Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1757-1759 OF 2015
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014)
Medical Council of India .… Appellant
versus
Dr. M.G.R. Educational and Research Institute ... Respondents
University & Anr.
WITH
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) 5153/15 @ CC
No.837/2015
J U D G M E N T
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. Leave granted in S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014.
2. The question before us relates to the validity of admissions
made in the academic year 2009-10 by the Dr. M.G.R. Educational
and Research Institute, Chennai (for short ‘the Institute’) in the A.C.S.
Signature Not Verified
nd
Medical College and Hospital (for short ‘the College’) for the 2 batch
Digitally signed by
Sanjay Kumar
Date: 2015.02.11
16:56:29 IST
Reason:
of MBBS course. In our opinion, the admissions were unauthorized.
However, we are not visiting the students with the natural
2
consequence of setting aside their admissions, but are passing
directions to deal with the exigencies of the situation.
Preliminary
3. A few facts are not in dispute. The Institute was declared as
st
a Deemed to be University by a notification dated 21 January, 2003
issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development of the
Government of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MHRD’). The
declaration was in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of the
University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (the ‘UGC Act’) and was for
1
the purposes of the Act. At that time the Institute comprised of two
institutions: a dental college and hospital and an engineering college.
4. The Institute desired to establish a medical college being the
ACS Medical College and Hospital and the necessary paperwork for
this was carried out. However, the College was not within the ambit of
the Institute (Deemed to be University) when admissions were made in
the academic year 2008-09 and in the academic year 2009-10. The
admissions made in both academic years were therefore unauthorized.
However, the Medical Council of India (for short ‘the MCI’) is not
making an issue of the validity of the admissions made in the
academic year 2008-09 due to subsequent events and, therefore, it is
1
3. Application of Act to institutions for higher studies other than Universities .—The Central
Government may, on the advice of the Commission, declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, that any
institution for higher education, other than a University, shall be deemed to be a University for the
purposes of this Act, and on such a declaration being made, all the provisions of this Act shall apply to such
institution as if it were a University within the meaning of clause ( f ) of Section 2.
3
not necessary for us to dwell on that issue. The limited scope of
inquiry is only with reference to the admissions made in the academic
nd
year 2009-10 for the 2 batch of students.
Admissions made in 2009-10
5. Having admitted students in 2008-09 the Institute was
required, in terms of the Establishment of Medical Colleges
Regulations, 1999 of the MCI to renew the permission granted to
nd
admit the 2 batch of students in the academic year 2009-10. In this
th
context, the MCI wrote to the College on 10 November, 2008 that, for
nd
the renewal of permission for admission of the 2 batch of students in
the academic year 2009-10 it may send the proposed dates for
th
carrying out an inspection before 15 March, 2009 and submit all
requisite documents.
6. Pursuant to this, an inspection of the College was carried
rd th
out by the MCI on 23 /24 March, 2009. The inspection report was
placed before the Executive Committee of the MCI and in its meeting
th
held on 8 April, 2009 the MCI decided to recommend to the Central
Government [the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare or the MH&FW]
nd
to renew the permission to admit the 2 batch of students in the
College in the academic year 2009-10.
th
7. Soon thereafter on 9 April, 2009 the MCI received a letter
st
dated 1 April, 2009 from the Institute. The letter intimated that the
4
Institute would be forwarding the notification of approval for inclusion
of the College within the ambit of the Institute under Section 3 of the
UGC Act as soon as it was received. This indicated to the MCI that the
College was not yet under the ambit of the Institute. Accordingly, on
st
1 May, 2009 the MCI requested the Central Government [MH&FW] to
nd
keep in abeyance the renewal of permission to admit the 2 batch of
students in the College till it was brought within the ambit of a
Deemed to be University by an appropriate notification.
8. In light of the information received, the issue of renewal of
permission was considered by the Executive Committee of the MCI in
th
its meeting held on 9 May, 2009. The Executive Committee decided
st
to ratify the abeyance communication dated 1 May, 2009. It also
decided to recall the recommendation earlier made of the renewal of
nd
permission for admission to the 2 batch of MBBS students for the
academic year 2009-10. This was communicated by the MCI by a
th
letter of 15 May, 2009 to the MH&FW while reiterating its decision to
recall the recommendation of renewal of permission.
th
9. Thereafter on 24 June, 2009 the MCI once again wrote to
the MH&FW informing it of the decision of the Executive Committee to
recall the recommendation of renewal of permission for admission to
nd
the 2 batch of MBBS students for the academic year 2009-10 till the
College is brought within the ambit of the Institute by the UGC. This
5
letter was also endorsed to the Dean/Principal of the College with a
request to submit a copy of the notification for inclusion of the College
in the ambit of the Institute under Section 3 of the UGC Act.
