VMC23 Petitoenrs

5th Thiru.
ISARI VELAN MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2023 VMC23
5TH THIRU ISARI VELAN MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ZINDICA
IN THE MATTER OF
WRIT PETITION NO. ______OF 2023
WRIT PETITION FILED U/ART 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ZINDICA, 1950
FOREIGN MEDICAL STUDENTS………………………………… PETITIONERS
V.
UNION OF ZINDICA…………………………………………………. RESPONDENT
ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND PUISNE JUDGES

OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ZINDICA
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIOENRS
1
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITONERS
5th Thiru. ISARI VELAN MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1) INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 5-8
 TABLE OF CASES 5-7

 LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS 7
 INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS 7
 BOOKS 7
 NEWS ARTICLES, RESEARCH PAPERS, REPORTS,
GOVERNMENT DATA 8
 WEB SOURCES 8
2) STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 9
3) STATEMENT OF FACTS 10
4) STATEMENT OF ISSUES 11
5) SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 12
6) ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 13-32
1.DENYING THE OPPORTUNITY TO PURSUE THE

STUDIES IN ZINDICA, WHETHER VIOLATING THE RIGHT
PROVIDED UNDER ART 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION? 13-18
 1.1. STATE ACTION IN QUESTION DOES NOT
SATISFY THE TEST OF “PROCEDURE
ESTABLISHED BY LAW”, DESECRATES GOLDEN
TRIANLE RULE 13-15
 1.1.1. VIOLATION OF DOCTRINE OF DUE
PROCESS OF LAW 14
 1.1.2. INTEREST OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC
UNFOUNDED 14-15
 1.2. INFRINGEMENT UPON RIGHT TO EDUCATION 15-16
2
COMPETITION, 2023
 1.2.1. INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS
AFFIRMING RIGHT TO EDUCATION 16
 1.3. INFRINGEMENT UPON RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD 16-18
 1.4. CONTRAVENTION OF WEDNESBURY
PRINCIPLES 18
2.INSISTING MANDATORY CLINICAL PRACTICE

ABROAD TO THE CANDIDATES WHO STUDIES ABROAD
IN ORDER TO GET ELIGIBILITY TO APPEAR FOR
FOREIGN MEDICAL GRADUATE EXAM IN ZINDICA,
WHETHER VIOLATIVE OF ART 14 OF THE
CONSTITUTION? 19-23
 2.1. CLASSIFICATION NOT BASED ON
INTELLIGIBLE DIFFERENTIA 19-20
 2.1.1. DOCTRINE OF BASIC STRUCTURE
VIOLATED 20
 2.2. DOCTRINE OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS
VIOLATED 20-21
 2.3. INVOKING DOCTRINE OF “MANIFEST
ARBITRARINESS” 22
3.MAKING COMPULSARY 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? 23-32
 3.1. DESECRATION OF FEDERAL STRUCTIRE BY
ENCROACHING UPON STATE MATTER 23-25
 3.1.1. INTERPRETING ENTRY 66 OF LIST I
(UNION LIST) 24
 3.1.2. INTERPRETATION OF ENTRIES 24-25
3
COMPETITION, 2023
 3.2. VIOLATION OF DOCTRINE OF BASIC
STRUCTURE 26
 3.3. CEET EXAMINATION DERELICTS THE
EDUCATIONALLY AND ECONOMICALLY
BACKWARD 26-30
 3.3.1. CEET DOES NOT INTIMATE A CERTAIN
PREDICTABILITY ON SUCCESS IN HIGHER
EDUCATION 28
 3.3.2. CEET PROMOTES COACHINS AS
OPPOSED TO LEARNING 28-29
 3.3.3. CEET IS CBSE-BIASED 29
 3.3.4. NO LEVEL PLAYING FIELD 29-30
 3.4. INFRINGEMENT OF MINORITY RIGHTS (ART
30) 30-31
 3.5. BEING “MERITORIOUS” IS NOT THE ONLY

CRITERION TO JUDGE SUITABILITY (JUDICIAL
PRECEDENTS) 31-32
7) PRAYER 33
4
COMPETITION, 2023
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
TABLE OF CASES
Sr. No. Case title and citation Pg.

No.
1) Ahmedabad St.Xavier’s College v. State of Gujarat 1974 AIR 1389 30
2) Ajay Hasia & Ors v. Khalid Mujib (1981) 1 SCC 722 22
3) Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan (2002) 4 SCC 34 19
4) Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corporation 17
(1948) 1 KB 233
5) Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1982 SC 1325. 13
6) Bidhannagar (Salt Lake) Welfare Association v. Central Valuation 21
Board & Ors AIR 2007 SC 2276
7) Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar 16
Raghavendranath Nandkarni 1983 AIR 109
8) Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India (1990) 1 SCC 613 19
9) Council of Civil Service Union & Ors v. Minister for the Civil Service 21
(1983) UKHL 6
10) DAV College, Bhatinda v. State of Punjab 1972 AIR 1731 29
11) Dinesh Kumar v. State of MP (2004) 8 SCC 770 19
12) Dolly Chandra v. Chairman Jee (2005) 9 SCC 779 13
13) EP Royappa v. State of TN 1974 AIR 555 21
14) Food Corporation of India v. M/s Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries 21
AIR 1993 SC 1601
15) Gujarat University v. Krishna Ranganath AIR 1963 SC 703 24
16) Haryana Development Authority v. Dropadi Devi (2005) 9 SCC 514 13
17) In Re Sant Ram (1960) 3 SCR 499 16
18) In Re The Special Courts Bill, 1978 (1979) 1 SCC 380 20
19) Jagdish Saran v. Union of India 1980 AIR 820 31
5
COMPETITION, 2023
20) Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461 25
21) M/s Sethi Auto Service Station v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors 21
AIR 2009 SC
22) Madras City Wine Merchants Association v. State of TN (1994) 5 21
SCC 509
23) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597. 13,
16 &
22
24) Minor S Aswin Kumar v. State of TN (2007) 2 CTC 677 28
25) Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka 1992 AIR 1858 15
26) MP Oil Extraction v. State of MP (1997) 7 SCC 592 20
27) Murli S Deora v. Union of Inida AIR 2002 SC 40 14
28) National Buildings Construction Corporation v. S Raghunathan & Ors 21
AIR 1998 SC 2779
29) Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India 2022 SCC OnLine SC 75 30
30) Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation 1985 SCC (3) 545 17
31) Om Kumar v. Union of India AIR 2002 SC 3689 13 &
18
32) Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 654 30
33) Raghunathrao Ganpathrao v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 1267 19
34) Rama Krishna Rai v. State of Bihar AIR 1963 SC 1667 25
35) RK Garg v. Union of India (1981) 4 SCC 676 18
36) Shree Meenakshi mills Ltd Madurai v. AV Visvantha Sastri AIR 155 19
SC 13
37) State of Bombay v. Balsara AIR 1951 SC 318 24
38) State of Bombay v. Narottam Das JethaBhai IR 1951 SC 69 25
39) State of Gujarat v. Shri Ambica Mills (1974) 3 SCR 760 21
40) State of Jharkhand & Ors v. Brahmaputra Metallics Ltd civil appeal 20
no.3860-3862 of 2020
41) Suresh Chandra Sharma v. Chairman AIR 2005 SC 2021. 13
6
COMPETITION, 2023
42) TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481 30
43) Union of India & Anr v. Tulsi Ram Patel & Ors AIR 1985 SC 1416 19
44) Union of India & Ors v. Hindustan Development Corporation & Ors 21
AIR 1998 SC 988
45) Unni Krishnan v. State of AP 1993 AIR 2178 15
LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS
S. No. Statutes Pg. No.

