Legal Relief

SC agrees to review its Judgment quashing ‘The National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET)’ for Medical Courses

Supreme Court of India today has agreed to review its 2013 Judgment which declared Medical Council of India’s (MCI) and Dental Council of India’s (DCI) notification for holding common entrance test called National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET) for MBBS, BDS and post-graduate medical courses is ultra vires the Constitution.

The Centre and the Medical Council of India (MCI) have approached [PETITION] the Supreme Court for review of the judgment declaring the single National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) as unconstitutional.

It was on 18th July 2013, Justice Altamas Kabir delivered the majority judgment along with Justice Vikramajit Sen and Justice Anil R Dave delivered a separate dissenting judgment in the Case.

The Court’s decision came on 115 petitions challenging the MCI and DCI notification on NEET for admission to MBBS & BDS and post-graduate medical courses conducted in colleges across the country. The bench had earlier directed transfer of all petitions pending in various courts to it by January 15, this year and all the petitions were considered together, Christian Medical College, Vellore v. Union of India being the lead matter.

Justice Kabir said in the majority judgment,

“We have no hesitation in holding that the “Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) 2010 (Part II)” and the “Post Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulation, 2010 (Part II)”, whereby the Medical Council of India introduced the single National Eligibility-cum- Entrance Test and the corresponding amendments in the Dentists Act, 1948, are ultra vires the provisions of Articles 19(1)(g), 25, 26(a), 29(1) and 30(1) of the Constitution, since they have the effect of denuding the States, State-run Universities and all medical colleges and institutions, including those enjoying the protection of the above provisions, from admitting students to their MBBS, BDS and Post-graduate courses, according to their own procedures, beliefs and dispensations, which has been found by this Court in the TMA Pai Foundation case, to be an integral facet of the right to administer.”

Justice Kabir further said,

“We also have no hesitation in holding that the Medical Council of India is not empowered under the 1956 Act to actually conduct the NEET.” Justice Dave began his dissenting judgment saying, “I have carefully gone through the elaborate judgment delivered by the learned Chief Justice. After going through the judgment, I could not persuade myself to share the same view. As the learned Chief Justice is to retire within a few days, I have to be quick and therefore, also short. Prior to preparation of our draft judgments we had no discussion on the subject due to paucity of time and therefore, I have to express my different views.”

Justice Dave in his judgment noted,

“If the NEET is conducted under the supervision of the apex professional body, it would inspire confidence in the system and in that event, the selection of the students for admission to the medical profession would be on merit based selection. No extraneous consideration would come into play in the process of selection. The process of selection would not be influenced by irrelevant factors like caste and creed, community, race, lineage, gender, social or economic standing, place of residence – whether rural or urban, influence of wealth or power; and admission would be given only to the students who really deserve to be well qualified physicians or dentists. Thus, there would not be any discrimination or influence in the process of selection.”

Rebutting the minority rights argument, Justice Dave said, “From and among those students, who have secured prescribed qualifying marks, the concerned institutions, who want to give priority to the students belonging to a particular class or caste or creed or religion or region, etc. would be in a position to give preference to such students in the matter of their admission to the concerned medical college. Thus, the purpose with which the Articles 25, 26, 29, and 30 are incorporated in our Constitution would be fully respected and implemented.”

Justice Dave also held the view that the MCI and the DCI are entitled to regulate the admission procedure by virtue of the provisions of their respective Acts, which enable them to regulate and supervise the overall professional standards. Justice Dave concluded by noting that, “If only one examination in the country is conducted and admissions are given on the basis of the result of the said examination, unscrupulous and money minded businessmen operating in the field of education would be constrained to stop their corrupt practices and it would help a lot, not only to the deserving students but also to the nation in bringing down the level of corruption.”

Source : Livelaw

No benefits can be granted to LIC employees in absence of Rules framed

Supreme Court in Krishna LIC of India vs. Murari Lal Asthana has held that no benefits can be granted to the employees Life Insurance Corporation of India only on the basis of the resolution passed by the corporation in the absence of a Rule framed in that regard. Apex Court bench comprising of Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh remanded the matter to respective High Courts.

