Supreme Court Upholds NEET for AYUSH Admissions: Union of India vs. Federation of Self-Financed Ayurvedic Colleges (2020)

Date of the Judgment: 20 February 2020

Citation: 2020 INSC 160

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Deepak Gupta, J.

Can a common entrance exam like NEET be mandated for admissions to AYUSH courses? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question, examining the validity of notifications that made the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) mandatory for admissions to undergraduate and postgraduate AYUSH courses. This judgment clarifies the powers of the Central Council of Indian Medicine and the Central Council of Homeopathy in setting admission standards. The bench comprised Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta, who delivered a unanimous decision.

Case Background

The case revolves around notifications issued by the Central Council of Indian Medicine and the Central Council of Homeopathy, which mandated the NEET for admissions to AYUSH undergraduate courses (BAMS, BUMS, BSMS, and BHMS) and prescribed minimum qualifying marks. These notifications were to be effective from the academic year 2019-2020. Similarly, the AYUSH Post Graduate Entrance Test (AIA-PGET) was introduced for postgraduate courses (MD-Ayurveda) with minimum qualifying marks.

The Ministry of AYUSH had previously instructed all State Governments, Union Territories, and Universities to admit students to AYUSH undergraduate courses for the 2018-2019 academic year based on the NEET merit list, with a minimum qualifying mark at the 50th percentile (40th for reserved categories). Subsequently, the Central Council introduced the 2018 Regulations, formally implementing NEET for AYUSH admissions.

The Guru Ravidas Ayurved University issued a prospectus on 31st July 2019, for admissions to BAMS, BHMS and BUMS courses, prescribing minimum marks in NEET. Following this, various AYUSH colleges challenged these regulations. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana initially passed interim orders permitting admissions without NEET scores. However, on 18th December 2019, the High Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the validity of the 2018 Regulations.

Aggrieved by this decision, the colleges and students appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also considered appeals from the Central Council against interim orders of the High Courts that had allowed admissions without NEET scores.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana initially allowed admissions to AYUSH courses without insisting on NEET scores, based on interim orders. However, these interim orders were subject to the final outcome of the writ petitions. The High Court ultimately dismissed the writ petitions filed by the AYUSH colleges, ruling that the 2018 Regulations were within the powers of the Central Council. The High Court also stated that students admitted based on interim orders could not claim any equity as their admissions were conditional.

Legal Framework

The core legal provisions at play in this case are:

• Section 22 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970: This section empowers the Central Council to prescribe minimum standards of education in Indian medicine required for granting recognized medical qualifications.
• Section 36 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970: This section allows the Central Council, with the Central Government’s sanction, to make regulations to carry out the purposes of the Act. Specifically:
  • Section 36(i): Deals with courses, period of study, practical training, subjects of examination, and standards of proficiency for recognized medical qualifications.
  • Section 36(j): Pertains to standards of staff, equipment, accommodation, training, and other educational facilities.
  • Section 36(k): Concerns the conduct of professional examinations, qualifications of examiners, and conditions of admission to such exams.
  • Section 36(p): Covers any matter for which provision may be made by regulations under the Act.
• Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standards of Education in Indian Medicine) Amendment Regulations, 2018: These regulations introduced NEET as the uniform entrance examination for AYUSH undergraduate courses.
• Indian Medicine Central Council (Post Graduate Ayurvedic Education) Amendment Regulations, 2018: These regulations introduced the AIA-PGET for postgraduate AYUSH courses.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the Institutions and Students:

• The 2018 Regulations are ultra vires the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, as the Act does not explicitly grant the Central Council the power to introduce an all-India entrance examination like NEET.
• The power to regulate admissions does not include the power to mandate a common entrance test like NEET.
• The introduction of NEET for MBBS and BDS courses required amendments to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and the Dentists Act, 1948, respectively. No such amendments were made to the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, before introducing NEET for AYUSH courses.
• The NEET syllabus is not aligned with the AYUSH curriculum, making it unsuitable for AYUSH admissions.
• Many seats in AYUSH courses remain vacant due to the NEET requirement, which is detrimental to the interests of the students and the institutions.
• Students admitted based on interim orders should be allowed to continue their studies to avoid losing an academic year.

