CASE ANALYSIS

OF

MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA V. CHRISTIAN

MEDICAL COLLEGE, VELLORE

BY :-

HARSH VARDHAN GUPTA

SECOND YEAR

AMITY UNIVERSITY, NOIDA

MOB.: - 7011854073, 9868148721

EMAIL: [email protected]
 BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

This case involves around four notifications. Two notifications were issued by Medical Council
of India (MCI) on 21.12.2010 & the other two notifications were issued by Dental Council of
India (DCI) on 31.05.2012. The notifications were released by the MCI and DCI respectively led
to changes in the regulation orders. The first two notifications by MCI led to the amendments in
1997 Regulations on Graduate Medical Education. This amendment led to the introduction of
National eligibility-cum-entrance Test (NEET). All the MBBS admissions will be through the
NEET. Through these notifications the minimum percentage required for admission for general
categories were restricted to 50% marks in each exam of NEET. But there was some relaxation
for SC, ST and OBC subject to the rules & regulations of the concerned States/Union territories.
Before this amendment each college has its own regulations for admissions. The minority-run
colleges have the rights to maintain separate rules for the upliftment of their minority
community.

But after the implementation of NEET the minority education institutions felt that their
fundamental rights are being violated as they have lost the right to administer the admission
procedure.

FACTS IN ISSUE

Medical Council of India, herein petitioner, has filed a review petition against the judgement of
Supreme Court in Christian Medical College, Vellore V. Union of India whereby the court
struck down the NEET as in violation of fundamental rights of the minorities. In the above
mentioned case it was ruled that the notifications which brought ‘Regulations on Graduate
Medical (Amendment) 2010 Part II & Post Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) 2010 Part
II were ultra vires the provisions of Articles 19(1)(g), 25, 26(a), 29(1) and 30(1) of the
Constitution’.1 Though it was contended in the judgement that the NEET would be beneficial to
the medical students as they won’t have to separate exams in each state the Medical Council and
Union Government has contended that NEET was planned in the national interest.

1
Christian Medical College Vellore & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors (2014) 2 SCC (305)
 PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT

1. The invention of NEET is in violation of the fundamental rights established & protected
under article 19(1) g.
2. NEET violates the fundamental rights of religious & linguistic minorities guaranteed
under article 30 of the constitution.
3. MCI being a creation of statute strikes at the core of the fundamental rights of the
minorities.
4. The impugned regulations through statutory power takes away the legislative power of
the state legislation as it deprives them the power to regulate admission procedure.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT

1. The MCI has power to prevail over state enactment under the Entry 66 of List 1 of
Seventh Schedule.
2. MCI has the powers to regulate regulations for the conduct of professional examinations
and admissions procedure under section 33(1) of the Medical Council of India Act, 1956.
3. Provisions of furnishing draft regulations under section 19A (2) of the Medical Council
of India Act, 1956 were directory, not mandatory.
4. The regulations are in the national interest and it do not violate or adversely affect the
article 30.

MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA

The Medical Council of India Act, 1956 came in to enforcement on December 30, 1956. Before
that the Medical Council of India was established under Indian Medical Council Act, 1933. Due
to inadequacy of the act it was repealed. The main function of the medical council was to
establish ‘the uniform standards of higher qualifications in medicine & recognition of medical
qualifications in India & abroad. The Act of 1956 was further amended in 1964, 1993 & 2001.2

Under the Act the council is authorized to maintain a pan-India register i.e. Indian Medical
Register. The Medical Council of India has been defined in section 2(b) of the Act. The Act
provides the Medical Council of India as a corporate body with the name of Medical Council of
2
MCIINDIA.ORG/about us<www.mciindia.org/ActivitiWebClient/aboutus/introduction>
India, having perpetual succession and a common seal, with the powers to acquire property, both
movable and immovable, and to be sued or sue by the said name.3

Section 10A lays down the procedure for permission to establish new medical colleges. Under
the said section, neither a person is entitled to establish a medical college nor is a medical college
authorized to establish a higher course of study or increase in the capacity of the admission in the
college.4

Section 10D lays down the establishment of a ‘uniform entrance examination to all medical
institutions at undergraduate level and post-graduate level.’ 5 This section was added by
amendment Act 39 of 2016.

