepted as facets of this right, the Court again
added caution thereto by mandating that admissions to the
educational institutions imparting higher education, and in particular
professional education, have to admit the students based on merit.
For judging the merit, the Court indicated that there can be a
CET. While doing so, it also specifically stated that in case of
admission to professional courses such a CET can be conducted
by the State. If such a power is exercised by the State assuming
the function of CET, this was so recognised in T.M.A. Pai
Foundation, (2002) 8 SCC 481 itself, as a measure of
“reasonable restriction on the said right”. Islamic Academy
of Education, (2003) 6 SCC 697, further clarified the contour of
such function of the State while interpreting T.M.A. Pai
Foundation, (2002) 8 SCC 481,itself wherein it was held that
there can be committees constituted to supervise conducting of
such CET. This process of interpretative balancing and
constitutional balancing was remarkably achieved in P.A. Inamdar,
(2005) 6 SCC 537, by not only giving its
premature to deholding
(sic imprimatur to the holding) of CET but it went further to hold
that agency conducting the CET must be the one which enjoys
the utmost credibility and expertise in the matter to achieve
fulfilment of twin objectives of transparency and merit and for
that purpose it permitted the State to provide a procedure of holding
a CET in the interest of securing fair and merit-based admissions
and preventing maladministration.”
This Court also considered the balancing of rights even if there is
a violation of fundamental rights of the appellants to admit students by
Central Examination Test by State. It held as under:
“92. In this sense, when imparting of quality education to cross-
section of the society, particularly, the weaker section and when
such private educational institutions are to rub shoulders with the
State managed educational institution to meet the challenge of the
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE ASSOCIATION
v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
604
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
implementing ambitious constitutional promises, the matter is to
be examined in a different hue. It is this spirit which we have kept
in mind while balancing the right of these educational institutions
given to them under Article 19(1)(g) on the one hand and
reasonableness of the restrictions which have been imposed by
the impugned legislation. The right to admission or right to fix the
fee guaranteed to these appellants is not taken away completely,
as feared. T.M.A. Pai Foundation, (2002) 8 SCC 481, gives
autonomy to such institutions which remains intact. Holding of
CET under the control of the State does not impinge on this
autonomy. Admission is still in the hands of these institutions. Once
it is even conceded by the appellants that in admission of students
“triple test” is to be met, the impugned legislation aims at that.
After all, the sole purpose of holding CET is to adjudge merit and
to ensure that admissions which are done by the educational
institutions, are strictly on merit. This is again to ensure larger
public interest. It is beyond comprehension that merely by assuming
the power to hold CET, fundamental right of the appellants to
admit the students is taken away. Likewise, when it comes to
fixation of fee, as already dealt with in detail, the main purpose is
that the State acts as a regulator and satisfies itself that the fee
which is proposed by the educational institution does not have the
element
of profiteering and also that no capitation fee, etc. is
charged. In fact, this dual function of regulatory nature is going to
advance the public interest inasmuch as those students who are
otherwise meritorious but are not in a position to meet unreasonable
demands of capitation fee, etc. are not deprived of getting
admissions. The impugned provisions, therefore, are aimed at
seeking laudable objectives in larger public interest. Law is not
static, it has to change with changing times and changing social/
societal conditions.”
(k) The Court held that MCI Actand the rules prescribed reasonable
restrictions under Article 19(6),thus:
“53. After referring to paras 136 and 137 in P.A. Inamdar, (2005)
6 SCC 537, it was observed: (Assn. of Private Dental case, 2009
SCC OnLine MP 760, SCC OnLine MP paras 34 & 37)
“34. It will be thus clear from paras 136 and 137 of the judgment
in P.A. Inamdar, (2005) 6 SCC 537, quoted above, that
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
605
admissions to private unaided professional educational
institutions can be made on the basis of merit of candidates
determined in the common entrance test followed by centralised
counselling by the institutions imparting same or similar
professional education together or by the State or by an agency
which must enjoy utmost credibility and expertise and that the
common entrance test followed by centralised counselling must
satisfy the triple test of being fair, transparent and non-
exploitative. Thus, the judgments of the Supreme Court in T.M.A.
