National entrance test for medical admissions was struck down as beyond statutory power and inconsistent with institutional admission rights.

The text examines the legality of a single national entrance test for medical and dental admissions, concluding that the Councils' statutory power to regulate standards did not extend to taking over the entire admission process. It states that compulsory NEET was treated as infringing the institutional right to admit students, including protected rights of private and minority institutions, and as invalid for failure to comply with the statutory requirement of circulating draft regulations to State Governments and considering their comments. It also notes that the special constitutional regime under Article 371D preserved the relevant State admission arrangements. A dissent is recorded in which NEET was viewed as a valid regulatory measure.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Medical Council of India and the Dental Council of India had power to introduce and conduct a single National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for admissions to medical and dental courses; (ii) Whether the impugned regulations and notifications infringed the right of private, aided and unaided, minority and non-minority institutions to establish and administer educational institutions, including the right to admit students, under the Constitution; (iii) Whether the impugned regulations were invalid for non-compliance with the statutory requirement of furnishing draft regulations to the State Governments and considering their comments; (iv) Whether the Presidential order under Article 371D preserved the State enactments in Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu from the operation of the impugned regulations.

Issue (i): Whether the Medical Council of India and the Dental Council of India had power to introduce and conduct a single National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for admissions to medical and dental courses.

Analysis: The regulatory powers under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Dentists Act, 1948 were held to extend to prescribing standards of medical education, not to taking over the entire admission process. The Court held that the power to frame regulations for professional examinations and admission conditions did not authorise the Councils to actually conduct a common entrance examination as the sole mode of admission across the country.

Conclusion: The power to introduce and conduct NEET was held to be unavailable to the Councils.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned regulations and notifications infringed the right of private, aided and unaided, minority and non-minority institutions to establish and administer educational institutions, including the right to admit students, under the Constitution.

Analysis: The right to administer an educational institution was held to include the essential facet of admitting students. The Court held that, subject to the maintenance of standards and the absence of maladministration, private institutions and minority institutions could follow their own fair, transparent and merit-based admission procedures. A uniform single entrance test imposed by delegated legislation was held to interfere with rights under Articles 19(1)(g), 25, 26(a), 29(1) and 30(1) of the Constitution.

Conclusion: The impugned regulations were held unconstitutional as violative of the protected rights of the petitioners and affected institutions.

Issue (iii): Whether the impugned regulations were invalid for non-compliance with the statutory requirement of furnishing draft regulations to the State Governments and considering their comments.

Analysis: The Court held that the requirement under Section 19A(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 was not a mere formality. Since the draft amended regulations were not shown to have been furnished to the State Governments in the manner contemplated, the procedural safeguard built into the statute was not satisfied. The analogy of directory consultation under Article 320(3) was rejected.

Conclusion: The impugned regulations were held invalid also on this ground.

Issue (iv): Whether the Presidential order under Article 371D preserved the State enactments in Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu from the operation of the impugned regulations.

Analysis: Article 371D and orders made thereunder were held to have overriding effect notwithstanding other constitutional provisions or laws. Accordingly, the special State regime concerning admissions in Andhra Pradesh and the relevant State law in Tamil Nadu were held to remain unaffected by the impugned regulations.

Conclusion: The State enactments protected by Article 371D were held to continue to operate notwithstanding the impugned regulations.

Final Conclusion: The common entrance test regime introduced by the impugned notifications and amendments was struck down insofar as it displaced the autonomous admission procedures of the affected institutions and exceeded the Councils' statutory mandate, while the special constitutional protection under Article 371D was preserved for the concerned State arrangements.

Ratio Decidendi: Delegated legislation under the medical and dental statutes cannot compel a single countrywide admission mechanism where the Constitution protects the institutional right to admit students, and statutory standards-making power does not include authority to usurp admissions.

Concurring / Dissenting Opinion: Anil R. Dave, J. dissented and held that NEET was a valid regulatory measure within the powers of the Councils, and that the petitions should be dismissed.

---