Holding

The Court held that the Central Government’s direction for compliance verification is not a limited remand, the order denying renewal is unreasoned and violative of natural justice, and the Central Government must provide reasons and a further hearing.

Summary

IQ City Medical College applied for renewal of its MBBS intake for the 2017‑18 academic year. The Medical Council of India (MCI) inspection identified deficiencies and recommended non‑renewal. A Hearing Committee found the deficiencies insufficient to deny renewal, but the Central Government sent the matter back to MCI for a compliance verification. MCI conducted a surprise inspection, identified further deficiencies, and again recommended denial, which the Central Government accepted in an order dated 31‑May‑2017. The college challenged the order under Article 32, arguing that the Central Government’s direction was a limited remand, that the order was unreasoned and violated natural justice. The Supreme Court held that the direction for compliance verification is not a limited remand, MCI’s powers under Section 10‑A cannot be curtailed, and the Central Government’s order was not reasoned; it must give reasons and afford a further hearing. The Court set aside the order and directed the Central Government to rehear the petition with reasons within two weeks.

Issues considered

The scope of the Central Government’s direction for compliance verification – whether it constitutes a limited remand.
Whether the Central Government’s order denying renewal is required to be reasoned and to afford a hearing under natural justice.
The extent of MCI’s powers under Section 10‑A of the Medical Council Act, 1956 in conducting inspections and verification.
The applicability of the principles of open versus limited remand in the context of the Medical Council Act.

Legislation cited

Indian Medical Council Act, 1956s. 10-A
Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 2002s. 3-B(b)

Subjects

Medical Council of IndiaRenewal of permissionCompliance verificationSection 10-ANatural justiceLimited remandArticle 32Writ petitionMedical education

Judgment

' '

[2017) 9 S.C.R. 303

IQ CITY FOUNDATION & ANR. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 502of2017) ·
AUGUST 01, 2017 B
[DIPAK MISRA, AMITAVA ROY AND
A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.)
Education/Educational lnstit11tions: .
Medical College - Applied for renewal of permission for its C
51" batch of MBBS course for academic year 2017-I 8 - The
Assessors after inspection of the instit11tion fo11nd certain deficiencies
- Medical Council of India (MCI) after consideril1g the Assessment
.. Rep01;t recommended to the Central· Government not· to renew the
permission - However, the Hearing Committee of Central
Government opined that the nature of deficiencies were not such as D
to warrant disapproval - Central GovernmenHnstea.d of taking
final decision refeired the matter back to MCI to review the same in
(he light of recommendation ofHearing Committee - MCI constituted
a team to carry out a Complialice Verification Assessment - The
team 'conducted a regular inspection rather than limiting their scope . E
of reviewing to the compliance of the observations of the Hearing
Committee ....;. Team noted certain ·deficiencies in their Con1pliance
Verification - MCI again recommended disappro'val - Central·
Government by impugned order dated '31.05.2017 rejected the
scheme of permission of renewal:... Petitioner-College challenged
the order u/Art. 32 of the.Constitution - Held: In view ofs. 10cA of F ·
Medical Council Act and Regulations and Rules framed thereunder,
power <if MCI cannot be restricted, b.v laying down as an absolute_
principle that if matter is sei1t. back by Central Government for
Compliance Verification, the assessors inspection is limited on~y to
verification of mentioned items and they cannot perceive other. G
deficiencies - The direction of Central Government Joi·. Compliance
Verifi<:ation should not be construed as a limited remand - The order·
ofCentral Government was not a reasoned one - It was obligatory
on its part to ascribe reasons - Central Government is directed to
afford a f11rther opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-college -:-.
H
303
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A Medical Council Act, 1956 - s. JO-A.
Issuing directions to Central Government, the Court
HELD: 1. On a reading of Section 10-A of the Medical
Council Act, 1956, Rule$, and the Regulations framed thereunder,
it would be inapposite to restrict the power of the MCI by laying
B down as an absolute principle that once the Central Government
sends back the matter to MCI for compliance verification and
the Assessors visit the College they shall only verify the
mentioned items and turn a Nelson's eye even if they perceive
certain other deficiencies. The direction of the Central
c Government for compliance verification report should not be
construed as a limited remand as is understood within the
framework of Code of Civil Procedure or any other law. The
distinction between the principles of open remand and limited
remand, is not attracted. [Para 29) [322-D-F]
.D 2. The real compliant institutions should not always be kept
under the sword of Damocles. Stability can be brought by
affirmative role played by the Central Government. And the
stability and objectivity would be perceptible if reasons are
ascribed .while expressing, a view and absence of reasons makes
the decision sensitively susceptible. [Para 29)(322-G]
E
3. The petitioners have been running the College since
2013-14. Students who have been continuing their education shall
continue for 2017-18. The order of the Central Government is
not a reasoned one. It is obligatory on its part to ascribe reasons.
For the said purpose, Central Government to afford a further
F opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and also take the
assistance of the newly constituted Oversight Committee. [Para
30](322-H; 323-A-B]
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India and
Ors. (2013) 10 SCC 60 : (2013) 9 SCR 325; Royal
G Medical Trust (Registered) and Am: v. Union of India
and Anr. (2015) 10 SCC 19 - relied on.
Dr. Ashish Ra11jan and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
(2016) 11 SCC 225; Medical Council of fodia v.
Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) and Ors.
H
IQ CITY FOUNDATION & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 305

