Supreme Court Upholds NEET-PG Internship Deadline: Shikhar vs. National Board of Examination (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 05 April 2022

Citation: Shikhar & Anr. vs. National Board of Examination & Ors., Writ Petition (C) No. 208 of 2022

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, Surya Kant, J, Bela M. Trivedi, J

Can the Supreme Court interfere with the cut-off dates set by regulatory bodies for medical entrance exams? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the NEET-PG 2022 examination. The Court was asked to extend the deadline for completing mandatory internships, a key eligibility criterion for the exam. The petitioners, medical aspirants, argued that delays caused by COVID-19 duties had prevented them from completing their internships on time. The three-judge bench, comprising Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Surya Kant, and Bela M. Trivedi, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case originated from a challenge by medical students aspiring to take the NEET-PG 2022 exam. The National Board of Examination (NBE) had initially set a deadline of May 31, 2022, for completing the mandatory internship, a prerequisite for appearing in the exam. However, many students faced delays in completing their internships due to their deployment in COVID-19 duties. This deployment was authorized by the Union Government in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on May 3, 2021, which allowed States/UTs to use medical interns for COVID management. Some states also utilized final year MBBS students for tele-consultation and monitoring of mild COVID cases.

The petitioners argued that in certain states like Kerala, Bihar, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, and Jammu & Kashmir, the internships had commenced later than usual due to the COVID-19 situation. Consequently, they would not meet the May 31, 2022, deadline. Subsequently, the NBE extended the deadline to July 31, 2022, but the petitioners contended that this extension was still insufficient for many students. They requested a further extension or that the period spent on COVID-19 duties be counted towards the internship requirement.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court seeking a postponement of the internship deadline. The Court, on February 8, 2022, directed the petitioners to submit a representation to the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Following this, the NBE extended the deadline to July 31, 2022. Dissatisfied with this extension, the petitioners again approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.

The Court, on March 30, 2022, requested the Solicitor General to assist in the matter after consulting with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The Additional Solicitor General presented the practical difficulties in further extending the deadline and the potential disruption to the entire examination schedule.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the eligibility criteria set by the National Board of Examination (NBE) for the NEET-PG 2022 examination. Specifically, Clause 4.4 of the Information Bulletin stipulates that the internship completion certificate must be submitted at the time of counseling/admission and that the internship should be completed by a specified date. The Court also considered its powers of judicial review in matters of academic policy and admission criteria.

The Supreme Court referred to previous judgments that emphasized the need for judicial restraint in matters of academic policy, such as:

• Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur & Ors. v. Soutrik Sarangi, where the Court held that courts should be circumspect in exercising their powers of judicial review in matters concerning academic policies, including admission criteria.
• All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan, where the Court observed that judicial interference motivated by concerns of mitigating the hardship faced by students may result in unintended consequences adversely affecting the education system.
• Rachna v. Union of India & Ors., where the Court held that policy decisions are taken by the executive considering the prevailing circumstances and the courts cannot issue a mandamus to frame a policy in a particular manner.
• State of Bihar v. Ramjee Prasad, where the Court held that a cut-off date cannot be held to be arbitrary unless it is shown that it is unreasonable, capricious or whimsical.
• Hirandra Kumar v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Anr., where the Court held that the determination of the cut-off date is within the sphere of the executive and the court cannot assume that function.

Arguments

Petitioners’ Arguments:

• The petitioners argued that the extension of the cut-off date to July 31, 2022, was insufficient as many students, particularly from states like Kerala, Bihar, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, and Jammu & Kashmir, had their internships delayed due to COVID-19 duties.
• They contended that the deployment of medical interns and final year MBBS students for COVID-19 duties had led to a later commencement of internships in these states.
• The petitioners requested a further extension of the cut-off date to accommodate these students for the NEET-PG 2022 examination.
• Alternatively, they argued that the period spent on COVID-19 duties should be counted towards the internship requirements.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) submitted that the examinations were scheduled for May 21, 2022, with counseling expected to commence in the third or fourth week of July 2022, and classes on August 1, 2022.
• The ASG argued that any further extension of the internship completion deadline would disrupt the entire schedule.
• The ASG also contended that if the current schedule was adhered to, the next examination was likely to be held in January 2023.
• Responding to the alternative submission, the ASG submitted that COVID-19 duties did not cover all specialties, and accepting this request would alter the educational curriculum.

