NEET: AK Rajan Committee questions the manner in which SC made it mandatory

How NEET became mandatory has been explained in detail in the report of the Justice (retd) AK Rajan Committee. The panel, constituted to study the impact of NEET, among other things has given how the cases against it were dealt with in the Supreme Court in a manner that raises questions and is "per incuriam". While a 3-Judge Bench, by a 2-1 majority held NEET as unconstitutional, the review plea which upheld it was headed by Justice AR Dave, who gave the dissenting verdict earlier. According to the report, even statutory amendments conferring the power to MCI for conducting NEET were brought in only after the said judgment. The prime contention was that the states of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, who were parties, were not heard.

Chennai: Once again, the National Entrance Cum Eligibility Test (NEET) has come under scrutiny in Tamil Nadu. In the backdrop of three more suicides, this time the crusade against NEET is armed with the Justice Rajan Committee report, which has recommended its scraping. Besides other findings of the panel, what is of significance is that it provides a chronology of how NEET, which was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court earlier had been upheld as mandatory. As such, the panel maintains that the verdict appears to be a 'judgment per incuriam'.'

When the Medical Council of India (MCI) and the Dental Council of India issued notifications in December 2010, making NEET mandatory for UG medical programmes, the Christian Medical College, Vellore, had challenged them. A number of states including Tamil Nadu also approached the High Courts and all the cases were transferred to the Supreme Court. In July 2013, a three-Judge bench, by a majority of 2-1, declared that the notifications were void and 'ultra vires of the constitution'. Both the MCI and DCI have no power to regulate admissions to medical and dental colleges, the bench further made it clear.

The majority judgment read, “...we have no hesitation in holding that regulations are ultra vires the constitution, since they have the effect of denuding the States, State-run universities.” The dissenting judgment was given by Justice Anil R Dave. The MCI filed a review petition and by 2016, the two other judges had retired. And the plea came up before a five-judge bench headed by Dave, which recalled the 2013 judgment.

“We do not propose to give reasons in detail... Suffice it to mention that the majority view has not taken into consideration some binding precedents and more particularly, we find that there was no discussion among members of the Bench before pronouncement of the judgment,” the report quotes the verdict. However, the panel says that the CMC case could have been heard fully along with the case pertaining to the Modern Dental College (MDC) in Madhya Pradesh. This was not the end as the court battle extended further with one Sankalp Charitable Trust, filing a PIL seeking to conduct NEET for UG medical programmes throughout the country for the academic year 2016-17.

This case too came up for hearing before a three-judge bench led by Justice Dave in April 2016 and the matter was posted for hearing the very next day. And the order passed by the bench said with the judgment in the CMC having been recalled the notifications of both MCI and DCI were in operation and that holding NEET would not be improper. Thus NEET was made mandatory.

Bringing out a contradiction, the report says that in the MDC case the court had in May 2016 held that MCI was not empowered to conduct entrance examination etc., for admission of students since it required parliamentary legislation. But, Sections 10D and Section 33 of the MCI Act, were amended through an Ordinance only in May 2016, conferring the power to hold entrance examinations. Ironically, this was a month after the Sankalp judgment, making NEET mandatory, was delivered.