(2016) 11 SCC 530 : [2016] 4 SCR 403 - referred to. A
Case Law Reference
c2016) u sec 225 referred to ·Para 7
[2013] 9 SCR 325 relied on Para 19
[2016] 4 SCR 403 referred to Para21 B
c201s) 10 sec 19 relied on Para 28
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
502 of2017.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia. c
Salman Khurshid, s, G. Hasnain, Gurukrishna Kumar, A. Sharan,
P. S. Patwalia, Kapil Sibal, V. Giri, Nidhesh Gupta, R. Basant. Amit
Sibal, Raju Ramachandran, Sanjay R. Hegde, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Mukul
Rohatgi, Shyam Divan, C. A. Sundaram, Sr. Advs., S. P. Singh, Mohd.
Zahid Hussain, Ms. Kamna Singh, Ms. Kanika, Ms. Lubna Naaz, Kamal D
Mohan Gupta, Anshul Narayan, Amit Kumar, Atul Kumar, Avijit Mani
Tripathi, Shaiya Sahay, Ms. Rekha Bakshi, Kumar Abhishek, Ms. Vidisha
Kumar, A. Ramesh, Syed Ahmad Naqvi, Shauiyy Sahaye, Ms. Rekha
Sahaye, Ms. Shilpi Gupta, Amitabh Sinha, Vivek Singh, G. Umapathy,
Rakesh K. Sharma, Alco G. Rozario, Aditya Singh, S. Udaya Kumar
Sagar, Ms. Bina Madhavaii, Ms. Akanksha Mehra (For Mis. Lawyer S E
Knit & Co.), Ranjail Kumar Pandey, K. P. Gautam, Sandeep Bisht,
Anshumaan B., Shrey Vardhan, Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Girijapati Kaushal,
Mritunjay Kumar Sinha, Kunal Vajani, Pranaya Goyal, Nikhil Ranjan,
Chiranj ivi Sharma, Abirath Thakur, Saket Sikri, Vikaalp Mudgal, Gopal
Sankarnarayanan,V. Shyamohan, Surya Prakash, Ehsan Javaid, Pankaj F
Pandey, Amitesh Kumar, Shashank S. Singh, Ms. Babita Kushwaha,
Ms. Priti Kumari, M. K. Sinha, Advs. for the Petitioners.
Maninder Singh, ASG, Vikas Singh, Ajit Kumar Sinha,
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Advs., Gaurav Sharma, Ms. Amandeep Kaur,
Prateek Bhatia, Dhawal Mohan, Ms. Vara Gaur, Ms. Vriti Jindal, G
R. Balasubramanian, Prabhas Bajaj, Akshay Amritanshu, Sanjai Kumar
Pathak, Joheb Hussain, Ms. Binn Tamta, Dipak Goel, R. K. Rathore,
Vibhu Shankar Mishra, G. S. Makker, Mishra Saurabh, T. Singh Dev,
Ankit Lal, Arun Batra, Tanuj Bagga, Ad vs. for the Respondents.
H
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DfPAK MISRA, J. l. In this Writ Petition preferred under
Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia the petitioners have prayed for
issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 31.05.2017
passed under Section I 0-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, l 956 (for
8 brevity, 'the Act") by the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare, the 1" respondent herein, and further issue a direction to the
said respondentto grant permission to the petitioner College for 41" renewal
for the academic year 20l7-2018 to facilitate admission of the s•h batch
(150 students) MBBS Course.
C 2. The expose' of facts essential for adjudication of the controversy
are that IQ City Medical College attached to the teaching hospital, namely,
IQ City Narayana Multispecialty Hospital was established in the year
2013 by the petitioners with an intake of 150 (one hundred and fifty)
seats MBBS Course. The Medical Council of India (MCI) conducted
an inspection and granted the Letter of Permission (LOP) on 15.07.20 l 3
D for the establishment of the new medical college at Burdwan, West
Bengal with an annual intake of 150 students with effect from the
academic year 2013-14. Vide letters dated 04.07.2014, 10.06.2015 and
15.12.2015 renewals of permission for the 2nd (l" renewal), 3rd (2°d
renewal) and 4th (3'd renewal) batches ofMBBS students atthe petitioner
E College for the academic years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17
respectively were granted by the respondent No. I. On 06.07.2016,
petitioner-College submitted its scheme along with the requisite fees for
the 4th renewal for the academic year 2017-18 which pertains to admission
of the 5th batch of 1SO students in MBBS course. On 09.07.2016, the 2nd
respondent informed the College that the assessment for renewal of
F permission for the academic year 2017-l 8 would be undertaken by the
Assessors appointed by it at any time after 15.07.2016 and the petitioners
were asked to fill in the Standard Inspection Form A, Form 8 and
Declaration Form for the academic year 2017-18 and keep them ready
for scrutiny at the time of assessment. There was also a direction for
G submission of the soft copies of the said Forms. As averred, the petitioners
duly submitted a compact disc containing soft copies off orm A, Form 8
and Declaration Form and upon receipt of the necessary documents, the
2nd respondent constituted a team of Assessors and directed them to
carry out the assessment inspection of the College. The inspection team,
that is, the Assessors, conducted a surprise inspection of the College on
H 03.11.2016 and 04.11.2016. The Assessors pointed out certain deficiencies
IQ CITY FOUNDATION & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 307
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]