10. Since the Institute was not able to produce any document to
show that the College was within its ambit, the MCI wrote a letter to
th th
the MH&FW on 15 July, 2009 reiterating its earlier decision of 15
May, 2009 recalling the recommendation for renewal of permission for
nd
admission of the 2 batch of MBBS students in the academic year
2009-10 till the College is brought within the ambit of a Deemed to be
University.
th
11. Earlier, on 10 August, 2009 the MH&FW wrote to the Tmt.
Kannammal Educational Trust (or ‘the Trust’ which runs the Institute)
with a copy to the MCI and the Institute that in view of the recall of
the recommendation for renewal of permission it was decided that
permission could not be renewed for that academic year. A specific
request was made to the College that in view of the above it should not
admit any fresh batch of students for the academic year 2009-10 and
also to comply with the observations made by the MCI.
th
12. The Institute filed a writ petition in this Court on or about 10
August, 2009 being W.P. No.349 of 2009 in which it was prayed, inter
alia, for a direction to the respondents therein, that is, the MH&FW,
the UGC and the MCI to consider grant of renewal of permission to
6
admit students in the academic year 2009-10 in terms of the decision
th
taken by the MCI on 15 April, 2009. It was also prayed that
permission may be granted to admit students from the academic year
2
2009-10. This Court did not grant any interim relief to the Institute to
admit students for the academic year 2009-10.
13. The position as it stood was that the College was not within the
ambit of the Institute; the permission granted by the MCI to the
nd
Institute and the College to admit students for the 2 batch in the
academic year 2009-10 was initially kept in abeyance and thereafter
withdrawn (with several reiterations), and the Institute had petitioned
nd
this Court for permitting admission for the 2 batch of students for
the academic year 2009-10 but no interim relief was granted to the
Institute in this regard.
14. Therefore, both the Institute and the College were fully aware
nd
that they could not admit students for the 2 batch in the academic
year 2009-10. Notwithstanding these facts and the specific direction
th
(given on 10 August, 2009) not to do so, the Institute and the College
2
The reliefs prayed for in the writ petition were:
(a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith consider the
renewal of permission in terms of the decision of April 2009 of the Medical Council of
India and accord permission to admit the second batch of students for the academic year
2009-10.
(b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to allow the first batch of
students admitted during the academic year 2008-2009 to pursue the course in the
second year MBBS course.
(c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus restraining the MCI in any manner in seeking to recall
the recommendation of renewal of permission for admission of second batch of students;
and
(d) Pass such other order and/or direction, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7
nd
went ahead and admitted students for the 2 batch of MBBS course
in the academic year 2009-10.
Justification for admissions made in 2009-10
15. The main hurdle faced by the Institute in making admissions in
2009-10 was the absence of any approval given by the MCI and no
approval was possible in the absence of any notification bringing the
College in the ambit of the Institute.
16. Apart from the writ petition filed in this Court, the Institute had
also filed W.P. No.13419 of 2009 in the Madras High Court for a
direction to the MHRD to take a decision regarding issuance of an
appropriate notification bringing the College in its ambit. This writ
th
petition was allowed by the High Court by an order passed on 17
August, 2009 with a direction to take a decision within six weeks.
17. Pursuant to the direction given by the High Court, the UGC
nd
appointed a committee on 2 September, 2009 to inspect the College
for bringing it under the ambit of the Institute. The committee
th th
conducted an inspection on 7 /8 September, 2009. It is not clear
th
when the report was given by the committee, but on 10 September,
2009 the UGC recommended to the MHRD to grant ex-post facto
approval for bringing the College under the ambit of the Institute from
the academic year 2008-2009.
