Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3964 OF 2016
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) NO.5326 OF 2016)
Medical Council of India ... Appellant(s)
Versus
V.N. Public Health & Educational ... Respondent(s)
Trust & Ors
J U D G M E N T
JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, J.
Leave granted.
2. The first respondent, V.N. Public Health & Educational
Trust (for short, “the Trust”), vide letter dated 30.08.2015
submitted an application for establishment of a new medical
college from the academic year 2016-17 to the competent
Page 1
2
authority of the Central Government and the said application
dated 30.08.2015 was forwarded by the Government of India
to the appellant, Medical Council of India (MCI) vide letter
| After in | itial scr |
|---|
MCI noticed that the Essentiality Certificate issued by the
Government of Kerala in favour of the Trust was not valid as
the same was not in accordance with the format prescribed by
the Establishment of the Medical College Regulations, 1999
(for short, “the Regulations”) of the MCI. Regard being had to
the nature of the Essentiality Certificate and the decision of
this Court in Royal Medical Trust (Registered) and another
1
v. Union of India & another , the MCI decided to
recommend to the Central Government to disapprove the
JUDGMENT
application submitted by the Trust for establishment of a new
medical college commencing from the academic year 2016-17.
The Government of India vide its letter dated 04.11.2015
called upon the Trust to appear before the Committee on
16.11.2015 to explain its stand. As the said respondent failed
1
(2015) 10 SCC 19
Page 2
3
to appear before the concerned Committee on the date fixed,
the matter was decided ex parte .
3. As the factual score would depict, the Trust being
| uance of | an inval |
|---|
of Kerala and disapproval of its scheme for establishment of a
new medical college from the academic year 2016-17
approached the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ
Petition (C) No. 35705 of 2015. The learned single Judge vide
order dated 25.11.2015 issued the following directions:-
“In the light of Ext.P1 renewal application and
the renewed Essentiality Certificate, this court is
of the view that petitioner’s application for
establishment of new Medical College shall not be
rejected on account of any deficiency existed in
the renewed certificate. In the meanwhile, there
shall be a direction to the third respondent to
pass appropriate orders on Ext.P6 within ten
days. Post after two weeks.”
JUDGMENT
4. Thereafter the learned single Judge took note of the fresh
Essentiality Certificate and the following directions were
issued as per the order dated 16.12.2015:-
“The petitioner is an educational agency. They
applied for establishment of a medical college.
Page 3
4
| nd the<br>nsider t<br>ntiality | State<br>he appl<br>certifica |
|---|
5. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the appellant
preferred Writ Appeal No. 96 of 2016. It was contended before
the Division Bench that pursuant to the order passed by the
learned single Judge, the Central Government on 23.12.2015
had asked the MCI to review the recommendation but the said
JUDGMENT
direction was not possible to be adhered to on account of the
time schedule fixed pertaining to such matters. It was also
urged that the letter of intent had to be issued by the Central
Government on or before 15.01.2016 and sufficient time was
not available for taking further steps in the matter.
Additionally, it was argued that as per the time schedule, MCI
was required to give the recommendation to the Central
Page 4
5
Government for issue of letter of intent by 15.12.2015. The
Division Bench, after noting the submissions, passed the
following order:-
| s argued | by the le |
|---|
6. As far as the judgment is concerned, the
learned Single Judge had only directed the
Central Government to consider the application
of the petitioner and take a decision after hearing
them. That process has already been completed
and Annexure A2 dated 23.12.2015 has been
issued by the Central Government.”
JUDGMENT
Being of this view, it declined to interfere with the order
passed by the learned single Judge and dismissed the appeal.