to the College and noted the same in the assessment report dated A
04.1l.2016. It is put forth in the Regular Inspection Report that the
shortfall in Te<1ching Faculty and Resident Doctors were only 4.5% and
3.50% respectively which were well within the prescribed limit. Two
other deficiencies that were pointed out, as asserted, were completely
remediable and were duly remedied by the College. On 22.12.2016 the
8
Executive Committee of the respondent No. 2 considered the Assessment
Repmt of the Assessors and decided to recommend to the respondent
No. l not to renew the.permission to the College for the 4'h renewal for
the academic year 2017-18.
3. As further set forth, the l" respondent by its letter dated
03.02.2017 communicated to the College the recommendation dated C
28.01.2017 of the respondent No. 2 for disapproving the permission to
the College for the 4'h renewal for the academic year 2017-18 and called
upon the College to submit a detailed point-wise compliance with
documentary evidence. The College was fu11her intimated about the
hearing that was to be held on 09.02.2017 before the Hearing Committee. D
A team of representatives of the College appeared before the Hearing
Committee on the date fixed and submitted the compliance report of the
remarks and observations made by the Assessors of the respondent No.
2. In the second week of March, 2017, the petitioners received a copy
of order dated 0l.03.2017 issued by the 1" respondent recording the
recommendations/order passed by the Hearing Committee of the E
respondent No. 1 und_er Section l 0-A(4) of the Act. The recommendation
of the Hearing Committee was to the effect that the deficiencies pointed
out by the znd respondent were not such to warrant disapproval at that
stage. Despite the aforesaid findings of the Hearing Committee, the I•1
respondent, instead of taking a final decision, referred the matter back F
to the respondent No. 2 to review the same in the light of the
recommendations/ findings of the Hearing Committee alongwith
documents submitted by the petitioners and to furnish its recommendation.
4. On receipt of the said communication, the 2nd respondent on
17 .03.2017 constituted a team to carry out a Compliance Verification G
Assessment of the College. The team of Assessors instead of carrying
out a compliance verification, on 21.03.2017 conducted a regular
inspection in a random manner and instead of limiting to their scope of
reviewing the compliance of the remarks/observations of the Hearing
Committee proceeded to make a different kind of assessment.
H
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 9 S.C.R.

A 5. It is contended that though the Compliance Inspection Report
was submitted, the Assessors required the College to submit a
representation and accordingly, the College submitted the necessary
representation to the respondent No. 2. The Assessors, as per the stand
of the petitioners, noted certain deficiencies in their Compliance
Verification. Executive Committee of the respondent No. 2 held its
8
meeting on 28.04.2017 but Minutes of the meeting were not uploaded on
the official website of the respondent No. 2 until 29 .05.2017 and were
not communicated to the petitioners.
6. It is the stand of.the petitioners that on 20.05.2017, the petitioners
approached the 1" respondent and submitted a detailed representation
C on that day with regard to Compliance Verification and deficiencies found
by the Assessors appointed by the respondent No. 2. The 1" respondent,
by the impugned order dated 31.05.2017, accepted the recommendation
of the 2nd respondent and rejected the scheme of permission of renewal
for the 4'h renewal (admission of the 5'h batch, ISO student) MBBS
D Course for the academic year 2017-18. It is alleged that the order dated
31.05.2017 was communicated to the College on 30.06.2017.
7. A counter affidavit has been filed by MCI contending, inter
alia, that ifthe permission is granted after31.05.2017 it has to be for the
subsequent academic year as per order passed by the Court in Dr. As/1isl1
R11njan and others v, Ullion ofIndia & ot/1ers 1 and subsequent orders
E passed in the said case. The Hearing Committee, according to MCI,
was constituted by the Central Government and its members were
eminent personalities and considering the report of Assessors, LOP for
the academic year 2017-18 has been denied. The stand that the renewal
has been illegally rejected is not correct as there are gross deficiencies.
F It is the stand of the MCI that question of"open remand" and ''limited
re.mand" does not arise. Once an inspection is conducted by the
Assessors, it has to be done wholly and appropriately so that the standard
of an institution that imparts medical education is maintained and the
said standard is non-variable. The stand that the Assessors report dated
21.03.2017 pointed out certain deficiencies which were not mentioned
G in the previous assessment report dated 04.11.2016 is neither acceptable
nor tenable, for the reason it is the solemn duty of the Assessors to
ensure that there is no deficiency in the medical college and they cannot
ignore the deficiencies and, therefore, the plea that it exceeded the mandate
is not only mercurial but wholly inconceivable.
H 1
(20I6J 11sec22s
IQ CITY FOUNDATION & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 309
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]