Pai Foundation, (2002) 8 SCC 481 and P.A. Inamdar, (2005)
6 SCC 537, permit holding of a common entrance test for
determination of merit for admission to private unaided
professional educational institutions by the State as well as
any agency which enjoy utmost credibility and expertise in the
matter and which should ensure transparency in merit.
*   *    *
37. Sections 3(d), 6 and 7 of the 2007 Act by providing that
the common entrance test for determining merit for admissions
in the private unaided professional educational institutions by a
common entrance test to be conducted by the State or by an
agency authorised by the State do not interfere with the
autonomy of private unaided professional educational
institutions, as such private professional educational institutions
are entitled to collect the fees from the students admitted to
the institutions on the basis of merit, appoint their own staff
(teaching and
non-teaching), discipline and remove the staff,
provide infrastructure and other facilities for students and do
all such other things as are necessary to impart professional
education to the students. Sections 3(d), 6 and 7 of the 2007
Act, therefore, do not impinge on the fundamental right to carry
on the occupation of establishing and administering professional
educational institutions as an occupation. The only purpose of
Sections 3(d), 6 and 7 of the 2007 Act is to ensure that students
of excellence are selected on the basis of a common entrance
test conducted by the State or an agency authorised by the
State and that students without excellence and merit do not
make entry into these professional educational institutions
through malpractices and influence. As has been held both in
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE ASSOCIATION
v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
606
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
the judgments in T.M.A. Pai Foundation, (2002) 8 SCC 481
and P.A. Inamdar, (2005) 6 SCC 537, the right of private unaided
professional educational institutions to admit students of their
choice is subject to selection of students on the basis of their
merit through a transparent, fair and non-exploitative procedure.
In our considered opinion therefore, Sections 3(d), 6 and 7 of
the 2007 Act do not in any way violate the fundamental right
of citizens guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
In view of this conclusion, it is not necessary for us to decide
whether the provisions of Sections 3(d), 6 and 7 of the 2007
Act are saved by Article 15(5) of the Constitution or by the
second limb of Article 19(6) of the Constitution relating to the
power of the State to make a law for creation of monopoly in
its favour in respect of any service.””
32. In Sankalp Charitable Trust (supra), various orders passed
by this Court on different dates have been reported.  This Court noted
that NEET has been restored by judgment dated 11.4.2016 by which the
judgment and order in Christian Medical College, Velloreand others
was recalled.  The respondents were directed to hold examination for
admission to MBBS and BDS courses for the academic year 2016-17.
The Court passed following order dated 28.4.2016:
“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, 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 and
therefore, the Notifications dated 21-12-2010 are in operation as
on today.”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
607
On 6.5.2016, the Court directed 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.  Relevant
portion is extracted hereunder:
“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.”
On 9.5.2016, in the aforesaid matter, the Court considered various
applications filed by private medical colleges seeking clarification of order
dated 28.4.2016. This Court directed as under:
“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.
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
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE ASSOCIATION
v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
608
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
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.”
33. In JainarayanChouksey(supra), the Court followed the
decision in Modern Dental College and Research Centre (supra) and
opined that the said decision encompasses not only the State-conducted
centralised test but also State-conducted centralised counselling.   This
Court issued a mandate for both the purposes, i.e., examination as well
as counselling and held:
“5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
We observe that mandate of our judgment was to hold centralised
entrance test followed by centralised State counselling by the State
to make it a one composite process. We, therefore, direct that
admission to all medical seats shall be conducted by centralised
counselling
only by the State Government and none else.
6. If any counselling has been done by any college or university
and any admission to any medical seat has been given so far, such
admission shall stand cancelled forthwith and admission shall be
given only as per centralised counselling done by the State
Government.”
34. In D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth (supra), the Court again clarified
that the decision in Modern Dental College and Research Centre
(supra) encompasses not only centralised State-conducted test but also
centralised State-conducted counselling.