Section 19A lays down the minimum standards of medical education. In clause 2 of the section
that the council shall furnish the draft regulations bill to all the state governments. Moreover the
council shall take into consideration comments from state governments. Under section 20 the
Council is empowered to prescribe standards & to make committee to ensure the professional
standards in postgraduate courses.

The section 33(l) of the Medical Council of India Act, 1956 empowers the Council to make
regulations, with the sanction of the Central government, “regarding the conduct of professional
examinations, qualifications of examiners and the conditions of admission to such examinations”
Then said notifications brought by Medical Council of India were administered and executed
under the powers of Section 33 of the 1956 Act. The procedure for admission in MBBS course
shall be conducted through National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) is the major
amendment brought in the undergraduate course & no student will be allowed to take admission
in the MBBS course.6 In the same way an amendment was executed for the post graduate courses
in MBBS. The student for post graduate courses will get admission according to their merit in
NEET. 7

3
MCI Act, 1956 S.6
4
MCI Act, 1956 S.10A Clause 1
5
MCI Act, 1956
6
Medical Council of India notification No. MCI-31(1)/2010-Med./49068
7
Medical Council of India notification No. MCI-18(1)/2010-Med/49070
 FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

The Indian constitution has conferred some basic fundamental rights upon the minorities whether
be it linguistic or religious. Minorities are protected under the right to freedom of religion &
cultural & educational rights to the minorities.

Articles 25, 26, 29 & 30 are enshrined as fundamental principles of the Constitution. Moreover
article 19(1)g is also put under question in this case.

ARTICLE 19

Article 19 confers “right to freedom of speech and expression”; “to assemble peaceably and
without arms”; “to form associations or unions”; “to move freely throughout the territory of
India”; “to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India” and “to practice any profession
or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.”

In P.A. Inamdar V. State of Maharashtra8 it was held that establishing the educational
institutions and administering its rules and regulations as an occupation is protected and
guaranteed Article 19(1)g of the Constitution. Furthermore, the right of minorities to establish
educational institutions under Article 30 has to be read with Article 19(1)g of the Construction.

ARTICLE 25

Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience & the right to free profession, to practice & to
propagate their religion. The State does not restrict the fundamental rights of minorities as
“secularism is the basic feature of the constitution”. 9 But when National Curriculum Framework
for Secondary Education issued new curriculum that involves imparting value education,
Supreme Court held it valid as it does not violates the fundamental concept of secularism. 10

In Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras V. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri

Shirur Mutt,11 it was held by the Supreme Court that “Article 25 of the Constitution, protects

8
AIR 2005 SC 3226
9
S.R. Bommai. V. Union of India AIR 1994 SC (1918)
10
Aruna Roy V. Union of India AIR2002 SC (2773).
11
1954 SCR (1005)
not only the freedom of religious opinion, but also acts done in pursuance of religious beliefs, as
is clear from the expression "practice of religion".”

Article 25 does not provide absolute right to the religious minorities. These rights are subject to
the restrictions in case of public order, morality & health. This article also does not restrict the
State to operate under any existing law any economic, financial, political or secular activity.
Therefore, it was held by the Supreme Court that the state is empowered to prohibit the slaughter
of cows on Bakra Id as it was not an essential part of their religious activity. 12 It was again held
in another case, when an appeal was filed in the Supreme court against the judgement of West
Bengal High Court, that state is authorized to prohibit the animal slaughter on Bakra Id. 13

ARTICLE 26

Article 26 confers freedom to manage religious affairs subject to public order, morality & health.
This article bestow four rights upon minorities namely the right to establish & maintain
institutions for religious and charitable purposes; right to manage its own affairs in matters of
religion; right to own & acquire movable & immovable property; & right to administer such
property in accordance with law. The right conferred under article 26 is of an organised body. 14
Education is also recognised as a charity, therefore minorities have the right to establish &
manage their institutions for religious & charitable purpose. 15 Only those institutions which are
established & maintained by minority are protected under article 26(a). A university, Aligarh
Muslim University, which is established under the statute isn’t protected under article 26(a). 16

