Holding

The Medical Council of India has unfettered statutory power to conduct fresh inspections, and while the debarment for 2017‑18 stands, the college may obtain recognition for 2018‑19 after a new inspection, with the bank guarantee kept alive.

Summary

Madha Medical College and Research Institute, which had been granted recognition to admit 150 MBBS students, was found to have numerous deficiencies in faculty, residents, infrastructure, and hostels during inspections by the Medical Council of India (MCI). After two inspections within a month, the MCI recommended, and the Union Government debarred the college from admitting students for the academic years 2017‑18 and 2018‑19 and ordered the encashment of a Rs 2‑crore bank guarantee. The college challenged the debarment and the order to encash the guarantee before the Supreme Court, arguing that a second inspection was impermissible and that the deficiencies were being rectified. The Court held that MCI, as a statutory expert body, possesses unfettered power to conduct fresh inspections to verify compliance and that the college had been given ample opportunity to cure the defects. Consequently, the Court upheld the debarment for 2017‑18, allowed the college to seek recognition for 2018‑19 after a fresh inspection, and directed that the bank guarantee remain alive and not be encashed. The petition was disposed without interfering with the earlier orders of the Union Government.

Issues considered

The statutory authority of the Medical Council of India to conduct multiple inspections of a medical college within a short period.
Whether the Union Government's order debaring the college from admissions and directing encashment of the bank guarantee is legally valid.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to participate in the counselling process for admissions for the academic year 2017‑18.
Whether the petitioner should be allowed to seek fresh recognition for the academic year 2018‑19 after rectifying deficiencies.

Legislation cited

Establishment of Medical Colleges Regulations, 1999s. Regulation 8(3)(l)(d)
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956s. 11(2), s. 19-A

Subjects

Medical Council of IndiaMedical college inspectionRecognition of medical collegeDebarmentBank guaranteeStatutory powersMBBS admissionsCompliance verificationPublic interest

Judgment

[2017] l l S.C.R. 733

MADHA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTT. THR. A
ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
V.

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 674of2017) B
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions - Medical college - MBBS C
course - Inspections of Petitioner-College carried out by Medical
Council of India (MCI) wherein gross deficiencies were noticed -
Respondent no.I vide order dated 31" May 17 debarred the
Petitioner from admitting students for 2017-18 and 2018-19 - Wi-it
petition flied by Petitioner before Supreme Court, challenging the
said order and seeking mandamus for grant of recognition, as also D
a permission to participate in counseling for admission in the
ensuing academic year 2017-18-Re;pondent 110.J directed to afford
a hearing lo the Petitioner-College and pass a reasoned order -
Order dtd. 31" Aug. 2017 passed by Respondent no.I maintaining
order dtd. 31" May 17 - Held: On facts, consistent opportunities
E
were granted to the Petitioner-College lo rectify the deficiencies
found in its infrastnicture, resources and facilities - Jn view of such
deficiencies, the Petitioner cannot be allowed to admit students for
the ensuing academic year 2017-18 -At this stage, decisions dtd.
31" May 2017 and 31 Aug. 2017 passed by Respondent no.I are
not inte1fered with - However, on facts, Petitioner given an F
opportunity to remove the deficiencies on which MCI shall determine
afresh as to whether it should be granted recognition in time for the
commencement of academic year 2018-19 - Since, such an exercise
cannot be carried ozit in time for academic year 2017-18 as the last
date for admissions has elapsed and the academic session has
G
commenced, hence the petitioner cannot be permitted to participate
in the counseling process for the ensuing academic year 2017-18 -
Further directions issued - Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - ss.
I OA, II - Establishment of Medical Colleges Regulations, 1999 -
Regn. 8(3)(l)(d).
H
733
734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] I l S.C.R.

