Christian Medical College Vellore V. Union Of India &Ors. (2020) - NEET for Admission in Minority Institutions


Court :
Supreme Court of India

Brief :
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. The rights to administer an institution under Article 30 of the Constitution are not above   the   law   and   other Constitutional provisions.    

Citation :
REFERENCE – (CIVIL) NO.98 OF 2012

  • JUDGEMENT SUMMARY –  Christian Medical College Vellore v. Union of India & Ors. 
  • DATE OF JUDGMENT – 29th April, 2020
  • JUDGES – Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah, JJ.

PARTIES – 

  • CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE ASSOCIATION         … PETITIONER(S) VERSUS
  •  UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS         … RESPONDENT(S)

SUBJECT

Four orders of amendment to the NEET exam at undergraduate and the post graduate level were appealed against. Initially, the questions were raised that MCI and DCI could not have introduced NEET as the same offends the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and the rights of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice as guaranteed under Article 30 Constitution of India.   Thus, subordinate legislation could not have overriding   effect   over   the   fundamental   rights   guaranteed   under Articles 25, 26, 29(1), and 30 of the Constitution of India

AN OVERVIEW 

1. The MCI issued notifications in exercise of power conferred by Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act of 1956’).  The amendments were made in the Regulation on Graduate Medical   Education,  1997.

2. The notifications issued by MCI and DCI providing for NEET were quashed.  However, the admissions, which were made, were not interfered with.   Review petitions were filed, which were entertained and   were   ultimately   allowed   on   11.4.2016,   and   judgment   dated 18.7.2013 was recalled

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

Articles 25, 26 and 30 of the Indian Constitution 

Article 25 – "all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion subject to public order, morality and health." 

Article 26 –  all denominations can manage their own affairs in matters of religion.

Article 30 – the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. It says: “All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.”

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT

1. The Court held that the choice of institution does not mean that the minorities could establish educational institution for the benefit of their own community people.  Every educational institution, irrespective of community to which it belongs, is a 'melting pot' in our national life and that there should be mixing up of students of different communities in all educational institutions.

2.  Some system   of   computing   equivalence   between   different   kinds   of qualifications like a common entrance test, would not be in violation of the rights conferred. The unaided minority institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India have the right to admit students, but the merit may be determined by common entrance test and the rights under Article 30(1) is not absolute so as to prevent the Government from making any regulations

3.  The Government cannot be prevented from framing regulations that are in national interest.  However, the safeguard is that the Government cannot discriminate any minority institution and put them in a disadvantageous position vis-a-vis to other educational  institutions  and   has  to   maintain   the   concept  of equality in real sense.  The minority institutions must be allowed to do what   non-minority   institutions   are   permitted

4. This Court observed that the activity of education is neither trade nor profession,  i.e., commercialisation and profiteering cannot be permitted.  It is open to impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of general public.  The education cannot be allowed to be a purely economic activity; it is a welfare activity aimed at achieving more   egalitarian   and   prosperous   society   to   bring   out   social transformation and upliftment of the nation.

CONCLUSION 

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. 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. 

To download the original copy of the judgment, click here

 

"Loved reading this piece by Priaanti Thaakre?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Click here to join our Telegram group.

Priaanti Thaakre
on 05 January 2021
Published in Others
Views : 500


 Recent Comments

Total: 0







×

Menu

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query
Forensics & Evidence     |    x