MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA vs. MGR EDUCATIONAL & RESEARCH INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY

REPORTABLE

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) 5153/2015 @ CC No.837/2015) JUDGMENT 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 C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014) Page 1 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015) Page 1 A.C.S. Medical College and Hospital (for short ‘the College’) for the nd 2 batch of MBBS course. In our opinion, the admissions were

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’) 1 and was for the purposes of the Act. At that time the Institute JUDGMENT 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 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. C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014) Page 2 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015) Page 2 paperwork for this was carried out. However, the College was not within the ambit of the Institute (Deemed to be University) when

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 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 year 2009-10 nd for the 2 batch of students. Admissions made in 2009-10 5. Having admitted students in 2008-09 the Institute was JUDGMENT 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 th this context, the MCI wrote to the College on 10 November, 2008 nd that, for the renewal of permission for admission of the 2 batch of students in the academic year 2009-10 it may send the C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014) Page 3 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015) Page 3 th proposed dates for carrying out an inspection before 15 March, 2009 and submit all requisite documents.

placed before the Executive Committee of the MCI and in its th meeting held on 8 April, 2009 the MCI decided to recommend to the Central Government [the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare nd or the MH&FW] 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 Institute would be forwarding the notification of approval for inclusion of the College within the ambit of the Institute under JUDGMENT 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 st of the Institute. Accordingly, on 1 May, 2009 the MCI requested the Central Government [MH&FW] to keep in abeyance the nd 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 C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014) Page 4 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015) Page 4 University by an appropriate notification. 8. In light of the information received, the issue of renewal of

Committee decided to ratify the abeyance communication dated st 1 May, 2009. It also decided to recall the recommendation earlier nd made of the renewal of permission for admission to the 2 batch of MBBS students for the academic year 2009-10. This was th communicated by the MCI by a 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 JUDGMENT Committee to recall the recommendation of renewal of permission nd for admission to 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 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 C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014) Page 5 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015) Page 5 Institute under Section 3 of the UGC Act. 10. Since the Institute was not able to produce any document to

th 15 May, 2009 recalling the recommendation for renewal of nd permission for 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 JUDGMENT 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. 12. The Institute filed a writ petition in this Court on or about th 10 August, 2009 being W.P. No.349 of 2009 in which it was C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014) Page 6 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015) Page 6 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

also prayed that permission may be granted to admit students 2 from the academic year 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 nd the 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 JUDGMENT nd had petitioned this Court for permitting admission for the 2 batch of students for the academic year 2009-10 but no interim 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. C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014) Page 7 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015) Page 7 relief was granted to the Institute in this regard. 14. Therefore, both the Institute and the College were fully

th specific direction (given on 10 August, 2009) not to do so, the Institute and the College went ahead and admitted students for nd 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 JUDGMENT 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 petition was allowed by the High Court by an order passed on th 17 August, 2009 with a direction to take a decision within six weeks. C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014) Page 8 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015) Page 8 17. Pursuant to the direction given by the High Court, the UGC nd appointed a committee on 2 September, 2009 to inspect the

th th committee conducted an inspection on 7 /8 September, 2009. It is not clear when the report was given by the committee, but on th 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. 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 th academic year 2009-10. Further, on 17 September, 2009 the JUDGMENT MCI wrote to the College requesting for some documents but more importantly informing it of a proposed inspection for rd renewal of permission for 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 C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014) Page 9 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015) Page 9 nd of students that it had admitted in the 2 batch of MBBS course from the academic year 2009-10.

