SC refuses to hear plea against NEET ordinance

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a petition seeking quashing of the recently-promulgated ordinance granting exemption to states from a single examination for admission to MBBS and BDS courses for 2016-17.  

“Let us not create further confusion on the medical entrance tests, and let there be some certainty for students. Moreover, this (ordinance) is there only for one year,” a vacation bench of Justices Prafulla C Pant and D Y Chandrachud said, adding the matter can be heard by a regular bench after the summer vacation.

The court did not concur with the plea by senior advocate Vivek Tankha, appearing for petitioner Anand Rai, that the government was not competent to nullify the judicial order by promulgating the ordinance. Rai also claims to be a whistleblower in the Vyapam scam. 

Govt defends action
Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Centre, defended the ordinance, saying it was meant to keep the state boards outside the purview of the single medical entrance test National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) only for this academic year and the government was well within its right to come up with it. He also objected to the plea for urgent hearing, saying it was not an “earth-shattering” matter.

States like Tamil Nadu, Goa, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, which conduct separate tests in their respective vernacular languages, had demanded this be continued for the present academic session keeping in mind the interests of students, Rohatgi said, adding that NEET question papers are either in English or Hindi. In his petition on Thursday, Rai contended that the Centre's U-turn on NEET was purely on political considerations with mala fide intentions. He claimed the ordinance, which got Presidential assent on May 24, would inconvenience students as it would create confusion.

Meanwhile, NGO Sankalp Charitable Trust, which had earlier moved the apex court in support of NEET, on Friday filed a fresh plea challenging the ordinance, saying it was "illegal" as it was inconsistent with the fundamental rights.

"The impugned ordinance is clearly interfering with the court order and is nothing but transgression by the Executive on the exercise of the judicial functions of this court," the petition filed by advocate Amit Kumar stated.