1) Constitution of India, 1950 Passim
3) Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 Passim
2) National Medical Commission Act, 2019 Passim
4) Right to Education Act, 2009 Passim
INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS
S. No. Convention Pg. No.

1) Convention Against Discrimination in Education, 1960 16
2) Convention Concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and 16
Occupation, 1958
3) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against 16
Women, 1981
4) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 16
5) United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1990 16
6) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 15
BOOKS
S.No. Author’s Name and Title of the Book Edition Publication

1) Jain MP, Indian Constitutional Law 7th LexisNexis
2) Pandey JN, Constitutional Law of India 58th Central Law Agency
3) Seervai HM, Constitutional Law of India 4th Universal Law
Publishing
4) Shukla VN, Constitution of India 14th Eastern Book
Company
7
COMPETITION, 2023
NEWS ARTICLES, RESEARCH PAPERS, REPORTS AND

GOVERNMENT DATA
1) P Wilson, “The Bogey of Merit and a Gubernatorial Gaffe”, THE TIMES OF INDIA, 14
April 2022
2) Camara WJ & Echternacht G (2000), “The SAT I and High School Grades: Utility in
Predicting Success in College”, The College Board, Office of Research and Development
3) Justice AK Rajan (Chairman), “Report of the High Level Committee to Study the Impact
of NEET on Medical Admission in Tamil Nadu”, (2021), Government of Tamil Nadu
4) Dr. M Anandakrishnan Committee Report, “Committee for Abolishing Common
Entrance Test”, (2006), Government of Tamil Nadu
WEB SOURCES
Sr. No. Website name

1) https://www.scconline.com
2) https://www.livelaw.in
3) https://www.jstor.org
4) https://www.manupatrafast.com
8
COMPETITION, 2023
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Foreign medical students, who are of Zindican nationality have approached the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of Zindica, under Art 321, challenging the state action and treatment towards them.
32. 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.
THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM PUTS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS AND

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS IN THIS INSTANT CASE
1
Art 32 of the Indian Constitution.
9
COMPETITION, 2023
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Backdrop- Zindica is a Sovereign, Social, Democratic, Republic nation in the Asian continent. It
has a population of over 1.5 billion. They abide by a federal structure and have guaranteed
fundamental rights in the constitution for their citizens.
Medical Education System and the CEET- Zindica has over 562 medical colleges. Common
Eligibility cum Entrance Test (CEET) is the uniform entrance test followed all throughout the
country, to get admissions in MBBS course.
From 2018-21, 7+lakh students in Zindica cleared the CEET but there were just 50,000-80,000
seats for MBBS. Due to the shortage in the number of seats, many medical aspirants had to leave
Zindica and opt for foreign universities.
Situation faced by the foreign medical students during the COVID outbreak-
Thousands of medical students had to return to their home country due to strict lockdowns and
restrictions. This resulted in making them unable to complete their clinical training at their
respective countries of study. The NMC had let out a notification stipulating that it was
necessary for these students to complete clinical training in their country of graduation, only then
they will be fit for a licence to practice in Zindica. If they fail to obtain this license, they won’t
be permitted to attend the FMGE exam.
Due to the pandemic, Zindican students who were pursuing their medical education abroad were
forced to return home without completing their course.
Filing of the petition before the Apex Court- The students approached the government to have
them admitted in Zindican universities, but it was rejected.
They have petitioned in the Supreme Court to seek a remedy.
Earlier the Supreme Court had granted permission for the 2015-20 batch to undergo clinical
training in Zindica. To increase the standard of medical examination and to upgrade its quality,
the government refused to grant the same for the 2016-21 batch.
10
COMPETITION, 2023
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
Denying the opportunity to pursue the studies in Zindica, whether

ISSUE 1
violating the right provided under Art 21 of the Constitution?
Insisting mandatory clinical practice abroad to the candidates who

ISSUE 2
studied abroad in order to get eligibility to appear for Foreign Medical
Graduate Exam in Zindica, whether violative of Art 14 of the
Constitution?
Making compulsory the Common Eligibility test for the candidates to

ISSUE 3
seek admission to the MBBS course, whether violative of the rights
guaranteed under the Constitution of Zindica?
11
COMPETITION, 2023
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1.DENYING THE OPPORTUNITY TO PURSUE STUDIES IN ZINDICA, WHETHER

VIOLATING THE RIGHT PROVIDED U/ART 21 OF THE CONTITUTION?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that the denying of opportunity to
pursue higher education to the foreign students is violative of rights guaranteed under Art 21
since it violates rights to education and livelihood. It also does not comply with the test of
“procedure established by law”, is violative of due process doctrine and Wednesbury principles.
2.INSISTING MANDATORY CLINICAL PRACTICE ABROAD TO THE