8
th
18. The College also received a letter dated 15 September, 2009
(though the letter was of a general nature) from the MCI to all medical
colleges to furnish the list of students admitted for the academic year
th
2009-10. Further, on 17 September, 2009 the MCI wrote to the
College requesting for some documents but more importantly
informing it of a proposed inspection for renewal of permission for
rd
admission to the 3 batch of students from the academic year
2010-11.
th
19. Be that as it may, in compliance with the letter dated 15
th
September, 2009 the College sent on 30 September, 2009 a list of
nd
students that it had admitted in the 2 batch of MBBS course from
the academic year 2009-10.
20. Learned counsel for the Institute justified the actions of the
Institute on the above facts and submitted that the admissions made
were bona fide and anticipatory. Three facts were highlighted in this
regard: (i) W.P. No.13419 of 2009 was allowed by the Madras High
th
Court on 17 August, 2009 and a recommendation given by the UGC
th
on 10 September, 2009 to the MHRD to grant ex-post facto approval
for bringing the College under the ambit of the Institute from the
academic year 2008-2009; (ii) The College had received a letter dated
th
15 September, 2009 (though the letter was of a general nature) from
the MCI to all medical colleges to furnish the list of students admitted
9
th
for the academic year 2009-10; and (iii) More importantly, on 17
September, 2009 the MCI wrote to the College requesting for some
documents and informing it of a proposed inspection for renewal of
rd
permission for admission to the 3 batch of students for the academic
year 2010-11. These three facts led the Institute to believe that the
admissions made in the academic year 2008-09 were now acceptable
to the MHRD and that the MCI also had no real objections if
admissions were made in the academic year 2009-10. In fact, there
was even a possibility that admissions could be made in the academic
year 2010-11. On a cumulative assessment of these facts the College
nd
admitted students in the 2 batch and sent the list of admitted
th
students to the MCI on 30 September, 2009.
Discharge of students admitted in 2009-10
21. Pursuant to the directions given by the MH&FW to the Trust (on
th nd
10 August, 2009) not to admit the 2 batch of students for the
th
academic year 2009-10, the MCI also wrote to the College on 4
February, 2010 that the students who had been admitted by the
College for the academic year 2009-10 may be discharged immediately
and compliance submitted.
st
22. On 1 April, 2010 the MCI again wrote to the College reiterating
its request to discharge the students admitted in the academic year
2009-10 since the compliance report pursuant to the earlier letter
10
th
dated 4 February, 2010 had not yet been received. This was followed
th
soon thereafter by an order passed by the MH&FW on 5 April, 2010
that regularization of admission of students in the academic years
2008-09 and 2009-10 cannot arise since there is no notification
bringing the College under the ambit of the Institute. It was also
mentioned in the order that the renewal of permission from the
academic year 2010-11 could not be considered for the same reason.
th
23. Despite the letter dated 4 February, 2010 and the order dated
th
5 April, 2010 no steps were taken by the College for discharging the
nd
students admitted to the 2 batch in the academic year 2009-10.
th
Accordingly, by a letter dated 19 May, 2010 (the third in the series)
the MCI wrote to the College reiterating its request that the students
nd
admitted in the academic year 2009-10 in the 2 batch may be
discharged and that no compliance report had been received pursuant
th
to the letter dated 4 February, 2010.
Bringing the College within the ambit of the Institute
24. The Institute continued to pursue its proposal to bring the
College under its ambit of the Institute. This eventually led to the UGC
th
deciding on 25 September, 2009 to accord ex-post fact approval to
the admissions made by the Institute in the College in the academic
year 2008-09. However, the MCI continued to hold the view that the
admission of students of 2008-09 cannot be regularized as no
11
notification had been issued by the MHRD bringing the College within
the ambit of the Institute. This was communicated by the MCI to the
th
MH&FW on 18 March, 2010.
25. Apparently in view of this conflict of opinions, the Institute filed
th
W.P.No.13044 of 2010 in the Madras High Court and on 14 July,
2010 the High Court passed an order to the effect that the notification
under Section 3 of the UGC Act may be issued in favour of the
Institute subject to the decision in a public interest petition pending in
this Court being W.P. No.142 of 2006 filed by one Viplav Sharma.
th
Based on this order, the Institute made a representation on 20 July,
2010 to the MHRD for appropriate orders.