ARTICLE 29

Article 29 confers right of protection of interests of minorities. Under clause 1, minorities have
the right to conserve their language or culture. Under clause 2, no person shall be denied to
admission in any educational institutions, maintained by the state or receiving state funds, on the
basis of caste, religion, race, language or any of them. An order of Madras Government to

12
Mohd. Hanief Qureshi V. State of Bihar AIR 1958 SC (731)
13
State of W.B. V. Ashutosh Lahiri AIR 1995 SC (464)
14
Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional law of India, (56th edition pg. 418)
15
T.M.A. Pai Foundation V. State of Karnataka AIR 2003 SC (355)
16
Azeez Basha v. Union of India AIR 1968 SC (662).
restrict the admission of students, into the state medical engineering colleges, to a certain number
on the basis of religion was held invalid in the Supreme Court.17

ARTICLE 30

Article 30 states the rights of minorities to establish & administer educational institutions. Under
article 30(1) all religious and linguistic minorities have the right to establish & administer their
own educational institutions. Under article 30(3), the minority institution is protected from any
kind of discrimination in giving aid to any minority education institution.

In St. Stephens College V. University of Delhi,18 the admission programme ‘s preference to the
Christian Students were challenged in the Supreme Court. It was argued as it was against the
policies of Delhi University circulars for the admission of B.A. & B.Com courses. The Delhi
University has issued circulars that admissions should be merit based in the qualifying exam. But
Supreme Court held that the college is not obliged to follow the admission circular as it will
deprive minority character of the college. The minority aided education institutions may preserve
50% seats for their community students and may give them preference over other students in
order to preserve their minority community.

In T.M.A. Pai Foundation V. State of Karnataka,19 it was argued through various petitions
that government is exercising unnecessary control over minority unaided education institutions
through various rules & regulations. It was submitted by the petitioners that this unnecessary
encroachment is hampering the quality of education. A Constitution Bench of 11 judges of
Supreme Court held that “the state governments cannot regulate the admission policy of unaided
minority education institutions. State governments and universities can only specify academic
qualifications & make rules & regulations for maintaining education standards.”

In Dr. Dinesh Kumar Vs. Motilal Nehru Medical Colleges, Allahabad & Ors. 20 it held that it
should be left on to the discretion of state governments to either accept & adopts or reject the
National eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) which is proposed by the Medical Council of
India as an admission criterion.
17
State of Madras v. Champakan Doraijan AIR 1951 SC (226)
18
St. Stephens College V. University of Delhi (1992) 1 SCC (558)
19
T.M.A. Pai Foundation V. State of Karnataka AIR 2003 SC (355)
20
Dr. Dinesh Kumar Vs. Motilal Nehru Medical Colleges, Allahabad & Ors (1985) 3 SCC (727)
In Islamic Academy of Education V. State of Karnataka, 21 a seven judge bench of the
Supreme Court’s judges solved issues relating to the fee structure and admission procedure of the
minority education institutions. The case led to the setting up of committees to check upon &
approve the fee structure of minority education institutions & the other committee to check upon
the admission tests conducted by the minority education institution. It also led to the fixation of
‘quota’ for admissions in case of unaided educational institutions.

In P.A. Inamdar V. State of Maharashtra,22 it was argued that restricting the minority unaided
educations institutions’ authorities from the right to regulate admission & fee structure aren’t a
reasonable restriction under article 19(6). A 7 Judge bench of Supreme Court Judges were there
in the matter. “They held that private unaided education institutions cannot be forced to accept
reservation policy of the state.” Unaided education institutions may have their own admissions
systems with fairness, transparent & non exploitative measures. The Court also held that the
charging of capitation fee shall not to be permitted. “The right to establish and administer
education institution within the meaning of article 30(1) of the Constitution includes the right to
the fixed reasonable fees.”

PROVISIONS IN THE SCHEDULE OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

The entries which are governed by the Article 246 of the Indian Constitution are listed in the
Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Entry no. 66 in the List I states “Co-ordination &
determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research & scientific &
technical institutions.”

Entry no. 10 of List II, omitted by the Constitution (Forty Second Amendment Act), 1976 was
transferred to the List III. Entry no. 25 of list III which was substituted by Constitution (Third
Amendment) Act, 1954 includes Education including technical education, medical education
and Universities, subject to the provision of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I.

