The MCI and Dental Council of India (DCI) had introduced NEET in 2012 for taking admissions to undergraduate and postgraduate programmes in government or private medical colleges in India.
In a setback to the private medical institutes, the Supreme Court on Monday recalled its earlier verdict exempting them from selecting the candidates based on their performance in the National Eligibility and Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to MBBS, BDS and PG courses in all medical colleges.
Allowing the Medical Council of India's (MCI) review plea, the constitution bench headed by Justice AR Dave referred to 2013 judgment said, "It was delivered by a majority verdict without any discussion among members of the bench," which was headed by then Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir on the day of his retirement.
In Monday's order, the five judges were unanimous in saying that the July 18, 2013 verdict of the three-judge bench, which had paved the way for private colleges to conduct their own examination, "needs reconsideration" as "the majority view has not taken into consideration some binding precedents".
"Suffice it is to mention that the majority view has not taken into consideration some binding precedents and more particularly, we find that there was no discussion among the members of the Bench before pronouncement of the judgment," the apex court said.
The MCI and Dental Council of India (DCI) had introduced NEET in 2012 for taking admissions to undergraduate and postgraduate programmes in government or private medical colleges in India.
However, for various reasons, the CBSE and MCI delayed the exam by a year. The exam was announced by the Government of India and was scheduled to be held for the first time on May 5, 2013 across India.
Justice Dave in 2013 verdict had given a dissenting verdict, while Justice Vikramjit Sen (since retired) had shared the views and findings of then CJI Kabir on the NEET.
The verdict, delivered on the day when CJI Kabir demitted office, had created a buzz in the apex court corridors as an advocate had posted on a social networking site about the outcome in advance.
Interestingly, Justice Dave then too in his dissenting judgment had said the three judges of the bench "had no discussion on the subject due to paucity of time" which is normally done.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Supreme Court")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}