A Education/Educational Institutions - Medical college - MBBS
course - Inspection of Petitioner-College carried out by Medical
Council of India (MCI) rwice within a span of one month - Petitioner
raised grievance as to the conduct of second inspection hy MCI -
Held: MCI is conferred with sta111torv powers to protect the c<111se
of medical education - Pwpose of inspection by an expert team of
B
assessors is to verify whether a medical college has the requisite
infrastructure and facilities or not to provide quality medical
education consistent with the statutory regulations - As an expert
statutory bo,~v. Mei may have legitimate reasons for seeking a
reverification of the observations contained in a prior inspection -
c Powers of MCI cannot be constricted by prohibiting it from cartying
out another inspection, even if it were to come close on the heels of
an earlier inspection - Plea of Petitioner that MCI is prohibited
from conducting a second inspection, rejected.
Indian Medical Co1111cil Act, 1956 - Medical Council of
D India - Powers of- Discussed.
Various inspections of the Petitioner-College were carried
out by Medical Council of India (MCI). The Respondent no.1
after furnishing an opportunity of being heard to the Pctitioner-
College debarred the Petitioner from admitting students for 2017-
E 18 and 2018-I9. Hence, the present writ petition.
Disposing of the Writ Petition, the Court
HELD: l. The purpose of inspection by an expert team of
assessors is to verify whether a medical college has the requisite
infrastructure and facilities including faculty, residents as well as
F clinical and non-clinical material. The basic purpose of inspection
is to verify whether the college possesses the wherewithal and
resources to provide quality legal education consistent with the
statutory regulations which hold the field. The powers of MCI
cannot be constricted by prohibiting it from carrying out another
G inspection, even if it were to come close on the heels of an earlier
inspection. its an expert statutory body, MCI may have legitimate
reasons for seeking a reverification of the observations contained
in a prior inspection. There may be reasons to doubt the
genuineness of the picture which has been made out by the college
during the course of an inspection. MCI may have prima facie
H
MADHA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTT. THR. 735
ITS M.D. v. U.0.1. AND ANR.

reasons, to believe that the actual possession of resources and A
infrastructure is at variance with what was portrayed before its
team of assessors. MCI has been conferred with statutory
powers to protect the cause of medical education. MCI is a
custodian of public interest and acts in trust for the welfare of
society. Access to medical care requires the presence of qualified
B
health professionals. Verification of the conditions which prevail
in medical colleges is central to the role discharged by MCI.
Hence, it would be manifestly contrary to public interest to restrict
the powers of MCI to carry out a fresh inspection even though in
its considered decision, such an inspection is necessary. This
court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of an expert body c
and there is no basis to hold in law that there is a prohibition in
carrying out a fresh inspection. In the absence of a statutory
interdict, the court will not read such a restriction into the powers
of MCI. In these circumstances, there is no merit in the
submission of the Petitioner that MCI is prohibited from D
conducting a second or subsequent inspection. [Para 171 [742-
G-H; 743-A-EI
2.1 The facts on record indicate that consistent
opportunities were granted to the petitioner to rectify the
deficiencies which were found in its infrastructure, resources and
facilities. In the face of the deficiencies which were found during E
the course of inspection, the petitioner cannot be allowed to admit
students for the ensuing academic year. The court will lean against
any interpretation which will result in the foisting of under
prepared medical professionals on society. [Para 191 (744-B-Cj
2.2 However, having regard to the facts which have F
transpired, the petitioner should be permitted to establish before
MCI that it possesses the requisite infrastructure and has taken
all necessary steps to remove the deficiencies which have been
noted to exist. Such an exercise cannot be carried out in time for
academic year 2017-18 since the last date for admissions has G
elapsed and the academic session commenced. Hence the
petitioner cannot be permitted to participate in the counseling
process for the ensuing academic year 2017-18. Any such
exercise would necessarily have to be for the academic year
2018-19. In the event that MCI comes to the conclusion that tile
H
736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) I I S.C.R.

A petitioner has removed all deficiencies and meets the
requirements of its regulations, MCI shall consider afresh the
issue of recognition and the grant of permission for the academic
year 2018-19. For that purpose, the bank guarantee of Rs 2 crores
furnished by the petitioner shall be kept alive in the meantime.
[Paras 20, 21) [744-D-GJ
B
2.3 It is accordingly directed that:
(i) The case of the petitioner shall be duly considered by MCI
and by the Union government in accordance with the prevalent
regulations for academic year 2018-19.
C (ii) The bank guarantee which was furnished by the petitioner
shall be kept live in the meantime and shall not be encashcd.
(iii) MCI shall conduct a fresh inspection as per the Regulations
within a period of two months. It shall apprise the petitioner-
institution with regard to the deficiencies and afford an opportunity
D to rectify the same and, thereafter, proceed to act as contemplated
under the Act.
(iv) After M.CI sends its recommendation to the Central
government, it shall take a final decision according to law after
affording an opportunity of a hearing to the petitioners. MCI
E shall take the assistance of the Hearing Committee constituted
by the Constitution Bench decision in Amma Chandravati
Educational and Charitable Trust and Others v Union of India
and another or other directions given in the said decision. [Para
22) [744-G-H; 745-A-C]
F IQ City Foundation v U11io11 of India [2017) 8
SCALE 369 - relied on.
Amma Chandravati Educational and Charitable Trust
and Others v. Union of India and another [2017) 7
JT 74 - referred to.
G Case Law Reference
[2017) 8 SCALE 369 relied on Para 18
[2017) 7 JT 74 referred to Para 22
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
H 674 of2017
MADHA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH lNSTT. THR. 737
ITS M.D. v. U.0.1. AND ANR.

Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia. A
Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Shree Prakash Sinha, Deepak Srivastav,
Rakesh Mishra, Shekhar Kumar, Ninad Laud, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi,
Ms.Pragya Baghel, Anjuman Tripathy, M. Thangathurai, Ms. Samten
Doma, Advs. for the Petitioner
Maninder Singh, ASG, Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Ms. Binu Tamta, B
Harpreet Singh Sandhu, GS. Makker, Gaurav Sharma, Dhawal Mohan,
Prateck Bhatia, Ms. Amandccp Kaur, Ad vs. for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. l. By an order dated 31 May C
2017, the Union government has debarred the petitioner from admitting
150 students for the MBBS course during academic years 2017-18 and
2018-19. Besides challenging the order of debarment, the petitioner
seeks a ma11da11111sfor the grant of recognition under Section II of the
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ('IMC Act'). In consequence, the
petitioner also seeks a direction to permit it to participate in the process D
of counselling for admission to the MBBS degree programme for the
ensuing academic year. Since a bank guarantee of Rs 2 crores furnished
by the petitioner is to be invoked in pursuance of the impugned decision,
relief against encashment of the guarantee has been sought.
2. The petitioner was granted recognition in 2011-12 to conduct E
the MBBS degree course with an intake of 150 students. The petitioner
college is affiliated to Dr MGR Medical University.The petitioner was
granted renewal of permission to admit fresh batches ofMBBS students
during the academic years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The petitioner has not
admitted students during 2014-15 and 2015-16. For the purpose of F
admitting students in 20 I 6-1 7, assessment of the physical infrastructure
and teaching facilities was carried out under Section l I (2) of the IMC
Act on 18/19 March 2016. The assessment reports were considered by
the Executive Committee of the Medical Council oflndia ('MCI') which
noted the existence of as many as 39 deficiencies. Among the deficiencies
noted were the following : G
"I. Deficiency of faculty is 52.2% as detailed in the report.
2. Shortage of Residents is 91.7 % as detailed in the report.

4. Bed occupancy is 54.76% on day of assessment." H
738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS i2017] ll S.C.R.

A
25. Students' Hostels: Available accommodation is 365 against
requirement of 563. It is not properly furnished, Toilet
facilities arc inadequate. Visitors' room, A.C. Study room
with Computer & Internet & Recreation room are not
B available. Hygiene is poor, Mess is not available.

27. Residents' Hostels : Available accommodation is 20 + 2
flats against requirement of85. It is not properly furnished.
Toilet facilities arc inadequate. Visitors' room, A.C. Study
room with Computer & Internet & Recreation room arc
c not available. Hygiene is poor. Mess is not available.
28. Nurses' Hostel: It is not properly furnished. Toilet facilities
are inadequate. Visitors' room, A.C.Study room with
Computer & Internet & Recreation room arc not available.
Hygiene is poor ... "
D Having regard to the above deficiencies, the Executive Committee
decided to recommend tothe Union government not to grant recognition
to the petitioner for the award of the MBBS degree. This decision was
communicated lo the Union government on 22 March 2016.The college
was called upon to rectify the deficiencies within two weeks. The college
E submitted its compliance on 4 April 2016. This was verified in an
assessment conducted on 22 April 2016.
3. The team of assessors informed MCI that the petitioner had
resisted inspection on the ground that most of the residential and faculty
were on leave alter the holiday for Mahavir Jayanti.According to the
F petitioner, the assessment was in violation ofthe regulations which prohibit
inspection within two days before or after a religious or festival holiday
declared by the Central/State government. It has been stated on behalf
of MCI that the public holiday was on 19 April 2016 and hence the
assessment of22 April 2016 could not have been denied, under Regulation
8(3 )(I)( d) of the Establishment of Medical Colleges Regulations, 1999.
G
4. The Executive Committee of MCI held a meeting on 13 May
2016 and, having regard to the above assessment reports, decided to
recommend to the Union government not to award recognition under
Section 11 (2) or grant renewal of permission for academic year 2016-17.
The Union government by its letter dated 10 June 2016 informed the
H petitioner not to admit a fresh batch of students for 2016-17.
MADHA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTT. THR. 739
ITS M.D. v. U.0.1. AND ANR. [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