8. We have heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for A
the petitioners, Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General
for the Union of India and Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel for
the MCI.
9. It is submitted by Mr. Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the
petitioners that the 1" respondent could not have sent back the matter to B
the MCI as it was obligatory on its part to take the final decision and
further, it should not have agreed with the opinion of the Executive
Committee, as the Assessors transgressed the order of remand. That
apart, submits Mr. Rohatgi, there was no justification to take a decision
on the last date, that is, 31.0S .2017.
c
10. Mr. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the MCI,
referring to Section 10-A of the Act submits that an institution has to
maintain consistency in imparting education and where major deficiencies
are distinctly evident during co111pliance verification, an institution cannot
be allowed to lean upon the earlier assessment report. According to Mr.
Singh, institution has to remain ever compliant and it cannot be in an D
oscillating position. According to him, one day it can have faculty members
and remajn dutiful to the statute and another day in total disregard play
truant with the provision, for such a situation would crucify the sanctity
of the medical education.
I I. To have a complete projection of the factual matrix, we think E
it necessary to refer to the opinion ofthe Executive Committee recorded
on 22.12.2016 on the Regular Verification. The said report reads as
follows:
"46. Renewal of permission for MBBS course for s•h batch (I SO
students) IQ City Medical College, Burdwan, West Bengal under F
West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Kolkata u/s IOA of
the IMC Act, l 9S6 for the academic year 20 l 7- l 8.
Read: the matter with regard to renewal of permission for MBBS
course for s•h batch (ISO seats) of IQ City Medical College,
Burdwan, West Bengal under West Bengal under West Bengal G
University of Health Sciences, Kolkata u/s IOA of the IMC Act,
I9S6 for the academic year 2017-18.
The Executive Committee of the Council considered the
assessment report (3'd and 4'h November, 2016) and noted the
following:- H
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 9 S.C.R.

A I. Although the number of patients admitted amounted to the bed
occupancy of80% but on actual verification most admissions were
found to be fresh and new.
2. Central Library: It is not air-conditioned. Reading room for
Residents is not available.
B 3. Students' Hostel: In Boys' hostel, Visitors' room A.C. study
room with Computer & Internet, Recreation room are not available.
Hygiene in Girls' is ve1y poor.
4. Residents' Hostel: Available accommodation is 48 against
requirement of85.
c
5. Anatomy department: Available mounted specimens are 45.
6. Pharmacoiogy department: In I Demonstration room, there are
only 15 chairs with tables.
7. RHTC: Residential accommodation is not available.
D
8. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment report.
In view of above, the Executive Committee of the Council
decided to recommend to the Central Govt. not to renew the
permission for admission of S1h batch of 150 MBBS students at
IQ City Medical College, Burdwan, West Bengal under West
E Bengal under West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Kolkata
u/s JOA of the IMC Act, 1956 for the academic year 2017-18."
12. After receipt of the report of the Executive Committee, the 1•1
respondent vide communication dated 03.02.2017 enclosing thereto the
letter dated 28.01.2017 of respondent No. 2, intimated the College that:
F
"Subject: Renewal of Permission for admission of s•h batch of
150 MBBs students for the academic session 2017-18 - Hearing
to the applicant u/s IOA(4) ofIMC, 1956- reg.
Sir/Madam
G I am directed to forward herewith a copy of MCI's letter
dated 28.01.2017 recommending disapproval in respect of renewal
permission at your College for the academic session 2017-18.
2. In pursuance to the provisions contained in Section IOA(4) of
IMC Act, 1956, it has been decided to grant you hearing on
H 09.02.2017 at 10:30 AM by the Committee constituted by this
IQ CITY FOUNDATION & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 311
. [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

Ministry for this purpose in Room No. 243, A-Wing, Nirman A
Bhawan, MaulanaAzad Road, New Delhi.
3. You are requested to appear in person or depute an authorized
representative to present the case of your Trust/Society vis-a-vis
the disapproval Jetter of the MCI alogwith the requisite information
in the enclosed format on the specified date & time failing which B
the scheme will be decided ex-parte. You are also requested to
bring two hard copies and one softcopy of the information/material
you propose to present before the committee in the attached format
in MS Word. You are also requested to send a letter of confirmation
of participation by e-mail sujeet.charan@nic.in."
c
13. ln pursuance of the communication made by the I" respondent,
a team ofrepresentatives of the petitioner College appeared before the
Hearing Committee on 09.02.2017 and clarified point-wise compliance
of the remarks/observations made by the Assessors and produced
documentary evidence in that regard. In the second week of March,
2017, as stated earlier, the petitioners received the letter dated 01.03.2017 D
issued by the l st respondent recording the recommendations/orders passed
by the Hearing Committee. Relevant extract of the communication
containing the recommendations of the Hearing Committee is reproduced
below:
"IQ City Medical College, Buman, There is no deficiency of faculty, E
West Bengal, [Renewal of residents and clinical material.
Penniss ion of 5th Batch (I SO
seats)]

