Respondent Memorial Final

5TH THIRU.
ISARI VELAN MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 2023
TEAM CODE: VMC22
5TH THIRU. ISARI VELAN MEMORIAL

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 2023
BEFORE THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF ZINDICA
WRIT PETITION No. 0000/2023
STUDENTS OF MEDICINE (ABROAD) PETITIONERS
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
THE NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION RESPONDENTS
PETITIONER INVOKED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF

ZINDICA AND THE HONOURABLE COMPANION JUSTICES OF
SUPREME COURT OF ZINDICA.
COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT(S)

1
5TH THIRU. ISARI VELAN MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 2023
TABLE OF CONTENT
CONTENT PAGE NO.

LIST OF CASES 3
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 4
THE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 5
THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6
THE STATEMENT OF FACTS 7
THE STATEMENT OF ISSUES 8
THE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 9
THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 11 – 16
ISSUE NO. 01 11
ISSUE NO. 02 14
ISSUE NO. 03 17
PRAYER 23

2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CEET Common Eligibility cum Entrance Test.

FMGE Foreign Medical Graduate Examination.
NMC National Medical Commission.
MCI Medical Council of India.
COI Constitution of India.
MBBS Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery.
NMCZ National Medical Council of Zindica.
Art. Article.
SC Supreme Court of Zindica.
v. Versus.
ORS Others.
ANR Another.
Govt. Government.
CEE Common Eligibility Examination.
PSC Parliamentary Standing Committee.
WFME World Federation for Medical Examination.
UCAT UK Clinical Aptitude Test.
NBE National Board of Examination.
CPR Centre for Policy Research
MCZ Medical Council of Zindica
CBSE Central Board of Secondary Education

3
THE INDEX OF THE AUTHORITIES
LIST OF CASES
1. Francis Coralie Mullin Vs The Administrator, Union Territory Of Delhi

[(1981) 2 SCR 516]
2. Bandhua Mukti Morcha V. Union Of India
[(1984) 2 SCR 67]
3. Paschim Banga Khet Mazoor Samity V. State Of West Bengal
[(1996) 4 SCC 37]
4. Ram Krishna Dalmia V. Justice S.R. Tendolkar
[(1958) AIR 538]
5. The National Medical Commission Vs Pooja Thandu Naresh & Ors
[SLP (CIVIL) NO. 2536-2537 / 2022]
6. Kesavananda Bharati Vs Union Of India
[AIR (1973) SC 1461]
7. Minerva Mills Vs. Union Of India
[AIR (1980) 1789]
8. NCT Of Delhi V. Union Of India
[(2018) 8 SCC 501]
9. ITC Ltd. V. Agricultural Produce Market Committee
[(1985) SUPP. 1 SCR 145]
10. Christian Medical College Vs Union Of India
[ CIVIL APPEAL NO. 98 / 2012]
11. TMA Pai Foundation Vs. State Of Karnataka Case (2002)
[(2002) 8 SCC 481]
12. Aravinth R.A. vs The Secretary To The Government
[CIVIL appeal No:3585-3586/2022]
13. MCI v. State of Karnatka & Ors
14. State Of Kerla Vs Kumari T.P. Roshana
[(1979) 1 SCC 572]
15. Modern Dental College vs State of M.P.
[(2016) 7 SCC 353]

4
16. Shankar Charitable Trust vs. Union of India.

