Supreme Court Orders Inquiry Against 6 Gujarat Ayurved Colleges For Admitting Students Who Didn't Qualify NEET

The Supreme Court recently refused to interfere with the Gujarat High Court's judgment, which denied relief to students who were granted conditional admissions to the courses of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine & Surgery(BAMS) and the Bachelor of Homoeopathic Medicine and Surgery(BHMS) courses by colleges in Gujarat.

The students, who appeared in NEET-UG 2019-20, did not qualify the minimum NEET percentile prescribed by the amended 2018 AYUSH Regulations, but were given conditional admissions by colleges on the presumption that the Central Government might reduce the cut-off later, as had happened in some cases previously. As per the Regulations, in order to secure admission to the BAMS/BHMS courses, a minimum cut-off percentile in the unreserved category is 50%.

The matter first went to the Single Judge, who said that the admissions of students could not be sustained as they had not challenged the amended AYUSH Regulations. The Judge also stated that the conditional admission clearly mentioned that the admission is subject to AYUSH's approval of a reduction in cut off-marks.

This was challenged through an intra-Court appeal, arguing that the Single Judge did not consider the Union of India v. Federation of Self-financed Ayurvedic Colleges, Punjab and others(2020), in which a similar situation had arisen. The Supreme Court allowed the college to lower its minimum marks required for admission since a sufficient number of candidates failed to secure the minimum marks.

However, the division bench of the High Court upheld the Single Judge's order, clarifying that in order to secure admission, a minimum percentile is necessary. It added that the relevant Rules stipulate a discretion with counselling in consultation with the Government to reduce the cut-off percentile in case the seats remain vacant. But such discretion would not automatically give the right to the students to seek admission.

A bench comprising Justice Ashutosh Shashtri and Justice Divyesh A. Joshi of the High Court also said that no "undue sympathy" can be extended to students who have been ignorant about the process.

When the challenge to the High Court was taken up by a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Vijay Bishnoi on January 29, the Court refused to interfere with the order. However, it noted that the matter raises a larger issue concerning illegal admissions affecting the future of the students.

The colleges that granted them admission are Ananya College of Ayurved, Kalol; Bhargava Ayurved College, Dahemi; Indian Institute of Ayurved, Rajkot; B.G. Garaiya Ayurved College, Rajkot; Global Institute of Ayurved, Rajkot; and Jay Jalaram Ayurvedic Medical College, Shivpuri.

Therefore, the Court found it imperative to order an inquiry into the conduct of the above six colleges in granting illegal admissions. It issued notices to these colleges and directed them to file a detailed affidavit, indicating the circumstances in which they have illegally continued the students for the 3rd, 4th and 5th year of the course.

Additionally, it has also directed the Gujarat Ayurved University as well as the Central Council of Indian Medicine to constitute a Joint Committee and conduct a detailed inquiry regarding this. The mandate of the committee would be that it can call for all such information from the students as well as documents from colleges.

"We direct that the students as well as the said Colleges will extend full cooperation to the Committee in conducting the inquiry."

The matter will be heard after four weeks.

Case Details: SURPALSINH BHARATSINH KHANT & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.|Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27252-27256/2023

Click Here To Read Order

Appearances: For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pradhuman Gohil, Adv. Mrs. Taruna Singh Gohil, AOR Mr. Alapati Sahithya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Hetvi Ketan Patel, Adv. Mr. Rushabh N. Kapadia, Adv. Ms. Taniya Bansal, Adv. Ms. Kawalpreet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Pulkit Khanduja, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. (NP) Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR Ms. Shivika Mehra, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Bhatt, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kr., Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gaurang Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Gobind Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rajbahadur Yadav, Aor, Adv Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, AOR Mr. Avnish Dave, Adv. Mr. Parmod Kumar Vishnoi, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Balaji, Adv. Mr. Chand Kapoor, Adv. Mrs. Manisha T. Karia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rohan Trivedi, Adv. Mr. Deepin Deepak Sahni, Adv. Mr. Vishal Navale, Adv. Ms. Shreya Gupta, Adv. Ms. Ananya Arora, Adv. Mr. Varun Khetwani, Adv. Mr. Anandh K., Adv. Mr. Ang Bajaj, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Kate, Adv. Ms. Iyer Shruti Gopal, AOR Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Ghade, AOR Mr. Adithya Koshy Roy, Adv. Ms. Riddhi Jain, Adv.