Photographic evidence F
submitted by the college
suggests that the deficiencies
relating to air-<:onditioning in
Central library I sttKlent' s ho&tel,
resident hootel/RHTC ·
a:conmodation and specimen G
have been rectified

The defici mcies are not such to
wtrrant disapproval at this stage
of co lle!le."
H
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A 14. Though the Hearing Committee had sent the aforesaid
recommendation, yet the I" respondent thought it appropriate to refer
the matter back to MCI and the manner of reference is as follows:

"4. IQ City Medical College, There is no deficienc) Pf
B BurdW<ln, West Bengal faculty, residents and clinical
material.

Photographic evidence
Renewal of Pennission of submittal by the college
5th batch (150 seats) suggests that the deficiencies
c relating to air-conditioning in
Central libraryI student's
hostel, resident hostel I
RHTC occommodation and
specimens have been
rectified.
D
The deficiencies are not such
to warrant disapproval at this
stage of college.

E

2. In view of the above, MCI is requested to review the above
schemes in light of the recommendations of Hearing Committee
alongwith documents submitted by the applicant Colleges and
F furnish its recommendation accordingly to this Ministry. The
compliance submitted by the applicant College are enclosed
herewith in original."
I 5. It needs t-0 be.clarified that the communication also referred
to some other colleges but we are only concerned with the petitioner
G College for which we have reproduced the relevant extract.
I6. The team ofAssessors who went for compliance verification
conducted a surprise verification on 21.03.20 I 7 and noted certain
. deficiencies to which we shall refer to at a later stage.

H
IQ CITY FOUNDATION & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 313
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]

17.Afterreceiptofthe said report, the l ~respondent on 3I.05.2017 A
accepted the Report of the MCI and denied LOP for the academic year
2017-18. It is the stand of the petitioners that the said letter was received
on 21.06.2017. Whether Jetter was received on that day or not is not
relevant in praesenti. What is pertinent is to appreciate the communication
dated 3 1.05.2017. It reads as follows:
B
"To,
The Principal/Dean,
IQ City Medical College,
Savapur, Bijra Road, Jemua, Durgapur,
West Bengal- 713206 c
Subject: Renewal of permission for MBBS course for 5th
Batch of 150 students at IQ City Medical College, Burd wan, West ·
Bengal for the academic session 2017-18 u/s IOA of IMC Act,
1956-reg.
Ref No. 12012027/2016-ME.l(FTS.3084749) dated 31" May, D
2017.
Sir,
Drawing reference to the above subject you are directed to
submit a present status report of the deficiencies and
recommendation of Medical Council of India that were not E
complied by your Institute and for which the Central Government
has directed you NOT to admit any students in MBBS course for
academic year 2017-18.
You are further dii-ected to submit Action Taken Report in
this regard immediately." F
18. In Dr. As/1ish Ranjan and others (supra), the Court, dealing
with establishment of medical college, has stated thus: .
"2. In the "Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999",
in "SCHEDULE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS FOR
ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW MEDICAL COLLEGES AND G
PROCESSING OF THE APPLICATIONS BY THE CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT AND THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF
INDIA" the following shall be substituted as under:

H
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A TIME SCHEDULE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS FOR
ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW MEDICAL COLLEGES/
RENEWAL OF PERMISSION AND PROCESSING OF THE
APPLICATIONS BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND
THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
B SI. Stage of processing Last Date
Nos.
I. Receipt ofapplications Between 151" June to I'
by the Central July (both days inclusive)
Government of any year
c 2. Forwarding application By 15111 July
by the Central
Government to the
Medical Council of India
3. Technical scrutiny, By 15t11 December
assessment and
D recommendations for
letter of permission by
the Medical Council of
India
4. Receipt of reply/ Two months from receipt
E comp! iance from the of recommendation from
51
applicant by the Central MCI but not beyond 31
Government and for January
personal hearing thereto,
if any, and fornarding of
compliance by the
F Central Government to
the Medical Council of
India
5. Final recommendations By 30111 April
for the letter of
permission by the
G
Medical Council of India
6. Issue ofl.etter of By 31'1 May
permission by the
Central Government

H
IQ CITY FOUNDATION & ANR. v. UNION OF lNDIA & ORS. 315
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]

Note l .• In case of renewal of permission. the applicants A
shall submit the application to the Medical Council of India by 15th
July."
19. In Manolmr Lal Sharma v. Medical Co1111cil of l11dia and
otlters it has been held:
2
,