The innovativeness of the argument by the petitioners was that they sought to include the period of their COVID duties towards the internship, which was a novel request.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the cut-off date of 31 July 2022 for completion of internship for appearing in the NEET-PG 2022 examination should be extended further.

A sub-issue was also considered:

• Whether the period spent on Covid duties should be counted towards the internship requirements.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed the principles laid down in Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur & Ors. v. Soutrik Sarangi, emphasizing judicial restraint in academic policy matters.
• The Court relied on All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan, to highlight the potential negative consequences of judicial interference in educational standards.
• The Court applied the principle from Rachna v. Union of India & Ors., that policy decisions are the domain of the executive, and the Court cannot issue a mandamus to frame a policy in a particular manner.
• The Court followed the precedent set in State of Bihar v. Ramjee Prasad, that a cut-off date is not arbitrary unless unreasonable, capricious, or whimsical.
• The Court upheld the principle from Hirandra Kumar v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Anr., that the determination of a cut-off date lies within the sphere of the executive.
• The Court distinguished Poulami Mondal & Ors. v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences & Ors., noting that it was based on unique circumstances of a pandemic and not on fixing cut-off dates.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to maintain the integrity of the examination schedule and the principle of judicial restraint in academic policy matters. The Court recognized the hardship faced by some students but prioritized the smooth functioning of the examination process and the need to avoid disruptions. The Court also emphasized that it is not within its domain to micro-manage educational curricula or to interfere with policy decisions of expert bodies.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by legal precedents and the principle of judicial restraint, with a lesser emphasis on the factual hardships faced by the petitioners.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them based on the established legal principles and the need to maintain the integrity of the examination process. The final decision was reached by adhering to the principle of judicial restraint and respecting the domain of the executive and regulatory authorities.

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

• The determination of cut-off dates is a policy matter within the domain of the executive and regulatory authorities.
• Extending the cut-off date would disrupt the entire examination schedule.
• The Court should exercise restraint in matters of academic policy and curriculum.
• The Court cannot micro-manage the educational curriculum for medical courses.

The Court quoted from its previous judgments to support its reasoning:

• “The courts are neither equipped nor have the academic or technical background to substitute themselves in place of statutory professional technical bodies and take decisions in academic matters involving standards and quality of technical education.”
• “Judicial review of a policy decision and to issue mandamus to frame policy in a particular manner are absolutely different.”
• “The choice of date cannot be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is forthcoming for the same unless it is shown to be capricious or whimsical or wide off the reasonable mark.”

All three judges concurred in the decision. There were no dissenting opinions.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court will generally not interfere with cut-off dates set by regulatory bodies for examinations.
• Courts will exercise judicial restraint in matters of academic policy and curriculum.
• The determination of cut-off dates is within the domain of the executive and regulatory authorities.
• Hardship faced by individual students is not a sufficient ground to challenge a cut-off date unless it is shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical.

The decision reinforces the principle that the judiciary should not interfere in policy matters decided by expert bodies unless there is a clear violation of fundamental rights or statutory provisions. This case sets a precedent for future cases involving challenges to cut-off dates in educational and other policy matters.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case. The petition was dismissed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the determination of cut-off dates for eligibility criteria in examinations is primarily a policy decision within the domain of the executive and regulatory authorities. The judiciary will not interfere with such decisions unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical. This case reinforces the principle of judicial restraint in matters of academic policy and curriculum, and it does not change the previous position of law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by medical aspirants seeking an extension of the internship deadline for the NEET-PG 2022 examination. The Court upheld the decision of the National Board of Examination, emphasizing that setting cut-off dates is a policy matter within the domain of the executive and regulatory authorities. The Court also reiterated the principle of judicial restraint in matters of academic policy and curriculum, highlighting that it is not within its purview to micro-manage educational processes. The judgment serves as a reminder of the limitations of judicial intervention in policy matters and the importance of respecting the expertise of regulatory bodies.