The High Court had directed the corporation to grant the benefits to the employees. The LIC then assailed this judgment to Apex Court contending that the High Court has committed illegality in deciding an issue of law on the basis of concession given by the counsel for the Union of India, for a concession by counsel on a question of law, does not bind the Corporation and, in any case, it cannot form the foundation of a decision.

The Bench observed “The Board had passed the resolution. The Board can pass a resolution and the Chairman can be the head of the Board, but it does not authorize the Board to take a decision with regard to certain matters which are within the domain of the rule making authority. On a perusal of Section 48, it is clear as crystal that conferment of benefit, either pension or anything ancillary thereto has to be conferred by the rules and the rule as prescribed under Section 48 of the Act is to be tabled before the Parliament”

Remanding the matter to High Court, the Bench said “Whether the hope was reasonable or not need not be commented upon, but the fact remains that certain respondents are septuagenarians and they have to fight another round of litigation in the High Court. We feel the pain while remanding the matter, but we have no option as the pleadings are not adequate as it should have been while assailing a constitutional validity of a provision. It is well settled in law that he who assails the constitutional validity of a statutory provision or a rule, has to specially assert the grounds for such challenge.”

Source www.livelaw.in

Supreme Court Judges plan three-day retreat in Madhya Pradesh

Supreme Court Judges have reportedly decided to take a three-day retreat in Madhya Pradesh and “reflect on issues that directly or indirectly come during the delivery of justice”. The retreat is being overseen by a committee formed by Chief Justice T.S. Thakur. The Committee comprises of four senior Judges of the Court- Justice J.S. Khehar, Justice M.B. Lokur, Justice Kurien Koseph and Justice A.K. Sikri.

The retreat starts from April 14, at National Judicial Academy, Bhopal campus, which boasts of recreational facilities including a fully-equipped gymnasium, swimming pool, sauna, tennis, billiards besides a 280-seater state- of-the-art auditorium and conference and seminar rooms.

According to TOI, a closed-door session has been organized on April 15, with National Security Advisor, Mr. Ajit Doval, on national security and threats of global terrorism. Reserve Bank of India Governor Mr. Raghuram Rajan will address the Apex Court Judges the next day, on economic growth and globalization. Another session has been dedicated to climate change and key environmental challenges.

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

Arbitrary Appointments of Govt. Law Officers are subject to Judicial Review
A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday, issued Guidelines relating to the Appointment of Government Law Officers. The Bench which was primarily examining the question ‘Whether appointment of the law officers of the State Governments can be questioned or the process by which such appointments are made, can be assailed on the ground that the same is arbitrary, hence, violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India?’ answered the question in the affirmative.

The amendment made to overcome a SC Verdict, would be conferred legitimacy if such an exercise was a normal adjunct of legislative power

A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court of India ruled that even an amendment made to overcome any judicial pronouncement, on a closer scrutiny would be conferred legitimacy if such an exercise was a normal adjunct of legislative power. The Bench upheld the Constitutional validity of the Land Acquisition (Goa Amendment) Act, 2009 (Goa Act 7 of 2009) which was promulgated by the Governor of Goa on 11.04.2009.

Interim order cannot be passed in a Second Appeal by deferring admission without formulating a substantial question of law

Supreme Court held that solely because the Court has the jurisdiction to pass an ex parte interim order, it does not empower it not to formulate the substantial question of law for the purpose of admission, defer the date of admission and pass an order of stay or grant an interim relief.

The trial Court empowered to summon a suspect to trial even if not chargesheeted by Police

Supreme Court held that choice of police not to send up a suspect to face trial does not affect the power of the trial court under Section 319 of the CrPC to summon such a person on account of evidence recorded during the trial.

Guidelines on saving good Samaritans from harassment approved

In a major step which can reduce the number of road accident deaths in the country, the Supreme Court on Wednesday approved the Centre’s guidelines to protect Good Samaritans, who help road accident victims, from being hassled or harassed at hospitals, police stations or courts.

