Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
PETITIONER:
SUMAN GUPTA AND OTHERS ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF J & K AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT19/09/1983
BENCH:
PATHAK, R.S.
BENCH:
PATHAK, R.S.
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)
MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)
CITATION:
1983 AIR 1235 1983 SCR (3) 985
1983 SCC (4) 339 1983 SCALE (2)305
CITATOR INFO :
R 1985 SC 87 (11)
RF 1986 SC1224 (2,27,29)
ACT:
Constitution of India, Art. 14-Powers and procedures
resulting in unfairness and arbitrariness-violative of Art.
14.
Administrative Law-Vesting of absolute and uncontrolled
power in public authority-Falls outside the Constitution and
invalid.
HEADNOTE:
With a view to encourage national integration, a few
States including respondent states agreed upon an
arrangement by which a certain percentage of the seats in
medical colleges was reserved for candidates from other
States on a reciprocal basis. In the year 1982-83 the
respondent States made some nominations under the above
arrangement. The validity of these nominations was
challenged in these writ petitions and civil appeals on the
ground, inter alia, that these nominations had been made by
the State Governments in their absolute and arbitrary
discretion, without reference to any objective criterion, or
any controlling norms or guidelines.
Partly allowing the writ petitions and the appeals,
^
HELD: The principle adopted by the State Governments of
nominating candidates in their absolute and unfettered
choice to seats in Medical Colleges outside the State is
invalid. But the nominations already made will not be
affected. [991 F-G; E]
The exercise of all administrative power vested in
public authority must be structured within a system of
controls informed by both relevance and reason-relevance in
relation to the object which it seeks to serve, and reason
in regard to the manner in which attempts to do so. Art. 14
of the Constitution is violated by powers and procedures
which in themselves result in unfairness and asbitrariness.
There is no doubt that in the realm of administrative power
the element of discretion may properly, find place, where
the statute or the nature of the power intends so. But there
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
is a well recognised distinction between an administrative
power to be exercised within defined limits in the
reasonable discretion of designated authority and the
vesting of an absolute and uncontrolled power in such
authority. One is power controlled by law countenanced by
the Constitution, the other falls outside the Constitution
altogether. Proceeding from there, it is evident that if the
State
986
Government desires to advance the objective of national
integration it must adopt procedures which are reasonable
and are related to the objective. In this Age of Reason, all
law must measure upto that standard, and necessarily so also
must all executive acts. [989 E-F; 989 G; 990 A-D]
In the present cases, viewed in this context and tested
on the touchstone of our constitutional values, the claim of
the State Government that the nature of the objective and
the means adopted to serve it entitle it legitimately to
vest in itself an absolute power in choosing candidates for
nomination is to deny a fundamental principle of our
constitutional life and cannot be allowed to prevail. [990
D-E]
Chitra Ghosh and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.,
[1970] 1 S.C.R., 413, 420; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,
[1978] 2 S.C.R. 621; and Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The
International Airport Authority of India & Ors., [1979] 3
S.C.R. 1015, referred to.
The Medical Council of India is directed to formulate a
proper constitutional basis for determining the selection of
candidates for nomination to seats in Medical Colleges
outside the State in the light of the observations contained
in this judgment. Until a policy is so formulated and
concrete criteria are embodied in the procedure selected,
the nominations shall be made by selecting candidates
strictly on the basis of merit, the candidates nominated
being those, in order of merit, immediately below the
candidates selected for admission to the Medical Colleges of
the home State. [991 G-H; 992 A]
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition Nos. 9078 to 9106,
9025-43 of 1982, 24 & 35. 43-46 and 2839 of 1983.
(Under article 32 of the Constitution of India).
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 3812 & 3813 of 1983.
Appeals by Special leave from the Judgement and Order
dated the 31st December, 1982 of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in W.P. Nos. 6844 of 1982 & 6937 of 1982.
AND
(CMP. Nos. 13616, 16617, 22151, 22125 & 23486 of 1983).
For the Appearing Petitioners in Writ Petitions:
M.K. Ramamurthi, Anil Dev Singh, Subhash Sharma, Satish
Vig, Shri Narain, V.K. Pandita, R.D. Upadhyay and E.C.
Agarwala.
987
For the Appearing Respondents in Writ Petitions:
G.L. Sanghi and Mr. S.N. Kacker Altaf Ahmad and Irfan
Ahmad.
A. Subba Rao for the Appellants in Civil Appeals.
S.S. Ray, Vineet Kumar, T.V.S. Narasimhachari, G.V.L.