[WRIT PETITION (C) NO.261 OF 2016]
17. State of Rajastan vs Union of India
[(1977) AIR 1361]
18. Jaya Gokul Educational Trust vs Commr. & Secretary to Govt. Hr. Edn. Dept.
[Appeal (civil) 2589 of 2000]
19. Dr. Pradeep Jain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.,
[(1984) 3 SCC 654]
20. Christian medical college vs union of India
[Civil Appeal No. 2383 of 2020]
STATUTES REFFERED:
1. The Constitutional of India, P.M. Bakshi, 13TH Edition (2015), Reprint (2016),
Universal Law Publishing.
2. Constitution of India, J.N. Pandey,
3. The Constitutional Law of India, M.P. Jain,
4. National Medical Commission Act, 2019.
WEBSITES REFERRED:
1. www.livelaw.in
2. www.manupatra.ac.in
3. www.legalservicesofindia.in
4. www.indiakanoon.com
5. www.main.sci.gov.in
6. www.tneducationinfo.com

5
STATEMENT OF JURIESDICTION
The petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Zindica by

invoking Writ jurisdiction under Article 321 of the Constitution of Zindica, 1950.
1
Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights
conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ), Parliament may
by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers
exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 ).
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this
Constitution.

6
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. In the country Zindica, in 2014, CEET came to existence in 2014 for being filled
around 86,649 MBBS seats available in 562 medical colleges.
2. It is mandatory to get a license to practice medical profession in Zindica. The
National Medical Commission (NMC) of Zindica has mandated doing clinical
practice in the country where medical students studied their graduation.
3. In the absence of this license, the medical students studied in abroad will be
considered ineligible to appear for FMGE conducted in Zindica.
4. The FMGE permits medical students studying in abroad to carry on their medical
profession as a doctor in Zindica.
5. The students from different parts of Zindica are studying their medical course in
various universities of China, Ukraine and Russia.
6. In 2020, they were without completing medical course, without undergoing
clinical training, forced to come back to Zindica due to pandemic and strict
COVID-19 restrictions and lockdowns.
7. These students have approached the Government of Zindica for continuing their
medical education but which was not considered by it.
8. Hence the students have approached the Supreme Court of Zindica to get an order
allowing them to pursue reminder of their studies in Zindica.
9. Following honorable this court order, 2015-20 students were permitted to undergo
clinical training and also got provisional registration in Zindica.
10. But the Government has refused to extent similar benefit to the students of 2016-
21 batch for the purpose of increasing the standards of medical examination and
ensuring quality medical services to its citizens.
11. Aggrieved by this, this petitioner, 2016-21 batch medical students have filed this
writ petition seeking to extend similar benefit offered to 2015-20 batch to them.

7
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Denying the opportunity to pursue the studies in Zindica, whether violating the
right provided under Art. 21 of the Constitution?
2. Insisting mandatory clinical practice abroad to the candidates who studied abroad
in order to get eligibility to appear for Foreign Medical Graduate Exam in Zindica,
whether violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution?
3. Making compulsory the Common Eligibility test for the candidates to seek
admission to the MBBS course, whether violative of the rights guaranteed under
the Constitution of Zindica?

8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Denying the opportunity to pursue the studies in Zindica, whether violating

the right provided under Art. 21 of the Constitution?
In this case there is no violation of the right provided under art212 and here
the opportunities of foreign medical graduates to pursue the studies in zindica are
not completely denied.
In a similar case the NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION v. POOJA
THANDU NARESH 3 , the Hon’ble Supreme court of Zindica ruled that
considering that the students who did their clinical training by online form should
not to be allowed to provide registration which in turn affects the country’s health
department and the society. Also the Government is aware of the fact that this
requirement goes beyond what is provided under clause 11 of the Screening Test
Regulations 20024.
2. Insisting mandatory clinical practice abroad to the candidates who studied