made were bona fide and anticipatory. Three facts were highlighted in this regard: (i) W.P. No.13419 of 2009 was allowed th by the Madras High Court on 17 August, 2009 and a th recommendation given by the UGC 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- th 2009; (ii) The College had 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 JUDGMENT th 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 rd renewal of 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- C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014) Page 10 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015) Page 10 09 were now acceptable to the MHRD and that the MCI also had no real objections if admissions were made in the academic year

assessment of these facts the College admitted students in the nd th 2 batch and sent the list of admitted 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 th nd (on 10 August, 2009) not to admit the 2 batch of students for the academic year 2009-10, the MCI also wrote to the College on th 4 February, 2010 that the students who had been admitted by the College for the academic year 2009-10 may be discharged JUDGMENT 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 th the earlier letter dated 4 February, 2010 had not yet been received. This was followed soon thereafter by an order passed C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014) Page 11 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015) Page 11 th by the MH&FW on 5 April, 2010 that regularization of admission of students in the academic years 2008-09 and 2009-10 cannot

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 th dated 5 April, 2010 no steps were taken by the College for nd discharging the students admitted to the 2 batch in the th academic year 2009-10. 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 admitted in the academic nd year 2009-10 in the 2 batch may be discharged and that no JUDGMENT compliance report had been received pursuant to the letter dated th 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 th UGC deciding on 25 September, 2009 to accord ex-post fact C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014) Page 12 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015) Page 12 approval to the admissions made by the Institute in the College in the academic year 2008-09. However, the MCI continued to hold

bringing the College within the ambit of the Institute. This was th communicated by the MCI to the MH&FW on 18 March, 2010. 25. Apparently in view of this conflict of opinions, the Institute th filed 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. Based on this order, the Institute made a JUDGMENT th 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 th Court. This writ petition was decided on 18 August, 2010 and a C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014) Page 13 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015) Page 13 direction issued to the MHRD to pass appropriate orders in terms th of the earlier order of 14 July, 2010 after considering the

27. Upon receipt of the order passed by the Madras High Court in W.P. No. 18682 of 2010 an order was passed by the MHRD on st 31 August, 2010 rejecting the recommendations of the UGC th made on 30 September, 2009 to bring the College in the ambit of the Institute. As a result, the ex-post facto approval granted to th the College by the UGC (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 JUDGMENT 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 th declining the request, this Court passed an order on 24 February, C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014) Page 14 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015) Page 14 2012 requesting the Madras High Court to dispose of the pending writ petition preferably within three months without waiting for

st November, 2012 and 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 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 JUDGMENT learned Single Judge, the MCI and the MHRD filed writ appeals being Writ Appeal Nos. 2772/2012 and 256/2013 before the 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.” C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014) Page 15 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015) Page 15 Division Bench of the Madras High Court. By its judgment and th order dated 15 April, 2013 the Division Bench set aside the

entire matter for reconsideration by the MHRD. 31. Pursuant to the decision rendered by the Division Bench, th the MHRD gave a hearing to the Institute on 8 May, 2013 and rd passed an 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 JUDGMENT 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 made in 2008-09. The assessment was made on th th 7 /8 August, 2013 and the consequent report was then considered by the Under Graduate Committee of the MCI and C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014) Page 16 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015) Page 16 subsequently by the Board of Governors of the MCI. By a decision nd taken on 2 September, 2013 the Board of Governors of the MCI

nd admitted in the 2 batch in the year 2009-10 be discharged. The Board of Governors also decided to black list the Institute and the 4 Trust for a period of five years. th th 33. A copy of the assessment report of 7 /8 August, 2013 was th sent 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 JUDGMENT st issued a notification on 1 October, 2013 under Section 11(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 recognizing the MBBS degree 5 for the students admitted in the academic year 2008-09. The 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. C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014) Page 17 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015) Page 17 Institute was also included in the First Schedule to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

Nos.1959 and 1964 of 2014 in the Madras High Court challenging th that order. By 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 light of the rd order passed by the MHRD on 23 May, 2013 after giving a hearing to the Institute. JUDGMENT th 36. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 14 July, 2014 the MCI preferred an appeal before the Division Bench and that came to th be 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. C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014) Page 18 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015) Page 18 th The order dated 13 August, 2014 underwent a minor clarification th on 19 August, 2014 to the effect that the MCI may pass an order

does not challenge the admission of students in the College in the academic year 2008-09 but 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 Institute and that Expert Committee gave a recommendation nd on 22 September, 2014 that there is no provision for the grant of JUDGMENT 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 th Committee 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 C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014) Page 19 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015) Page 19 from 2014-15 batch onwards, subject to the decision in Viplav Sharma’s case.

