Article 30 NEET And Minority Institution Case – Free PDF Download

The NEET Judgement

• Christian Medical College Vellore Association v. Union of India and Others
• 3 judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran and M R Shah

Judgment date 29 April 2020

• The case was being heard by the Supreme Court after Christian Medical College Vellore and several other minority medical institutions, had challenged the requirement for them to also use NEET for admissions to their programmes.

AIPMT and NEET

The Timeline of the case

• 2012- A National Eligibility cum Entrance Test was brought to replace the AIPMT
• 2013 – NEET was initially struck down as unconstitutional in Christian Medical College, Vellore by a 2:1 majority.
• 2016 – 5-judge bench recalled the 2013 judgment in review, and opened the cases for fresh-hearing. The Court also permitted the conducting of NEET for admissions in the meantime.
• In 2016, the central government amended the Medical Council of India Act and the Dentists Act to make it compulsory for all colleges offering medical or dentistry courses to use NEET for admissions, which the minority institutions challenged in the apex court on the basis that this violated their constitutional right to run and administer educational institutions.

Article 19

• All citizens shall have the right

1. to freedom of speech and expression;
2. to assemble peaceably and without arms;
3. to form associations or unions;
4. to move freely throughout the territory of India;
5. to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and
6. omitted
7. to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business

• Article 25 – Freedom of Conscience and Free Profession, Practice and Propagation of Religion
• Article 26 – Every religious denomination or any of its section shall have the right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes.
• Article 29 provides that any section of the citizens residing in any part of India having a distinct language, script or culture of its own, shall have the right to conserve the same.

Article 30

• Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions
• All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice
• The state shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language.

Petitioner’s Arguments

• NEET is an assault on the autonomy of universities and higher education institutions, particularly private, unaided ones
• It also violated the fundamental rights of an unaided minority institution to “establish and administer educational institutions of their choice” protected under Article 30
• The unaided minority professional colleges have the fundamental rights to choose the method and manner to admit its students, subject to satisfying the triple test of having a fair, transparent, and non-exploitative process.
• Over-centralisation debate ?

Court’s Judgement

• “The rights under Article 19(1)(g) are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restriction in the interest of the student’s community to promote merit, recognition of excellence, and to curb the malpractices.
• Uniform Entrance Test qualifies the test of proportionality and is reasonable. The same is intended to check several maladies which crept into medical education, to prevent capitation fee by admitting students which are lower in merit and to prevent exploitation, profiteering, and commercialisation of education”.

Regarding Articles 29 and 30

• The rights of the religious or linguistic minorities under Article 30 are not in conflict with other parts of the Constitution. 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 uniform entrance examination cannot be said to be unreasonable regulatory framework.
• The provisions to be reasonable conditions of recognition/ affiliation are binding for the very existence of all such institutions whether they are run by majority or minority failing which they cannot exists and impart education.
• The conditions are reasonable and cannot be said to be taking away any of the constitutional rights of minority institutions.

Gist of the Verdict

• There is no violation of the rights of the unaided/aided minority to administer institutions under Articles 19(1) (g) and 30 read with Articles 25, 26 and 29(1) of the Constitution of India by prescribing the uniform examination of NEET for admissions to UG and PG medical/dental courses.

Latest Burning Issues | Free PDF

Sharing is caring!