CANDIDATES WHO STUDIED ABROAD IN ORDER TO GET ELIGIBILITY TO
APPEAR FOR THE FMGE IN ZINDICA, WHETHER VIOLATIVE OF ART 14 OF
THE CONSTITUTION?
It is respectfully contended before this Hon’ble Court that insisting mandatory clinical practice
for students who did their studies abroad is violative of Art 14 since the classification is
unreasonable and not found on intelligible differentia. The state action also proves to
unreasonable and arbitrary. Equality is one of the basic structures, and by violating Art 14, the
state has also violated the basic structure doctrine. The doctrine of manifest arbitrariness is also
invoked.
3.MAKING COMPULSARY 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?
It is most reverently contended before this Hon’ble Court that the CEET exam being made
mandatory for all medical institutions violates the federal structure, hence agsin violating basic
structure doctrine. The CEET exam is known to be one that is CBSE-biased, encourages
coaching over learning, doesn’t provide a level playing field. There is also infringement of
minority rights under Art 30.
12
COMPETITION, 2023
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1.DENYING THE OPPORTUNITY TO PURSUE THE STUDIES IN ZINDICA,

WHETHER VIOLATING THE RIGHT PROVIDED U/ART 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION?
1. It is most humbly contended before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that the state action in
disallowing the students who were pursuing their medical studies abroad, to continue their MBBS
course in Zindica is a clear violation fundamental right guaranteed U/Art 21 of the Zindican
Constitution. The above contention is put forth under the following headers:
[1.1] State action in question does not satisfy the test of “procedure established by law”, desecrates
golden triangle rule.
[1.2] Infringement upon right to education
[1.3] Infringement upon right to livelihood
[1.4] Contravention of Wednesbury Principles
1.1. State action in question does not satisfy the test of “procedure established by law”,
desecrates golden triangle rule.
2. It is humbly prayed before this Hon’ble court that the state action in this case is not in
compliance with the test of procedure established by law. The procedure established by law in
Art 21 should be fair, just and reasonable and should not be arbitrary or oppressive in nature and
it should fulfil Art 19 and not be violative of Equality before law in Art 14. In order to establish
violation of Art 21, the act should be subjected to the equality test of Art 14 and test of
reasonableness under Art 19.2 Art 14 strikes at arbitrariness because it negates equality3 and
permeates the entire fabric of Rule of Law.4 Therefore, every action of the State must be guided
by reason for public good and not by whim, caprice, and abuse of power.5 Art 19 provides that a
2
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
3
Suresh Chandra Sharma v. Chairman, AIR 2005 SC 2021.
4
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 1325.
5
Haryana Development Authority v. Dropadi Dev,I, (2005) 9 SCC 514; Dolly Chandra v. Chairman Jee, (2005) 9
SCC 779.
13
COMPETITION, 2023
restriction can be characterized to be reasonable if it strikes a balance between the fundamental
right and restriction imposed thereon.6
In the instant case, the state action in question is neither reasonable nor rational. Hence, it does
not satisfy the equality test of Art 21 laid down in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.7
3. In Murli S. Deora v. Union of India8, the Supreme Court of India observed that the
fundamental right guaranteed under Art 21 of the Constitution of India provides that none shall
be deprived of his life without due process of law. The Supreme Court has widened the scope of
‘procedure established by law’ and held that merely a procedure had been established by law, a
person cannot be deprived of his life and liberty unless the procedure is just, fair and reasonable.
1.1.1. Violation of the doctrine of Due Process of Law

4. In the current case, the state isn’t respecting and observing the legal necessity that they owe
legal rights to their citizens, this is very evident since the worrying plight of the stranded medical
students is very concerning and the state still refuses to let them be admitted in Zindican
universities.
5. The Doctrine of Due Process of law prohibits the state from taking actions that shall deprive
an individual from their rights to safety, liberty or life. The Doctrine has its origins from the
English common law. It is first seen in the Magna Carta-the law of the Land for England. In
India the Doctrine of Due Process isn't implemented in the whole sense. The words in the
constitution are Procedure established by law which is borrowed from the Japanese constitution
which is done by the drafters in order to reduce the ambit of the doctrine and reduce uncertainty.
But in the Maneka Gandhi case9, it was concluded that although due process isn’t implemented
as it is in the USA, but the driving forces behind the doctrine are followed in India and thus the
rights of people in India are protected.
6
Om Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 3689
7
Ibid.
8
AIR 2002 SC 40.
9
Ibid.
14
COMPETITION, 2023
1.1.2. Interest of the general public unfounded

6. In the prevailing matter at hand, by disallowing the foreign medical students of Zindican
origin to continue their MBBS course in India, the state action is antithetical to the interest of
general public. There is already a physician shortage that is being faced by the country. The
World Health Organisation (WHO) prescribes the doctor patient ratio as 1:1000, whereas the
doctor patient ratio in Zindica is 1:1655.10 The ratio clearly shows that there is a deficit in
doctors in the country.
7. In this situation, it would be irrational to not allow more students to pursue MBBS degrees. In
the wake of a pandemic, where there would be huge demand for doctors, it’s not good for a
country to face a deficit in this ratio. The impugned action of the government has further added
on to the criticalness of the situation.
1.2. Infringement upon right to education

8. It is respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the right to education of the students
who returned from China, Ukraine, and Russia due to the COVID situation, has been blatantly
violated by not permitting them into Zindican Medical institutions.
9. It was observed in Unni Krishnan v. State of AP11, that Article 21 is the heart of Fundamental
Rights, and it has extended the Scope of Article 21 by observing that the life includes the
education as well as, as the right to education flows from the right to life.
The judicial decision from which the right to education emanated as a fundamental right was
from the one rendered by the Supreme Court in Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka.12 In this case
the Supreme Court through a division bench comprising of justice Kuldip Singh and R.M. Sahai,
held:
“the right to education flows directly from the right to life. The right to life and the dignity of an
individual cannot be assured unless it is accompanied by the right to education.”
10
Para 3 of the moot proposition.
11
1993 AIR 2178.
12
1992 AIR 1858.
15
COMPETITION, 2023
1.2.1. International instruments affirming right to education.