26. Since the MHRD did not pass orders on the representation made
by the Institute, yet another writ petition being W.P. No.18682 of 2010
was filed by the Institute in the Madras High Court. This writ petition
th
was decided on 18 August, 2010 and a direction issued to the MHRD
th
to pass appropriate orders in terms of the earlier order of 14 July,
2010 after considering the recommendations of the UGC within one
week.
27. Upon receipt of the order passed by the Madras High Court in
st
W.P. No. 18682 of 2010 an order was passed by the MHRD on 31
th
August, 2010 rejecting the recommendations of the UGC made on 30
September, 2009 to bring the College in the ambit of the Institute. As
12
a result, the ex-post facto approval granted to the College by the UGC
th
(on 25 September, 2009) in the academic year 2008-09 stood
rejected.
st
28. The order dated 31 August, 2010 passed by the MHRD was
challenged by the Institute by filing W.P. No. 20995 of 2010 in the
Madras High Court.
29. Apparently since the writ petition was not being decided on a
priority basis by the Madras High Court, a petition being T.P.(C) No.
512 of 2011 was filed by the Institute in this Court for the transfer of
W.P. No. 20995 of 2010 to this Court for disposal. While declining the
th
request, this Court passed an order on 24 February, 2012 requesting
the Madras High Court to dispose of the pending writ petition
preferably within three months without waiting for the decision in
3
Viplav Sharma’s case. Acting upon the request, a learned Single
th
Judge disposed of the pending writ petition on 9 November, 2012 and
st
quashed the order dated 31 August, 2010 passed by the MHRD.
While doing so, a direction was given to the MHRD to issue a
notification under Section 3 of the UGC Act bringing the College under
3
The order passed by this Court reads: “The petitioner - Institute has filed a writ petition (Writ Petition No.20995/2010)
before the High Court of Judicature at Madras for bringing the ACS Medical College and Hospital under the ambit of the Deemed
University, which is pending before the High Court. This transfer petition has been filed by the petitioner - Institute under Article
139A of the Constitution for transfer of Writ Petition No.20995/2010 from Madras High Court to this Court for being decided by this
Court along with W.P.(C)No.142/2006:Viplav Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Deemed University case).
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We are not inclined to transfer the writ petition. However, in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we request the High Court of Judicature at Madras to dispose of the Writ Petition
No.20995 of 2010 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of communication of this order, without
waiting for the decision of this Court in Viplav Sharma's case (supra).
The parties would be at liberty to complete pleadings before the High Court within six weeks from today.
The transfer petition is disposed of with the aforementioned observations.”
13
the ambit of the Institute with effect from 2008-09. The MHRD was
also directed to consider regularizing admissions made by the Institute
and the College in 2009-10 and to grant renewal of permission for
admissions for the academic year 2010-11.
30. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the
learned Single Judge, the MCI and the MHRD filed writ appeals being
Writ Appeal Nos. 2772/2012 and 256/2013 before the Division Bench
th
of the Madras High Court. By its judgment and order dated 15 April,
2013 the Division Bench set aside the direction given by the learned
Single Judge for issuing a notification under Section 3 of the UGC Act
and remanded the entire matter for reconsideration by the MHRD.
31. Pursuant to the decision rendered by the Division Bench, the
th
MHRD gave a hearing to the Institute on 8 May, 2013 and passed an
rd
order on 23 May, 2013 to the effect that the College was a
constituent unit under the ambit of the Institute for two academic
years that is 2008-09 and 2009-10 subject to the fulfillment of certain
conditions and also subject to the decision in Viplav Sharma’s case.
th
32. On 24 May, 2013 the Institute sent a representation to the
rd
MH&FW in respect of the order passed by the MHRD on 23 May,
2013. This representation was forwarded to the MCI which decided to
make an assessment of the College for recognition of the admissions
th th
made in 2008-09. The assessment was made on 7 /8 August, 2013
14
and the consequent report was then considered by the Under
Graduate Committee of the MCI and subsequently by the Board of
nd
Governors of the MCI. By a decision taken on 2 September, 2013 the
Board of Governors of the MCI decided to recognize the admissions
made in the academic year 2008-09 but reiterated the earlier decisions
nd
that the students admitted in the 2 batch in the year 2009-10 be
discharged. The Board of Governors also decided to black list the
4
Institute and the Trust for a period of five years.
th th
33. A copy of the assessment report of 7 /8 August, 2013 was sent
th
by the MCI to the MH&FW on 12 September, 2013 and on the same
day the MCI passed a detailed order on the lines of the resolution of
the Board of Governors to the MCI and communicated it to the
College.
