Summary of Written Submission by MCI in Supreme Court
- 31.10.2002 This Hon'ble Court has pronounced its judgment in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002)8 SCC 481, in paragraph 68, inter alia, held that common entrance test for admission to private professional unaided minority/non minority institution is permissible and is in general public interest. This position of law has subsequently been reiterated in the case of Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 697.
- 12.08.2005 This Hon'ble Court not only reiterated the above position in the case of P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 6 SCC 537- Paras 133-138,but in addition held that a single-window system of admission to professional colleges throughout the country must be brought into existence. Relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted hereunder:
"136. Whether minority or non-minority institutions, there may be more than one similarly situated institutions imparting education in pny one discipline, in any State. The same aspirant seeking admission to take education in anyone discipline of education shall have to purchase admission forms from several institutions and appear at several admission tests conducted at different places on same or different dates and there may be a clash of dates. If the same candidate is required to appear in several tests, he would be subjected to unnecessary and avoidable expenditure and inconvenience. There is nothing wrong in an entrance test being held for one group of institutions imparting same or similar education. Such institutions situated in one State or in more than one State may join together and hold a common entrance test or the State may itself or through an agency arrange for holding of such test. Out of such common merit list, the successful candidates can be identified and chosen for being allotted to different institutions depending on the courses of study offered, the number of seats, the kind of minority to which the' institution belongs and other relevant factors. Such an agency conducting Common Entrance Test (CET, for short) must be one enjoying utmost credibility and expertise in the matter. This would better ensure the fulfilment of twin objects of transparency and merit. CET is necessary in the interest of achieving the said objectives and also for saving the student community from harassment and exploitation. Holding of such common entrance test followed by centralized counselling or, in other words, single window system regulating admissions does not cause any dent in the right of minority unaided educational institutions to admit students of their choice. Such choice can be exercised from out of list of successful candidates prepared by the CET without altering the order."
- VII. OTHER SUBMISSIONS-
22. That argument of some of the minority institutions that NEET Regulations are also in violation of their constitutional rights under Article 25 of the Constitution is wholly misconceived as Article 25 only confers the freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion. It is submitted that medical education, which is secular education, is not at all covered under the said freedoms and as such the regulation thereof does not even remotely affect the freedoms guaranteed for free conscience, freedom of practice, profession and propagation of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution. It has categorically been held by this Hon'ble Court while interpreting rights of minorities under Articles 29 & 30 of the Constitution that it is under the latter provisions the right to establish and administer educational institutions imparting secular education, including professional education has been granted to minorities, which can always be regulated in national interest by the State.
23. The Regulations of NEET provide that in admission Medical Courses the State policies regarding reservation etc. will be applicable as per the existing Rules/Regulations/policy of the concerned State Government. The NEET Regulations do not interfere with the jurisdiction vested in the State Government regarding reservation. Therefore, it is a misconception that the NEET will prejudice the policy of reservation effective in different States. Similarly, the unaided professional medical colleges/ institutions including the minority institutions are also free to admit students of their respective minorities from amongst the merit list of NEET as per their inter se academic merit. Thus, it is also a misconception that the NEET in any manner prejudice or affect the rights of minorities in admitting the students of their own minority community. In that respect the already existing rules and regulations which such minority communities are following at present will be applicable on them.
It is submitted that MCI has been receiving every year large number of complaint regarding the manner and mode in which the common entrance tests have been conducted by Association of Pvt. Medical College, deemed universities and other authorities and NEET is resigned to readdress the grievances and mitigate such malpractice which result in overlooking of merit.