10. The right to education is clearly acknowledged in the United Nations Universal Declaration
of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted in 1948, which states:
“Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and
fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional
education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to
all on the basis of merit……” (Art 26)
11. Apart from UDHR, right to education is affirmed, protected and promoted in numerous
international human rights treaties, such as the following:
· Convention concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation(1958)-Art 3
· Convention against Discrimination in Education (1960)
· International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) - Art 13
· Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women(1981) –Art 10
· The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) – Art 28 & 29
1.3. Infringement upon right to livelihood

12. In the instant case, the right to livelihood of the students who are being the opportunity to
pursue their education in Zindica, is being brazenly violated since education serves as the
prerequisite for a sustainable livelihood. By denying these students their education, the state is
also stripping them off their right to livelihood. Hence, infringement of Art 21 is very much
evident.
13. To begin with, the Supreme Court took the view that the right to life in Art 21 would not
include the right to livelihood. In Re Sant Ram13, a case arose before the Maneka Gandhi case14,
where the Supreme Court ruled that the right to livelihood would not fall within the expression
‘life’ in Art 21. The Court said curtly:
13
(1960) 3 SCR 499.
14
Ibid.
16
COMPETITION, 2023
“The Right to livelihood would be included in the freedoms enumerated in Art 19, or even in Art
16, in a limited sense. But the language of Art 21 cannot be pressed into aid of the argument that
the word ‘life’ in Art 21 includes ‘livelihood’ also.”
14. But then the view changed. The definition of the word ‘life’ in Art 21 was read broadly. The
Court, in Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nandkarni15,
came to hold that ‘the right to life’ guaranteed by Art 21 includes ‘the right to livelihood’.
15. The Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation16, popularly known as the ‘Pavement
Dwellers Case’, where a five-judge bench of the Court implied that the right to livelihood is
borne out of the right to life. It said so as no person can live without the means of living, that is,
the means of livelihood. The Court further observed:
“The sweep of the right to life conferred by Art 21 is wide and far-reaching. It does not mean,
merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for example, by the imposition and
execution of death sentence, except according to procedure established by law. That is but one
aspect of the right to life. An equally important facet of the right to life is the right to livelihood
because no person can live without the means of livelihood.”
If the right to livelihood is not treated as part and parcel of the constitutional right to life, the
easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of
livelihood to the point of abrogation.
The Court further opined:
“The state may not by affirmative action, be compelled to provide adequate means of livelihood
or work to the citizens. But any person who is deprived of his right to livelihood except
according to just and fair procedure established by law can challenge the deprivation as
offending the right to life conferred in Art 21.”
16. Art 21 does not place an absolute embargo on the deprivation of life or personal liberty and,
for that matter, on the right to livelihood. What Art 21 insists is that such lack ought to be
15
1983 AIR 109.
16
1985 SCC (3) 545.
17
COMPETITION, 2023
according to procedure established by law which must be fair, just and reasonable. Therefore,
anyone deprived of the right to livelihood without a just and fair procedure set by law can
challenge such deprivation as being against Art 21 and get it declared void. This is accurately
what happened in the case of these medical students who are seeking for this impugned order to
be struck down.
1.4. Contravention of Wednesbury principles

17. The Wednesbury principle is a common law doctrine that can trace its origin back to the case
of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation17 before the United
Kingdom, Court of Appeal. it was held that if the decision on a competent matter is so
unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever come to it, then the courts can interfere.
It was held in the case of Om Kumar v. Union of India18 that, for judging the arbitrariness of the
order, the test of unreasonableness may be applied. The action of the State, thus, must be judged
with extreme care and circumspection. This unreasonableness can be derived from the principle
of Wednesbury unreasonableness.
This principle allows the actions of administrative authorities be challenged based on
reasonableness. The action of the administrative authorities would be declared unconstitutional if
it meets one of the following circumstances:
1. If the action has no backing of the law.
2. There is no evidence to back the action of the authority.
3. The action is based on irrelevant and extraneous consideration.
4. The action is so outrageous and is so unreasonable that no reasonable person in their
wildest of dreams would reach that particular conclusion.
18. In the prevailing matter at hand, the state’s action is flagrantly unreasonable and satisfies the
above conditions.
17
(1948) 1 KB 233.
18
2002 (2) SCC 386.
18
COMPETITION, 2023
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?
19. It is most respectfully submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that 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, is violative of Art 14 of the Zindican constitution.
2.1. Classification not based on intelligible differentia

20. A legislature is entitled to make reasonable classification for purposes of legislation. 19 The
courts have evolved the concept of equality that if the law in question is based on reasonable
classification it is not regarded as discriminatory.20
21. Art 14 condemns discrimination not only by a substantive law but also by a law of procedure.21
The Indian Supreme Court has held in this regard that all litigants similarly situated are entitled to
avail themselves of the same procedural rights for relief, and for defense with like protection and
without discrimination.22 Article 14 forbids hostile classification by law which treats persons
similarly circumstanced differently or treating those not similarly circumstanced in the same
way.23
22. This means that if special procedure is laid down for a ‘class of people’ as distinguished from
others then ‘the classification’ must be based on an intelligible differentia which is based upon
some real and substantial distinction.24 “Intelligible differentia” means difference that is capable
of being understood.25 The order in question denies clinical training for the 2016-21 batch medical
students who did their studies abroad. This classification of the medical students is not based on
intelligible differentia.
19
RK Garg v. Union of India, (1981) 4 SCC 676.
20
Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 4 SCC 34.
21
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 613.
22
Shri Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Madurai v. AV Visvantha Sastri, AIR 155 SC 13.
23
Union of India & Anr v. Tulsiram Patel & Ors, AIR 1985 SC 1416.
24
Dinesh Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2004) 8 SCC 770.
25
Oxford Dictionary.
19
COMPETITION, 2023
23. Just because the foreign graduates have a different institutional qualification or because they
did their degree elsewhere, and not in Zindica, they can’t be treated as unequal or a different
class of people, neither can this be treated as a different circumstance, since these graduates are
doctors, nonetheless. They have acquired their degrees from certified and authorized institutions
too, which can never be undermined at any cost.
2.1.1. Doctrine of basic structure violated