Narasimha Rao and Mrs. Urmila Sirur for the Respondents in
Civil Appeals.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
PATHAK, J. This Court has had occasion in the past to
entertain the complaints of several young men and women who
aspired to admission to the Medical Colleges of their States
and had been wrongly denied admission thereto. In the writ
petitions and civil appeals now before us, the grievance
voiced by the petitioners and the appellants takes us to a
new category of cases and to a new dimension. They question
the validity of nominations by the State Government of Jammu
and Kashmir and the State Government of Andhra Pradesh of
candidates to seats reserved in the Medical Colleges of
other States. The civil appeals are directed against the
judgment dated December 31, 1982 of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court dismissing writ petitions filed by the appellants.
The Medical Council of India, in its report on under-
graduate medical education, recommended that with a view to
encouraging national integration, ten per cent of the seats
in veery Medical College, other than those where admissions
were planned on an all India basis, should be reserved, on a
reciprocal basis for students from other States. At the
Joint Conference of the Central Council of Health and the
Central Family Welfare Council, held from December 28, 1977
to January 31, 1978, the matter was considered and a
resolution was passed recommending that five per cent of the
seats in Medical Colleges should be reserved for candidates
from other States on a reciprocal basis. After protracted
correspondence between a number of State Governments, the
States of Andhra Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka,
Kerala and Tamil Nadu agreed upon such an arrangement. It
was decided that each of them would have the right to
nominate candidates to seats reserved
988
in the Medical Colleges of the other participating States.
We are concerned herewith nominations made by the State
Government of Jammu and Kashmir and the State Government of
Andhra Pradesh. Twenty two of the thirty nominations made by
the State Government of Jammu and Kashmir for the year 1982-
83 have been challenged in these writ petitions and all the
nominations made by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh
have been assailed in the associated Civil Appeals.
The petitioners in the writ petitions and the
appellants in the appeals were candidates for admission to
the M.B.B.S. course of studies in the Medical Colleges of
their respective States, and not having succeeded in that
object, they claim that they should have been properly
considered for nomination by their State Governments to the
seats reserved in the Medical Colleges outside their home
States because they have secured higher marks in the
qualifying examination than the nominated candidates. They
urge that the nominations actually made by the State
Governments have been made in their absolute and arbitrary
discretion, without reference to any objective criterion, or
any controlling norms or guidelines. They also allege that
the nominations have been influenced by the personal
relationship of the candidates to persons in the ruling
political party or to Government officers in positions of
high authority.
The position taken by the Jammu and Kashmir Government
and by the Andhra Pradesh Government is that to serve the
objective of national integration the selection of a
candidate has to be determined not merely by the marks
obtained by him in the qualifying examination but also by
his ability to project an appropriate image of the culture
of his home State in the State to which he is nominated. It
is submitted that no objective criterion is possible in that
context, and the selection must perforce be left to the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
absolute and unfettered choice of the State Government. The
Andhra Pradesh Government relies on G.O.M. No. 508, M & H
dated July 27, 1979, which brings the scheme into effect
from the academic year 1979-80. It expressly provides that
the selection of candidates for such nominations is excluded
from the purview of the Selection Committees constituted for
admission to the M.B.B.S. Course in the States.
At the outset, we may dispose of an objection taken on
behalf of the respondents. It is pointed out that the
petitioners in the writ petitions and the appellants in the
civil appeals applied merely for
989
admission to the Medical Colleges of the home State and have
not alleged anywhere that they applied for nomination to a
seat in a Medical College outside the State. It is urged
that inasmuch as the scheme of nominations to Medical
Colleges outside the State is distinct altogether from the
scheme of admissions to Medical Colleges within the State
the petitioners and the appellants are not entitled to
question the validity of those nominations. We are referred
to Chitra Ghosh and Another v. Union of India and Others.(1)
In the civil appeals before us, however, we find that some
of the appellants did apply for nomination to a seat in a
Medical College outside the State. Besides, the Andhra
Pradesh High Court has elaborately considered the question
on its merits, and it seems desirable in the circumstances
to pronounce our opinion on the controversy. The objection
is overruled.