35. The MCI amended vide notification dated 10.3.2017 the
Regulation on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 and Post Graduate
Medical Education Regulations, 2000 providing for common counselling
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
609
for admission to MBBS and post-graduate medicine courses on the basis
of NEET.  The said notifications were challenged by minority institutions,
deemed universities, and other private institutions by filing a writ petition
before this Court. The Court vide order dated 9.5.2017 in Dar-us-Salam
Educational Trust and Ors. v. Medical Council of India and Ors.,
(Writ Petition (C) No.267 of 2017) opined that common counselling does
not in any manner affect the right of minority institutions to admit students
of their own minority community. The Court held thus:
“10. Common counselling conducted by the DGHS/State
Government will not in any manner affect the rights of minority
institutions to admit students of their respective minority community.
The minority quota seats, if any, in institutions run by minorities
will be filled up by minority students only. Therefore, the rights of
minority institutions are fully protected. Needless to say this
arrangement will not apply to the States of Andhra Pradesh,
Telangana and Jammu & Kashmir. As far as the other States are
concerned, needless to say, this arrangement shall apply to all the
colleges unless this Court has passed any different or separate
order.”
36. In YatinkumarJasubhai Patel (supra), the Court held that
introduction of NEET does not affect the 50% State quota seat in PG
medicine course. The Court also considered Section 10D of the Act of
1956 and regulations as amended by MCI. It opined as under:
“9.4.
However, it is the case on behalf of the petitioners that in
view of the introduction of the NEET Scheme and in view of
Section 10-D of the MCI Act, by which admissions are to be
given on the basis of merit in the NEET, such an “institutional
preference” would not be permissible. It is required to be noted
that introduction of the NEET has, as such, nothing to do with any
preference/institutional preference, more particularly the
“institutional preference” as approved by this Court time and again.
The purpose and object of the introduction of NEET was to
conduct a uniform entrance examination for all medical educational
institutions at the undergraduate level or postgraduate level and
admissions at the undergraduate level and postgraduate level are
to be given solely on the basis of the merits and/or marks obtained
in the NEET examination only. It is required to be noted that earlier
the respective universities including Gujarat University used to
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE ASSOCIATION
v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
610
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
hold examination for postgraduate admission to medical courses
and now instead of such tests by Gujarat University/universities
concerned, merit is to be determined on the basis of the NEET
examination results only and admissions are required to be given
on the basis of such merits or marks obtained in NEET. The only
obligation by virtue of introduction of NEET is that, once centralised
admission test is conducted, the State, its agencies, universities
and institutions cannot hold any separate test for the purpose of
admission to postgraduate and PG and diploma courses and such
seats are to be filled up by the State agencies, universities/
institutions for preparing merit list as per the score obtained by
the applicants in NEET examination and therefore by introduction
of NEET, Section 10-D of the MCI Act has been amended,
consequently amendment to the Post-Graduate Education
Regulations, 2000, admission to postgraduate courses are made
providing for solely on the basis of the score secured by the
candidates seeking admission based on centralised examination
i.e. NEET.
9.5. Even while giving admissions in the State quota/institutional
reservation quota, still the admissions are required to be given on
the basis of the merits determined on the basis of the NEET
examination results. Under the circumstances, introduction of the
NEET Scheme, as such, has nothing to do with the “institutional
preference”. Therefore, the
change by introduction of the NEET
Scheme shall not affect the institutional preference/reservation
as approved by this Court from time to time in a catena of decisions,
more particularly the decisions referred to hereinabove. Under
the guise of introduction of the NEET Scheme, the petitioners
cannot be permitted to re-agitate and/or reopen the issue with
respect to institutional preference which has been approved and
settled by this Court in a catena of decisions, more particularly
the decisions referred to hereinabove.”
37. 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
611
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 (supra) 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
(supra) rendered by 11-Judge Bench is juxtaposedto the submission raised
on behalf of petitioners.
38. In P.A. Inamdar (supra), 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 (supra) 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. We cannot
restore overall derogatory situation which prevailed before introduction
of NEET.  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.