24. It is humbly submitted that the right to equality has been recognized as a part of the basic
structure of the Constitution.26 The framework of Article 14 is such that it permits reasonable
classification of persons. In order to test whether a classification is reasonable, it must be proved
that the classification is based on intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object it
seeks to achieve.27 It is submitted that in this case, the state is conceiving a classification that is
unreasonable, by denying the opportunity to foreign medical graduates to undergo clinical
training in Zindica. This is in violation of Art 14 of the Constitution, and therefore ultra vires the
basic structure of the constitution.
25. Therefore, any restriction on their right to equality will necessarily need to fulfil the dual test
of intelligible differentia and rational nexus with the intended object. It is submitted that in order
to decide whether a restriction satisfies the above criteria, the Court must look into the
underlying purpose of the restriction and the evils sought to be remedied by the law while
examining the adequacy of a less restrictive alternative.
2.2. Doctrine of legitimate expectations violated

26. The doctrine of legitimate expectation evolved as the principle of natural justice. lt is also
related to the field of public law. As the doctrine imposes a duty on the public authority when he
makes a promise either expressly or impliedly which then results in expectation by an individual.
The doctrine of legitimate expectation is to keep a check on public authority his duty and to act
26
Raghunathrao Ganpatrao v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1267.
27
In re : The Special Courts Bill, 1978 (1979) 1 SCC 380.
20
COMPETITION, 2023
fairly by taking into consideration all relevant factors relating to legitimate expectation. It also
imposes the duty on the public authority not to act in defecting the legitimate expectation without
having some reason for public policy to justify doing.
27. In MP Oil Extraction v. State of MP28, it was observed that the doctrine of legitimate
expectations constitutes a substantive, enforceable and protectable interest as a facet of Art 14.
28. In State of Jharkhand & Ors v. Brahmaputra Metallics Ltd29, it was observed that the
doctrine of legitimate expectation can be used when there is a denial of legitimate expectation
leading to the Art 14 of the constitution being brazenly violated by that particular state action.
29. It is humbly submitted that the doctrine of legitimate expectation can be invoked when the
decision of the administrative authority deprives a person of some benefit which he had been
previously permitted to enjoy by the decision maker.30 Such benefit entitles him to legitimately
expect to be permitted to enjoy the same until some rational ground for withdrawing it has been
communicated to him and he has been given an opportunity to comment thereon.31 The failure to
consider and give due weight to such expectations may render state policies as arbitrary and in
violation of Article 14.32 This is in consonance with the duty of the State to treat individuals
with full personal consideration and without any abuse of discretion.33
30. In the instant case, since the 2015-20 batch was permitted to undergo clinical training in
Zindica, the 2016-21 batch believed that they can avail the same for themselves and held a
legitimate expectation to receive the same conduct from the government, but the government to
have different plans for this batch. This invokes the doctrine of legitimate expectation. Therefore,
it is open to judicial review under Art 14.
28
(1997) 7 SCC 592.
29
Civil Appeal No. 3860-3862 of 2020.
30
M/s Sethi Auto Service Station v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors, AIR 2009 SC
31
Madras City Wine Merchants Association v. State of TN, (1994) 5 SCC 509; Council of Civil Service Union &
Ors v. Minister for the Civil Service, (1983) UKHL 6
32
Food Corporation of India v. M/s Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, AIR 1993 SC 1601; Union of India & Ors v.
Hindustan Development Corporation & Ors, AIR 1998 SC 988
33
National Buildings Construction Corporation v. S Raghunathan & Ors, AIR 1998 SC 2779
21
COMPETITION, 2023
2.3. Invoking the doctrine of “manifest arbitrariness”

31. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that in the instant case, the doctrine of
“manifest arbitrariness” could be invoked where the law or state action is not based on
sufficiently rational reasons or over a period of time with the changing social circumstances the
law has become redundant the test of ‘manifest arbitrariness’ is applied. It is humbly prayed
before this Hon’ble Court that the state order is neither reasonable nor unarbitrary. To declare a
state action ultra vires under Art 14, the court must be satisfied in respect of substantive
unreasonableness in the law or order passed.34 Classification is justified only when it is not
arbitrary.35
32. The test was first recognized in case of EP Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu.36 In this case, the
court observed:
“Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions, and it cannot be "cribbed
cabined and confined" within traditional and doctrinaire limits. From a positivistic point of
view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies;
one belongs to the Rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an
absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according
to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14, and if it affects
any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Article 16. Articles 14 and 16
strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment.”
33. This observation was soon reiterated in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India37 where Bhagwati
had observed Art 14 as the “guarantee against arbitrariness in State action and the doctrine of
classification was evolved only as a subsidiary rule for testing or determining whether a
particular state action was arbitrary or not.” Here also an administrative decision whereby the
passport of a journalist was impounded in ‘public interest’ was challenged.
34
Bidhannagar (Salt Lake) Welfare Association v. Central Valuation Board & Ors, AIR 2007 SC 2276
35
State of Gujarat v. Shri Ambica Mills, (1974) 3 SCR 760
36
1974 AIR 555
37
1978 AIR 597
22
COMPETITION, 2023
34. In Ajay Hasia and Ors. v Khalid Mujib Sehravardi38, Bhagwati J, implicitly equated the level
of Article 14 scrutiny in cases of executive and legislative actions. In the Court’s words,
“Wherever therefore there is arbitrariness in State action whether it be of the legislature or of
the executive or of an "authority" under Article 12, Article 14 immediately springs into action
and strikes down such State action. In fact, the concept of reasonableness and non- arbitrariness
pervades the entire constitutional scheme and is a golden thread which runs through the whole
of the fabric of the Constitution.”
35. So it is made crystal clear that wherever there is arbitrariness in state action, Article 14
immediately springs into action and strikes down such state action, without making any attempt
to distinguish between authorities whether it be the legislature or the executive or an authority
under Article 12, the word ‘state action’ is understood to accommodate all the above-mentioned
authorities. In the prevailing matter at hand, the impugned order is an accurate antithetical
expression of equality, by being of an irrational and capricious nature.
3. MAKING COMPULSARY 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?
36. It is most reverently submitted before the Hon’ble Court that compulsory implementation of
CEET as a uniform qualifying cum admission test for medical education is a violation of
constitutional rights. The above contention is put forth under the following headers:
[3.1] Desecration of federal structure by encroaching upon state matter
[3.2] Violation of the doctrine of Basic Structure
[3.3] CEET examination derelicts the educationally and economically backward
[3.4] Infringement of minority rights (Art 30)
[3.5] Being “meritorious” is not the only criterion to judge suitability (judicial precedents)
38
(1981) 1 SCC 722
23
COMPETITION, 2023
3.1. Desecration of federal structure by encroaching upon state matters