6. We have heard Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel
along with Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel for the
appellant, Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor
General along with Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, learned counsel for
Page 5
6
respondent No. 2 and Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior
counsel along with Mr. Ranjiv Ranjan Dwivedi, learned
counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. M.T. George, learned
| ent No. 3 | . |
|---|
7. The focal issue that arises for consideration is whether
the learned single Judge was justified in directing the MCI to
take into consideration the revised Essentiality Certificate
th
submitted by the Trust after 30 of September, 2015, and
whether the Trust had submitted a proper and requisite
th
Essentiality Certificate along with the application on 30 of
August, 2015. As is demonstrable, the Trust had submitted
th
an incomplete application on 30 of August, 2015 which was
forwarded by the Central Government to the MCI vide
JUDGMENT
communication dated 23.09.2015. Be it stated that the MCI
had noticed that the Essentiality Certificate was on record by
the time the application was forwarded to it. The MCI on
scrutiny found that the Essentiality Certificate was not in
accordance with the format prescribed by the Regulations and
accordingly did not recommend for the approval of the college.
Page 6
7
8. Mr. Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellant, has
drawn our attention to the renewed Essentiality Certificate
granted by the Government of Kerala on 31.08.2015. The
| said Certi | ficate re |
|---|
“The Managing Trustee-Secretary, V.N. Public
Health & Educational Trust, NRT Nagar, Theni,
Tamil Nadu State has applied for establishment
of a Medical College at Walayar in Palakkad
District. On careful consideration of the proposal,
the Government of Kerala has decided to issue an
Essentiality Certificate to the applicant for the
establishment of a Medical College with 150
seats.
It is certified that:
(a) The applicant owns and manages 300
bedded hospital at Palakkad District.
(b) It is desirable to establish a Medical
College in the public interest.
JUDGMENT
(c) Establishment of a Medical College at
Palakkad District by V.N. Public Health &
Educational Trust is feasible.
(d) The Essentiality Certificate is issued on
condition that all clinical materials as per
Medical Council of India norms will be made
available in the hospital within the stipulated
time as fixed by the Medical Council of India.
(e) The Management will share 50% of the
total MBBS seats with Government to fill
Page 7
8
students from the list prepared by the
Commissioner for Entrance Examinations,
Kerala.
| to crea<br>e as per<br>sh admis | te infra<br>Medical<br>sions ar |
|---|
[Emphasis added)
9. The pertinent part of the communication dated
19.10.2015 made by the MCI to the competent authority of the
Central Government is as follows:-
“It is to inform you that on perusal of the
application/documents submitted by the
applicant, it is noted that as per the Essentiality
Certificate dated 31/08/2015 issued by the
Government of Kerala “The Essentiality Certificate
is issued on condition that all clinical materials as
per Medical Council of India norms will be made
available in the hospital within the stipulated time
as fixed by the Medical Council of India. ” However,
prescribed proforma for Essentiality Certificate
states that “(d) Adequate clinical materials as per
the Medical Council of India norms is available.”
JUDGMENT
In view of the above, it is clear that at the time of
issuance of Essentiality Certificate, the applicant
does not fulfill the mandatory qualifying criteria
of the availability of the “Adequate clinical
Page 8
9
material as per the Medical Council of India
norms.” Accordingly, the applicant does not meet
the mandatory criteria prescribed under the
regulations.
| it is furt<br>me Cour<br>n W.P. | her to in<br>t vide its<br>(C) No. |
|---|
“… (A) Initial assessment of the application at
the first level should comprise of checking
necessary requirements such as essentiality
certificate, consent of affiliation and physical
features like land and hospital requirement. If
an applicant fails to fulfill these requirements,
the application on the face of it, would be
incomplete and be rejected. Those who fulfill
the basic requirements would be considered at
the next stage…”
In view of the above, the Council Office has
decided to return the application for
establishment of new medical college at Wayalar,
Kerala (Palakkad Institute of Medical Sciences,
Palakkad, Kerala) by V.N. Public Health &
Education Trust, Tamilnadu to the Central Govt.
recommending disapproval of the scheme u/s
10A of the IMC Act, 1956 for the academic year
2016-17, as the applicant fails to fulfill necessary
requirement of availability of the adequate
clinical material as per the Medical Council of
India norms.”
JUDGMENT
10. On a perusal of the Essentiality Certificate dated
31.08.2015, it is obvious that it is a conditional certificate.