34. Acting upon the order passed by the MCI, the MH&FW issued a
st
notification on 1 October, 2013 under Section 11(2) of the Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956 recognizing the MBBS degree for the
5
students admitted in the academic year 2008-09. The Institute was
also included in the First Schedule to the Indian Medical Council Act,
4
The order of black listing has since been set aside and is not an issue before us.
5
11. Recognition of medical qualifications granted by Universities or medical institutions in
India .—(1) The medical qualifications granted by any University or medical institution in India which are
included in the First Schedule shall be recognised medical qualifications for the purposes of this Act.
(2) Any University or medical institution in India which grants a medical qualification not included
in the First Schedule may apply to the Central Government to have such qualification recognised, and the
Central Government, after consulting the Council, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the
First Schedule so as to include such qualification therein, and any such notification may also direct that an
entry shall be made in the last column of the First Schedule against such medical qualification declaring
that it shall be a recognised medical qualification only when granted after a specified date.
15
1956.
35. However, the Institute was not fully satisfied with the order of
th
12 September, 2013 passed by the MCI and so it filed W.P. Nos.1959
and 1964 of 2014 in the Madras High Court challenging that order. By
th
a decision rendered on 14 July, 2014 a learned Single Judge of the
High Court did not interfere with the recognition of the admissions
made of the 2008-09 batch of students but the order passed by the
MCI to discharge the students of the 2009-10 batch was set aside. The
MCI was also directed to consider the case of those students in the
rd
light of the order passed by the MHRD on 23 May, 2013 after giving a
hearing to the Institute.
th
36. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 14 July, 2014 the MCI
preferred an appeal before the Division Bench and that came to be
th
disposed of by the order dated 13 August, 2014 impugned before us.
The Division Bench did not interfere with the order passed by the
learned Single Judge and affirmed the remand with respect to the
students admitted for the academic year 2009-10. The order dated
th th
13 August, 2014 underwent a minor clarification on 19 August,
2014 to the effect that the MCI may pass an order (on remand) without
being influenced by the findings of the learned Single Judge. It is
under these circumstances that the MCI does not challenge the
admission of students in the College in the academic year 2008-09 but
16
questions the admissions made in 2009-10.
Subsequent events
th th
37. After the order dated 13 /19 August, 2014 passed by Madras
High Court, the MHRD constituted an Expert Committee to
re-examine the issue of bringing the College under the ambit of the
nd
Institute and that Expert Committee gave a recommendation on 22
September, 2014 that there is no provision for the grant of an ambit
order only for two years that is 2008-09 and 2009-10 but that the
ambit order “should have been for the entirety.”
38. While accepting the recommendation of the Expert Committee
th
the MHRD passed an order on 25 September, 2014 to the effect that
the College is a constituent unit under the ambit of the Institute for
the purposes of conducting an academic course from 2014-15 batch
onwards, subject to the decision in Viplav Sharma’s case.
39. These facts would indicate that the admissions made by the
Institute and the College in 2008-09 are not in issue and this was in
fact reiterated by the learned Additional Solicitor General who
appeared for the MCI. The only issue is with regard to the validity of
the admissions made by the Institute and the College in 2009-10
despite specific directions given by the MCI and the MH&FW and the
consequence of the possibility of holding those admissions as being
unauthorized.
17
Discussion and findings
40. There is no doubt from the narration of facts that the Institute
and the College, in complete defiance of the directions given by the
nd
MCI and the MH&FW admitted students to the 2 batch of the MBBS
course in the academic year 2009-10. It is true that the Institute gave
some justification for doing so namely that it was expecting grant of
approval for admissions and that this was fortified by some
communications received from the MCI. However, this justification
wears extremely thin considering the specific directions given by the
nd
MCI and the MH&FW not to admit students in the 2 batch in the
academic year 2009-10. The Institute had also approached this Court
nd
praying for permission to admit students in the 2 batch in 2009-10
but no permission or interim order was granted by this Court.
Notwithstanding this, the Institute went ahead and made admissions.