39. In Faculty Association of All India Institute of Medical
Sciences v. Union of India and Ors., (2013) 11 SCC 246, concerning
issue of reservation in super-speciality, the Court opined:
“22. Although the matter has been argued at some length, the
main issue raised regarding reservation at the superspeciality level
has already been considered in Indra Sawhney case, 1992 Supp
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE ASSOCIATION
v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
612
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
(3) SCC 217, by a nine-Judge Bench of this Court. Having regard
to such decision, we are not inclined to take any view other than
the view expressed by the nine-Judge Bench on the issue. Apart
from the decisions rendered by this Court in Jagadish Saran
case, (1980) 2 SCC 768 and Pradeep Jain case, (1984) 3 SCC
654, the issue also fell for consideration in Preeti Srivastava case,
(1999) 7 SCC 120, which was also decided by a Bench of five
Judges. While in Jagadish Saran case, (1980) 2 SCC 768 and in
Pradeep Jain case, (1984) 3 SCC 654, it was categorically held
that there could be no compromise with merit at the superspeciality
stage, the same sentiments were also expressed in Preeti
Srivastava case, (1999) 7 SCC 120, as well.
23. In Preeti Srivastava case, (1999) 7 SCC 120, the Constitution
Bench had an occasion to consider Regulation 27 of the Post
Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh
Regulations, 1967, whereby 20% of seats in every course of study
in the institute was to be reserved for candidates belonging to the
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or other categories of
persons, in accordance with the general rules of the Central
Government promulgated from time to time. The Constitution
Bench came to the conclusion that Regulation 27 could not have
any application at the highest level of superspeciality as this would
defeat the very object of imparting the best possible training to
selected meritorious candidates, who could contribute to the
advancement of knowledge in the field of medical research and
its applications. Their Lordships ultimately went on to hold that
there could not be any type of relaxation at the superspeciality
level.
24. In para 836 of the judgment in Indra Sawhney case, 1992
Supp (3) SCC 217, it was observed that while the relevance and
significance of merit at the stage of initial recruitment cannot be
ignored, it cannot also be ignored that the same idea of reservation
implies selection of a less meritorious person. It was also observed
that at the same time such a price would have to be paid if the
constitutional promise of social justice was to be redeemed.
However, after making such suggestions, a note of caution was
introduced in the very next paragraph in the light of Article 15 of
the Constitution. A distinction was, however, made with regard to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
613
the provisions of Article 16 and it was held that Article 335 would
be relevant and it would not be permissible not to prescribe any
minimum standard at all. Of course, the said observation was
made in the context of admission to medical colleges and reference
was also made to the decision in State of M.P. v. Nivedita Jain,
(1981) 4 SCC 296, where admission to medical courses was
regulated by an entrance test. It was held that in the matter of
appointment of medical officers, the Government or the Public
Service Commission would not be entitled to say that there would
not be minimum qualifying marks for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled
Tribes candidates while prescribing a minimum for others. In the
very next paragraph, the nine-Judge Bench while discussing the
provisions of Article 335 also observed that there were certain
services and posts where either on account of the nature of duties
attached to them or the level in the hierarchy at which they stood,
merit alone counts. In such situations, it cannot be advised to
provide for reservations. In the paragraph following, the position
was made even more clear when Their Lordships observed that
they were of the opinion that in certain services in respect of
certain posts, application of rule of reservation may not be
advisable in regard to various technical posts including posts in
superspeciality in medicine, engineering and other scientific and
technical posts.”
(emphasis supplied)
The Court directed the Union
of India to take appropriate steps in
accordance with views expressed in the case of Dr.Preeti Srivastava
and Anr. v. State of M.P. and Ors. (1999) 7 SCC 120.
40. In Re TheKerala Education Bill (supra), it was opined that
minority could not ask for aid and recognition of educational institution,
when such institutions are recognized it would be open to make the
institution retaining its character as effective as an educational institution
without destroying its minority character for the purpose as enshrined in
Article 30. The institution has to be an effective vehicle of education for
all concerned.
41. In Gandhi Faiz-e-am College, Shahjahanpur (supra), it
was opined that regulation which imposes restrictions is bad; but regulation
which facilitates is good. We find that in Frank Anthony Public School
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE ASSOCIATION
v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
614
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
Employees’ Association (supra) it has been observed that institution
has to be an effective vehicle of education for the minority community
or other persons who resort to it. There cannot be any complaint of
invasion of the fundamental right to administer the institution when it
denies the members of its staff the opportunity to achieve the very object.
