Supreme Court reserves order on conduct of NEET or AIPMT for medical colleges' admission

New Delhi: Candidates seeking admission in medical colleges in the 2016-17 session will have to wait for some more time before they will know which entrance test they would have to appear for this year.

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its order on whether All India Pre-Medical Test (AIPMT) or National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (NEET) will be conducted this year for admissions in MBBS and MD courses.

The apex court had earlier this month paved the way for holding the NEET, a single common entrance test for medical courses including MBBS, BDS and PG courses in all medical colleges, when it scrapped its 2013 order to stop the the single common entrance test.

 

On Thursday, a fresh schedule for holding of the NEET for the 2016-17 session was expected to be placed before the Supreme Court.

In its verdict earlier this month, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice AR Dave was unanimous in saying that the 2013, 2:1 verdict of the three-judge bench, which had paved the way for private colleges to conduct their own examinations, “needs reconsideration” as “the majority view has not taken into consideration some binding precedents”.

“Suffice 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. We, therefore, allow these review petitions and recall the judgment dated 18 July 2013 and direct that the matters be heard afresh. The review petitions stand disposed of as allowed,” the bench had said.

 

Justice Dave in the 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 National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET).

The verdict, delivered on the day when CJI Kabir demitted office, had created a buzz in the apex court corridors as an advocate posted on a social networking site about the outcome in advance.

Interestingly, Justice Dave had then too, in his dissenting judgement, said the three judges of the bench “had no discussion on the subject due to paucity of time” which is normally done.

(With PTI inputs)