41. To make matters worse, there is nothing to suggest that at the
relevant time the College was within the ambit of the Institute. In fact
th
it is only when the MHRD passed an order on 25 September, 2014
(after the judgment under appeal) that recognition was given to the
Institute but limited only to conducting the MBBS course commencing
from 2008-09 and 2009-10 and thereafter in 2014-15. Clearly, the
admission of the students in the academic year 2009-10 was
unauthorized at the relevant time.
18
42. It is a little disturbing that the MCI and the MH&FW were
completely helpless for several years in taking any action against the
nd
Institute and the College in respect of the admission of the 2 batch of
students. The UGC and the MHRD were also passive spectators. It is
quite clear that the statutory authorities and the Government were
nd
toothless tigers when it came to retaining admission of the 2 batch of
students in the academic year 2009-10 or taking quick remedial steps
after the admissions were made. Unless the statutory authorities and
the Government realize and appreciate that by their inaction they are
encouraging blatant defiance of their directions and are putting society
at risk with possibly not fully competent doctors, the possibility of
improving the health of our people will remain a pipe dream.
43. It is also necessary to point out that though the MCI and the
MH&FW accorded recognition and approval to the admissions made
by the Institute in the academic year 2008-09, no recognition or
approval was accorded to the admissions made by the Institute to the
nd
2 batch of students in the academic year 2009-10. However, the
MHRD went a step ahead and accepted the report of the Expert
Committee set up by it and brought the College within the ambit of the
Institute from 2009-10 onwards. Clearly one Ministry of the
Government is completely oblivious of the views of another Ministry of
the Government and this absence of coordination is what perhaps
19
enabled the Institute and the College to make admissions in the
academic year 2008-09 and present a fait accompli to the statutory
authorities and the Government resulting in the approval and
recognition of the admissions made in that academic year. It is also
this absence of coordination which perhaps enabled the Institute and
the College to take similar advantage in respect of the admissions to
nd
the 2 batch of MBBS students in the academic year 2009-10.
44. We are pained to point out that without the College being under
the ambit of the Institute and having made unauthorized admissions
in the academic year 2008-09, the MCI conducted an inspection of the
rd th
facilities available in the College on 23 /24 March, 2009 for renewal
nd
of permission to admit the 2 batch of students in the academic year
2009-10. Not only was the inspection carried out but a positive
recommendation was made by the MCI to the MH&FW to renew the
permission.
45. Again, when the College was not within the ambit of the Institute
nd
and could not admit students in the 2 batch beginning in the
th
academic year 2009-10, the MCI sent a letter to the College on 15
September, 2009 to furnish the list of students admitted in the
academic year 2009-10. It is true that the letter was of a general
nature but obviously it was sent without any application of mind and
the Institute sought to take advantage of this in the submissions made
20
th
before us. What is worse is that on 17 September, 2009 the MCI
wrote to the College proposing an inspection for renewal of permission
rd
for admission to the 3 batch of students from the academic year
2010-11. The mechanical manner in which the MCI has acted is
extremely unfortunate to say the least.
46. When the MCI came to know and was given the list of students
nd th
admitted to the 2 batch in 2009-10 by a communication dated 30
th
September, 2009 sent by the College, it kept quiet till 4 February,
2010 that is for a period of about four months. The MCI could have
and should have acted swiftly and taken some remedial steps but it
permitted the unwitting students to continue their studies for which
they would have had to pay a heavy price with the loss at least of one
th
year of their education. Even the MH&FW kept quiet till 5 April,
2010 that is for a period of about 5 months. It is unfortunate that
unauthorized admissions to a medical college are being taken in such
a casual manner by the concerned statutory authorities and the
Government.
th
47. In its order dated 12 September, 2013 the MCI referred to A.P.
Christian Medical Educational Society v. State of Andhra
6
Pradesh to the effect that no direction can be issued contrary to the
provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 or the Regulations
6
1986 (2) SCC 667
21
framed thereunder. Therefore, it was observed in the order that the
Board of Governors in the MCI cannot regularize the admission of the
nd
2 batch of students in the academic year 2009-10.
48. In the referred decision, one of the submissions made was that
the interests of the students who had been admitted into the MBBS
course of that institute “should not be sacrificed because of the
conduct or folly of the management and that they should be permitted
to appear at the University examination notwithstanding the
circumstance that permission and affiliation had not been granted to
the Institute.” It was noticed that the students concerned had not
only lost their money to gain admission into the institute but had lost
one or two years of their precious time thereby virtually jeopardizing
their future careers. Therefore, this Court left it open to the State
Government to devise suitable ways, legislative and administrative to
compensate the students, at least monetarily.