abroad in order to get eligibility to appear for Foreign Medical Graduate
Exam in Zindica, whether violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution?
As per the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the students who did their
medical graduation abroad should clear FMGE in order to practice medicine in
Zindica. No country permits to take care of the profession without the clinical
training because the clinical training hails as the backbone of the profession than
theoretical knowledge. So insisting mandatory clinical practice abroad to the
candidates in order to get eligibility to appear for FMGE in Zindica is not
violating Art. 14 of the Zindican Constitution.
2
Article 21 – Protection of life and personal liberty. No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty
except according to procedure established by law.
3
9 (2018) 1 SCC 468
4
The prescribed authority shall intimate the result of the screening test to the candidates as well as to the
Secretary, Medical Council of Zindica (MCZ) and the state Medical Councils. The unsuccessful candidates shall
also be approximately informed. The candidates who qualify the screening test may apply to the Secretary
Medical Council of Zindica or to any State Medical Council for provisional registration permanent registration
along with the requisite registration fee in favor of secretary MCZ or the State Medical Council. The MCZ shall
issue provisional registration to such successful candidates who are yet to undergo one year internship in an
approved institution and issue permanent registration to such eligible candidates who have already undergone
one year intern ships as the cases may be.

9
admission to the MBBS course, whether violative of the rights guaranteed
under the Constitution of Zindica?
Every nation in the globe made it mandatory to write any kind of entrance
examination in order to permit themselves to pursue their higher education.
Several countries like United States of America in which Scholastic Assessment
Test (SAT) is mandatory; United Kingdom where UK Clinical Aptitude Test
(UCAT) is mandatory; Russia, the place where globe’s best medical colleges are
located, in which Unified State Examination (USE) is mandatory; and these
examinations are for the enhancement of the profession level. Medicine is
profession, in which the taste of holy implied and the holy could be tasted in this
profession only. The demand of doctors and the trend to study medicine increased
the aspirant’s population, but, the population is not the fact to study medicine.
The key thing is there should be knowledged person. To select the person with
such knowledge these entrance examinations are conducted and were selected by
their merit level.
Hence the advent of CEET is not violating the rights guaranteed under the
Constitution of Zindica.

10
ARGUEMENTS ADVANCED
1. Denying the opportunity to pursue the studies in Zindica, whether violating the
right provided under Art. 21 of the Constitution?
The contention that not allowing foreign medical students to continue with their
studies in Zindica who have not completed their course is violating art 21 is to be
rejected. It is true that country needs more doctor, but it needs really qualified doctors.
RIGHT TO HEALTH:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in FRANCIS CORALIE MULLIN VS THE
ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY OF DELHI has observed that the
expression “life” in Article 21 means a life with human dignity and not mere survival or
animal Right to life has a very broad scope which includes right to livelihood, better
standard of life, hygienic conditions in the workplace & right to leisure. Right to Health
is, therefore, an inherent and inescapable part of a dignified life. Further, the Court held
that dignity and health fall within the ambit of life and liberty under Article 21.
In the case of PASCHIM BANGA KHET MAZOOR SAMITY V. STATE OF

WEST BENGAL (1996) 4 SCC 37, the scope of Article 21 was further widened, as the
court held that it is the responsibility of the Government to provide adequate medical aid
to every person and to strive for the welfare of the public at large. It is clear from the
above Rulings of supreme court that in order to secure the Right to health of its citizens
the government of Zindica follows certain guidelines and Regulation so asking the
government for compromising those Regulations every time will only lead in
compromising the health infrastructure of the country.We are not against the students
but we are more concerned about the common people and their health. We cannot take
one percent risk when it comes to Zindican patients.
In the case of BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA V. UNION OF INDIA AIR

1984 SC 812, the Supreme Court held that although the DPSP are not binding
obligations but hold only persuasive value, yet they should be duly implemented by the
State. Further, the Court held that dignity and health fall within the ambit of life and
liberty under Article 21. The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), enshrined in
Chapter IV of the Constitution of India, require the state to, among other duties,