5. Following the decision communicated by the Oversight A
Committee 1 in a letter dated 13 June 2016, the Union government
forwarded the compliance submitted by the petitioner on 17 June 2016
to MCI. The Executive Committee of MCI noted that the letter of the
Oversight Committee covered those obligations falling under Section I 0
A of the IMC Act.Since the case of the petitioner pertained to the grant
ll
of recognition under Section I 1(2} it was according to the Executive
Committee not covered by the decision of the Oversight Committee.
This was communicated to the Union government on 5 July 2016.
6. In the meantime, pursuanlto MCI's letter dated 15 May 2016,
the petitioner submitted its compliance on 9 June 2016. On 6 July 2016
the college was directed lo resubmit its compliance after rectifying c
deficiencies. After the petitioner submitted a letter of compliance dated
9 July 2016, it was decided to verify this by a fresh assessment.
7. On J2 August 2016, the Oversight Committee, on the basis of
the information furnished by the medical colleges on their website and
without conducting physical assessment, approved the case of the D
petitioner for grant ofconditional recognition under Section J 1(2) of the
IMC Act in respect of the 150 students admitted in the medical college,
subject to the college submitting, within J 5 days from the date of
notification of the approval by the Central government, the following
documents : E
(i) An undertaking on affidavit from the Dean/Principal and the
Chairman of the Trust affirming that the deficiencies pointed out by the
assessors of the Council in the compliance verification assessment stand
rectified;
(ii) A Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs 2 crores in favour of the F
Council which shall be valid for a period ofone year or till such time the
first renewal inspection takes place, whichever is later.
lt was further directed by the then Oversight Committee that the
inspection of the medical colleges which have been recommended for
grant of Conditional Letter of Permission/Recognition under Section l l (2) G
of the IMC Act shall be conducted aflcr 30 September 2016 and any

1 The Oversight Co1n1nittcc \Vas appointed in pursuance of a judgment dated 2 }.-1ay

2016 of this Court in Modern Dental College and Research Centre Vs. State ofM.P.,
Civil Appeal 4060 of2009 decided on 2 May 2016.
(2016)7SCC353 H
740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] l l S.C.R.

A college which .is found to have not complied with the deficiency as per
the1r undertaking shall be debarred from admitting any students for a
period of two years i.e. 2017-18 & 2018-19.
8. On 8 September 2016 conditional recognition was granted to
the petitioner for academic year 2016-17, in terms of the decision of the
B Oversight Conupittce dated 12 August 2016. Thcconditions imposed
included the following:
" ... 2 The OC has also stipulated as follows :-
a) OC may direct assessment to verify the compliance submitted
by the college and considered by OC, any time after 30
c September, 2016.
b) In default of conditions (i) & (ii) in para I above and if the
compliances are found incomplete in the assessment to be
conducted after 30 September, 2016, such college will be debarred
from fresh intake of students for 2 years commencing 2017-18 ... "
D
9. The decision of the Executive Committee to recommend to
the Union government not to grant recognition under Section l 1(2) was
considered by the General body of MCI on 22 November 20 I 6. The
minutes of the General body of 22 November 20 l 6 were forwarded
both to the Union government and the Oversight Committee.
E
IO. A compliance verification assessment of the infrastructure,
faculty, clinical material and other physical facilities was carried out on
2 I February 2017. The compliance verification assessment noted:
(i) a deficiency of 4.54 per cent in teaching faculty;
F (ii) a deficiency of 2.35 per cent of residents.
This, according to the petitioner, was well within acceptable parameters.
11. However, the petitioner has a serious grievance in regard to a
second inspection which was carried out on 22 March 2017. The fresh
inspection observed a deficiency of33.33 per cent in faculty (43 out of
G 129) and of64.28 per cent in residents (54 out of84).
12. Jn the counter affidavit (which was filed by the MCI before
the Madras High Court), the circumstances in which a fresh inspection
was conducted on 22 March 2017 have been adverted to. It has been
stated that MCI received a complaint dated 14 March 2016 from some
H.
MADHA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTT. THR. 741
ITS M.D. v. U.O.I. AND ANR. [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

