LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a medical college can admit students to the MBBS course on its own, without following the procedure of centralized counselling based on the NEET merit list.
CASE TYPE: Education Law, Medical Admissions
Case Name: Saraswati Educational Charitable Trust & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.
[Judgment Date]: 24 February 2021
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 24 February 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 115
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
Can a medical college bypass the established NEET merit list and centralized counseling process to admit students? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving Saraswati Medical College. The court examined whether the college acted legally in admitting 132 students on its own, without waiting for the official list from the Director General of Medical Education. This judgment clarifies the importance of adhering to the Medical Council of India’s regulations for medical admissions. The bench consisted of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat, with the judgment authored by Justice L. Nageswara Rao.
Case Background
Saraswati Educational Charitable Trust established Saraswati Medical College in 2016. For the academic year 2017-2018, the college sought renewal of permission to admit 150 students for its MBBS course. After inspections in November 2016, the Medical Council of India (MCI) initially denied renewal on 10th August 2017. The college challenged this denial in the Supreme Court, which on 1st September 2017, directed the college to participate in the counseling process and extended the admission deadline to 5th September 2017. The court also directed the authorities to provide students from the NEET merit list through central counseling.
The college requested the Director General of Medical Education and Training (DGME) to provide a list of NEET-qualified students. On 4th September 2017, the DGME asked eligible students to register for admission to the college. 735 students registered. On 5th September 2017, the DGME sent a list of 150 students to the college. However, only 9 students completed their admission by 7:00 p.m. The college then requested the DGME to provide more students from the list of 735. Without waiting for a response, the college issued a notice at 7:32 p.m. on 5th September 2017, inviting all 735 candidates for admission, stating that admissions would be based on merit and completed by 11:59 p.m. The college admitted 132 students from this list by the end of the day.
The Medical Council of India, upon learning of these admissions, directed the college to discharge the 132 students for violating the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997. The college challenged this directive, and the students continued their studies, even taking the first-year MBBS exams with the permission of Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University. The students then sought permission from the Supreme Court to declare their results and continue their studies.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016 | Saraswati Medical College was established. |
| November 2016 | Inspections of the College were conducted by the Medical Council of India. |
| 10th August 2017 | Renewal of permission for admission of 150 students was denied to the College. |
| 1st September 2017 | Supreme Court directs the College to participate in the counseling process. |
| 1st September 2017, 6:41 p.m. | College requests DGME for a list of students from the NEET merit list. |
| 4th September 2017 | DGME asks eligible students to register for admission to the College. |
| 5th September 2017 | DGME forwards a list of 150 students to the College. |
| 5th September 2017, 7:00 p.m. | Only 9 students from the list of 150 complete admission formalities. |
| 5th September 2017, 7:00 p.m. | College requests DGME to provide more students from the list of 735. |
| 5th September 2017, 7:32 p.m. | College issues a notice inviting all 735 candidates for admission. |
| 5th September 2017, 11:59 p.m. | College completes admission of 132 students. |
| 29th September 2017 | Medical Council of India directs the College to discharge 132 irregularly admitted students. |
| 22nd July 2019 | Supreme Court directs provisional declaration of first-year MBBS results. |
| 24th February 2021 | Final Judgment of the Supreme Court. |
Legal Framework
The core of this case revolves around the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997, specifically Regulation 5A, which mandates that all admissions to the MBBS course must be based on the merit list of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET). The regulations stipulate that admissions should be made from the list sent by the Director General Medical Education (DGME), based on the students’ NEET rankings. The college is only authorized to admit students who have been officially allotted by the DGME.
The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the importance of centralized counseling for medical admissions. In *Modern Dental College and Research Centre & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.*, (2016) 7 SCC 353, and *State of Maharashtra and Others v. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth and Others*, (2016) 9 SCC 401, the Court emphasized that admissions must be conducted through centralized counseling based on NEET rankings. Furthermore, in *State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jainarayan Chouksey & Ors.*, (2016) 9 SCC 412, the Court reiterated that all admissions to medical colleges should be made only through centralized counseling by State Governments.
Arguments
Arguments on behalf of the College:
- The college argued that it admitted 132 students from the list of 735 candidates who applied after the notice dated 4th September 2017, strictly based on merit.
- The college contended that the third Respondent (DGME) was lethargic in not allotting sufficient students despite being informed of the Supreme Court’s order on 1st September 2017.
- The college stated that on 5th September 2017, the DGME allotted only 150 students, out of which only 18 took admission.
- Having no other alternative, the college made admissions from the list of 735 candidates.