"19. MCI on the basis of the reports, regular and compliance, is B
legally obliged to form an opinion with regard to the capacity of
the college to provide necessary facilities in respect of staff,
equipments, accommodation, training and other facilities to ensure
proper functioning of the medical college or for increase of
admission capacity." C
20. Thereafter, the Court referred to Section 10-A of the Act and
the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 framed
thereunder and ruled:
"24. Surprise inspection. in this case, was conducted to ascertain
whether compliance report could be accepted and to ascertain D
whether the deficiencies pointed out in the regular inspection were
rectified or not. By pointing out the deficiencies, MCI is giving an
opportunity to the College to rectify the deficiencies, if any noticed
by the inspection team. It is the duty of the College to submit the
compliance report, after rectifying the deficiencies. MCI can E
conduct a surprise inspection to ascertain whether the deficiencies
had been rectified and the compliance report be accepted or not."
Eventually, the Court held:
. "27. We are also of the view that such an order is not vitiated by
violation of principles of natural justice. especially, when no FI
allegation of bias or mala fide has been attributed against the two
doctors who constituted the inspection team, which conducted
the surprise inspection on 6-7-2013. When the inspection team
consists of two doctors ofunquestionable integrity and reputation,
who are experts in the field. there is no reason to discard the G
report of such inspection. In such circumstances, we are of the
view that MCI has rightly passed the order rejecting the approval
for renewal of permission for the third batch of 150 MBBS students
. granted for the academic year 2013-2014."
2 (2013) IOSCC60
H
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017) 9 S.C.R.

A 21. In Medical Council ofIndia v. Kalinga Institute ofMedical
Sciences (KIMS) tmd otl1ers3• the Court rejected the stand of the
respondents therein. It observed:
"24. Medical education must be taken very seriously and when
an expert body certifies that the facilities in a medical college are
8 inadequate, the courts are not equipped to take a different view in
the matter except for very cogent jurisdictional reasons such as
mala tides of the Inspection Team. ex facie perversity in the
inspection report, jurisdictional error on the part of MCI, etc. Under
no circumstance should the High Court examine the report as an
appellate body-this is simply not the function ofthe High Court.
C In the present case there was no ground made out at law for
setting aside the report of the Inspection Team.
x x x x x
26. It appears to us that both MCI and the Central Government
each having twice considered the inspection report submitted by
D neutral Medical Professors, with the Central Government having
given a personal hearing to KIMS on the second occasion (and
perhaps on the first occasion as well) the matter ought to have
been given a quietus by the High Court at least for the academic
year 2015-2~16.''.
E 22. Be it noted, in the said case, the two-Judge Bench took note
of the status of the Assessors and echoed the note that was sounded in
Manohar Lal Sharma (supra) which we think it apt to reproduce:
"6. Our attention was also drawn to the decision of this Court in
Ma11ohar Lal Sharma v. Medical C'ouncil of India (supra)
F wherein it was held that since the inspection is taken by "doctors
ofunquestionable integrity and reputation, who are experts in the
field, there is no reason to discard the report of such an inspection".
In the present appeal, there is no allegation made by KIMS of any
mala fides ofthe inspection team or any perversity in the inspection
report and hence, there is no question of challenging the conclusions
G
of a neutral, randomly selected inspection team in its assessment."
23. In the case at hand, what is urged by Mr. Rohatgi, learned
senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, is that Assessors travelled
beyond the order of remand and that singularly makes the inspection
H '(2016) 11 sec s30
. IQ CITY FOUNDATION & AN_!l. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 3 17
[DlPAK MISRA, J.] .

. perverse and thereby vulnerable. At this juncture, it is seemly to refer A
the remarks of the Assessors which relate to the following aspects:
"a. Deficiency of faculty is 15 .90% as detailed in the report.
b. Shortage of Residents is 25.88% as detailed in the report.
c. On the day of inspection the number shown is not tallying with B
number actually-present in the hospital. At random verification at
3, OPD registration counters at 12.45 pm, is only 110 (40,30 and
40 new patients). Many patients in the ward are admitted with
minor complaints like cough, cold, itching. and the case sheets are
. not filled up, the bed occupancy is not tallying \.vith, number
submitted. · · ·' C
d. Students' Hostels: In Boys' ho~tel; Visitors'. room, A.C. Study
room with Computer & Internet, Recreation room are not avai !able.
e. In Anatomy department, some specimens are not mounted but
kept in buckets." D
24. It has also found certain other deficiencies with regard to
casualty attendance, operating work, etc. The College has replied to the
same which is as follows:
"In connection with the above subject I would like to submit the
following paragraph for your kind consideration. . E
. . . .
I. That during the last MCI inspection held on 3rd and 4'11 Nov
2016 our Faculty & Resident deficiency was 2.18 and 3.38
. respectively. However on 21.03.2017 surprise inspection and due
to their personal commitment they could not come by I l AM and
could not appear before the assessors. F
2. Secondly, the State NEET Post Graduate counseling and the
Diplomat in National Board EDNB) counseling in process, many
of the senior and Junior Residents and few faculty members had
gone to KOLKATA for their counseling hence. were ~ot able to
appear in the inspection conducted on 21.03.2017. o
3. Thirdly most of these faculties and residents are working with
us since long time and kind of documentary proof for the same
· can be submitted, but because of the counseling they were unable
to make it.
H
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 9 S.C.R.