37. The field of “incorporation” (establishment) of university and “regulation” thereof was
demarcated and exclusively allocated to States under Entry 32 List II, seventh schedule of the
Indian Constitution. To be more emphatic, and for more certainty, universities was excluded
from the field allocated to the Union (entry 44 of list I). That is the Union has no power to
establish any university and the power to regulate any University is not within the legislative
competency of the Parliament.
38. For proper analysis, we reproduce the following the entries:
List II
32.Incorporation, regulation and winding up of corporations, other than those specified in
List I, and universities, unincorporated trading, literary, scientific, religious and other
societies and associations; cooperative societies.
List I
44.Incorporation, regulation and winding up of corporations, whether trading or not, with
objects not confined to one state, but not including universities.
39. Regulation of university, means and includes admission of students to the courses conducted
by it, appointment of teaching faculty, conduct of examination, declaration of results, conferment
of degrees etc. All those areas in the fields are covered by Entry 32 List-II. That is an exclusive
field allocated to the States. Also, “universities” is excluded from or denied to the Union under
Entry 44, List -I. A combined reading of both the said entries, 32 & 44, makes it clear that the
field and power to establish and regulate a university has been conferred only on the States.
3.1.1. Interpreting Entry 66 of List I (union list)

40. The field of “coordination and determination of standards in higher education”, was allotted
to the Union under Entry 66 List I. The Oxford Dictionary defines “coordinate” to mean
“negotiate with others in order to work together effectively”.39 The word “coordination” is given
the meaning, “the action or process of coordinating.” The parties coordinating have equal status.
No one is subordinate to any another. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, by a constitutional Bench, in
39
Oxford Dictionary.
24
COMPETITION, 2023
Gujarat University vs Krishna Ranganath40 has ruled that “The word coordination does not
merely mean evaluation but also harmonizing relationship for concerted action”.
In entry 66 List-I, the word “coordination” and “determination” must be read together, just as the
words “establish” and “administer”, is interpreted in Article 30, The word “and” must be read
conjunctively not disjunctively. Therefore, the entry 66 List -I, requires or directs the Union
Government to “determine the standards” of higher education, by coordination with the other
stake holders, i.e., the States. That is, without such consultation with the State governments and
treating them as equal partners, the Union government cannot decide by itself any standard and
impose that on the States.
3.1.2. Interpretation of entries

41. In spite of such definite demarcation of powers, at times, dispute arises due to conflict of
laws made by the State legislatures and Parliament. As early as 1951, in, State of Bombay vs.
Balsara41, such a dispute went up to Hon’ble Supreme Court. In that case, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held categorically that while determining the competency of the legislatures, the entries of
different lists in the 7th schedule should be read together without giving a narrow meaning to any
of them. The Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated in 1963 in Ramakrishna Rai vs. State of Bihar42
when the argument was advanced that certain entries must be given wider interpretation vis-à-vis
other entries, the Hon’ble Supreme Court rejecting that contention, held that there can be no
reason to give a broader interpretation to one power than the other. Further, in State of Bombay
vs. Narottom Das JethaBhai43, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when one item is general
and another is specific, the latter will exclude the former.
42. This principle of Generalis Specialibus non Derogant shall be applied to determine that
Entry 32 of the state list shall overpower the other matters relating to education in union and
concurrent list, because the 32nd entry gives a more specific description when compared to the
general ones in other lists.
40
AIR 1963 SC 703.
41
AIR 1951 SC 318.
42
AIR 1963 SC 1667.
43
IR 1951 SC 69.
25
COMPETITION, 2023
3.2. Violation of the doctrine of Basic Structure

43. The Supreme Court recognised the “basic structure” concept for the first time in
Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala44. Basic Features of the Constitution according to the
Kesavanada verdict each judge laid out separately, what they thought were the basic or essential
features of the Constitution.
Sikri, C.J. explained that the concept of basic structure included:
-Supremacy of the Constitution
-Republican and democratic form of government
-Secular character of the Constitution
-Separation of powers between the legislature, executive and the judiciary
-Federal character of the Constitution
What is to be noted here is “federal character of the constitution” being among one of the basic
structures.
44. The conduct of CEET would be tantamount to Union Government taking complete control of
all the universities established by State Legislatures by law and subjugating the State government
to the Union Government in all matters on education, and hence violating the principles of
federalism. That amounts to alteration of one of the “basic structures” of the constitution. Such
alterations cannot be done even by a Constitutional amendment. When that being so, it is
unimaginable, that it can be done by a mere Act of Parliament. Therefore, section 14 shall be
struck down, inter alias violative of the basic structure of the constitution.
3.3. CEET examination derelicts the educationally and economically backward

45. CEET is not an equitable method of selection. It has undermined the diverse social
representation in medical studies and favours the affluent segment of society. For example, in
Tamil Nadu, the social groups which were most affected by CEET were the students from Tamil
medium, rural background, government schools, economically and socially disadvantaged
groups such as other backward class, scheduled castes, and scheduled tribes.
44
AIR 1973 SC 1461.
26
COMPETITION, 2023
46. According to the World Federation for Medical Education (2015), the health needs of the
community and society would include consideration of intake according to gender, ethnicity and
other social requirements (socio-cultural and linguistic characteristics of the population),
including the potential need of a special recruitment, admission and induction policy for
underprivileged students and minorities. This means the selection process and admission criteria
used to select students should correctly predict the cognitive, social and behavioural skills of the
potential students and ensure that the diversity is achieved.
47. If medical education is to be affordable to and accessible by all people, it will not be possible
without a fair and equitable admission process and criteria and a proper fee regulation. Contrary
to this, the Common Eligibility cum Entrance Test (CEET) does not seem to help achieve the
much-required diversity.
CEET is a brazen violation of Article 14, which says that “state shall not deny to any person
equality before the law or equal protection of laws within the territory of India”. Rich or poor,
affluent or otherwise, the very point of the constitution was that it provided a level-playing field.
CEET provides a barrier that only children from certain social strata can clear. It breeds
inequality since only the affluent can clear this criterion.45
48. The assertion of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar in the Bombay Legislative Council while discussing
Bombay University Bill is very much appropriate to the present circumstances. Dr. B.R.
Ambedkar said, “examination is something quite different from education, but in the name of
raising the standard of education, they are making the examinations so impossible and so severe
that the backward communities which have hitherto not had the chance of entering the portals of
University are absolutely kept out”.
45
P Wilson, “The Bogey of Merit and a Gubernatorial Gaffe”, TIMES OF INDIA, 14 April 2022 (last visited 15
Feb 2023).
27
COMPETITION, 2023
3.3.1. CEET does not intimate a certain predictability on success in higher studies.
49. The primary rational for using the standardised CEET test in medical college admissions is to
predict success in college. Similar tests around the world like MCAT, UCAT and SAT all have
been going through the test of time for their “predictive validity” to ensure their reliability in
predicting the future performance of the students in the college.
For instance, Validity studies consistently find that high school grades and SAT scores together
are good predictors of achievement in college.46
50. Five years of its existence is longer than enough to evaluate the validity and reliability of the
NEET, but lack of this information has become a cause of concern for its genuinity. The NEET
organisers [formerly CBSE and now NTA (National Testing Agency)] have failed to undertake
any serious studies on the predictive effectiveness, validity and reliability of the examination.
3.3.2. CEET promotes coaching as opposed to learning.