In State of Orissa V. M.A. Tulloch & Co.23 “a denudation of the power of the State legislature
can be effected only by a plenary legislation and not by subordinate legislation. The Regulations,

21
Islamic Academy of Education V. State of Karnataka AIR 2007 SC (3724)
22
P.A. Inamdar V. State of Maharashtra AIR 2005 SC (3236)
23
State of Orissa V. M.A. Tulloch & Co (1964) 4 SCR (461)
which are not plenary in character, but have the effect of denuding the power of the State
legislature, are, therefore, ultra vires.”

In Preeti Srivastava V. State of M.P.24 it was held that the Union legislature has the powers to
legislate on the List III Entry 25, while interpreting the scope of Entry 66 List I.

In Medical Council of India V. State of Karnataka, 25 it was held that the Medical Council of
India Act, 1956 is traceable to Entry 66 of List I and “it will prevail over the state enactments o
the extent the State enactment is repugnant to the provisions of the Act, even though the State
Acts may be relatable to Entry 25 or 26 of the Concurrent List.

In Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed University) and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 26 it
was held that the prescribing standards shall include the admission procedure. Hence if the
Medical Council of India makes regulations to regulate the standard if education, the Council has
to frame rules for admission process too. This decision of the Supreme Court was followed in
Prof. Yashpal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh [(2005) 5 SCC 420]; State of M.P. Vs. Gopal D.
Teerthani [(2003) 7 SCC 83], Harish Verma Vs. Rajesh Srivastava [(2003) 8 SCC 69] and in
Medical Council of India Vs. Rama Medical College Hospital & Research Centre [(2012) 8 SCC
80].

In Gujarat University, Ahemadabad V. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar,27 the word

‘standard’ in the Entry 66 of List I was a very wide meaning by the Supreme Court. Therefore
anything concerned with the standard of education would be included only in Entry 66 of List I.

In MCI Vs. State of Karnataka,28 it was held that the widest amplitude shall be given to the
language of the entries in Schedule. Therefore the Council is authorized to make regulations for
the admission procedure under Entry 66 of List I.

In Veterinary Council of India Vs. Indian Council of Agricultural Research 29 the provision
of Veterinary Council of India to conduct All India Examination was questioned. It was held that

24
Preeti Srivastava V. State of M.P (1999) 7 SCC (120)
25
Medical Council of India V. State of Karnataka (1998) 6 SCC (131)
26
Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed University) and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr (2004) 11 SCC (755)
27
Gujarat University, Ahemadabad V. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar (1963) Supp. 1 SCR (112)
28
MCI Vs. State of Karnataka 1998 (6) SCC (131)
29
Veterinary Council of India Vs. Indian Council of Agricultural Research (2000) 1 SCC (750)
“the Veterinary Council of India was competent to and had the requisite powers to hold the All
India Entrance Examination.”

JUDGEMENT AT A GLANCE

In the case of Christian Medical College, Vellore V. Union of India, 30 it was held that the
amendments brought by the notifications through Medical Council of India and Dental Council
of India were held violative of Articles 19(1)(g), 25, 26(a), 29(1) and 30(1) of the Constitution.
Thus the NEET was struck down with the ratio of 2:1.

But on April 11, 2016 Medical Council of India V. Christian Medical College, Vellore &
Ors., review petition, was filed in the Supreme Court under civil appellate jurisdiction. This
review petition was allowed and the order for the same was issued. Therefore, NEET would be
conducted thereupon.

OVERVIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT

In CMC Vellore V. Union of India judgement, the rules and regulations which were framed by
the Medical Council of India and Dentist Council of India were held invalid served as gross
injustice to all the nation and medical students in India. The notifications were proved to be ultra
vires of the Articles namely 19(1)(g), 25, 26(a), 29(1) and 30(1) of the Constitution. There is a
clear cut need for further lucidity as NEET was brought in the national interest.

The Supreme Court has very well tried to uphold the rights of minorities to administer their
institution but they had forgotten miseries and difficulties a medical student has to face during
admission procedure.