The Court observed that minorities have no right to maladminister. 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.
42. In T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra), this Court opined that
State maintained or aided educational institutions, whether established
by the Government or the majority or a minority community cannot deny
admission to a citizen on the grounds only of religion, race, caste or
language. While considering the issueIn Re
TheKerala Education Bill
(supra), it was observed that the right of the private training colleges to
admit students of their choice was severely restricted. It further observed
that the right under Article 30(1) is not so absolute as to prevent the
State from making any regulation whatsoever. The Government cannot
be prevented from framing regulations that are in the national interest.
This Court observed that it is difficult to comprehend that right to the
religious or linguistic minorities are given by the Constitution, which would
enable them to establish and administer educational institutions in a manner
to conflict with the other Parts of the Constitution. 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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
615
43. In Brahmo Samaj Education Society (supra), it was held
that State could impose necessary conditions for proper maintenance of
standards of education and to check maladministration.
44. On behalf of the appellants, it was submitted that individual
autonomy is the concern of any Government. There should not be
interference to defeat the rights conferred by the Constitution. Reliance
has been placed on Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) in
which this Court held:
“20. There can be no doubt that the makers of our Constitution
wanted to ensure conditions favourable to the pursuit of happiness.
They certainly realized as Brandeis, J. said in his dissent in
Olmstead v. United States, 277 US 438, 471, the significance of
man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect and that
only a part of the pain, pleasure, satisfaction of life can be found
in material things and therefore they must be deemed to have
conferred upon the individual as against the Government a sphere
where he should be let alone.
21. “The liberal individualist tradition has stressed, in particular,
three personal ideals, to each of which corresponds a range of
‘private affairs’. The first is the ideal of personal relations; the
second, the Lockean ideal of the politically free man in a minimally
regulated society; the third, the Kantian ideal of the morally
autonomous man, acting on principles that he accepts as rational.
[See Benn, “Privacy, Freedom and Respect for
Persons” in J.
Pennock & J. Chapman. Eds., Privacy, Nomos XIII, 1, 15-16].”
23. Individual autonomy, perhaps the central concern of any
system of limited Government, is protected in part under our
Constitution by explicit constitutional guarantees. In the application
of the Constitution our contemplation cannot only be of what has
been but what may be. Time works changes and brings into
existence new conditions. Subtler and far reaching means of
invading privacy will make it possible to be heard in the street
what is whispered in the closet. Yet, too broad a definition of
privacy raises serious questions about the propriety of judicial
reliance on a right that is not explicit in the Constitution. Of course,
privacy primarily concerns the individual. It therefore relates to
and overlaps with the concept of liberty. The most serious advocate
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE ASSOCIATION
v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
616
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
of privacy must confess that there are serious problems of defining
the essence and scope of the right. Privacy interest in autonomy
must also be placed in the context of other rights and values.
24. Any right to privacy must encompass and protect the personal
intimacies of the home, the family, marriage, motherhood,
procreation and child rearing. This catalogue approach to the
question is obviously not as instructive as it does not give analytical
picture of the distinctive characteristics of the right of privacy.
Perhaps, the only suggestion that can be offered as unifying
principle underlying the concept has been the assertion that a
claimed right must be a fundamental right implicit in the concept
of ordered liberty.
25. Rights and freedoms of citizens are set forth in the Constitution
in order to guarantee that the individual, his personality, and those
things stamped with his personality shall be free from official
interference except where a reasonable basis for intrusion exists.
“Liberty against Government” a phrase coined by Professor
Corwin expresses this idea forcefully. In this sense, many of the
fundamental rights of citizens can be described as contributing to
the right to privacy.
26. As Ely says:
There is nothing to prevent one from using the word ‘privacy’ to
mean the freedom to live one’s life without governmental
interference. But the Court obviously does not so use the term.
Nor could it, for such
a right is at stake in every case.[See The
Wage of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade, 82 Yale LJ
920, 932].”