For the purpose of these cases, we shall proceed on the
assumption that national integration, which is undeniably in
itself a highly commendable and laudable objective, will be
effectively served by a policy encouraging the admission of
candidates of one State to seats in the Medical Colleges of
another State. After considering the matter carefully, we
confess, we are unable to subscribe to the view that the
selection of candidates for that purpose must remain in the
unlimited discretion and the uncontrolled choice of the
State Government. We think it beyond dispute that the
exercise of all administrative power vested in public
authority must be structured within a system of controls
informed by both relevance and reason-relevance in relation
to the object which it seeks to serve, and reason in regard
to the manner in which it attempts to do so. Wherever the
exercise of such power affects individual rights, there can
be no greater assurance protecting its valid exercise than
its governance by these twin tests. A stream of case law
radiating from the now well known decision of this Court in
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India(2) has laid down in clear
terms that.-
Article 14 of the Constitution is violated by powers
and procedures which in themselves result in unfairness and
arbitrariness. It must be remembered that our entire
constitutional system is founded in the Rule of Law, and in
any system so designed it is impossible to conceive of
legitimate power which is arbitrary in character and travels
beyond the bounds of reason. To contend that
990
the choice of a candidate selected on the basis of his
ability to project the culture and ethos of his home State
must necessarily be left to unfettered discretion of
executive authority is to deny a fundamental principle of
our constitutional life. We do not doubt that in the realm
of administrative power the element of discretion may
properly find place, where the statute or the nature of the
power intends so. But there is a well recognised distinction
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
between an administrative power to be exercised within
defined limits in the reasonable discretion of designated
authority and the vesting of an absolute and uncontrolled
power in such authority. One is power controlled by law
countenanced by the Constitution, the other falls outside
the Constitution altogether. Proceeding from there, it is
evident that if the State Government desires to advance the
objective of national integration it must adopt procedures
which are reasonable and are related to the objective. In
this Age of Reason, all law must measure upto that standard,
and necessarily so also must all executive acts. Viewed in
this context, the claim of the State Government in these
cases that the nature of the objective and the means adopted
to serve it entitle it legitimately to vest in itself an
absolute power in choosing candidates for nomination cannot
be allowed to prevail. It is incumbent on the State
Government to adopt a criterion or restrict its power by
reference to norms which, while designed to achieve its
object, nevertheless confine the flow of that power within
constitutional limits. We are not convinced that an adequate
system of standards cannot be devised for that purpose.
Tested on the touchstone of our constitutional values, the
claim of the State Government to the content of the power
assumed by it must, in our opinion, be declared invalid.
Now, the selection of an appropriate procedure lies
ordinarily within the domain of administrative policy, and
when the objective can be fulfilled by more than one
constitutionally valid method, the selection must be left to
administrative choice. The Courts are generally concerned
merely with the legal validity of the choice made. We think
it desirable, therefore, to leave it to the Medical Council
of India to formulate a proper constitutional basis for
determining the selection of candidates for nomination to
seats in Medical Colleges outside the State. The problem is
one which needs to be tackled at the national level, having
regard to the objective which is sought to be achieved and
to the circumstance that it calls for reciprocal
arrangements between Medical Colleges throughout the
991
country. Until a policy is so formulated and adopted and
concrete criteria are embodied in the procedure to be
selected, we direct that nominations be made by following
the procedure of selecting candidates strictly on the basis
of merit, the candidates nominated being those, in order of
merit, immediately next below the candidates selected for
admission to the Medical Colleges of the home State.
Before concluding it is desirable to advert to the
contention raised on behalf of the respondents that as the
State Government finances medical education within the State
it is entitled to exercise an absolute discretion in the
nomination of candidates to seats in Medical Colleges
outside the State, specially when the nomination is part of
a reciprocal arrangement between the different States. In
our opinion, the contention cannot be regarded as valid in
view of what has been laid down now by this Court in Ramana
Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of
India and Ors.(1)
Considerable and vehement argument has been addressed
on behalf of the petitioners and the appellants that we
should make an order revoking the nominations already made
by the Jammu and Kashmir Government and the Andhra Pradesh
Government. We do not propose to do so. The State Government
proceeded in the bona fide belief that the procedure adopted
by it was just and proper, the basis being one which appears
to have been uniformly adopted by all the participating
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6
States. Besides, the candidates nominated have already
covered a substantial part of their course of studies. These
considerations considered cumulatively dissuade us from
interfering with the nominations already made.
In the result, we allow the writ petitions and the
civil appeals insofar that the principle adopted by the
State Governments of nominating candidates in their absolute
and unfettered choice to seats in Medical Colleges outside
the State is declared invalid. The Medical Council of India
is directed to formulate a proper constitutional basis for
determining the selection of candidates for nomination to
seats in Medical Colleges outside the State in the light of
the observations contained in this judgment. Until a policy
is so formulated and concrete criteria are embodied in the
procedure selected, the nominations shall be made by
selecting candidates strictly on the basis of merit, the
candidates nominated being those,
992
in order of merit, immediately below the candidates selected
for admission to the Medical Colleges of the home State. The
judgment dated December 31, 1982 of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court is modified accordingly. In the circumstances of these
cases, we make no order as to costs.
A copy of this judgment and order shall be sent to the
Medical Council of India.
H.S.K. Appeals & Petition partly allowed.
993