Page 9
10
The said fact has been reiterated by the appellant-MCI vide its
communication dated 19.10.2015. A conditional certificate
cannot be regarded as the requisite Certificate inasmuch as
| ich are | essentia |
|---|
required to be fulfilled. On the basis of such a certificate, the
MCI was not expected to approve the application submitted by
an educational institution. It had clearly communicated that
the prescribed format stipulates that adequate clinical
material as per the MCI norms “is available”. Thus, the
availability has to be in praesenti but not to be a condition to
be satisfied at a later stage. That is not the postulate in the
Regulations. In Royal Medical Trust (supra), a three-Judge
Bench referring to Section 10-A of the Indian Medical Council
JUDGMENT
Act, 1956 (for brevity, “the Act’) has ruled that:-
“Section 10-A contemplates submission of a
scheme to the Central Government in the
prescribed form, which scheme is then to be
referred by the Central Government to MCI for its
appropriate recommendations. The scheme is to
be considered having regard to the features
referred to in sub-section (7) and is then placed
before the Central Government along with the
recommendations of MCI. In exercise of powers
conferred by Section 10-A read with Section 33 of
Page 10
11
| ra 3 of t<br>shall e<br>btaining | he Regul<br>stablish<br>prior p |
|---|
After so stating, the Court referred to para 7 of the
Regulations which deals with the report of the MCI, and para 8
JUDGMENT
that deals with grant of permission by the Central
Government. Reference has also been made to the schedule for
receipt of applications for establishment of new medical
colleges and increase of admission capacity in an existing
medical college and processing of the applications by the
Page 11
12
Central Government and the Medical Council of India.
Thereafter, Court has proceeded to observe:-
| Central<br>nitoring<br>gulations | Govern<br>powers<br>. It is e |
|---|
11. After so stating, the three-Judge Bench has directed the
schedule must ideally take care of:-
“(A) Initial assessment of the application at the
first level should comprise of checking necessary
requirements such as essentiality certificate,
consent for affiliation and physical features like
land and hospital requirement. If an applicant
fails to fulfil these requirements, the application
on the face of it, would be incomplete and be
rejected. Those who fulfil the basic requirements
would be considered at the next stage.
JUDGMENT
(B) Inspection should then be conducted by the
Inspectors of MCI. By very nature such
inspection must have an element of surprise.
Therefore sufficient time of about three to four
months ought to be given to MCI to cause
inspection at any time and such inspection
should normally be undertaken latest by
Page 12
13
January. Surprise inspection would ensure that
the required facilities and infrastructure are
always in place and not borrowed or put in
temporarily.
| of the r<br>uld then<br>and fac | esult or<br>be com<br>ilities a |
|---|
(D) If compliance is reported and the applicant
states that the deficiencies stand removed, MCI
must cause compliance verification. It is possible
that such compliance could be accepted even
without actual physical verification but that
assessment be left entirely to the discretion of
MCI and the Central Government. In cases where
actual physical verification is required, MCI and
the Central Government must cause such
verification before the deadline.
JUDGMENT
(E) The result of such verification if positive in
favour of the medical college concerned, the
applicant ought to be given requisite
permission/renewal. But if the deficiencies still
persist or had not been removed, the applicant
will stand disentitled so far as that academic year
is concerned.”
12. Mr. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant has drawn our attention to the order dated January
Page 13
14
18, 2016 passed in I.A. Nos. 7 & 8 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.
