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”. Incidentally, Justice Dave, who had dissented with the majority view in the 2013 order, was part of the five-judge Bench.
Advertisement
National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET) is back as Supreme Court of India on Monday allowed common test for admission in medical courses. A hearing held in 2013 by 3-Judge Bench then ruled the case in favour of private institutions and stalled the test from being conducted.
Late in 2015, the Union Health Ministry had also approved the MCI’s recommendation for an amendment to the Indian Medical Council Act, which would allow it to conduct the common entrance test, The Indian Express reported. The review petitions stand disposed of as allowed.
We are further told that Civil Appeal No. 4060 of 2009, involving similar issue is already pending before a larger Bench and therefore, we direct the Registry to place the papers before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India so that all the matters can be heard by one particular Bench at the earliest so that admissions for the ensuing academic session can be governed by the order that may be passed by this Court.
Medical Council of India (MCI) is all set to conduct a national level common medical entrance test, National Eligibility Entrance test (NEET) across the country.
SC has announced that NEET can be held for medical courses against the 2013 ruling.
The view of the then CJI was shared by Justice Vikramjit Sen, while Justice AR Dave had Disagreement and upheld the NEET, arguing that the policy was “legal” as it would stop corrupt practice which enabled undeserving candidates to get admissions by paying huge capitation fees or donations.
Advertisement
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.