A 4. It will not be out of place to mention here that our faculties and
residents had gone to attend medical camps in suburban areas as
such they could not reach by 11 AM to appear before the assessors.
Hence their absence may kindly be considered to offset the faculty
and resident deficiency."
B 25. As the facts have unrolled, there is no dispute that the petitioner
College had submitted a scheme for 2017- 18 for intake of 150 candidates.
There is also no controversy that there was an inspection and the Hearing
Committee had given certain recommendations and the Central
Government thought it appropriate to send it back to the MCI for the
c compliance verification report. S'ection 10-A of the Act deals with
permission for establishment of new medical college, new course of
study, etc. and sub-section (7) thereof deals with as to what steps have
to be taken by MCI while making its recommendation to the Central
Government either approving or disapproving. Sub-section (7) reads as
follows:
D
"10-A. Permission for establisltmellt of /lew medical college,
new course of study, etc.-(1)-(6) * * *
(7) The Council, while making its recommendations under clause
(b) of sub-section (3) and the Central Government, while passing
E an order, either approving or disapproving the scheme under sub-
section (4), shall have due regard to the following factors,
namely-
- (a) whether the proposed medical college or the existing medical
college seeking to open a new or higher course of study or training,
F would be in a position to offer the minimum standards of medical
education as prescribed by the Council under Section 19A or, as
the case may be, under Section 20 in the case of postgraduate
medical education.
(b) whether the person seeking to establish a medical college or
the existing medical college seeking to open a new or higher course
G
of study or training or to increase its admission capacity has
adequate financial resources;
(c) whether necessary facilities in respect of staff. equipment,
accommodation, training and other facilities to ensure proper
functioning of the medical college or conducting the new course
H
IQ CITY FOUNDATION & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 3 t9
[DIPAK MISRA J.]

or study or training or accommodating the increased admission A
capacity, have been provided or would be provided within the
time-limit specified in the scheme;
(d) whether adequate hospital facilities, having regard to the
number of students likely to attend such medical college or course
of study or training or as a result of the increased admission B
capacity, have been provided or would be provided within the
time-limit specified in the scheme;
(e) whether any arrangement has been made or programme drawn·
to impart proper"training to stude11ts likely to attend such medic_al
college or coilrse of study or training by persons having the c
recognised medical qualifications;
(j) the requirement of manpower in the field of practice of
medicine; and
(g) any other factors as may be prescribed."
D
26. In Mano/tar Lal Sharma (supra), the Court has referred to
Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 20 J0 which confers powers
on the Board of Governors as per Section 3-B(b). The said provision
reads thus:
"3-B. Certain modifications oft/1e Act.-During the period whirn E
the Council stands superseded- !

* *· *
(b) TheBoard o.f Go.vernors shall-
(i)exercise the powers and discharge the functions of the Council
underthisAct and for this purpose, the provisions of this Act shall F
have effect subject to the modification that references therein to
the Coun~il shall be construed as references to the Board of
Governors;
(ii) grant indepeQdently permission for establishment of new
. medical colleges or opening a new or higher course ofstudy or G ·
traininior increase in admission capacity in any course-of study
or training referred to in Section IOA or giving the person or college
concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard as provided
under Section IOA without prior permission of the Central
H
320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20 t 7) 9 S.C.R.

A Government under that section, including exercise of the power
to finally approve or disapprove the same: a,nd
(iii) dispose of the matters pending with the Central Government
under Section IOA upon receipt of the same from it."
27. Interpreting Section 3-B(b), the Court held thus:
B
"22. MCI, with the previous sanction by the Central Government.
in exercise of its powers conferred by Sections I0-A and 33 of
the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, made the Regulations known
as the Establishment of Medical College Regulations. l 999.
Regulation 8 of the 1999 Regulations deals with grant of permission
c for establishment of new college. Application/ Scheme submitted
by the applicants is evaluated and the verification takes place by
conducting physical inspection by the team of inspectors of MCI.
The Board of Governors may grant LoP to the applicant for making
admissions in the first year ofMBBS course in the medical college
D and the permission is renewed every year subject to the college
achieving the yearly target mentioned in "Minimum Standard
Requirements for the Medical College for 150 Admissions Annually
Regulations, 1999". Schedule I of the abovementioned Regulation
provides for accommodation in the medical college and its teaching
hospital. Schedule II deals with equipment required for various
E departments in the college and hospital. The requirements are
statutorily prescribed and, therefore, the Board of Governors has
no power to dilute the statutory requirements mentioned in the
abovementioned Regulations."
28. At this stage, we may usefully refer to the directions enumerated
Fin Royal Medical Trust (Registered) a11d a11otlzer v. Union of India
and anotlzet4, wherein a three-Judge Bench was dealing with justifiability
of the communications issued by the Central Government recommending
disapproval of applications preferred in respect of Medical Colleges of
the applicants for the academic year 2014-15. The Court, referring to
G Section I 0-A of the Act and the Regulations framed by the MCI and
further adverting to various aspects, ruled:
"31. MCI and the Central Government have been vested with
monitoring powers under Section 1OA and the Regulations. It is
expected ofthese authorities to discharge their functions well within
H '(201si lO sec 19
,,··,_'' '.·