Arguments on behalf of the Central Council:

• The 2018 Regulations are valid and were made under the powers conferred by Section 36 of the Act.
• Section 22 of the Act, which deals with minimum standards of education, includes the power to conduct entrance examinations for admissions.
• Section 36(p) of the Act allows the Central Council to make regulations on any matter for which provision may be made by regulations. This includes the power to mandate NEET for admissions.
• The minimum qualifying percentile is necessary to ensure minimum standards of education in AYUSH courses.
• The standards for admission to professional courses are fixed after detailed study and are beyond the purview of judicial review.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether students seeking admissions to Under Graduate courses (BAMS, BUMS, BSMS and BHMS) and Post Graduate courses can be denied admission on the ground that they did not take the NEET or that they did not get the minimum percentile prescribed by the 2018 Regulations.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed the judgment in Veterinary Council of India v. Indian Council of Agricultural Research [ (2000) 1 SCC 750 ], stating that it squarely covered the present case. This case established that the power to set standards of education includes the power to regulate admissions.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to maintain minimum standards of education in AYUSH courses. The Court emphasized that doctors qualified in AYUSH streams also treat patients, and therefore, a lack of minimum standards would result in poorly trained doctors. The Court also noted that the availability of eligible candidates cannot be a reason to lower the standards prescribed by the Central Council.

The court’s reasoning was based on the following:

The court considered the argument that many seats would remain vacant if NEET was strictly enforced. However, it rejected this argument, stating that the non-availability of eligible candidates cannot be a reason to lower standards. The court also considered the plight of students admitted based on interim orders and granted them a one-time relief, allowing them to continue their studies provided they were admitted before the cut-off date.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

“We are in agreement with the contention made on behalf of the students and the Institutions that introduction of an all India examination will not be covered by Section 36 (i), (j) and (k) of the Act. However, Section 36 (p) refers to any matter under the Act for which provision may be made by the Regulations. In our considered opinion, Section 22 which deals with the minimum standards of education in Indian Medicine, covers the topic of an all India common entrance examination.”

“Doctors who are qualified in Ayurvedic, Unani and Homeopathy streams also treat patients and the lack of minimum standards of education would result in half-baked doctors being turned out of professional colleges. Non-availability of eligible candidates for admission to AYUSH Under Graduate courses cannot be a reason to lower the standards prescribed by the Central Council for admission.”

“However, in view of admission of a large number of students to the AYUSH Under Graduate courses for the year 2019-2020 on the strength of interim orders passed by the High Courts, we direct that the students may be permitted to continue provided that they were admitted prior to the last date of admission i.e. 15th October, 2019.”

Key Takeaways

• NEET is mandatory for admissions to AYUSH undergraduate and postgraduate courses.
• The Central Council of Indian Medicine and the Central Council of Homeopathy have the power to set minimum standards of education, including conducting entrance examinations.
• The need to maintain minimum standards of education outweighs the concern about vacant seats in AYUSH courses.
• Students admitted based on interim orders before the cut-off date were given a one-time relief to continue their studies.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that students admitted to AYUSH undergraduate courses before 15th October 2019 and to postgraduate courses before 31st October 2019, based on interim orders of the High Courts, can continue their studies. This was a one-time exception and not to be treated as a precedent.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Central Council of Indian Medicine and the Central Council of Homeopathy have the power to mandate NEET for admissions to AYUSH courses under Section 22 and Section 36(p) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970. This ruling clarifies and reinforces the authority of these councils to set minimum educational standards. It also confirms that an all-India entrance examination is a valid method for ensuring those standards are met. This case did not change any previous position of law but it clarified the position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of NEET for admissions to AYUSH courses, emphasizing the importance of maintaining minimum standards of education. While granting a one-time relief to students admitted based on interim orders, the Court firmly established the Central Council’s authority to regulate admissions through a common entrance examination. This decision ensures that AYUSH professionals receive adequate training, thereby safeguarding public health.

Category

Parent Category: Education Law

Child Categories:

• Medical Admissions
• National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET)
• AYUSH Courses
• Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970
• Section 22, Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970
• Section 36, Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970

FAQ

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?

A: This judgment confirms that NEET is mandatory for admissions to AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, and Homoeopathy) undergraduate and postgraduate courses. It also establishes the authority of the Central Council of Indian Medicine and the Central Council of Homeopathy to set minimum standards of education, including conducting entrance examinations.

Q: Does this mean I cannot get admission to AYUSH courses without NEET?

A: Yes, after this judgment, admissions to AYUSH courses require a valid NEET score. The court has emphasized that this is essential to maintain the standards of education in these fields.

Q: What if I was admitted to an AYUSH course based on an interim order?

A: The Supreme Court has granted a one-time relief to students admitted based on interim orders, allowing them to continue their studies provided they were admitted before the cut-off date (15th October 2019 for UG and 31st October 2019 for PG courses). This is not to be treated as a precedent for future admissions.

Q: Why did the court emphasize the need for NEET in AYUSH courses?

A: The court emphasized the need to maintain minimum standards of education in AYUSH courses to ensure that qualified professionals are treating patients. The Court held that the non-availability of eligible candidates cannot be a reason to lower standards.

Q: What is the legal basis for this decision?

A: The court relied on Section 22 and Section 36(p) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, which empowers the Central Council to prescribe minimum standards of education and make regulations to carry out the purposes of the Act. The court also followed the precedent set in Veterinary Council of India v. Indian Council of Agricultural Research.