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. 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 JUDGMENT nd given by the 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 C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014) Page 20 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015) Page 20 specific directions given by the MCI and the MH&FW not to admit nd students in the 2 batch in the academic year 2009-10. The

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 th Institute. In fact 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 JUDGMENT students in the academic year 2009-10 was unauthorized at the relevant time. 42. It is a little disturbing that the MCI and the MH&FW were completely helpless for several years in taking any action against nd the Institute and the College in respect of the admission of the 2 batch of students. The UGC and the MHRD were also passive C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014) Page 21 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015) Page 21 spectators. It is quite clear that the statutory authorities and the Government were toothless tigers when it came to retaining

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 JUDGMENT nd the Institute to the 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 C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014) Page 22 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015) Page 22 of coordination is what perhaps enabled the Institute and the College to make admissions in the academic year 2008-09 and

admissions made in that academic year. It is also this absence of coordination which perhaps enabled the Institute and the College nd to take similar advantage in respect of the admissions to 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 rd th inspection of the facilities available in the College on 23 /24 nd March, 2009 for renewal of permission to admit the 2 batch of JUDGMENT 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 nd Institute and could not admit students in the 2 batch beginning in the academic year 2009-10, the MCI sent a letter to the College C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014) Page 23 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015) Page 23 th 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

th submissions made before us. What is worse is that on 17 September, 2009 the MCI wrote to the College proposing an rd inspection for renewal of permission 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 nd students admitted to the 2 batch in 2009-10 by a th communication dated 30 September, 2009 sent by the College, JUDGMENT th 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 year of their th education. Even the MH&FW kept quiet till 5 April, 2010 that is C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014) Page 24 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015) Page 24 for a period of about 5 months. It is unfortunate that unauthorized admissions to a medical college are being taken in

the Government. th 47. In its order dated 12 September, 2013 the MCI referred to A.P. Christian Medical Educational Society v. State of 6 Andhra Pradesh to the effect that no direction can be issued contrary to the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 or the Regulations framed thereunder. Therefore, it was observed in the order that the Board of Governors in the MCI cannot nd regularize the admission of the 2 batch of students in the academic year 2009-10. 48. In the referred decision, one of the submissions made was JUDGMENT 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 6 1986 (2) SCC 667 C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014) Page 25 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015) Page 25 had not been granted to the Institute.” It was noticed that the students concerned had not only lost their money to gain

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 nd also for the admissions made to the 2 batch in the academic JUDGMENT 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 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 C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014) Page 26 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015) Page 26 subsequent events which have been taken into consideration by the MHRD. The MCI and the MH&FW as well as the UGC have

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 JUDGMENT MCI, the MH&FW, the UGC and the MHRD have participated as spectators. We cannot let the matter rest at that simply because nd 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 C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014) Page 27 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015) Page 27 keeping in view the fact that it is not very clear whether the nd course of study undergone by the students admitted in the 2

52. Learned counsel for the parties (other than the MCI) 7 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. JUDGMENT 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 7 Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Senior Advocate for the students and Mr. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior Advocate for the Institute. C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014) Page 28 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015) Page 28 from various points of view, and to strike a balance between competing interests, we are of the opinion that:

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 JUDGMENT 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 C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014) Page 29 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015) Page 29 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

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 JUDGMENT 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 students admitted to C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014) Page 30 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015) Page 30 nd the 2 batch of MBBS course in the College in the academic year 2009-10 are concerned. The amount will be deposited by the

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. JUDGMENT 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. C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014) Page 31 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015) Page 31 …………………….…J ( Madan B. Lokur ) …………………….…J (Uday Umesh Lalit) New Delhi; February 11, 2015 JUDGMENT C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014) Page 32 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015) Page 32