Can A State Prescribe Qualification For Admission To Medical Courses Higher Than Minimum Eligibility Criteria Prescribed by MCI?: SC To Consider

The Supreme Court will consider on August 13 the issue as to whether a state has the competence to prescribe rules providing for higher/additional qualifications for admission to medical courses than the minimum eligibility criteria laid down by the Centre or the Medical Council of India. The bench of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud and M. R. Shah was hearing the state of Assam's SLP against the August, 2019 decision of the Gauhati High Court striking down Rule 4(2)(c) of the Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges of Assam (Regulation of Admission into 1st Year MBBS Course) Rules, 2017, as notified by the government of Assam. Rule 4 provides for the mode of selection of state-quota candidates. Its sub-rule (2) lays down the eligibility criteria of candidates, who qualify in the NEET as per NEET Rules for admission into the 1st year MBBS/BDS courses, to be called for counselling. Rule 4(2)(c) prescribed a minimum of 60% aggregate marks in Physics, Chemistry, and Biology in the qualifying examination as an eligibility condition for admission to medical/dental courses, which is above the eligibility criteria of minimum average marks of 50% fixed for appearing in NEET. The question before the Gauhati High Court was whether with the holding of NEET, the state can still continue to prescribe qualifications for admission into medical colleges which is higher than the eligibility qualification for appearing in the NEET or whether such a prescription of eligibility criteria will fall short of the 1956 Indian Medical Council Act and the 1997 Graduate Medical Education Regulations. The High Court noted that the 1956 Act was amended and section 10D and section 33(mb) were inserted with effect from 2016- "While 10D provides for uniform entrance examination for undergraduate and postgraduate level, section 33 confers power to the MCI, with the previous sanction of the Central government, to make regulations to provide for various aspects as indicated therein. Thus, with the insertion of section 33(mb), the MCI is empowered to make regulations to provide for designating authority, other languages and the manner of conducting of entrance examinations to all medical institutions", observed the High Court.The High Court noted that Section 19A of the 1956 Act expressly empowers the MCI to prescribe minimum standards of medical education required for granting undergraduate medical qualification by universities or medical institutions in India. The High Court noted that the MCI has amended the 1997 Regulations in 2017 providing that there shall be a uniform entrance examination to all medical institutions at the undergraduate level, namely, the NEET, and that in order to be eligible for admission to MBBS course for an academic year, it shall be necessary for a candidate to obtain minimum of marks at 50th percentile in the NEET. The Court further noted that in the eligibility criteria laid down in the admission notice of NEET, it was stipulated that the candidate must have passed in the subjects of physics, chemistry, biology/biotechnology and English individually, obtaining a minimum of 50% marks taken together in physics, chemistry and biology/biotechnology at the qualifying examination. The bench noted that the admission notice further provides that all admission to MBBS/BDS courses shall be based solely on marks obtained in the NEET. The High Court found Rule 4(2)(c) to be repugnant to section 10D of the Act, 1956 and the 1997 Regulations and therefore, ultra vires. The review petitions filed against the said judgment were also dismissed in December 2020. On Friday, at the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh for the state of Assam advanced that a uniform common entrance test does not take away the state's jurisdiction to have higher standards. At this, Justice Shah observed, "There is a judgment of the Supreme Court which says that once the NEET has come into inception, the admission has to be through NEET only." Noting that in the indicated case, the MCI was also before the Court, the bench asked Mr. Singh to get in touch with the advocate for the MCI, clarify which judgment that was and peruse it. Mr. Singh also drew the attention of the bench to the 2019 Supreme Court judgment in Yatinkumar Jasubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat where a three-judge bench had observed that "Institutional Preference" in the Post Graduate Medical Courses is permissible even after the introduction of the NEET Scheme. "Your Lordships have held that the state remains entitled to extend institutional preference", he argued. "We will consider. You also read that judgment we indicated. We will have this next Friday", said the bench, adjourning the matter to August 13. However, the bench did not issue notice on the SLP. It has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner-state that section 10D only prescribes holding of uniform entrance examination...

Can A State Prescribe Qualification For Admission To Medical Courses Higher Than Minimum Eligibility Criteria Prescribed by MCI?: SC To Consider

Mehal Jain

Tags