Christian Medical College Vellore Association Vs. Union Of India

The overall seats in MBBS are 49,990 out of which 25,330 belong to government medical colleges and 24,660 to private medical colleges. Earlier State Government selected students through All India Pre-Medical Test (AIPMT) or CET which is now replaced by NEET with no major controversy. Problem arises for 24,660 seats which are reserved for private medical colleges. NEET does not alter the number of seats offered by private medical colleges and minority institutions. Instead it provides a ranking which the private medical colleges will have to adhere while selecting students.

FACTS:

When the first four NEET notifications were issued 10 years ago, it was immediately challenged by Christian medical college-Vellore, various state governments, religious minority medical colleges and unaided private medical colleges. They argued that according to article 19 (1) (g) and article 30 of the Indian constitution there is autonomy available to unaided non-minority and minority educational institutions, particularly in field of medicine/dentistry and that such institutions have an absolute right to conduct examinations for admitting students. Introducing an examination like NEET will take away the autonomy and will not be abiding according to the constitution.

ISSUE:

Whether conducting NEET examination is legally and constitutionally valid and should there be one entrance examination for all the MBBS pursuing students in the country,

LEGAL PROVISION:

Article 19 (1) (g) and article 30 read with article 25, 26 and 29 (1) of the Indian constitution.

 PETITIONER CONTENTION:

The petitioners contended that the NEET examination should not be compulsory to private unaided minority professional institutes for admission into MBBS, BDS and MDS courses. Further the contention of Christian Medical College, Vellore was that NEET violates fundamental right as unaided minority has its own procedure and method of admission for selection of students, and its purpose is nationalisation which will in turn deprive the underprivileged. Christian Medical College, Vellore alleged that MCI and DCI have power to only make recommendations and not conduct the examination themselves. They added that Second, it was contended by Christian Medical College, Vellore that students from different State Boards take this examination and they are alien to the pattern followed by CBSE, so NEET would be violation of Article 14.

RESPONDENT CONTENTION:

It was submitted by the respondent that the purpose of NEET was to introduce uniformity of standards and lessen the hardship of students to write multiple entrance examinations. It was also submitted that regulations of Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 were framed to apply to both majority and minority institutions. Right of minority is not denied as the institutes can chose successful minority who have secured minimum marks from the list of NEET. This was called the winning contention on part of the respondent as a very strong claim of petitioner falls to ground.

COURT OBSERVATION:

The three member bench of Arun Misra, Vineet Saran and M.R Shah observed that there is not enough weight in this contention that state board students will suffer as NEET will be conducted to test the knowledge of physics, biology and chemistry and irrespective of the syllabus, the human heart can be taught only in one manner. It would be unjust to interfere in admission process of an institution. The bench also observed that in the recent times, education has been made a profiteering business rather than a medium of imparting knowledge. Today, medical institutions are indulging in gross malpractices of charging huge amount of capitation fee, donations, etc. in garb of autonomy.

JUDGEMENT

The Bench passed that judgement that NEET does not violate Article 19 (1) (g) and article 30 read with article 25, 26 and 29 (1) of the Indian constitution and NEET’s legality and constitutional basis cannot be challenged in the courts further. NEET will remain as the entrance examination for enrolling Undergraduate and Postgraduate students in Medical colleges all over the country.

The post Supreme court declares that NEET is neat appeared first on LexForti .

Subramanian Swamy Vs Union Of India

FACTS:

This was a famous case of the supreme court. This case dealt with the constitutionality of defamation under section 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The fact of this case is Subramanian Swamy who was a public interest litigator field a case against Jayalalitha who was the chief minister of TamilNadu that time for corruption made by her. So the TamilNadu government by return filed a case against him and many politicians under section 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code. This case is all about the constitutionality of defamation and some section of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code.

ISSUES:

Whether section 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code is constitutionally valid?

LEGAL PROVISION:

1. Section 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Section 199(1) and 199(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.

PETITIONER CONTENTION:

The petitioner contended that their right to speech is been violated. The constitution of India gives every person the right to speech and expression. They just filed a petition for corruption done by the former chief minister of Tamil Nadu. By return, they filed a petition against many politicians against section 199 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. So this is arbitrary against Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. So struck section 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code.

OBSERVATION MADE BY COURT:

The court observed that the term defamation used in Article 19(2) can not be given a restricted meaning. The doctrine of noscitur a sociis can not be applied to the expression incitement of the offense as it would unnecessarily make it a restricted one that the founding fathers of the constitution did not intend. The principal of noscotur a sociis can not be applied to give a restricted meaning to the term defamation to include criminal action if it gives rise to incitement to constitute the offense. So the reasonable restriction is there in Article 19(2) so it can not be made as unconstitutional . and it observed all the petitioners contends that it violates their right to speech but the defamation is a reasonable restriction.

JUDGMENT:

The court held that section 499 and 500 are constitutionally valid and hence defamation is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) of Indian Constitution.

The post Constitutionality of Section 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code 1860 appeared first on LexForti .

S.T.Sadiq Vs State Of Kerala

FACTS:

The fact of this case is there was an act called the Kerala Cashew Factories Act. According to the Act under section 3 the state government acquired 46 factories in the public interest to prevent unemployment due to closure of the factories and loss to the government. So 10 factories owner filed a writ petition in the High Court under Article 226 to hand over the factories to the respective owners. The high court dismissed the case stating that the acquisition is valid. Again 36 factory owners approached the honorable Supreme Court under Article 32 to hand over the factories to respective owners.

ISSUES:

Section 3 of The Kerala Cashew Factories Act is constitutionally valid.

PETITIONER CONTENTION:

The petitioner contended that they have the right to run the industry according to Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. And the Kerala Cashew Factories Act is violative to the Indian constitution so the act should be struck down.

RESPONDENT CONTENTION:

The respondent contended that the act was enacted to save the employee from unemployment and to prevent the closure of the factories and loss to the government. Hence it is constitutionally valid.

OBSERVATION:

The court observed that section 3 of the Kerala Cashew Factories Act is discriminatory and disposed of this writ petition by 36 factories by ordering the possession of the factory to hand over to the respective owners on the ground of procedural flaws. However, the court made it clear that it would open to the government to exercise the power of acquisition on being satisfied the basis of the relevant material as specified by the court which was as per procedure laid down by the statue. So after this judgment, the 10 factory owner who approached the high court now approached the supreme court to hand over the factories the supreme court said the government to hand over the factories stating that there is no intelligible differentia between the 36 factory owners and 10 factory owner and there is no nexus sought to be achieved so it is violative of Article 14 of The Indian Constitution.

JUDGMENT   

The court held that all the factories which were acquired by the government under section 3 of the Kerala Cashew Factories Act should be hand over to the respective factories owner. Hence the court struck down section 3 of the Kerala Cashew Factories Act was violative to article 19(1)(g) and Article 14 of Indian Constitution hence the court Struck down this section.

The post The classification must be founded on intelligible differentia appeared first on LexForti .