- The college emphasized that all admissions were based on merit and no student has complained of being ignored despite being more meritorious.
Arguments on behalf of the Students:
- The students pleaded ignorance about any illegality or irregularity in their admissions.
- They responded to the notice issued by the DGME on 4th September 2017.
- They participated in the selection process conducted by the college after only 18 students from the original list of 150 joined.
- They argued that they were not responsible for any violation of the Regulations and should be allowed to complete their course as they were NEET qualified and their names were in the list of 735.
Arguments on behalf of the Medical Council of India:
- The Medical Council of India (MCI) argued that all admissions to the MBBS course must be based on the NEET merit list as per Regulation 5A of the Medical Council Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997.
- Admissions should be made from the list sent by the DGME based on NEET rankings.
- The college could only admit students allotted by the DGME.
- If students from the list of 150 did not join, the college should have approached the Court for an extension and for a direction to the DGME to allot more students.
- The students admitted contrary to the Regulations are not entitled to any equity, and the college should be penalized for violating the Regulations.
Submissions of Parties
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions by the College | Sub-Submissions by the Students | Sub-Submissions by the Medical Council of India |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Admissions | ✓ Admissions were made from the list of 735 candidates based on merit. ✓ The DGME was lethargic in allotting students. ✓ Only 18 out of 150 allotted students took admission. |
✓ Students were unaware of any illegality in admissions. ✓ They responded to the DGME’s notice. ✓ They participated in the selection process. |
✓ Admissions must be based on the NEET merit list. ✓ Admissions should be from the list sent by DGME. ✓ The college should have approached the court for an extension of time. |
| Responsibility for Irregularities | ✓ The College had no alternative but to admit students from the list of 735. | ✓ Students were not responsible for any violation of the Regulations. | ✓ The College acted in blatant violation of the Regulations. |
| Relief Sought | ✓ The College sought validation of the admissions. | ✓ Students sought permission to complete their course. | ✓ The MCI sought penalization of the college and discharge of the students. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following key issues:
- Whether the admissions made by the College on its own, without following the procedure of centralized counseling and without waiting for the list from the Director General of Medical Education, were valid?
- Whether the students who were admitted contrary to the Regulations are entitled to any relief?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the admissions made by the College on its own were valid? | Invalid | The Court held that the admissions were completely contrary to the Regulations, which mandate admissions based on the NEET merit list and through centralized counseling. The College could not have admitted students on its own without waiting for the list from the Director General of Medical Education. |
| Whether the students admitted contrary to the Regulations are entitled to any relief? | Partially Allowed | The Court acknowledged that the students were aware that their admissions were irregular. However, considering that they had completed the second year of the MBBS course, the Court directed them to do community service for two years after completing their MBBS course to avoid losing three academic years. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:
- Medical Council Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 – Specifically Regulation 5A, which mandates that all admissions to the MBBS course must be based on the merit list of the NEET.
- Modern Dental College and Research Centre & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 353 – Supreme Court of India. This case emphasized that admissions must be conducted through centralized counseling based on NEET rankings.
- State of Maharashtra and Others v. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth and Others, (2016) 9 SCC 401 – Supreme Court of India. This case reiterated the importance of centralized counseling for medical admissions.
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jainarayan Chouksey & Ors., (2016) 9 SCC 412 – Supreme Court of India. This case held that all admissions to medical colleges should be made only through centralized counseling by State Governments.
Treatment of Authorities by the Court
| Authority | Court | How it was Used |
|---|---|---|
| Medical Council Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997, Regulation 5A | Medical Council of India | Followed – The Court upheld the importance of Regulation 5A, stating that admissions must be based on the NEET merit list. |
| Modern Dental College and Research Centre & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 353 | Supreme Court of India | Followed – The Court relied on this case to emphasize that admissions must be conducted through centralized counseling. |
| State of Maharashtra and Others v. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth and Others, (2016) 9 SCC 401 | Supreme Court of India | Followed – The Court cited this case to reiterate the importance of centralized counseling for medical admissions. |
| State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jainarayan Chouksey & Ors., (2016) 9 SCC 412 | Supreme Court of India | Followed – The Court used this case to reinforce that admissions to medical colleges should be made only through centralized counseling by State Governments. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions made by all parties and the authorities cited.