students of the college stating that the college did not have adequate A
infrastructure, clinical material and teaching faculty/residents. The
complaint alleged that prior to the MCI asscssment,"ghost faculty/
residents" and "fake patients" are portrayed. Specific examples of
deficiencies were furnished in the complaint. On 21 March 2017 the
compliance assessment verification dated 21 February 2017 was B
considered by the Executive Committee of MCI.Consideration of the
matter was deferred inter alia in view of the complaint which had been
received on 14 March 2017. It was in this background that an assessment
team carried out the second assessment on 22 March 20 l 7. Both the
compliance assessments of 21 February 2017 and 22 March 2017,
together with the previous assessments of March-April 2017 were C
considered by the Executive Committee on 28 March 2017. The following
deficiencies were noted; among others:
"I. Deficiency of faculty is 33.33% as detailed in the report.
2. Shortage of Residents is 64.28% as detailed in the report.
D
3. Attendance registers of faculty and Residents of all
departments were not provided by the college in the requisite
time as per OC guidelines.

5. Bed Occupancy was 6.76% in the earlier round and 8.53% E
in later round. Paediatric wards which were empty dnring
earlier round had 50 children from nearby school playing &
sitting in the ward in their school uniform in the later
round ... "
13. The Executive Committee consequently decided to recommend F
to the Union ·government not to grant recognition to the petitioner under
Section 11 (2) of the IMC Act, 1956. In view of the gross deficiencies, it
recommended that the college be debarred from adniitting students for
2017-18 and 2018-19 and that the bank guarantee that it had furnished
be encashed. The decision of MCI was communicated on 29 March
2017 to the Union government and to the Oversight Committee. The G
Union government after furnishing an opportunity Of being heard to the
petitioner, by its decision dated 31 May 2017 debarred the petitioner
from admitting students for 2017-18 and 2018-19. The petitioner filed a
writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Madras
High Court on 8 August 2017. The petitioner sought towithdraw the H
742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] I I S.C.R.

A wdt petition to enable it to move this Court. Liberty was granted by the
High Court follow mg which the petition was disposed of as withdrawn.
Those proceedings have been instituted under Article 32 of the
Constitution.
14. During the pendency of these proceedings, by an order dated
B J l August 20(7, the Union government was directed to afford an
opportunity of~ hearing to the petitioner and to take the assistance of
the newly constituted Oversight Committee and to pass a reasoned order
thereafter by the end of August 20 l 7.
!5. Following the above direction, the Union government has
c passed a fresh order dated 3 l August 20 l 7 maintaining its earlier decision.
16. While assailing the decision of the Union government, learned
senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has seriously
questioned the conduct of MCI in carrying out two inspections - the
first on 2 l February 20 l 7 and the second on 22 March 20 l 7 within a
D span of one month. The communications dated 3 I May 20 l 7 and 31
August 2017 have been challenged on the ground that they do not reveal
an application of mind and arc unreasoned. It has been urged that the
findings in regard to deficiencies of faculty and residents in the second
inspection are at variance with the observations in the earlier inspection.
It lrns been submitted that the authorities ought to have considered the
E explanation of tl;ie petitioner that it was conducting health camps at a
distance of mom than 8 Kms. from the college campus to which doctors
and residents had been sent. Moreover, it has been submitted that the
petitioner produeed salary slips of faculty and other staff. As regards
bed occupancy, it has been urged that the first inspection team had found
F it to be adequate. As regards the presence of students from a nearby
school, it has been urged that this arose because of an incident of food
poisoning which was repo1ted in the school and the students were admitted
'only' for observation.
17. While considering the above submissions. we must make it
G clear at the outset that we are not impressed with the argument that
MCI is prohibited from conducting a second or subsequent inspection.
The purpose of inspection by an expert team of assessors is to verify
whether a medical college has the requisite infrastructure and facilities
including faculty, residents as well as clinical and non-clinical material.
The basic purpose of inspection is to verify whctherthc college possesses
H the wherewithal and resources to provide quality medical education
MADHA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTT. THR. 743
ITS M.D. v. U.0.1. AND ANR. [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.)

