BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the provisions of the National Commission for Homoeopathy Act, 2020 and the National Commission for Homoeopathy (Homeopathy Degree Course-BHMS) Regulation, 2022.
A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Vijay Kumar A Patil passed the order upholding Sections 3, 4, 10, 12, 14, 43, 44 and 55(2)(m) of the Act while disposing of the petition filed by Karnataka State Private Homeopathic Medical College Managements Association and four others.
The court said that even in the absence of a specific provision, it has been held that the power to regulate the standard of education casts a corresponding duty to conduct an all-India examination. However, Section 14 of the 2020 Act expressly prescribes NEET for admission to undergraduate in homoeopathy in all medical institutions. Hence, the legislature in its wisdom has taken a view that merit-based admission can be ensured to a common entrance test, namely NEET, the court observed.
The court also said that the prescription of NEET fulfils the twin requirements of proportionality and reasonableness. The objective of the prescription of the test is to ensure that qualified students are admitted to the BHMS course, which is in the interest of the patients whom they treat. Merely because the number of seats are more and the candidates are less, the requirement of merit-based admission cannot be dispensed with and the private educational institution cannot have an unfettered right to admit the students regardless of their merit, the court noted.
“In the instant case, by enacting Section 14, the right of the petitioners to admit students in educational institutions has merely been regulated and the same does not amount to a violation of the rights of the petitioners under the constitution or any other enactment. Therefore, the principle of the doctrine of non-retrogression is not applicable to the facts of the case. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law by the Supreme Court, it is held that Section 14 of the Act neither suffers from manifest arbitrariness nor the test of proportionality nor is in violation of the doctrine of non-retrogression”, the court said.
COURT DIRECTIVES