Civil Appeal No. 2383 of 2020
Hon’ble Judges/Coram:
Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran, and M.R. Shah, JJ.
Decided On: 29.04.2020
Facts:
A notification was provided by the MCI ( medical council of India ) and DCI ( dental council of India ) that from now onwards the candidates will be selected through a centralized national entrance examination known as National – Eligibility – cum – Entrance Test ( NEET). This notification was totally based on the section 10D of the Act of 1956. This entrance was for the MBBS Course and the Post-graduate Course and for BDS and MDS. This provision was challenged in the court by saying that the fundamental rights assured under article 19 (1) (g), 25, 26, 29 (1), and 30 of the Constitution of India.
Also, it was said that the unaided minority professional colleges have the right to conduct their own examination for the selection of candidates. The power of the state was also challenged by saying that the state has no power to impel every minority colleges to adopt a centralized national entrance examination.
Issue
whether by providing centralized examination system – NEET for admission to MBBS, PG, BDS and MDS by the integrity of the provisions made in the Act and Regulations, there is a contravention of the fundamental rights assured under Article 19(1) (g), 25, 26, 29(1) and 30 of the constitution of India.
Judgement:
• The Supreme Court held that mandating the centralized national entrance examinations is a sensible decision taken by the authorities because it will enhance merit, promote excellence, and will repress the wrongdoings of the admission criteria.
• It was also held by the honorable supreme court that section 19 (1) (g) has reasonable restrictions for the students only. Also, the unaided or aided minority institutions are equally responsible to respect the provisions made by the respected authorities. There is no right given to the citizens for blundering the national interest.
• In Bihar State Madarasa Education Board, Patna v. Madarasa Hanfia Arabic College, Jamalia and Ors. The Court held that minorities have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their own choice. Still, they have no right to maladminister, and the State has the power to regulate the management and administration of such institutions in the interest of educational need and discipline of the institution. The Supreme Court adjudicated the same in this case.
• The aforesaid decision does indicate that the right Under Article 30(1) is not so absolute as to prevent the Government from making any regulation whatsoever.
Impact:
The impact would be that the students now have more opportunities as more seats are available. Also, it will ensure that the institution run by minorities does not disobey the decisions of the government and that the minorities are granted a limited amount of discretion to use it.