IQ CITY FOUNDATI~N & ANR. v. UNION OF INbIA. & ORS. 321
[DIPAK MISRA, J.]

the statutory confines as well as in conformity with the Schedule A
to the Regulations. If there is inaction on their part or non-
observance of the time schedule, it is bound to have adverse effect
on all concerned. The affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of
India shows that though the number of seats had risen, obviously
because of permissions granted for establishment of new colleges,
8
because of disapproval of renewal cases the resultant effoct was
net loss in terms of number of seats available for the academic
year. It thus not only caused loss of opportunity to the students
community but at the same time caused loss to the society in
terms of less number of doctors being available. MCI and the
Central Government must therefore show due diligence right from C
the day when the applications are received. The Schedule giving
various stages and time"limits must accommodate every possible
eventuality and at the same time must comply with the
requirements of observance of natural justice at various levels. In
our view the Schedule must ideally take care of:
D
(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 ofit, would be incomplete
and be rejected. Those who fulfil the basic requirements would E
be considered at the next stage.
(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 givep to fy1CI to cause inspection at any time and such F
inspection should normally be undertaken latest by January.
Surprise inspection would ensure that the required facilities and
infrastructure are always in place and not borrowed or put in
temporarily.
(C) Intimation ofthe result or outcome of the inspection would G
then be communicated. If the infrastructure and facilities are in
order, the medical college concerned should be given requisite
permission/renewal. However, if there are any deficiencies or
shortcomings, MCI must, after pointing out the c!eficiencies, grant
to the college concerned sufficient time to report compliance. H
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

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
B
the Central Government must cause such verification before the
-.deadline.
(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 ifthe deficiencies still persist or had not
c been removed, the applicant will stand disentitled so far as that
academic year is concerned." [Emphasis added]
29. On a reading of Section 10-A of the Act, Rules and the
Regulations, as has been referred to in Manol1ar Lal Sharma (supra),
the view expressed in Royal Medical Trust (supra), it would be
-o and
inapposite to restrict the power of the MCI by laying down as an absolute
principle that once the Central Government sends back the matter to
MCI for compliance verification and the Assessors visit the College
they shall only verify the mentioned items and turn a Nelson's eye even
if they perceive certain other deficiencies. It would be playing possum.
E The direction of the Central Government for compliance verification
report should not be construed as a limited remand as is understood
within the framework of Code ofCivil Procedure or any other law. The
distinction between the principles of open remand and limited remand,
we are disposed to think, is not attracted. Be it clearly stated, the said
principle also does not flow from the authority in Royal Medical Trust
F (supra). In this context, the objectivity of the Hearing Committee and
the role of the Central Government assume great significance. The real
compliant institutions should not always be kept under the sword of
Damocles. Stability can be brought by affirmative role played by the
Central Government. And the stability and objectivity would be perceptible
G ifreasons are ascribed while expressing a view and absence ofreasons
makes the decision sensitively susceptible.
30. Having said this, we are not inclined to close the matter. The
petitioners have been running the College since 2013-14. We have been
apprised that students who have been continuing their education shall
H continue for 2017-18.As we find the order of the Central Government is
IQ CITY FOUNDATION & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 323
. [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

not a reasoned one. It is obligatory on its part to ascribe reasons. For the A
said purpose, we would like the Central Government to afford a further
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and also take the assistance of
the newly constituted Oversight Committee as per the order dated July
18, 2017 passed by the Constitution Bench in Writ Petition (Civil) No.
408 of 2017 titled Amma Clumdravati Educational amt Charitable
B
Trust and others v. Union of India and another and thereafter take a
decision within two weeks. Needless to say, the decision shall contain
reasons. We repeat at the cost of repetition that the decision must be an
informed one.
31. Before parting with the case for the present, it is warrantable
to state that "health'', a six letter word, when appositely spelt and C
pronounced, makes the body and mind holistic and an individual feels
victorious. Apart from habit and nature, some external aid is necessary.
And that is why, it is essential to have institutic.rns which are worthy to
impart medical education so that the society has not only qualified doctors
but doctors with impeccable and sensitive qualities. A lapse has the D
potentiality to invite a calamity. Not for nothing, Hippocrates had said,
"A wise man ought to realize that health is his most valuable possession."
Therefore, the emphasis is on the compliant institutions that can really
educate doctors by imparting quality education so that they will have the
inherent as well as cultivated attributes of excel,lence.
E
32. List the matter on 24'h August, 2017 awaiting the decision of
the Central Government.

Kalpana K. Tripathy Directions issued.