45. The reliance has also been placed on K.S. Puttaswamy and
Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., 2017 (10) SCC 1, the decision relating
to privacy in which this Court held:
“351. The Constitution of any country reflects the aspirations
and goals of the people of that country voiced through the language
of the few chosen individuals entrusted with the responsibility of
framing its Constitution. Such aspirations and goals depend upon
the history of that society. History invariably is a product of various
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
617
forces emanating from religious, economic, and political events1.
The degree of refinement of the Constitution depends upon the
wisdom of the people entrusted with the responsibility of framing
the Constitution. The constitution is not merely a document signed
by 284 Members of the Constituent Assembly. It is a politically
sacred instrument created by men and women who risked lives
and sacrificed their liberties to fight alien rulers and secured
freedom for our people, not only of their generation but generations
to follow. The Constitution cannot be seen as a document written
in ink to replace one legal regime by another. It is a testament
created for securing the goals professed in Preamble2. Part III of
the Constitution is incorporated to ensure the achievement of the
objects contained in the Preamble3. “We the People” of this
country are the intended beneficiaries4 of the Constitution. It must
be seen as a document written in the blood of innumerable martyrs
of Jalianwala Bagh and the like. Man is not a creature of the
State. Life and liberty are not granted by the Constitution.
Constitution only stipulates the limitations on the power of the
State to interfere with our life and liberty. Law is essential to
enjoy the fruits of liberty; it is not the source of liberty and
emphatically not the exclusive source.”
1However, various forced which go into the making of history are dynamic.  Those who
are entrusted with the responsibility of the working of
the Constitution must necessarily
keep track of the dynamics of such forces.  Evolution of science and growth of technology
is another major factor in the modern world which is equally a factor to be kept in mind
to successfully work the Constitution.
2Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225.
“91. … Our Preamble outlines the objectives of the whole Constitution.  It expresses
“what we had thought of dreamt for so long”.” (SCC p.323, para 91).
3Kerala Education Bill, 1957, In re, AIR 1958 SC 956
“5. … To implement and fortify these supreme purposes set forth in the Preamble, Part
III of our Constitution has provided for us certain fundamental rights.” (AIR p. 965,
para 5).
4Bidi Supply Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1956 SC 479
“23. After all, for whose benefit was the Constitution enacted? What was the point of
making all this bother about fundamental rights? I am clear that the Constitution is not
for the exclusive benefit of governments and States; it is only for lawyers and politicians
and officials and those highly placed. It also exists for the common man, for the poor
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE ASSOCIATION
v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
618
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
46. It was argued that certain colleges have produced doctors of
renowned fame, and they are an asset for India. There is no doubt about
it that doctors of international fame have been produced by various
institutions. They are an asset not only for India but also for the entire
humanity. They are pioneers in various fields of medical science such as
Oncology, Surgery, and other branches of medical science. But, when it
comes to the eradication of the malpractices that have crept into the
system, we have to take into consideration larger interest of the education
countrywide. The NEET has been prescribed by the Legislature in the
larger public interest that has to prevail. We find the provisions 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.
47. 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
and the humble, for those who have businesses at stake, for the “butcher, the baker and
the candlestick maker”. It lays down for this land “a rule of law” as understood in the
free democracies of the world. It constitutes India into a Sovereign Republic and
guarantees in every page rights and freedom to the side by side and consistent with the
overriding power of the State to act for the common good of all.” (AIR p.487, para 23)
[For convenience, citations have been renumbered.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
619
proportionality considered in Modern Dental College and Research
Centre (supra). What has been held therein for State level examination
holds good for NEET also.
48. 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 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, we find that 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.
49. In Secretary, Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T. Jose
and Ors., (2007) 1 SCC 386, Court considered T.M.A. Pai Foundation
(supra), and held that all laws made by the State to regulate the
administration of educational institutions and grant of aid will apply to
minority educational institutions also, but dilution of right under Article
30 is not permissible. The right under Article 30 is not above the law.
The regulations or conditions concerning the welfare of the students and
teachers should be made applicable to provide a proper academic
atmosphere.