51. In India, several coaching factories have mushroomed since the advent of the CEET in 2016.
The alarming rise of such coaching factories, both offline and online, has rose to above 400,
generating around Rs. 5750 crores annually indicates that coaching has become the means to be
successful in the CEET.
52. This has also been vindicated in the recent figures that consistently, in recent years, the
percentage of the repeaters, taking the test repeatedly, has increased, and that the repeaters are
often able to finish the test successfully to get admission in a medical college. For instance, the
percentage of repeaters who have secured admissions in MBBS programme rose to 71.42% in
2020- 21 from a meagre 12.47% in 2016-17.47
53. It is the fact that these repeaters stay un-enrolled for higher studies after their 12th standard
only to be coached by the corporate and school based coaching factories for the subsequent few
years until they clear the NEET with enough score to get admission in their desired college or
46
Camara WJ & Echternacht G (2000) “The SAT I and High School Grades: Utility in Predicting Success in
College, The College Board, Office of Research and Development”.
47
Justice AK Rajan (Chairman), “Report of the High-Level Committee to Study the Impact of NEET on Medical
Admission in Tamil Nadu”, (2021), Government of Tamil Nadu..
28
COMPETITION, 2023
according to their financial strength. This clearly indicates that medical education has treaded
rapidly, just in a couple of years of its inception, into the hands of those affluent segments of the
society who can afford to pay such a sizable fee for coaching; be it school based or corporate
based.
54. The culture of coaching and commercialisation caused by the single-criteria admission based
on the CEET score would not encourage either the educators to impart a holistic education or the
medical aspirants to work towards acquiring it.
3.3.3. CEET is CBSE-biased.

55. It is evident that the NEET examination is CBSE-biased, as the results have consistently
proved that the students from CBSE have secured MBBS seats as high as 26.83% in 2020-21
from 0% in 2015-16 in government medical colleges and 12.01% in 2020-21 from a negligible
0.07% in 2015-16 in self-financed colleges in this high-stake exam.48
3.3.4. No level playing field.

56. In Minor S Aswin Kumar v. State of TN49, the Hon’ble Madras High Court observed that the
common entrance test is advantageous to: the aristocrat schools imparting education to students
of graduate parents; coaching centres imparting coaching to students for fees; students of elite
people devote full time in studying with comfort; parents who attend the care of their children for
their studies; students of highly qualified parents; and disadvantageous to: students of illiterate
parents; students who cannot afford to go to the coaching centres due to financial crunch;
students of socially and economically backward area who cannot afford to devote full time in
studying as they have to attend to other work also; parents who cannot afford to care of their
children for their studies as they have to afford to the work otherwise to eke out their livelihood;
students of unqualified parents; and students studying under the greenwood tree with mosquito
bites.
48
Ibid.
49
(2007) 2 CTC 677.
29
COMPETITION, 2023
57. The Anandakrishnan Committee (2006)50, commissioned to examine the implications of

abolition of Tamil Nadu Professional Courses Common Entrance Test (CET), also recommended
abolition of the test on account of severe disadvantages encountered by different vulnerable
sections of the student population such as rural households, Tamil medium students and
underprivileged categories.
3.4. Infringement of minority rights (Art 30)

58. Article 30 (1) promises to all linguistic and religious minorities the ‘right to establish’ and
the ‘right to administer’ educational institutions of their own choice. The right is provided by this
clause on two types of minorities, namely, religious and linguistic minorities. The right vested in
the above minorities is to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The
word "establish" indicates the right to bring into existence, while the right to administer an
institution means the right to effectively manage and conduct the affairs of the institution. The
administration implies management and affairs of the institution. The management must be free
of control and restrictions so that the founders of their community can frame the institution as
they think fit in correspondence with their views and ideas of how the interest of the community
in general and the institution will be delivered. Thus, it gives choice to the minority community
to establish such educational institutions as it will serve both purposes, that is, the purpose of
protecting their religion, language or culture, and also the purpose of giving through general
education to their children in their own language.
59. In DAV College, Bhatinda v. State of Punjab51, it was reiterated that Art 30 provides or
assures the right to establish or bring into existence educational institutions of their personal
choice and to administer or effectively manage and conduct the affairs of those institutions. The
management and conduct of the institutions by the minorities should be free of unnecessary
control and restrictions. It enables the establishers of the institutions to give shape to the
50
Dr. M Anandakrishnan Committee Report, Committee for Abolishing Common Entrance Test, (2006),
Government of Tamil Nadu.
51
1971 AIR 1731.
30
COMPETITION, 2023
institutions according to their thinking and ideas to serve and protect the interest of the
community as a whole.
60. The CEET exam contradicts and desecrates the principles laid down in Art 30, by making
mandatory a uniform entrance test for all medical institutions, stripping the minorities of their
right to administer their institutions as they like.
In Ahmedabad St.Xaviers College v. State of Gujarat & Anr52, it was observed that the spirit
behind Article 30 is the moral obligation of the nation towards minority communities.
Further, in the case of TMA Pai Foundation53, it was observed that even under Art 19(1)(g),
citizens have the right to establish and administer institutions, so the prescription CEET
examination to be mandatory proves to be violative of Art 19(1)(g) as well.
3.5. Being “meritorious” is not the only criterion to judge suitability (judicial precedents)
61. In Pradeep Jain v. Union of India54, the Supreme Court observed:
Merit cannot be measured solely in terms of marks. Merit must be construed in terms of the
social value of a member in the medical profession …Thus, we need to reconceptualize the
meaning of ‘merit’. For instance, if a high-scoring candidate does not use their talents to
perform good actions, it would be difficult to call them “meritorious” merely because they
scored high marks. The propriety of actions and dedication to public service should also be seen
as markers of merit, which cannot be assessed in a competitive examination. Equally, fortitude
and resilience required to uplift oneself from conditions of deprivation are reflective of
individual calibre.
62. In Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India55, the Supreme Court observed:
Merit cannot be seen in isolation from the existing inequalities in the society, social justice must
be read into the promise of equality of opportunity; otherwise, the latter merely advances the
interests of the privileged.
Substantive Equality, i.e: merit of candidates cannot be solely evaluated on the basis of open
competition without regard to their social positions, conditions, and circumstances stemming
52
1974 AIR 1389.
53
(2002) 8 SCC 481.
54
(1984) 3 SCC 654.
55
2022 SCC OnLine SC 75.
31
COMPETITION, 2023
from the discrimination faced from years curtailing their equal access to their basic rights. No
one can be denied equal rights just because they do not meet certain artificial standards set up
by institutions.
63. In Jagdish Saran v. Union of India56, the Supreme Court observed:

“If potential for rural service or aptitude for rendering medical attention among backward
people is a criterion of merit-and it, undoubtedly, is in a land of sickness and misery, neglect and
penury, wails and tears-then, surely, belonging to a university catering to a deprived region is a
plus point of merit. Excellence is composite and the heart and its sensitivity are as precious in
the case of educational values as the head and its creativity and social medicine for the common
people is more relevant than peak performance in freak cases”.
64. The heart is as much a factor as the head in assessing the social, value of a member of the
medical profession. This is also an aspect which may, to the limited extent possible, be borne in
mind while determining merit for selection of candidates for admission to medical colleges
(emphasis supplied).
65. The above instances of judicial scrutiny shows that being “non-meritorious” does not
impinge on the suitability, it cannot stop any medical aspirant from pursuing his choice of
profession. The CEET exam aims at putting an end to the dreams of many medical aspirants by
denying them this opportunity under the cloak of “merit”.
56
1980 AIR 820.
32
COMPETITION, 2023
PRAYER
WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

AND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS MOST HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO:
 Hold the state action where the foreign medical students, of Zindican nationality are
barred from continuing their MBBS studies in Zindica as void and unconstituioal.
 Hold the state action where the Zindican students who did their studies abroad are
compelled to undergo training abroad to appear for FMGE exam as void and
unconstitutional.
 Direct the provisions of the NMC Act making the CEET exam mandatory to get
admission into MBBS course to be struck down.
AND/OR PASS ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN
THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, FAIRNESS, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE, ALL OF
WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Sd/-
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS
PLACE: Zindica
DATE: February 2023
33

VMC23 Petitoenrs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

VMC23 Petitoenrs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

VMC23 Petitoenrs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5th Thiru.

ISARI VELAN MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ZINDICA

WRIT PETITION FILED U/ART 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ZINDICA, 1950

FOREIGN MEDICAL STUDENTS………………………………… PETITIONERS

UNION OF ZINDICA…………………………………………………. RESPONDENT

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND PUISNE JUDGES

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

1) INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 5-8

 TABLE OF CASES 5-7

1.DENYING THE OPPORTUNITY TO PURSUE THE

2.INSISTING MANDATORY CLINICAL PRACTICE

3.MAKING COMPULSARY THE COMMON ELIGIBILITY

 3.5. BEING “MERITORIOUS” IS NOT THE ONLY

Sr. No. Case title and citation Pg.

S. No. Statutes Pg. No.

S. No. Convention Pg. No.

S.No. Author’s Name and Title of the Book Edition Publication

NEWS ARTICLES, RESEARCH PAPERS, REPORTS AND

Sr. No. Website name

32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM PUTS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS AND

Denying the opportunity to pursue the studies in Zindica, whether

Insisting mandatory clinical practice abroad to the candidates who

Making compulsory the Common Eligibility test for the candidates to

1.DENYING THE OPPORTUNITY TO PURSUE STUDIES IN ZINDICA, WHETHER

2.INSISTING MANDATORY CLINICAL PRACTICE ABROAD TO THE

3.MAKING COMPULSARY THE COMMON ELIGIBILITY TEST FOR THE

1.DENYING THE OPPORTUNITY TO PURSUE THE STUDIES IN ZINDICA,

1.1.1. Violation of the doctrine of Due Process of Law

1.1.2. Interest of the general public unfounded

1.2. Infringement upon right to education

1.2.1. International instruments affirming right to education.

1.3. Infringement upon right to livelihood

1.4. Contravention of Wednesbury principles

2. INSISTING MANDATORY CLINICAL PRACTICE ABROAD TO THE CANDIDATES

2.1. Classification not based on intelligible differentia

2.1.1. Doctrine of basic structure violated

2.2. Doctrine of legitimate expectations violated

2.3. Invoking the doctrine of “manifest arbitrariness”

3. MAKING COMPULSARY THE COMMON ELIGIBILITY TEST FOR THE

3.1. Desecration of federal structure by encroaching upon state matters

3.1.1. Interpreting Entry 66 of List I (union list)

3.1.2. Interpretation of entries

3.2. Violation of the doctrine of Basic Structure

3.3. CEET examination derelicts the educationally and economically backward

3.3.2. CEET promotes coaching as opposed to learning.

3.3.3. CEET is CBSE-biased.

3.3.4. No level playing field.

57. The Anandakrishnan Committee (2006)50, commissioned to examine the implications of

3.4. Infringement of minority rights (Art 30)

63. In Jagdish Saran v. Union of India56, the Supreme Court observed:

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

You might also like