11
promote the welfare of its people (Art.38);5 protect their health and strength from abuse
(Art 39(e)); 6 provide public assistance in case of sickness, disability or “undeserved
want” (Art 41);7 ensure just and humane conditions of work; and raise nutrition levels,
improve the standard of living and consider improvement of public health as its primary
duty (Art 47).
In addition to the DPSP, some other health-related provisions can be found in the
11th and 12th Schedules, as subjects within the jurisdictions of Panchayats and
Municipalities, respectively. These include the duty to provide clean drinking water,
adequate healthcare and sanitation (including hospitals, primary health care centers and
dispensaries), promotion of family welfare, development of women and children,
promotion of social welfare, etc. The Constitution of India does not expressly recognize
Right to Health as a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution (Fundamental
Rights). However, through judicial interpretation, this has been read into the
fundamental right to life & personal liberty (Article 21) and is now considered an
inseparable part of the Right to Life. Therefore, here there is no violation of the right
provided under art218 and here the opportunities of foreign medical graduates to pursue
the studies in zindica are not completely denied.
In a similar case NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION v. POOJA THANDU

NARESH 9 , the Hon’ble Supreme court of Zindica ruled that students who did their
clinical training by online should not to be allowed to provide registration in Zindica
5
State to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people,
(1) The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as
effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the
institutions of the national life.
(2) The State shall, in particular, strive to minimize the inequalities in income, and endeavor to
eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not only amongst individuals but also amongst
groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations.
6
Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State: The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards
securing (e) that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not
abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or
strength;
7
Right to work, to education and to public assistance in certain cases - The State shall, within the limits of its
economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and
to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of
undeserved want
8
Article 21 – Protection of life and personal liberty. No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty
except according to procedure established by law.
9
9 (2018) 1 SCC 468

12
because these students are not fit enough to treat patients so providing them registration
is taking a risk on health of the patients. Further The supreme court ruled the NMC to
frame a scheme as a onetime measure within two months to allow the student and such
similarly situated students who have not actually completed clinical training to undergo
clinical training in India.so as a onetime measure but at the same time keeping in mind
the greater need of maintaining a sustainable health care system for the public the govt
of Zindica refused to extend the relief to 2016-21 batch foreign medical students who
have not completed their course. Here the contention that art 21 is violated is
completely wrong.

13
2. Insisting mandatory clinical practice abroad to the candidates who studied abroad
in order to get eligibility to appear for Foreign Medical Graduate Exam in Zindica,
whether violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution?
A medical student who has not undergone clinical training was like someone
who has learned the theory of swimming but has never entered water and such students
cannot be allowed to treat zindican patients under any circumstances and insisting
mandatory clinical practice as an eligibility criterion for forgien medical graduates are in
no way violative article 14.
INSISTING CLINICAL PRACTICE IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF ART14
The Hon’ble supreme court of zindica in RAM KRISHNA DALMIA v.

JUSTICE S.R. TENDOLKAR 10, AIR 1958the held that Article 14 forbids the class
legislation but it does not forbid reasonable classification. the reason foreign medical
graduates are required to complete clinical practice in the respective country where they
did their medical education. It is because to ensure that student has achieved the
adequate skills because practical skills are necessary in all fields of medicine. Clinical
practice plays a central role in medical practice. The medical profession requires
complexity skills such as psychological skills, patience, practical skills (e.g., injections,
suturing, etc.) which is gained only by clinical training and it should be mastered to
ensure a high level of security for both, professionals and patients. Many medical
licensing boards around the world have called for the strengthening of practical clinical
skills in undergraduate medical training.
In THE NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION VS POOJA THANDU

NARESH & ORS the Bench led by Justice Hemant Gupta allowed repatriated Indian
students of the batch 2015-20 to undergo clinical training in India and get provisionally
registered The bench directed The national medical commission to frame a scheme as a
one-time measure within two months to allow the student and such similarly situated
students who have not actually completed clinical training to undergo clinical training in
India in the medical colleges which may be identified by the NMC but The Reason why
2016-21 batch were unable to avail of the benefits of the scheme prepared by the
government in pursuance of the court order was because they had completed only seven
10
AIR 1958 SC 538