But the learned judges of the Supreme Court in majority were of the view that the State and
University cannot regulate the admission procedure of the unaided minority education
institutions under the article 19(1)(g). But it is clearly mentioned that this article has no absolute
powers. Article 19(6) clearly states that State is authorized to implement any law which is
drafted in the interests of general public.

30
Christian Medical College, Vellore V. Union of India (2014) 2 SCC (305)
The Supreme Court has protected the rights of minorities through disentitling the State to
encroach upon the right to educational institution and right to administer the institution. The
Court has acted as the savior of the fundamental rights. But the court was not able to fully
answer about how NEET would not help poor students to their education. There are several
malpractices which have made its roots in the educational institutions.

It must be observed that even the law examinations have common entrance test i.e. CLAT
(Common Law Admission Test). Therefore, there must be a uniform admission procedure for
medical admissions in the college.

The dissenting acknowledged and affirmed that the Medical Council of India is competent and
authorized to frame regulations regarding the admission procedure even for the unaided minority
education institution. Executing NEET will subserve the notion of minorities to grant help to
other people. NEET will obviously provide meritorious students which will further implement
the ideas of Jesus, as mentioned in the petition. It will be further in the national interest to have
best medical professionals.

The dissenting view has also held that the decisions of State decisions under Entry 25 of List III
would be subject to the Entry 66 of List I. Under this Entry, the Union is empowered to make
provisions which deals with standard of education. Keeping aside the arguments of Entries
enshrined in the Seventh Schedule,

Therefore, the Medical Council of India has rightly filed a review petition against the judgement
of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has also proved to be a ray of justice by accepting the
review. There are certain facts which need reconsideration as striking down NEET is gross
mistake and against the national interest.
 REFERENCES

1. Christian Medical College Vellore & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors (2014) 2 SCC (305)
2. MCIINDIA.ORG/about us<www.mciindia.org/ActivitiWebClient/aboutus/introduction>
3. Medical Council of India Act, 1956 S.6
4. Medical Council of Inida Act, 1956 S.10A Clause 1
5. Medical Council of India notification No. MCI-31(1)/2010-Med./49068
6. Medical Council of India notification No. MCI-18(1)/2010-Med/49070
7. P.A. Inamdar V. State of Maharashtra AIR 2005 SC (3226)
8. S.R. Bommai. V. Union of India AIR 1994 SC (1918)
9. Aruna Roy V. Union of India AIR2002 SC (2773).
10. Religious Endowments, Madras V. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt
1954 SCR (1005)
11. Mohd. Hanief Qureshi V. State of Bihar AIR 1958 SC (731)
12. State of W.B. V. Ashutosh Lahiri AIR 1995 SC (464)
13. Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional law of India, (56th edition pg. 418)
14. T.M.A. Pai Foundation V. State of Karnataka AIR 2003 SC (355)
15. Azeez Basha v. Union of India AIR 1968 SC (662).
16. State of Madras v. Champakan Doraijan AIR 1951 SC (226)
17. .St. Stephens College V. University of Delhi (1992) 1 SCC (558)
18. T.M.A. Pai Foundation V. State of Karnataka AIR 2003 SC (355)
19. Dr. Dinesh Kumar Vs. Motilal Nehru Medical Colleges, Allahabad & Ors (1985) 3 SCC
(72)
20. Islamic Academy of Education V. State of Karnataka AIR 2007 SC (3724)
21. P.A. Inamdar V. State of Maharashtra AIR 2005 SC (3236)
22. State of Orissa V. M.A. Tulloch & Co (1964) 4 SCR (461)
23. Preeti Srivastava V. State of M.P. (1999) 7 SCC (120)
24. Medical Council of India V. State of Karnataka (1998) 6 SCC (131)
25. Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed University) and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr
(2004) 11 SCC (755)
 26. Gujarat University, Ahemadabad V. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar (1963) Supp. 1 SCR
(112)
27. MCI Vs. State of Karnataka 1998 (6) SCC (131)
28. Veterinary Council of India Vs. Indian Council of Agricultural Research (2000) 1 SCC
(750)

BRIEF ABOUT AUTHOR

Harsh Vardhan Gupta is currently pursuing B.A. LL.B. (H) from Amity University, Noida. He
has participated in moot court competitions and research paper presentation competition. He is
currently doing online internship at ProBono India