SC recalls its controversial 2013 verdict on medical entrance

April 11, 2016

New Delhi, Apr 11: In a significant order, Supreme Court today recalled its controversial judgement scrapping single common entrance test (NEET) for admission to MBBS, BDS and PG courses in all medical colleges, saying it was delivered by a majority verdict without any discussion among members of the bench headed by then Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir on the day of his retirement.

Supreme-Court

A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Justice A R Dave were unanimous in saying that the July 18, 2013, 2:1 verdict of the three-judge bench, which had paved the way for private colleges to conduct their own examination, "needs reconsideration" as "the majority view has not taken into consideration some binding precedents".

"Suffice it is 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 the members of the Bench before pronouncement of the judgment," the apex court said.

"We, therefore, allow these review petitions and recall the judgment dated July 18, 2013 and direct that the matters be heard afresh. The review petitions stand disposed of as allowed," it said.

Justice Dave in the 2013 verdict had given a dissenting verdict, while Justice Vikramjit Sen (since retired) had shared the views and findings of then CJI Kabir on the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET).

The verdict, delivered on the day when CJI Kabir demitted office, had created a buzz in the apex court corridors as an advocate had posted on a social networking site about the outcome in advance. Interestingly, Justice Dave then too in his dissenting judgement had said the three judges of the bench "had no discussion on the subject due to paucity of time" which is normally done.

Allowing the petitions seeking review of the controversial 2013 judgement, the bench also comprising justices A K Sikri, R K Agrawal, Adarsh Kumar Goel and R Banumathi ordered the petitions filed by Christian Medical College, Vellore and others, on which the verdict was delivered, "be heard afresh".

However, the bench said it was not giving detailed reasons for reconsideration of the three-year-old verdict so that the matter can be heard afresh without any prejudice.

"After giving our thoughtful and due consideration, we are of the view that the judgment delivered in Christian Medical College (supra) needs reconsideration. We do not propose to state reasons in detail at this stage so as to see that it may not prejudicially affect the hearing of the matters," the five-judge bench said.

While passing the order, the bench noted it was keeping in mind the observations appearing in the Constitution Bench judgment of the court in Sheonandan Paswan case. The review petitions were first placed before a three- judge bench which on October 23, 2013 had issued notices and later preferred to refer the matter to the five-judge bench.

The majority verdict of July 2013 had held that the common entrance test for admission in medical colleges "violates the rights of state and private institutions" and is likely to have a fallout as such tests are conducted for other professional courses like engineering and management.

While then CJI Kabir and Justice Sen had quashed the notifications for NEET, Justice Dave had dissented saying the policy was "legal" and it would stop corrupt practice of undeserving students getting admission by paying huge donation or capitation fee.

The majority verdict had said that common test seems "attractive" but it is "fraught with difficulties" and would "perpetuate" divide between urban and rural students in the name of giving credit to merit.

It had quashed the notifications issed by the Medical Council of India (MCI) and the Dental Council Of India (DCI) by which admissions to MBBS, BDS and Post-graduate courses to medical colleges were to be made solely on the basis of NEET and States and privately-run institutions were prevented from conducting any separate examination.

Justice Dave in his dissenting judgement had said the NEET was not only legal but practical and is the need of the society for ensuring more transparency and less hardship to the students eager to join the medical profession.

"If only one examination in the country is conducted and admissions are given on the basis of the result of the said examination, in my opinion, unscrupulous and money-minded businessmen operating in the field of education would be constrained to stop their corrupt practices and it would help a lot, not only to the deserving students but also to the nation in bringing down the level of corruption," Dave had said.

The majority verdict had said that enforcing a common entrance test would have "the effect of denuding the State and private institutions, both aided and unaided, some enjoying the protection of Article 30 (Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions), of their powers to admit students in the MBBS, BDS and the Postgraduate Courses conducted by them".

The CJI and Justice Sen had said that policy of common entrance test directly affects the right of private colleges, particularly minority institutions, to admit students of their choice and that MCI was not empowered to conduct the NEET.

Justice Dave had said that there was no violation of fundamental rights of state and private colleges including minority institution by NEET which would ensure that "no extraneous consideration would come into play in the process of selection".

Justice Dave had said that NEET is not only legal but "a boon to the students aspiring to join medical profession", adding that NEET would ensure that students are selected only on the basis of merit and there is no discrimination.

"The process of selection (through NEET) would not be influenced by irrelevant factors like caste and creed, community, race, lineage, gender, social or economic standing, place of residence – whether rural or urban, influence of wealth or power and admission would be given only to the students who really deserve to be well qualified physicians or dentists. Thus, there would not be any discrimination or influence in the process of selection," he had said.

The CJI, however, had opined that NEET would not be able to provide level-playing fields to students belonging to different strata and regions.

"It cannot also be disputed that children in metropolitan areas enjoy greater privileges than their counterparts in most of the rural areas as far as education is concerned, and the decision of the Central Government to support a single entrance examination would perpetuate such divide in the name of giving credit to merit.

"In a single window competition, the disparity in educational standards in different parts of the country cannot ensure a level playing field," they said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
December 21,2025

hadith.jpg

Invoking the teachings of Prophet Muhammad—“pay the worker before his sweat dries”—the Madras High Court has directed a municipal corporation to settle long-pending legal dues owed to a former counsel. The court observed that this principle reflects basic fairness and applies equally to labour and service-related disputes.

Justice G. R. Swaminathan made the observation while hearing a petition filed by advocate P. Thirumalai, who claimed that the Madurai City Municipal Corporation failed to pay him legal fees amounting to ₹13.05 lakh. Earlier, the High Court had asked the corporation to consider his representation. However, a later order rejected a major portion of his claim, prompting the present petition.

The court allowed Thirumalai to approach the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and submit a list of cases in which he had appeared. It also directed the corporation to settle the verified fee bills within two months, without interest. The court noted that the petitioner had waited nearly 18 years before challenging the non-payment and that the corporation could not be fully blamed, as the fee bills were not submitted properly.

‘A Matter of Embarrassment’

Justice Swaminathan described it as a “matter of embarrassment” that the State has nearly a dozen Additional Advocate Generals. He observed that appointing too many law officers often leads to unnecessary allocation of work and frequent adjournments, as government counsel claim that senior officers are engaged elsewhere.

He expressed hope that such practices would end at least in the Madurai Bench of the High Court and added that Additional Advocate Generals should “turn a new leaf” from 2026 onwards.

‘Scandalously High Amounts’

While stating that the court cannot examine the exact fees paid to senior counsel or law officers, Justice Swaminathan stressed that good governance requires public funds to be used prudently. He expressed concern over the “scandalously high amounts” paid by government and quasi-government bodies to a few favoured law officers.

In contrast, the court noted that Thirumalai’s total claim was “a pittance” considering the large number of cases he had handled.

Background

Thirumalai served as the standing counsel for the Madurai City Municipal Corporation for more than 14 years, from 1992 to 2006. During this period, he represented the corporation in about 818 cases before the Madurai District Courts.

As the former counsel was unable to hire a clerk to obtain certified copies of judgments in all 818 cases, the court directed the District Legal Services Authority to collect the certified copies within two months. The court further ordered the corporation to bear the cost incurred by the DLSA and deduct that amount from the final settlement payable to the petitioner.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.