14
semesters physically and were put in their penultimate years while the scheme covered
only the students in final year.so Therefore allowing one batch to continue their studies
and refusing to extend similar benefit to the next batch cannot be challeneged on the
grounds that this classification is violative of article14.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MCI V. STATE OF KARNATKA &
ORS. (1998) held that: A medical student requires gruelling study and that can be done
only if proper facilities are available in a medical college and the hospital attached to it
has to be well equipped and the teaching faculty and doctors have to be competent /
enough that when a medical student comes out, he is perfect in the science of treatment
of human beings and is not found wanting in any way. The country does not want half-
baked medical professionals coming out of medical colleges when they did not have full
facilities of teaching and were not exposed to the patients and their ailments during the
course of their study”.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF KERALA V. KUMARI

T.P. ROSHANA & ANR. (1979) 1 SCC 572, held that " The Indian Medical Council
Act, 1956 has constituted the Medical Council of India as an expert body to control the
minimum standards of medical education and to regulate their observance. Obviously,
this high-powered Council has power to prescribe the minimum standards of medical
education. It has implicit power to supervise the qualifications or eligibility standards
for admission into medical institutions. "Therefore The prescription of a clinical training
internships for a minimum duration of 12 months in the same foreign medical institution
cannot also be said to be violating art 14. The purpose of internship is to test the ability
of the students to apply their academic knowledge on their subjects, namely the patients.
Medical institutions of other countries may not insist on rigorous internship for
students who may not put to test their skills on the population of their country. But it is
not necessary for us to follow suit. Similarly, the requirement has been necessitated to
ensure that the students who were imparted medical education in a foreign country
demonstrate their skills first on the population of the country where they studied. The
necessity for a Master Chef to taste the food prepared by him, before it is served on the
guests, cannot be said to be arbitrary.

15
Therefore, the Hon’ble supreme court in ARAVINTH R.A. VS THE

SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT 2 May, 2022 upheld the Regulations
4(a)(i),4(a)(ii), 4(b) & 4(c) of the National Medical Commission (Foreign Medical
Graduate Licentiate) Regulations 2021 which are challenged to be violative of
constitutional rights. The contention that the country needs more doctors and that by
restricting the registration of foreign medical graduates, the fundamental right of the
professionals under Article 19(1)(g) and the fundamental right of the citizens
under Article 21 are impaired, is to be stated only to be rejected. It is true that the
country needs more doctors, but it needs really qualified doctors and not persons trained
by institutions abroad, to test their skills only in their mother land.
As India battles the covid-19 pandemic, it also confronts the challenge of

unavailability of formally trained healthcare practitioners, 75% of the villages have at
least one health care centers with at least of three staff including the doctors and nurses,
86% of them are private “doctors” and 68% have no formal medical training, found in a
survey conducted around 1,519 villages across 19 states by researchers from the Centre
for Policy Research (CPR) in New Delhi. The study has been published in the Social
Science and Medicine journal of Zindica. Therefore, it is the duty of the State to care for
the health of the public at large and the Central Government and various State
governments have, rightfully and proactively.so the argument saying insisting clinical
practice is violative of art14 is invalid.

16
admission to the MBBS course, whether violative of the rights guaranteed under
the Constitution of Zindica?
The Constitution of India is an umbrella of rights that gives the citizens an

assurance of a free and fair society. The Fundamental rights enshrined in our
constitution, act as the foundation that upholds the democratic system in India.
Therefore, Making the common eligibility test compulsory for medical education was
devised with a view to provide common platform to ensure equality rather than any
particular standard to be maintained. The contention that CET is against rights
guaranteed under constitution is wrong.
CEET IS NOT AGAINST RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER CONSTITUTION:
The Hon’ble Supreme court in CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE

VELLORE ASSOCIATION V. UNION OF INDIA ruled against CEET Exams by
stating they have the effect of denuding the States, State-run universities” and are
contrary to the decisions in TMA PAI FOUNDATION VS. STATE OF
KARNATAKA CASE (2002) Thus CEET was not enforced. Then MCI filed review
petition against the judgement delivered in CMC case (2013). Thereafter, the case was
heard by a five-judge bench which after hearing said we are of the view that the
judgement delivered in Christian Medical College needs reconsideration. Then the case
was carefully heard along with identical case MODERN DENTAL COLLEGE AND
OTHERS VS STATE OF M.P.,
Then finally in SHANKAR CHARITABLE TRUST VS UNION OF INDIA
The apex court made it clear by recalling its 18 July, 2013 order, the 21 December, 2010
notification making CEET compulsory for admission in undergraduate and post
graduate courses stood restored. Thus, CEET was made mandatory. Again the CEET
exam was challenged on the grounds that it violates the constitutionally guaranteed
rights of minorities The institutions which petitioned included Christian Medical
College, Vellore, Manipal University, SRM Medical College Hospital and Karnataka
Private Medical and Dental Colleges Association.
Therefore the three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of Zindica comprising
Mr Justice Arun Mishra, Mr Justice Vineet Saran and Mr Justice M R Shah after

17
carefully hearing and Reviewing CEET gave vide judgement dated 29 April 2020 in the
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VS UNION OF INDIA on 29 April 2020 held
that the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (Act) and regulation cannot
be said to be ultra vires or taking away the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of
India under Article 30(1)11 read with Articles 19(1)(g)12, 1413, 2514, 2615 and 29(1)16.
Further bench said “Resultantly, we hold that there is no violation of the rights of
the unaided/aided minority to administer institutions under Articles 19(1)(g) and 30 read
with Articles 25, 26 and 29(1) of the Constitution of India by prescribing the uniform
examination of CEET for admissions in the graduate and postgraduate professional
courses of medical as well as dental science”. Holding that the regulatory measures by
prescribing CEET in no way interfere with the rights to administer the institution by the
religious or linguistic minorities, the top court said that it intends to weed out evils from
the system and various malpractices which decayed the system. “Regulatory measures
cannot be said to be exceeding the concept of limited governance.
The regulatory measures in question are for the improvement of the public health
and is a step, in furtherance of the directive principles enshrined in Article 47 17 and
enable the individual by providing full opportunity in pursuance of his objective to excel
in his pursuit…,” the bench said, while disposing of 76 petitions by various minority
and private institutions challenging Centre’s notification related to CEET. The
judgment delivered by the Supreme Court puts to rest the uncertainties that had crept up
11
Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions
(1) - All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and
administer educational institutions of their choice.
12
Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc.,
(1) - All citizens shall have the right
(g) - to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business
13
Article 14 - Equality before law. The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal
protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race,
caste, sex or place of birth
14
Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.
15
Freedom to manage religious affairs Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious
denomination or any section thereof shall have the right.
16
Protection of interests of minorities
Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct
language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same.
17
Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health.
The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and
the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the State shall endeavor to
bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs
which are injurious to health

18
on the aforesaid issue, clarifying that the rights under Article 19(1)(g) are not absolute
and subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the student community in order to
promote merit, recognition of excellence, and to curb the malpractices. The rights of
religious minorities under Article 30 of the Constitution also have been clarified to be
not in conflict with other parts of the Constitution as balancing the rights is
constitutional intendment in the national interest. The court said the regulatory measures
are intended for the proper functioning of institutions and to ensure that the standard of
education is maintained and does not fall low under the guise of an exclusive right of
management to the extent of maladministration.
The bench clarified this by Relying on several apex court judgements including a
constitution bench verdict of 2002 in TMA Pai Foundation, the bench said, “Thus, we
are of the opinion that rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 30 read with Articles 25, 26
and 29(1) of the Constitution of India do not come in the way of securing transparency
and recognition of merits in the matter of admissions…It is open to imposing reasonable
restrictions in the national and public interest”.
It added “Uniform entrance test qualifies the test of proportionality and is
reasonable. The same is intended to check several maladies which crept into medical
education, to prevent capitation fee by admitting students which are lower in merit and
to prevent exploitation, profiteering, and commercialisation of education”.
It said minority institutions are equally bound to comply with conditions
imposed under the relevant Acts and Regulations to enjoy affiliation and recognition.
“To weed out evils from the system, which were eating away fairness in admission
process, defeating merit and aspiration of the common incumbent with no means, the
State has the right to frame regulatory regime for aided/ unaided minority/private
institutions as mandated by Directives Principles, Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution,” it said. In DR. PRADEEP JAIN AND ORS. V. UNION OF INDIA
AND ORS.,
The apex court held that "Merit consists of a high degree of intelligence coupled
with a keen and incisive mind, sound knowledge of the basic subjects and Infinite
capacity for hard work and also calls for a sense of social commitment and dedication to
the cause of the poor. "Therefore it is amply clear that only through a Merit based
common entrance test the rights of the students aspiring for medical courses under
Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India can be ensured with respect to

