No provision for suspension- Rajasthan HC Grants Relief to MBBS students accused of NEET Impersonation
Rajasthan High Court
Jodhpur: Granting relief to a group of MBBS students who were suspended over the allegations of NEET impersonation, the Rajasthan High Court has issued directions to their colleges to allow them to attend classes and appear in exams.
These students were put under suspension based on an order of the National Medical Commission (NMC), after FIRs were launched against them, alleging that they impersonated some other candidates in the National Eligibility-Entrance Test Undergraduate (NEET-UG) 2023 Examination.
However, while considering their plea, the HC bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta rules that without there being any provision providing power to suspend, rusticate or cancel the admission of the candidates involved in such act, the suspension of the petitioner students was not only illegal and without jurisdiction but it also violated their fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.
Further, the Court observed that it had not been alleged that the petitioners had been admitted by asking someone else to appear in the exam on their behalf, but the allegation was that they had appeared in the exam impersonating someone else.
"Allegation against each of the petitioners herein is, that they have impersonated for other students in the NEET UG Examination. However, so far as their own admission in medical colleges is concerned, there is no iota of allegation of getting admission fraudulently or by using unfair means – there is no quarrel about their merit and eligibility of getting admission in the medical courses...According to this Court, unless there is any statute or regulation, which provides for suspension, rustication or even cancellation of the admission of the candidates involved in impersonation in the examinations, the respondents cannot place the petitioners under suspension," observed the bench.
Also Read: 2 MBBS Students Suspended for Impersonation in NEET 2024
Therefore, the Court held that there was no dispute regarding the petitioners' own merit or eligibility to be admitted to the medical courses. Opining that a lenient view had to be adopted, the bench remarked, "If the suspension is allowed to continue, the loss would be irreversible and irreparable, inasmuch as the period which the criminal trial will take, the petitioners would not be able to continue with their studies and their future will be left in lurch. And if, they are ultimately acquitted, they would have lost 3-4 precious years of their student life doing nothing."
"The action on the part of the respondents in placing the petitioners under suspension is like holding them guilty and punishing them before the competent court convicts them...But, since the allegation against the petitioners is, that they have appeared for other candidates in subsequent examination, this Court is persuaded to take somewhat lenient view, however, with caution and circumspection," it further noted.
However, the Court did not approve the action of impersonation. Further, observing that instances of impersonation were increasing, it asked the Central Government to bring in appropriate legislation.
"This Court not even for a moment approves petitioners’ action of impersonation and firmly believes that looking to the increasing number of such cases, it is high time the Central Government brings appropriate legislation, but in absence of such legislation and without any power to suspend, placing the petitioners under suspension is not only illegal, without jurisdiction, but also violative of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India," the bench remarked.
These petitioners had allegedly impersonated other candidates in the NEET UG exam 2023. Some of them had been caught red-handed while others were found involved in impersonation after the investigation. Consequently, FIRs were lodged against the petitioners, and charge sheet had also been filed.
However, when the colleges suspended them based on NMC's directions, they approached the HC bench seeking relief. While maintaining that the petitioners were wrongly implicated, the petitioners' counsel argued that even if it was assumed that they were guilty of impersonating for the candidates appearing in NEET UG Examination, they cannot be suspended from their college (s), as there is no enabling provision in any statute. The counsel submitted that 'the Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 though provides for punishment, it does not contain any provision for suspension from the college(s).
On the other hand, the counsel for NMC argued that under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, the body has power to law down policies for maintaining high quality and standards in medical education.
The NMC counsel further submitted that under the Public Examination Act 2024, the petitioners' act fell under the definition of "organized crime" under Section 2(1)(h) as well as under "unfair means" under Section 3 of the Act. Therefore, the petitioners could not be allowed to continue their studies.
However, after taking note of the submissions by both the parties and going through the regulations, the Court observed, that
"The Act of 2024, which deals with malpractices in public examination though provides for punishment but does not contain any provision for suspension...There is a provision in the form of Regulation No.24 in the Regulations of 2021, which provides for power to suspend in case of ragging. But these regulations are confined to the cases of ragging and naturally, do no provide for suspension in the cases of impersonation."
Referring to section 24 of the Act of 2019 and section 2(1)(a) of the Act of 2024, the Court noted that the petitioners do not fall within the ambit of candidate, "because it is indicative of the candidate and a person, who appears for a candidate as a ‘scribe’. The petitioners, who have impersonated on behalf of the candidate can neither be treated to a candidate nor can they be alleged to be scribes, because scribe is a person, who has been authorised by the examining body to appear on behalf of the candidate, whereas, the allegation against the petitioners is that they have impersonated the actual candidates and unauthorisedly rather fraudulently appeared in their place."
The Court held that the petitioners would fall within the contours of a crime or organized crime as defined under sub-clause (h) of sub-section 2 of the Act of 2024. They may also be treated to be persons associated with the service provider defined in sub-clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 2 and sub-clause (v) of section 3 of the Act of 2024, but whether or not they really fall within the ambit and scope of these sections will ultimately based upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the finding recorded by the trial court in this regard, it held.
Addressing the issue of petitioners' involvement in impersonating other students, the Court observed that it does not deem it apt to dilate upon or to record any finding over such allegation.
"Any discussion made or finding recorded herein may not be construed to be an observation or finding about petitioners’ involvement in appearing for other candidates, because, for that purpose, the investigating agency and the trial court are the competent authority. The adjudication made in this case is confined to the power and propriety of the University/NMC/college in suspending the petitioners and necessity or the justification for such action," the bench held.
"It is usual that the trial of the case takes years and in cases like the one in hands, which involve allegations of impersonation and long list of witnesses, such possibilities becomes almost certainty," it further observed.
"Suspension usually presupposes initiation or contemplation of inquiry. While, observing that no inquiry has so far been initiated against the petitioners, this Court would like to add that even if the respondents so wish or propose, no inquiry is possible because the acts of impersonation were done outside the college(s) in which the petitioners are studying and because all the material, oral or occular evidence is with the police and not with the college(s). Hence, even if an inquiry is conducted, it will be a futile exercise or a farce," remarked the bench.
"Hence, unless such finding is recorded and petitioners are held guilty, their future cannot be kept in suspended animation for indefinite period. Had there been a case of the petitioners getting admission in the medical course by asking someone else to appear on their behalf, perhaps this Court would have not granted them any indulgence on the basis of sympathy or equitable consideration, because then their merit or eligibility itself was in doubt," it further noted.
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/rajasthan-hc-order-288671.pdf