| Submission | How it was Treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| College’s submission that admissions were made from the list of 735 candidates based on merit. | Rejected – The Court held that admissions must be based on the NEET merit list and through centralized counseling, not by the college on its own. |
| College’s submission that the DGME was lethargic in allotting students. | Rejected – The Court found that the DGME acted swiftly and cannot be blamed for any delay. |
| College’s submission that they had no alternative but to admit students from the list of 735. | Rejected – The Court stated that the College ought to have approached the Court for extension of time and for a direction to the DGME to allot more students. |
| Students’ plea of ignorance about the illegality of their admissions. | Partially Accepted – The Court noted that the students were aware that their admissions were irregular, but considered their situation and directed community service as a remedy. |
| Medical Council of India’s argument that admissions must be based on the NEET merit list. | Accepted – The Court upheld the importance of Regulation 5A of the Medical Council Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997. |
| Medical Council of India’s argument that the College acted in blatant violation of the Regulations. | Accepted – The Court found that the College intentionally violated the Regulations. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court:
- The Court followed the **Medical Council Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997, Regulation 5A** stating that admissions must be based on the NEET merit list.
- The Court relied on Modern Dental College and Research Centre & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 353* and State of Maharashtra and Others v. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth and Others, (2016) 9 SCC 401* to emphasize that admissions must be conducted through centralized counseling.
- The Court followed State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jainarayan Chouksey & Ors., (2016) 9 SCC 412* to reinforce that admissions to medical colleges should be made only through centralized counseling by State Governments.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold the integrity of the medical admission process and ensure adherence to established regulations. The Court emphasized that admissions to medical colleges must be based on merit as determined by the NEET rankings and must follow a centralized counseling process. The Court also considered the plight of the students who had already completed two years of their MBBS course.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Importance of following NEET merit list and centralized counseling. | 40% |
| Violation of Regulations by the College. | 30% |
| Plight of the students who had already completed two years of MBBS. | 30% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was structured around the following points:
The Court rejected the argument that the college had no alternative but to admit students on its own. The Court noted that the college should have approached the Court for an extension of time and for a direction to the DGME to allot more students. The Court also rejected the submission that the students were completely innocent, as they were aware that their admissions were irregular. However, the Court considered the fact that the students had completed two years of their MBBS course and decided to direct them to do community service as a remedy.
The Court quoted from the judgment:
“The College ought not to have admitted 132 students by conducting a selection on its own without requesting the third Respondent to send more candidates.”
“The students who have secured admission cannot be said to be innocent as they knew fully well that their names were not recommended by the Director General Medical Education.”
“The admission of 132 students in the College for the academic year 2017-2018 being completely contrary to the Regulations, the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed.”
The Court’s decision was unanimous, with both Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat concurring in the judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Medical colleges must strictly adhere to the NEET merit list and centralized counseling process for admissions.
- Admissions made by colleges on their own, without following the prescribed procedure, are invalid.
- Students who are aware of irregularities in their admissions cannot claim complete innocence.
- The Supreme Court may direct community service as a remedy in cases where students have completed a significant portion of their course despite irregular admissions.
- Medical colleges that violate admission regulations will face penalties, including substantial fines.
Directions
The Supreme Court issued the following directions:
- The 132 students who were irregularly admitted are directed to do community service for a period of two years after completing their MBBS course.
- The National Medical Commission shall decide the details and modalities of the community service.
- The Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, is directed to conduct the second-year MBBS examination for the 126 students who completed their second-year course and declare their results.
- The students shall be permitted to complete the MBBS course.
- The Petitioner-College is directed to deposit an amount of Rupees Five Crores in the Registry of the Supreme Court within a period of 8 weeks.
- The Petitioners are directed not to recover the amount from the students.
- The National Medical Commission is directed to constitute a Trust to manage the deposited amount, which shall include the Accountant General of the State of Uttar Pradesh, an eminent educationist, and a representative of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
- The Trust shall extend financial assistance to needy students seeking admission to medical colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
- An Action Taken Report along with the copy of the Trust-Deed shall be filed by the National Medical Commission within a period of 12 weeks.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that medical colleges cannot admit students on their own without adhering to the NEET merit list and centralized counseling process. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position and does not introduce a new principle of law but reaffirms the importance of following the established procedures for medical admissions. This case also highlights that the Supreme Court can direct community service as a remedy to balance the interests of the students and the need to uphold the integrity of the admission process.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by Saraswati Educational Charitable Trust and the students, upholding the Medical Council of India’s regulations regarding medical admissions. The Court directed the irregularly admitted students to perform community service and imposed a fine of Rupees Five Crores on the college for violating the regulations. This judgment underscores the importance of following the NEET merit list and centralized counseling process for medical admissions and ensures that medical colleges cannot bypass established procedures.