19
growing commercialisation of private medical education, wherein, medical seats were

sold for higher price, which was affordable only to the rich, and because of this the
dreams of deserving medical aspirants, irrespective of caste, creed and class, were being
crushed With CEET in Place, seats blocking could be reduced, economically weaker
people might get admission in private colleges too under as it is a unifying exam,
instead of the previously used 12th Std scores which put State Board and CBSE syllabus
students at two different levels.
With NEET both the State board and CBSE Board students are evaluated at the
same level. Therefore, when admission is based exclusively on CEET score, one can
compete for the 100% seats and the level of difficulty being faced in the exam if
uniform to everyone, and the rankings are fair. By using the CEET score, the state
board students can enter Institutes of National importance such as AIIMS, JIPMER etc.
NEET can be attempted for three times but a low score in the 12thStd Board exam
diminishes all chances of getting admission to MBBS. The old method had killed the
dream of many aspiring students. There is currently 69% reservation for medical seats in
Tamil Nadu, which remains unchanged under admission by NEET scores as well.
Therefore, it is not against social justice.
CEET AND CONCEPT OF COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM:

The argument that Introduction of CEET infringes upon the state’s rights and
stands against the basic structure of the constitution completely ignores the reason
underlying the need for a common entrance examination. The Parliamentary Standing
Committee (PSC),in its 92nd Report,18 and the expert committee headed by Dr.Ranjit
Roy Chaudhry that, in the words of the PSC,“if a unitary Common Entrance Exam is
introduced, the capitation fee will be tackled in a huge way; there will be transparency
in the system; students will not be burdened with multiple tests; and quality will get a
big push. In the landmark judgement given by Hon’ble supreme court in
KESAVANANDA BHARATI VS UNION OF INDIA (1973) The SC held that
although no part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, was beyond the
Parliament's amending power, the “basic structure of the Constitution could not be
abrogated even by a constitutional amendment.
18
Entitled “The functioning of Medical Council of India”

20
This view was subsequently reiterated in MINERVA MILLS VS. UNION OF

INDIA. And in the five-Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in State (NCT OF
DELHI) V. UNION OF INDIA the Court reiterated that democracy and federalism are
firmly imbibed in constitutional ethos. Federalism can be executive, cooperative,
collaborative or competitive. The Indian model of federalism is ‘cooperative’, as laid
down by the Supreme Court in STATE OF RAJASTHAN V. UNION OF INDIA.
Cooperative federalism means that though there is a constitutional provision for the
distribution of powers, in practice, these powers are to be exercised jointly by the Centre
and the states.As observed by distinguished jurist M.P. Jain, these governments are
interdependent and not independent.
In JAYA GOKUL EDUCATIONAL TRUST V. COMMR. & SECY. TO
GOVT.HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (vide paragraph 16) the Supreme
Court noted that after the Constitutional amendment (Forty-second amendment Act,
1976) Entry 25 of List III (the Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule reads:
Education, included technical education, medical education and universities, subject to
the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I Thus, the State law made under
Entry 25 of List III would be repugnant to any law made by Parliament under Entry 66
of List I.
In ITC LTD. V. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE the
Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution of India deserves to be interpreted, language
permitting, in a manner that does not whittle down the powers of the State Legislature
and preserves the federalism while also upholding supremacy as contemplated by some
of its articles.The expression "coordination" used in Entry 66 of the Union List of the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution does not merely mean evaluation.It means
harmonisation with a view to forge a uniform pattern for a concerted action according to
a certain design, scheme or plan of development. It, therefore, includes action not only
for removal of disparities in standards but also for preventing the occurrence of such
disparities. when there are more than one Board conducting the qualifying examination
and the Universities are more than one in number, a Common Entrance test is required
to be held for selecting the students for admission to such professional courses This is
because different examining bodies have different standards of marking, different
syllabus, etc., and hence a student who appears for the examination conducted by an
examining body which is stringent in granting marks will be discriminated against vis-`-