49. Insofar as the present appeals are concerned, the fact situation is
somewhat different inasmuch as the MHRD has now brought the
College within the ambit of the Institute not only for the academic year
2008-09 (about which there is no dispute) but also for the admissions
nd
made to the 2 batch in the academic year 2009-10. This is
notwithstanding the objections of the MCI and the MH&FW. That
being the position, it is not as if the admissions made by the Institute
22
and the College in 2009-10 continue to be completely unauthorized.
The admissions made were completely unauthorized at the relevant
time but have now been granted approval and recognition as a result
of certain subsequent events which have been taken into
consideration by the MHRD. The MCI and the MH&FW as well as the
UGC have therefore little option but to fall in line in this regard.
50. We also find a substantial difference between the referred case
and the present appeals inasmuch as in A.P. Christian Medical
Educational Society , the students had undergone one or two years of
study. However, in the present appeals they have undergone the
entire course of study and are now waiting to commence their
internship. Having spent five years in pursuing their MBBS course, to
now tell the students that they have simply wasted their time would
hardly be a just and fair view to take. The students in the present
case appear to be mere pawns in a bigger game played by the Institute
and the College in which the MCI, the MH&FW, the UGC and the
MHRD have participated as spectators. We cannot let the matter rest
nd
at that simply because the admission of the 2 batch of students in
the academic year 2009-10 has been recognized and approved by the
MHRD.
51. In view of this, we requested learned counsel for the parties to
address us on the consequential orders that may be passed keeping in
23
view the fact that it is not very clear whether the course of study
nd
undergone by the students admitted in the 2 batch in the academic
year 2009-10 matches up to the quality expected by the MCI and the
MH&FW.
7
52. Learned counsel for the parties (other than the MCI) suggested
a few alternatives to save the careers of the students. We heard and
took note of various suggestions made in the consequence hearings
and are of the view that given the peculiar facts and circumstances of
this case, this Court is required to play the role of a bridge over
troubled water. The careers of the students certainly require to be
saved but at the same time the interests of potential patients who may
be treated by what might possibly be not fully qualified doctors has
also to be considered. It is far too dangerous for our society to be
treated by doctors who may not be fully qualified or equipped to
handle the exigencies of medical aid and services. Lives of common
men and women cannot be put to grave risk under these
circumstances.
53. Therefore, since this issue has been debated and discussed from
various points of view, and to strike a balance between competing
interests, we are of the opinion that:
(1) A student admitted by the Institution in the academic year
7
Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Senior Advocate for the students and Mr. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior
Advocate for the Institute.
24
2009-10 should be required to once again undergo the final
examination – this time under the auspices of a State Health
University located outside the State of Tamil Nadu, preferably Rajiv
Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bengaluru. The examination
should be held within three months from today. The Institute will
bear the expenses for conducting the said examination.
(2) The Institute/State Health University/Rajiv Gandhi University
of Health Sciences shall intimate to the Medical Council of India the
proposed date of examination and the Medical Council of India shall
appoint examiners to oversee the conduct of such examination. The
Institute will bear the expenses for conducting the said examination.
(3) If a student qualifies in the said examination, he/she may be
allowed to begin his/her internship programme and on successful
completion thereof, an MBBS degree shall be awarded by the Institute,
subject to the final decision in Viplav Sharma’s case. If a student does
not qualify in that examination, he or she may be given another
chance to qualify after a gap of six months in a similar examination
conducted under the auspices of a recognized University (but not
Deemed to be University) located outside the State of Tamil Nadu. The
Institute will bear the expenses for conducting the said examination.
(4) The MHRD and the MH&FW should put their house in order
and ensure better and more effective coordination with each other as
25
well as the MCI and the UGC.
(5) The MCI, the MH&FW, the UGC and the MHRD should take a
joint inspection of the facilities in the College within a period of two
months from today to ascertain and determine whether the College
should be allowed to admit students in the academic year 2015-16
and whether it provides necessary facilities as required by law and the
regulations.
