Supreme Court Directs Lowering of NEET Cut-off for BDS Admissions: Harshit Agarwal vs. Union of India (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 08 February 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 56

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Krishna Murari, J.

Can the government ignore recommendations from expert bodies when deciding on admissions to professional courses? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case concerning admissions to Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) courses. The core issue was whether the Union Government could refuse to lower the qualifying cut-off percentile for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for BDS admissions, despite a recommendation from the Dental Council of India to do so. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Krishna Murari, delivered the judgment, with Justice L. Nageswara Rao authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The petitioners, students who appeared for the NEET examination in 2020, were seeking admission to the Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) course. They did not meet the minimum qualifying marks as prescribed by the Dental Council of India Regulations. The Dental Council of India, the second respondent, recommended lowering the qualifying cut-off percentile for the academic year 2020-2021. However, the Union Government, the first respondent, did not accept this recommendation. Consequently, the petitioners filed writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to lower the cut-off. Additionally, several Dental Colleges from Andhra Pradesh also filed a writ petition seeking similar relief.

The petitioners argued that the proviso to Regulation II (5) (ii) of the Dental Council of India Regulations empowers the Central Government to lower the minimum marks in consultation with the Dental Council of India. They pointed out that the government had done so in the past, for example, in 2019-2020. They also contended that a large number of BDS seats were vacant, and lowering the percentile would not compromise standards. The Union Government, on the other hand, argued that there were enough eligible candidates and that there were sufficient dentists in the country, therefore, there was no need to lower the cut-off. They also stated that students were not opting for BDS due to high fees in private colleges.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The petitioners, who were students who could not secure the minimum qualifying marks in the NEET examination, initially submitted a representation to the Union Government to lower the qualifying cut-off percentile, based on the recommendation of the Dental Council of India. When the government did not accept the recommendation, the students filed writ petitions in the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution. Additionally, several Dental Colleges from Andhra Pradesh also filed a writ petition seeking similar relief. The Supreme Court heard the arguments of both sides before arriving at its decision.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision at the heart of this case is Sub-Regulation (ii) of Regulation II of the Dental Council of India, Revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007. This regulation specifies the minimum marks required for admission to the BDS course:

“In order to be eligible for admission to BDS Course for a particular academic year, it shall be necessary for a candidate to obtain minimum of marks of 50th percentile in ‘National Eligibility cum-Entrance Test to BDS course’ held for the said academic year. However, in respect of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, the minimum marks shall be at 40th percentile. In respect of candidates with locomotory disability of lower amendments, the minimum marks shall be at 45th percentile. The percentile shall be determined on the basis of highest marks secured in the All-India common merit list in “National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for admission to BDS course.”

The proviso to this sub-regulation is also crucial:

“Provided when sufficient number of candidates in the respective categories fail to secure minimum marks as prescribed in National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test held for any academic year for admission to BDS Course, the Central Government in consultation with Dental Council of India may at its discretion lower the minimum marks required for admission to BDS Course for candidates belonging to respective categories and marks so lowered by the Central Government shall be applicable for the said academic year only”.

This proviso empowers the Central Government to lower the minimum marks in consultation with the Dental Council of India if sufficient candidates do not meet the original cut-off. The Supreme Court noted that this discretion must be exercised for the purpose specified in the Regulations and not for any other reason.

Arguments

Arguments by the Petitioners:

• The petitioners argued that the proviso to Regulation II (5) (ii) of the Dental Council of India Regulations empowers the Central Government to lower the minimum marks required for admission to the BDS course in consultation with the Dental Council of India.
• They contended that the Dental Council of India had recommended lowering the cut-off percentile by 20, but the Central Government had arbitrarily refused to accept this recommendation.
• The petitioners pointed out that the Central Government had previously lowered the cut-off percentile for the year 2019-2020, showing that they had the power to do so.
• They argued that the percentile is different from percentage, and lowering the percentile would not compromise the standards of education.
• The petitioners highlighted that approximately 7,000 seats in the first year of the BDS course were vacant, and the available infrastructure would be wasted if these seats were not filled.
• They also argued that there was no basis to assume that lowering the percentile would affect the standards of education.
• The petitioners submitted that the first respondent accepted the proposal of the second respondent and lowered the cut off percentile for the year 2019-2020.
• They also relied upon the proceedings relating to the lowering of the minimum marks for the Super speciality courses for the year 2019-2020 and for admission in Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (AYUSH) – UG courses for the year 2020-2021.

Arguments by the Respondents (Union Government):