Execution of convict in a Rape and Murder Case stayed

The Supreme Court stayed the execution of a convict who was earlier found guilty for raping and killing a five year old girl last year in Madhya Pradesh. The apex court has also sought response of the state government regarding his appeal in this case.
Green signal to SEBI to sell Sahara assets
The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to initiate the process of selling 87 “unencumbered” properties of Sahara group, whose title deeds are with the market regulator, to generate the bail money for release of its chief Subrata Roy who has been in jail for two years now.
States slammed for outsourcing sterilization camps to NGOs

The Supreme Court fumed at the trend of state governments outsourcing sterilisation camps to NGOs while hearing a public interest litigation related to such a camp in Bihar’s Araria district where 53 women were operated within about two hours in January 2012

On Elephant Custody

The Apex Court of India on Tuesday issued notices to the parties to ban the use of elephants in religious functions, processions and other events based on a petition filed by Bangalore-based Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre and other animal welfare organizations.

Source: www.Livelaw.in

Supreme Court starts hearing in Nirbhaya Case

After a delay of more than two years, the Supreme Court yesterday finally began hearing the appeal filed by the four adult convicts in the gruesome Nirbhaya gang rape and murder against the death sentence handed down by the trial court and Delhi High Court.

The juvenile convict already walked free after serving three years at a reformatory home while another accused- Mukesh’s brother Ram Singh committed suicide inside Tihar jail during the trial.

The case which triggered nationwide protests took place on a private bus which the victim had boarded along with a male friend on the night of December 16, 2012.

They were on their way back home after watching the evening show of Life of Pi at a Saket mall theatre.

The accused brutally gang-raped the physiotherapy student, beat up her friend and dumped them from the moving bus. The victim died 13 days later at a hospital in Singapore.

A the outset, M L Sharma, the lawyer for Mukesh and Pawan said the accused had not got a fair trial with the “lower court and Delhi High Court rushing through under various pressures”, and also did not allow several of their crucial applications, the SC said “we will hear it like a trial court and you can place on record whatever evidence you have. We will give you a patient hearing. Let time be consumed” But to the shock of all in the jam-packed courtroom, Sharma, straight away came to gory details in his attempt to pick holes in the prosecution case.

He disputed the use of iron rod by the accused which was central to the brutality and death sentence. He also questioned how the victim in a critical condition who was straight away put on a ventilator gave a dying declaration. “Something which is not possible medically was said by police that an iron rod was repeatedly inserted into her. The report of the Singapore hospital says the uterus was intact. If rod is inserted through the lower part, the rod cannot go inside the body without breaking the uterus”, he said. But the judge Justice Dipak Misra who perused the hospital report said:“What are you talking? Records say ovaries have been destroyed.

So nothing turns on that”. When Sharma claimed the dying declaration was a creation of police, the court shot back, “there is an examination on record of the SDM and a Magistrate in this respect” why can’t it be believed? The bench’s comment came after Delhi Police Special Public Prosecutor Siddharth Luthra told the court . “Yes she could communicate very little but she was alert and made it up through gestures and signals in response to questions”. The bench told Sharma that instead of such arguments he better concentrate on the statement of the key witness, the male friend of the victim who was with her on that fateful night, and “shatter it”, if he expected some success. The hearing will continue on Friday.

 

Source: www.Livelaw.in

 

The Bar council of India restricts lawyers to advertise themselves.

By clicking on the “I agree” below, the user acknowledges the following:
The website contains the information about the firm, its key Practice Areas or its Key Team Members is only for informational purposes.We are not liable for any consequence of any action taken by the user relying on information provided under this website. In cases where the user has any legal issues, he/she in all cases must seek independent legal advice.

  • The information about us is provided to the user only on his/her specific request and any information obtained from this website is completely at the user’s volition and any transmission, receipt or use of this site would not create any lawyer-client relationship.