(6) Costs of Rs.5 crores deserve to be imposed on the Institute for
blatantly violating the directions of the MCI and the MH&FW and
nd
creating a complete mess insofar as the students admitted to the 2
batch of MBBS course in the College in the academic year 2009-10 are
concerned. The amount will be deposited by the Institute in the
Registry of this Court within four weeks from today. The amount of
Rs.5 crores so deposited towards costs shall not be recovered in any
manner from any student or adjusted against the fees or provision of
facilities for students of subsequent batches.
54. We direct accordingly and dispose of the appeals with these
directions. A copy of this judgment and order be sent to the Secretary,
Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India and
the Secretary, University Grants Commission.
55. List for compliance after six weeks.
26
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.5153/15@CC
No.837/2015)
56. Delay condoned. The SLP is disposed of in terms of the decision
in civil appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014.
…………………….…J
( Madan B. Lokur )
…………………….…J
(Uday Umesh Lalit)
New Delhi;
February 11, 2015
27
ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.9 SECTION XII
(For Judgment)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).32770-32772/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13/08/2014
in WA No. 1079/2014, 13/08/2014 in WA No. 1/2014, 13/08/2014 in WA
No. 1078/2014 passed by the High Court of Madras)
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
MGR EDUCATIONAL & RESEARCH INSTITUTE
UNIVERSITY & ANR. Respondent(s)
WITH
S.L.P.(C)No.5153/15 @ CC No. 837/2015
(With Office Report)
Date : 11/02/2015 These petitions were called on for
pronouncement of judgment today.
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Gaurav Sharma, AOR
Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Adv.
Mr. Prateek Bhatia, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Rohit K. Singh, AOR
Mr. G. Umapathy, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR
Ms. R. Mekhala, Adv.
..........
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur pronounced the
reportable judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship
and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.
Leave granted.
Since this issue has been debated and discussed from
various points of view, and to strike a balance between
competing interests, we are of the opinion that:
(1) A student admitted by the Institution in the academic
year 2009-10 should be required to once again undergo the
final examination – this time under the auspices of a State
28
Health University located outside the State of Tamil Nadu,
preferably Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,
Bengaluru. The examination should be held within three
months from today. The Institute will bear the expenses for
conducting the said examination.
(2) The Institute/State Health University/Rajiv Gandhi
University of Health Sciences shall intimate to the Medical
Council of India the proposed date of examination and the
Medical Council of India shall appoint examiners to oversee
the conduct of such examination. The Institute will bear the
expenses for conducting the said examination.
(3) If a student qualifies in the said examination,
he/she may be allowed to begin his/her internship programme
and on successful completion thereof, an MBBS degree shall be
awarded by the Institute, subject to the final decision in
Viplav Sharma’s case. If a student does not qualify in that
examination, he or she may be given another chance to qualify
after a gap of six months in a similar examination conducted
under the auspices of a recognized University (but not Deemed
to be University) located outside the State of Tamil Nadu.
The Institute will bear the expenses for conducting the said
examination.
(4) The MHRD and the MH&FW should put their house in
order and ensure better and more effective coordination with
each other as well as the MCI and the UGC.
(5) The MCI, the MH&FW, the UGC and the MHRD should take
a joint inspection of the facilities in the College within a
period of two months from today to ascertain and determine
whether the College should be allowed to admit students in
the academic year 2015-16 and whether it provides necessary
facilities as required by law and the regulations.
(6) Costs of Rs.5 crores deserve to be imposed on the
Institute for blatantly violating the directions of the MCI
and the MH&FW and creating a complete mess insofar as the
nd
students admitted to the 2 batch of MBBS course in the
29
College in the academic year 2009-10 are concerned. The
amount will be deposited by the Institute in the Registry of
this Court within four weeks from today. The amount of Rs.5
crores so deposited towards costs shall not be recovered in
any manner from any student or adjusted against the fees or
provision of facilities for students of subsequent batches.
We direct accordingly and dispose of the appeals with
these directions. A copy of this judgment and order be sent
to the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Government of India and the Secretary, University Grants
Commission.
List for compliance after six weeks.
S.L.P.(C)No.5153/15 @ CC No. 837/2015
Delay condoned. The SLP is disposed of in terms of the
decision in civil appeals arising out of SLP (C)
Nos.32770-32772 of 2014.
(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (JASWINDER KAUR)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed Reportable Judgment is placed on the file)