NEET – THE NEED OF THE HOUR

                 On 18th July, 2013, a bench headed by the then Chief Justice Altamas Kabir quashed 2 MCI notifications & held National Entrance-cum-Eligibility Test (NEET) to be unconstitutional . In a split 2:1 verdict, the said judgement deemed that conducting a common entrance test for admission into medical college was not within the ambit of Medical Council of India (MCI). On reading the parts of the judgement authored by Justice Kabir & Justice Sen, we see that the mention about various malpractices in entrance examination is almost insignificant. In contrast, Justice Kabir mentions about the need for ‘barefoot doctors’. The following is an extract from Justice Kabir’s judgement:-
              “The desire to give due recognition to merit is laudable, but the pragmatic realities on the ground relating to health care, especially in the rural and tribal areas where a large section of the Indian population resides, have also to be kept in mind when policy decisions are taken in matters such as this. While the country certainly needs brilliant doctors and surgeons and specialists and other connected with health care, who are equal to any in other parts of the world, considering ground realities, the country also has need for "barefoot doctors", who are committed and are available to provide medical services and health care facilities in different areas as part of their mission in becoming doctors.”               
             As a student, I fail to understand as to how introduction of NEET would’ve compromised with ‘committed doctors’. In fact, such an exam would’ve raised the standard of students who enter this noble profession. It is painful to see how medical education has undergone commodification. On 30th January, 2016, Times of India (TOI) reported about how an undercover 12K crore industry thrives in India which guarantees you a ‘confirm seat in MBBS’. For anyone related to medical profession, it shouldn’t come as a surprise because it is an open secret that MBBS, as well as PG seats are sold in certain medical colleges. According to MCI website, total MBBS seats in India are 52,715 & around 10 lakh students appeared for the only NEET examination held in the year 2013. This 52,715 figure also includes the private medical colleges, whose fees, only blessed souls can afford. I am sure that in a nation with 125 crore population, the number of doctors produced per year are anything but adequate. Lack of medical infrastructure in the country is leading to commercialisation & commodification of the existing medical education. A lot can be said to justify this commercialization because ultimately it’s the lack of resources which forces someone to indulge into such practices & not an inherent ulterior motive. Ultimately, as students, the only motive is to become a doctor & not to corrupt the system.           
              But I sincerely believe that NEET was a step in right direction. It would’ve curtailed the arbitrariness in admissions. The quality of students entering this profession would’ve certainly been raised. And above all, it would’ve ensured that only merit remains the sole objective criteria in admissions.                    
               Finally, the good news is that on 11th April, 2016, the Hon. Supreme Court has recalled its 2013 NEET decision. It is again going to hear all the petitions afresh. The 5-judge constitutional bench is headed by Justice Dave (the only dissenting judge in 2013 judgement). This certainly raises our hope that finally NEET will see the light of the day. As students, our only wish is that meritocracy should prevail. A noble profession like medicine can’t & should not become a purchasable commodity.

Judicial Appointments-Is the discourse itself misconstrued?

On 16th October 2015, Hon. SC exercising its power of judicial review struck down the 99th constitutional amendment. The 99th constitutional amendment sought to establish the National Judicial Appointment Commission(NJAC) for the purpose of appointing judges to the higher judiciary. The Hon. Supreme Court declared this constitutional amendment ultra vires.
Now let's examine the context in which this judgement was delivered. Appointment of judges to higher judiciary is governed by article 124 & article 217 of the Indian constitution. The language & the interpretation of the text is simple & lucid. Its natural interpretation implies that the judges would be appointed by the President of India in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. This procedure was followed quite effectively in the 1st two decades post-independence. But the autocratic & dictatorial mindset of the Indira Gandhi Govt in 1970s developed a sense of mistrust between the judiciary & the executive. I regard the mid 70s era as the darkest period of indian judiciary. In the emergency imposed by Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the Hon. SC literally surrendered itself to those in power at that time. But paradoxically, we owe our freedom & literally our democracy to 1973 Keshwanand Bharti Case. This case established the 'Basic Structure Doctrine' of the Indian Constitution & it effectively curtailed the absolute power of parliament to amend the constitution. That case established the supremacy of indian constitution. But a spate of dubious judicial appointments made in 1980s, awakened the conscience of indian judiciary. And in 1993 we had the 1st judges case, where the SC reinterpreted article 124 & article 217. It effectively made consultation process a binding one wherein the supremacy of Chief Justice was established over the executive in judicial appointments. And in 2nd judges case in 1998, Justice JS Verma developed the 'collegium system'. The role of the executive in judicial appointments was significantly reduced, almost nil.
The above mentioned is the brief history of how judicial appointments' procedure evolved in India. In its pristine form, article 124 & article 217 leave no iota of doubt that in the appointment of judges, supremacy of the judiciary is unquestionably the most important aspect. But how fair is the process of appointment when 5 people sitting inside closed doors decide as to who should be a judge or who shouldn't be a judge? What is the objective criteria while deciding who should be a judge? Who is accountable for non-meritorious appointments? And most importantly, can a sitting chief justice overrule the president of india? Is the power to appoint judges solely the prerogative of the judiciary?
While the NJAC sought to bring in more transparency & accountability in this entire process, it also brought along with it the dangers of the past. The fear of executive interference in judicial appointments was the main reason why NJAC was struck down by the Hon. SC. So have we reached a state where there is so much of mistrust between the two pillars of our democracy? Well, personally I feel SC struck down this provision out of fear of executive interference rather than strictly on judicial grounds.
The solution to this issue doesn't lie in introducing some other provision or legislation, but in restoring the credibility of the people at the helm both in the judiciary & the executive. Another wrong proposition in this entire debate is whether it's about the persons appointing the judges or about the criteria involved in appointing the judges. The entire debate is revolving around who will appoint the judges rather than on what basis they should be appointed. Again we must not forget the fact that finally any system is as good as the persons operating it. Some of the finest judges which indian judiciary has seen were appointed prior to 1993. Justice HR Khanna(the only dissenting judge in habeas corpus case) is an example of what fearless & independent judiciary is all about. This entire incident has exposed the open secret about immense mistrust between the two pillars of our democracy. In a healthy democracy, a sense of mutual respect is essential between these two pillars. And mutual respect doesn't imply concurrence on every issue, they must respectfully disagree with each other. Judiciary at loggerheads with executive is a sign of healthy democracy. But trust deficit between these two institutions exposes the systemic disorder in our democracy.
And as an ordinary citizen of india, I feel as long as these two institutions uphold & safeguard the rights of the individuals, everything else is secondary.
Finally, let's remember this is an emerging democracy so such agreements & disagreements are a part of it. Let's enjoy this entire evolutionary process of our indian democracy.