• The Union Government argued that they had taken an informed decision on 30.12.2020 not to lower the minimum marks for admission to the BDS course for the year 2020-2021.
• They stated that a sufficient number of candidates were available for the available seats.
• The government claimed that 7.71 lakh candidates were eligible for filling up 82,000 MBBS and 28,000 BDS course seats, suggesting that there were seven candidates for each vacant seat.
• They also highlighted that there were 2.77 lakh dentists registered with the Dental Council of India, and the ratio of dentists to the population was better than WHO norms.
• The Union Government contended that the seats in BDS courses were falling vacant because candidates preferred other streams or could not afford the high fees charged by private colleges.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the exercise of the discretion by the first Respondent (Union Government) is for the purpose specified in the Regulations and whether irrelevant considerations have been taken into account making the decision irrational.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Sub-Regulation (ii) of Regulation II of the Dental Council of India, Revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007: This regulation specifies the minimum marks required for admission to the BDS course and the conditions under which the Central Government may lower these marks.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• De Smith’s Judicial Review (Sixth Edition pg. 225): The Court used this authority to establish the principle that administrative decisions are subject to judicial review and can be struck down if they are illegal.
• Food Corporation of India v. M/S Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, (1993) 1 SCC 71*: The Court cited this case to emphasize that there is no unfettered discretion in public law, and any discretion conferred on an authority must be exercised for the purpose specified in the statute.
• R. vs. St. Pancras Vestry (1890) 24 QBD 371*: The Court used this case to highlight that if a public duty is exercised by taking into account matters which are not proper for the exercise of discretion, then in the eye of law they have not exercised their discretion.
• Baldev Raj vs. Union of India (1980) 4 SCC 321*: The Court cited this case to emphasize that a decision which materially suffers from the blemish of overlooking or ignoring, wilfully or otherwise, vital facts bearing on the decision is bad in law.
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mahindra & Mahindra, (1983) 4 SCC 392*: The Court relied on this case to highlight that a decision-maker must apply his mind to pertinent and proximate matters only, and avoid irrelevant or remote considerations.
• Union of India v. Federation of Self-Financed Ayurvedic Colleges, Punjab, (2020) SCC 115*: The Court distinguished this case, noting that the facts were different as the Dental Council of India itself recommended lowering the minimum marks.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Illegality of the Decision: The Court found that the Union Government’s decision not to lower the minimum marks was illegal because it did not adhere to the purpose specified in the Regulations. The proviso to Sub-Regulation (ii) of Regulation II clearly states that the Central Government may lower the minimum marks if sufficient candidates fail to secure the minimum marks. The Court found that the government’s decision was not aligned with this purpose.
• Irrationality of the Decision: The Court held that the decision was irrational because it was based on irrelevant considerations. The government considered factors like the availability of dentists in the country and the preference of students for other courses, which were not relevant to the issue of whether sufficient candidates had met the minimum qualifying marks.
• Incorrect Calculation of Eligible Candidates: The government’s claim that there were seven candidates available for each seat was found to be incorrect. The Court noted that the NEET exam is conducted for multiple courses, including MBBS, BDS, and AYUSH, and the correct ratio of eligible candidates to available seats was 1:4.5.
• Failure to Consult the Dental Council of India: The Court noted that the Union Government did not consult with the Dental Council of India before deciding not to lower the minimum marks, which was a requirement under the proviso to Sub-Regulation (ii) of Regulation II.
• Precedent of Lowering Minimum Marks: The Court highlighted that the government had lowered the minimum marks for BDS admissions in the previous year (2019-2020) and for super-specialty courses and AYUSH courses, indicating that lowering the minimum marks was not inherently against standards.
• Wastage of Resources: The Court was concerned about the wastage of resources due to the 7,000 vacant seats in the first year of BDS courses.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the argument that lowering the minimum marks would compromise standards, stating that the Dental Council of India itself recommended lowering the cut-off. The Court also noted that the government had previously lowered the cut-off for other courses, indicating that it did not view this as a compromise of standards. The court emphasized that the decision must be based on the availability of eligible candidates and not other extraneous factors.

The Supreme Court stated the following in its judgment:

• “The Central Government cannot pursue any purpose other than the one specified in the proviso to Regulation II (5) (ii).”
• “The decision which materially suffers from the blemish of overlooking or ignoring, wilfully or otherwise, vital facts bearing on the decision is bad in law.”
• “Consideration of factors other than availability of eligible students would be the result of being influenced by irrelevant or extraneous matters.”

Key Takeaways

• The Central Government must exercise its discretion for the purpose specified in the relevant regulations and cannot consider extraneous factors.
• When a regulatory body like the Dental Council of India makes a recommendation, the government must give it due consideration and cannot arbitrarily reject it.
• Lowering the qualifying percentile for admissions does not necessarily compromise educational standards, especially when recommended by the relevant expert body.
• The government must make decisions based on accurate data and cannot rely on incorrect calculations.
• The government must consult with relevant bodies as required by the regulations.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The decision of the Union Government dated 30.12.2020 not to reduce the minimum marks for admission to BDS courses was set aside.
• The vacant seats in the first year BDS course for the year 2020-2021 shall be filled up from the candidates who participated in the NEET (UG) courses for the year 2020-2021 after lowering the percentile mark by 10 percentile.
• Candidates belonging to the general category who have secured 40 percentile shall be eligible to be considered for admission.
• Students belonging to the SC/ST/OBC categories shall be qualified if they have secured 30 percentile.
• General candidates with benchmark disabilities would be eligible if they have secured 35 percentile.
• The admissions shall be made strictly in accordance with merit and the admission process shall be completed by 18.02.2021.
• Any other student who has qualified in NEET (UG) – 2020 even without lowering the minimum marks and is willing to participate in the admission process shall also be considered for admission to BDS course.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Central Government’s discretion to lower the minimum marks for admission to BDS courses must be exercised for the purpose specified in the Regulations, i.e., when sufficient candidates fail to secure minimum marks, and not for any other extraneous reason. The judgment also reinforces the principle that administrative decisions are subject to judicial review and can be struck down if they are illegal or irrational. This case clarifies that the government must consult with relevant expert bodies before making decisions that affect admissions to professional courses.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Harshit Agarwal vs. Union of India is a significant ruling that emphasizes the importance of adhering to the principles of legality and rationality in administrative decision-making. The Court held that the Union Government’s decision not to lower the minimum qualifying marks for BDS admissions was flawed because it considered irrelevant factors, made an incorrect calculation of the ratio of eligible candidates, and failed to consult the Dental Council of India. The Court’s decision ensures that vacant seats in professional courses are filled and that the government acts within the bounds of its powers and the relevant regulations.