21
vis a student who appears for the examination conducted by an examining body which is
liberal in granting marks.
This will be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore it is explicit
that the objective behind the introduction CEET as a common entrance test is not
against rights guaranteed under constitution but instead to uphold the constitutional
rights and increase the standard of medical field all over Zindica by bringing in states
together under cooperative federalism.

22
PRAYER
In the light of the arguments advanced and authorities cited,

The respondent’s counsel most humbly pleads Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to adjudge
and:
1. DISMISS, the petition.
Also pass any other order as it deems fit in the interest of equity, justice and good conscience.
For this act of kindness, THE RESPONDENTS shall be duty bound forever.
DATE: 25/02/2023 All of which is humbly prayed,
PLACE: NEW DELHI. COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

23

Respondent Memorial Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Respondent Memorial Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5TH THIRU.

ISARI VELAN MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 2023

TEAM CODE: VMC22

5TH THIRU. ISARI VELAN MEMORIAL

BEFORE THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF ZINDICA

WRIT PETITION No. 0000/2023

STUDENTS OF MEDICINE (ABROAD) PETITIONERS

PETITIONER INVOKED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT(S)

CONTENT PAGE NO.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT(S)

CEET Common Eligibility cum Entrance Test.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT(S)

THE INDEX OF THE AUTHORITIES

1. Francis Coralie Mullin Vs The Administrator, Union Territory Of Delhi

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT(S)

16. Shankar Charitable Trust vs. Union of India.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT(S)

The petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Zindica by

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT(S)

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT(S)

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT(S)

1. Denying the opportunity to pursue the studies in Zindica, whether violating

2. Insisting mandatory clinical practice abroad to the candidates who studied

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT(S)

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT(S)

In the case of PASCHIM BANGA KHET MAZOOR SAMITY V. STATE OF

In the case of BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA V. UNION OF INDIA AIR

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT(S)

In a similar case NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION v. POOJA THANDU

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT(S)

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT(S)

INSISTING CLINICAL PRACTICE IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF ART14

The Hon’ble supreme court of zindica in RAM KRISHNA DALMIA v.

In THE NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION VS POOJA THANDU

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT(S)

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF KERALA V. KUMARI

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT(S)

Therefore, the Hon’ble supreme court in ARAVINTH R.A. VS THE

As India battles the covid-19 pandemic, it also confronts the challenge of

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT(S)

The Constitution of India is an umbrella of rights that gives the citizens an

CEET IS NOT AGAINST RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER CONSTITUTION:

The Hon’ble Supreme court in CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT(S)

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT(S)

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT(S)

growing commercialisation of private medical education, wherein, medical seats were

CEET AND CONCEPT OF COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM:

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT(S)

This view was subsequently reiterated in MINERVA MILLS VS. UNION OF

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT(S)

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT(S)

In the light of the arguments advanced and authorities cited,

1. DISMISS, the petition.

DATE: 25/02/2023 All of which is humbly prayed,

PLACE: NEW DELHI. COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT(S)

You might also like