76 of 2015 titled Ashish Ranjan & Ors. v. Union of India &
Ors. wherein the Court had taken note of notification issued
| the pre | vious s |
|---|
Government. The notification has prescribed the time
schedule for receipt of applications for establishment of new
| enewal of permissio<br>he Central Govern<br>he schedule in this r | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| “S.<br>No. | Stag | e of proce | ssing | Last date | |
| 1 | Receipt of applications by the<br>Central Government | applications by t<br>vernment | Between 15th June<br>to 7th July (both<br>days inclusive) of<br>any year | ||
| 2 | ForwardiJng UapDpliGcatMionE bNy tThe<br>Central Government to Medical<br>Council of India | By 15th July | |||
| 3 | Technical Scrutiny, assessment<br>and Recommendations for<br>Letter of Permission by the<br>Medical Council of India | By 15th December | |||
| 4 | Receipt of reply/compliance<br>from the applicant by the<br>Central Government and for<br>personal hearing thereto, if any,<br>and forwarding of compliance<br>by the Central Government to<br>the Medical Council of India | Two months from<br>receipt of<br>recommendation<br>from MCI but not<br>beyond 31st<br>January. |
Page 14
15
| 5 | Final recommendations for the<br>Letter of Permission by the<br>Medical Council of India | By 30th April |
|---|---|---|
| 6 | Issue of Letter of Permission by<br>the Central Government | By 31st May |
| se of re | newal of |
|---|
xxx xxx xxx
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 33
of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956(102) of
1956, the Medical Council of India with the
previous sanction of the Central Government,
hereby makes the following Regulations to further
amend the “Opening of a New or Higher Course of
Study or Training (including Postgraduate Course
of Study or Training) and increase of Admission
Capacity in any Course of Study or Training
(Including a Postgraduate Course of Study or
Training) Regulations 2000”, namely:-
JUDGMENT
(i) These Regulations may be called the “Opening
of a New or Higher Course of Study or Training
(Including Postgraduate Course of Study or
Training) and increase of Admission Capacity in
any Course of Study or Training (including
Postgraduate Course of Study or Training
(Amendment) Regulations 2015.
(ii) They shall come into force from the date of
their publication in the Official Gazette.”
Page 15
16
13. The two-Judge Bench, after reproducing the entire
notification which deals with various situations, has given the
stamp of approval to the said Schedule.
| , we may | profitab |
|---|
D.Y. Patil Medical College v. Medical Council of India &
2
Anr. wherein the controversy had arisen due to rejection of
the application of the institution on the ground that
Essentiality Certificate was not filed along with the application
form. The Court dwelled upon the principles stated in
3
Educare Charitable Trust v. Union of India & Anr. , Royal
Medical Trust (supra) and various other decisions and, after
anaylsing the scheme of the Act, has held:-
“It is apparent from the aforesaid decision and
the regulations that the application at the first
instance is required to be complete and
incomplete applications are liable to be rejected.
Thereafter, there has to be an inspection and
other stages of decision-making process.”
JUDGMENT
15. The impugned order passed by the High Court is to be
tested and adjudged on the anvil of the aforesaid authorities.
2
2015 (10) SCC 51
3
AIR 2014 SC 902 : (2013) 16 SCC 474
Page 16
17
The application for grant of approval was filed with the
Essentiality Certificate which was a conditional one and,
therefore, a defective one. It was not an Essentiality Certificate
| situation | , the Hi |
|---|
directed for consideration of the application for the purpose of
the inspection. Such a direction, we are disposed to think,
runs counter to the law laid down in Educare Charitable
Trust (supra) and Royal Medical Trust (supra). We may
further proceed to state that on the date of the application, the
Essentiality Certificate was not in order. The Schedule
prescribed by the MCI, which had been approved by this
Court, is binding on all concerned. MCI cannot transgress it.
The High Court could not have gone beyond the same and
JUDGMENT
issued any direction for conducting an inspection for the
academic year 2016-17. Therefore, the directions issued by
the learned single Judge and the affirmation thereof by the
Division Bench are wholly unsustainable.
16. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the judgments
and orders passed by the High Court are set aside. It will be
open to the Trust to submit a fresh application for the next
Page 17
18
academic year in consonance with the provisions of the
Regulations of the MCI and as per the time Schedule; and in
that event, it will be considered appropriately. In the facts and
| e case, th | ere shall |
|---|
...............................J.
[Dipak Misra]
...............................J.
[Shiva Kirti Singh]
New Delhi
April 18, 2016
JUDGMENT
Page 18