consistent with the statutory regulations which hold the field. The powers A
of MCI cannot be constricted by prohibiting it from carrying out another
inspection, even if it were to come close on the heels of an earlier
inspection. As an expert statutory body, MCI may have legitimate reasons
for seeking a reverification of the observations contained in a prior
inspection. There may be reasons to doubt the genuineness of the picture
B
which has been made out by the college during the course of an inspection.
MCI may have primafacie reasons, to believe that the actual possession
of resources and infrastructure is at variance withwhat was portrayed ·
before its team of assessors. MCI has been conferred with statutory
powers to protect the cause of medical education. MCI is a custodian of
public interest and acts in trust for the welfare of society. Access to c
medical care requires the presence of qualified health professionals.
Verification of the conditions which prevail in medical colleges is central
to the role discharged by MCI. Hence, it would be manifestly contrary
to public interest to restrict the powers of MCI to carry out a fresh
inspection even though in its considered decision, such an inspection is
D
necessary. This court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of an
expert body and we find no basis to hold in law that there is a prohibition
in carrying out a fresh inspection. In the absence ofa statutory interdict,
the court will not read such a restriction into the powers of MCI. In
these circumstances, we find no merit in the submission.
18. In taking this view, we are duly supported by a recent judgment E
rendered in IQ City Foundation v Union of India', by a bench of
three learned Judges of this Court. Hon'ble MrJustice Dipak Misra (as
the learned Chief J us ti cc then was), speaking for the Court, held as
follows:
"On a reading of Section 19-A of the Act, Rules and the F
Regulations, as has been referred to in Manohar Lal
Sharma'(supra), and the view .expressed in Royal Medical
Trust' (supra), it would be 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 G
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
2
Writ Petition (c)No.502 of 2017 decided on August OI, 2017
'(2013) 10 sec 60
'(2015) IOSCC 19 H
744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 11 S.C.R.

A playing possum. 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 of Civil
Procedure or any other law ... "
19. The facts which have been placed on the record before this
B Court would indicate that consistent opportunities have been granted to
the petitioner to rectify the deficiencies which have been found in its
infrastructure, resources and facilities. In the face of the deficiencies
which have been found during the course of inspection, the petitioner
cannot be allowed to admit students for the ensuing academic year. The
c· court will lean against any interpretation which will result in the foisting
of under prepared medical professionals on society.
20. At the same time, we are of the view that having regard to
the facts which have transpired, the petitioner should be permitted to
estnblish before MCI that it possesses the requisite infrastructure and
has taken all necessary steps to remove the deficiencies which have
D been noted to exist. Such an exercise cannot be carried out in time for
academic year 2017-18 since the last date for admissions has elapsed
and the academic session commenced.Hence the petitioner cannot be
permitted to participate in the counselling process for the ensuing
academic year 2017-18. Any such exercise would necessarily have to
E be for the academic year 2018-19.
21. Hence; we allow the petitioner an opportunity to remove the
deficiencies upon which MCI shall determine afresh as to whether it
should be granted recognition in time for the commencement of academic
year 2018-19. In the event that MCI comes to the conclusion that the
F petitioner has removed all deficiencies and meets the requirements of its
regulations, MCI shall consider afresh the issue of recognition and the
grant of permission for the academic year 2018-19. For that purpose,
we direct that the bank guarantee of Rs 2 crores furnished by the petitioner
shall be kept alive in the meantime.
G 22. We accordingly direct that :
(i) The case of the petitioner shall be duly considered by MCI and by
the Union government in accordance with the prevalent regulations
for academic year 2018-19.
(ii) The bank guarantee which was furnished by the petitioner shall be
H kept live in the meantime and shall not be encashcd.
MADHA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTT. THR. 745
ITS M.D. v. U.O.l. AND ANR. [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

(iii) MCI shall conduct a fresh inspection as per the Regulations within A
a period of two months. It shall apprise the petitioner-institution with
regard to the deficiencies and afford an opportunity to rectify the
same and, thereafter, proceed to act as contemplated under the
Act.
(iv) After MCI sends its recommendation to the Central government, it B
shall take a final decision according to law after affording an
a
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. MCI shall take the
assistance of the Hearing Committee constituted by the Constitution
Bench decision in Amma Chandravati Educational and
Charitable Trust and Others v Union of India and another' or
other directions given in the said decision. c
· However, we expressly clarify that we find no reason to interfere at this
stage either with the decisions dated 31 May 2017 and 31 August 2017
of the Union government.
23. The petition is accordingly disposed of D

Divya Pandey Pctilion disposed o[

' Writ Petition (Civil) No 408 of2017