Supreme Court Refuses Further NEET PG Percentile Reduction for 2021-22 Admissions: Neppali Sai Vikash & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors (2 May 2022)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Supreme Court should direct a further reduction in the percentile for NEET PG admissions for the academic year 2021-22.
CASE TYPE: Education Law, Medical Admissions.
Case Name: Neppali Sai Vikash & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors
Judgment Date: 2 May 2022

Date of the Judgment: 2 May 2022
Citation: Not Available
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Surya Kant, J.

Can the Supreme Court intervene in the academic policy decisions of the government regarding medical admissions? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the reduction of the percentile for NEET PG admissions. The petitioners sought a further reduction in the qualifying percentile for NEET PG courses for the academic year 2021-22, arguing that many seats remained vacant even after an initial reduction. The Supreme Court, however, declined to interfere, emphasizing the need to balance public interest with maintaining the standards of medical education. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant.

Case Background

The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking a reduction in the percentile for NEET PG admissions for the academic year 2021-22. They argued that despite an initial reduction in the percentile, many post-graduate medical seats remained vacant. The petitioners contended that a further reduction would allow more candidates to become eligible, filling the vacant seats. The Union Government, through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoH&FW), had already reduced the percentile by 15 across all categories. For the general category, the cut-off percentile was fixed at 35, for the physically handicapped category at 30, and for the reserved SC/ST categories at 25. The petitioners sought an additional 5 percentile reduction, citing a 20 percentile reduction in the previous year and the ongoing pandemic.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The petitioners initially filed a writ petition seeking a reduction in the NEET PG percentile. The petition was disposed of by an order dated 14 March 2022, after the Union Government reduced the percentile by 15. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking a revival of the petition, arguing that further reduction was necessary due to the remaining vacant seats.

Legal Framework

The judgment references the proviso to Regulation 9(3) of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2000, which stipulates that the Central Government has the power to lower the minimum marks for admission to PG courses in consultation with the National Medical Commission when a sufficient number of candidates fail to secure minimum marks.
The Court also took into account the decision of the Central Government to reduce the minimum marks in consultation with the National Medical Commission on 12 March 2020.

Arguments

The arguments from both sides are summarized below:

• Petitioners’ Arguments:
  • The petitioners argued that even after the 15 percentile reduction, approximately 1,500 seats remained vacant in the states’ quota.
  • They contended that a further reduction of 5 percentile would enable more candidates to gain admission.
  • The petitioners highlighted that in the previous year, a 20 percentile reduction was implemented, and therefore, a similar reduction should be considered due to the pandemic.
  • The petitioners prayed for an additional round of mop-up round to be conducted and to permit and facilitate the petitioners/ applicants and also similarly situated to participate in the NEET-PG Counselling 2021 and allot of the vacant seats under the available quota for the academic year 2021-22, from amongst all candidates who appeared for the NEET PG 2021 with no qualifying mark.
• Respondents’ Arguments (Union of India):
  • The Union of India stated that after the 15 percentile reduction, an additional 25,000 candidates became eligible for counselling.
  • They noted that there were sufficient candidates available for counselling, and a further reduction would not be in the interest of public at large.
  • The Union of India argued that the current curriculum was already four months behind schedule, and another round of counselling would not be in the best academic interest of the students.
  • The Union of India contended that most of the remaining vacant seats were in pre-para subjects, which are teaching subjects and usually remain vacant.
  • The Union of India submitted that the vacancy in the seats does not arise from non-fulfillment of minimum marks but also from course preferences and college preferences of the students.

The innovativeness of the petitioners’ argument lies in their attempt to draw a parallel with the previous year’s reduction and the ongoing pandemic to justify a further reduction in the percentile.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether it should direct a further reduction of 5 percentile for NEET PG admissions for the academic year 2021-22.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The following authorities were considered by the Court:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Harshit Agarwal v. Union of India: The Court distinguished this case, noting that the circumstances were different because the Dental Council of India had recommended lowering the qualifying cut-off percentile for BDS courses.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors, which can be categorized into the following sentiments:

The Court emphasized that it should not interfere with the academic policy decisions of the government unless there is a manifest arbitrariness in the decision-making process. The Court also highlighted the need to maintain the standards of medical education and ensure that the batch of admitted students commences the course on time. The Court also considered the public interest in filling up the vacant seats, but balanced it with other considerations.

The ratio of fact to law was 30:70, indicating that the Court’s decision was primarily based on legal considerations and policy domain.

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that a further reduction in percentile would fill the vacant seats, but rejected it because it would compromise the standards of medical education and impinge upon the academic/policy domain of the government. The Court also considered that the current term is already behind schedule and a considered decision has been taken to the effect that holding another round of counselling would not be in the best academic interest of students.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The Union Government had already reduced the percentile by 15, and a further reduction would not be in the best interest of medical education.
• The current term was already behind schedule, and another round of counselling would not be in the best academic interest of students.
• The vacancy in the seats does not arise from non-fulfillment of minimum marks but also from course preferences and college preferences of the students.
• The Court would not interfere unless there is a manifest arbitrariness in the decision-making process or in the decision.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“This Court would not be inclined to interfere unless there is a manifest arbitrariness in the decision making process or in the decision.”

“The need for filling up vacant seats, which undoubtedly is a matter of public interest has to be balanced with other considerations such as ensuring that the batch of admitted students commences the course, the standards of medical education are not diluted and uncertainty is not created by ad-hoc reductions in the norms of eligibility.”

“This Court would not be justified in the exercise of the power of judicial review to direct a further reduction of 5 percentile since that would be trenching upon the academic/policy domain.”

There was no minority opinion in this case.

The Court analyzed the reasoning of the Union Government, which had already reduced the percentile by 15, and found no arbitrariness in the decision-making process. The Court also considered the need to maintain the standards of medical education and ensure that the batch of admitted students commences the course on time. The Court’s decision has potential implications for future cases, as it emphasizes the limited scope of judicial review in academic policy matters.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court will generally not interfere with the academic policy decisions of the government unless there is a manifest arbitrariness in the decision-making process.
• The need for filling up vacant seats has to be balanced with other considerations such as ensuring that the batch of admitted students commences the course, the standards of medical education are not diluted, and uncertainty is not created by ad-hoc reductions in the norms of eligibility.
• The Court emphasized that it would not be justified in directing a further reduction of 5 percentile since that would be trenching upon the academic/policy domain.

The judgment reinforces the principle that the judiciary should be cautious in interfering with policy decisions, especially in the academic domain, unless there is a clear case of arbitrariness or violation of fundamental rights. This decision may impact future cases concerning academic admissions and the extent to which courts can intervene in such matters.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the academic policy decisions of the government unless there is a manifest arbitrariness in the decision-making process. This decision reinforces the principle of judicial restraint in matters of academic policy and emphasizes the importance of maintaining standards of medical education. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the Miscellaneous Application seeking a further reduction in the NEET PG percentile for the academic year 2021-22. The Court upheld the decision of the Union Government to not further reduce the percentile, emphasizing that it would not interfere with academic policy decisions unless there is manifest arbitrariness. The Court balanced the need to fill vacant seats with the importance of maintaining the standards of medical education and ensuring the timely commencement of courses.