50. In P.A. Inamdar (supra), the court opined that activities of
education are charitable. The educational institutions, both of a non-
minority and minority character, can be regulated and controlled so that
they do not indulge in selling seats of learning to make money. They can
be allowed to generate such funds as would be reasonably required to
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE ASSOCIATION
v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
620
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
run the institute and for its further growth. In P.A. Inamdar (supra), this
Court noted the difference between professional and non-professional
educational institutions. It observed that professional educational
institutions constitute a class by themselves and are distinguished from
educational institutions imparting non-professional education.  With respect
to unaided minority educational institutions, Article 30 of the
Constitution does not come in the way of the State stepping in for the
purpose of securing transparency and recognition of merit in the matter
of admissions, and the conditions of recognition are binding on such
institutions. In P.A. Inamdar (supra), the Court opined that the admissions
based on merit were in the national interest and strengthening the national
welfare.
51. In Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society (supra), the Court
held that minority institutions have a right to admit students of their choice
subject to reasonable restriction for the academic qualification and the
regulation, which will serve the interest of the students, can be imposed
for ensuring efficiency and fairness. Education is vital for the nation; it
develops the ethos of the nation. Regulations are necessary to see that
there are no divisive or disintegrating forces in administration.   It observed
that it is not reasonable to claim that minority institutions will have
complete autonomy. Some checks may be necessary
and will serve the
academic needs of the institution. A correlative duty of good administration
is attached to the right to administer educational institution.  It was also
opined in Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society (supra) in paragraph
19 quoted above that the State can prescribe regulations to ensure the
excellence of the institution that does not militate against the right of the
minority to administer the institutions. Such Regulations are not restrictions
on the substance of the right, which is guaranteed; they secure the proper
functioning of the institution. The institution cannot be allowed to fall
below the standards of excellence under the guise of the exclusive right
of the management. Minorities are as much part of the nation as the
majority, and anything that impinges upon national interest must
necessarily in its ultimate operation affect the interests of all.
52. It was further opined in Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College
Society (supra) in paragraph 94 quoted above that there are conditions
of affiliation or recognition of an educational institution, it is implicit in
the request for grant thereof that the educational institution would abide
by the regulations which are made by the authority granting affiliation
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
621
or recognition. When Government and MCI/DCI or concerned
Universities grant affiliation and recognition, the institutions are bound
by the conditions prescribed for affiliation and recognition. It has also
been observed that recognition or affiliation creates an interest in
the university to ensure that the educational institution is maintained for
the purpose intended and any Regulation which will subserve or advance
that purpose will be reasonable and no minority institution established
and administered by a religious or linguistic minority can claim
 recognition or affiliation without submitting to those regulations.
53. In view of the law laid down in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra),
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.
54. In Dr.Preeti Srivastava and Anr. v. State of M.P. and
Ors.(supra), it was opined that at super speciality level there cannot be
any reservation or lowering of the minimum qualifying marks. In Modern
Dental College and Research Centre (supra), considering various
malpractices, it was observed that education is being used as exploitative
financial device. Education is not a commodity to be purchased by money
power and deserving one as per merit cannot be deprived of the right to
obtain it. The State cannot remain a mute spectator, and it must step in
to prevent exploitation.
55. 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
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE ASSOCIATION
v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
622
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
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 we revert to the old system, 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.
56. In St. Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi (supra), it
was held that there has to be balancing of interest of rights of minorities.
It was observed
that 50% of the annual admission has to be given to the
members of communities other than the minority community on the basis
of merit. Regulations that serve the interest in standards of education
amongst the recognised institutions could validly be made. Such general
patterns and standards are the need, and such regulation shall not have
the effect of depriving the right of minorities to educate their children in
their own institution.
57. 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, we find 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. We
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
623
find that 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.
58. Thus, we are 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 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.
59. 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 regulatory measures in question are
for the improvement of the public health and is a step, in furtherance of
the directive principles enshrined in Articles 47 and 51(A)(j) and enable
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE ASSOCIATION
v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
624
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
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.
60. Resultantly, we hold that 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 ortaking 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). Accordingly, the transferred cases, appeal, and writ
petitions are disposed of.
Ankit Gyan
Matters disposed of.