Supreme Court of India
MANOHAR LAL SHARMAversusM.C.I. AND OTHERS
- Citation
- 2013 INSC 609
- Decided
- 12 September 2013
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- K S RADHAKRISHNAN
Holding
The MCI’s order rejecting renewal of permission was valid as the Council is an administrative authority not bound by rigid natural‑justice rules, may conduct surprise inspections, and cannot dilute statutory minimum standards.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined the validity of the Medical Council of India's (MCI) order rejecting the renewal of permission for the third batch of 150 MBBS students at Chintpurni Medical College for the 2013‑14 academic year. The college had previously been granted permission, but a routine inspection followed by a surprise inspection on 6 July 2013 revealed numerous deficiencies in faculty, infrastructure, and hospital services. The petitioners argued that the MCI’s action violated principles of natural justice because the college was not given a hearing before the order was passed. The Court held that the MCI, as an administrative body under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, is not bound by rigid quasi‑judicial procedures and may conduct surprise inspections without prior notice. It further ruled that the statutory minimum standards prescribed in the 1999 Regulations cannot be diluted, and the deficiencies identified were fundamental, justifying the refusal to renew permission. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, upholding the MCI’s order.
Issues considered
- The legality of the MCI’s refusal to renew permission for the third batch of MBBS admissions.
- Whether the MCI is bound by the principles of natural justice, including the right to a hearing, before rejecting permission.
- The scope of MCI’s power to conduct surprise inspections without notice.
- The extent to which statutory minimum standards for medical colleges can be relaxed by the MCI.
Legislation cited
- Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999s. Regulation 8(3)(1)
- Indian Medical Council Act, 1956s. 10A, s. 19A, s. 1OA, s. 20, s. 33
- Medical Council of India (Amendment) Act, 2010s. 3B(b)
Subjects
Medical Council of IndiaMinimum standardsMedical educationSurprise inspectionNatural justiceAdministrative lawPermission renewalMBBS admission
Judgment
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 325
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA A
V.
M.C.I. AND OTHERS
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 590 of 2013)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2013.
B
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institution:
Medical education - Renewal of permission granted for c
third batch of MBBS -Subsequently rejected by Medical
Council of India - Held: MCI has got the power to conduct a
surprise inspection to find out whether the deficiencies pointed
out have been rectified or not, especially when the College
submits a compliance report - In the instant case, 0
deficiencies pointed out by MCI team in its report are
fundamental and very crucial, which cannot be ignored in the
interest of medical education - MCI is duty bound to cancel
the request if fundamental and minimum requirements are not
satisfied - In the circumstances, MCI has rightly passed the E
order rejecting the approval for renewal of permission.
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956:
Medical Council of India - Powers and responsibilities
of, as regards maintaining s_tandards of medical education - F
Explained - Held: MCI, while deciding to grant permission,
is not functioning as a quasi-judicial authority, but only as an
administrative authority - Rigid rules of natural justice are,
therefore, not contemplated - MCI has got power to conduct
surprise inspection, which contemplates no notice - It has no G
power to dilute the statutory requirements - Minimum
Standard Requirements for the Medical College for 150
Admissions Annually Regulations, 1999 - Schedule II -
Natural justice.
325 H
326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.
A Establishment of Medical College Regulations
(Amendment) Act, 2010 (Part II):
r.8(3)(1) - Medical College - "Opportunity and time to
rectify the deficiencies" - Held: After the inspection is carried
8 out, compliance report is called for only to ascertain whether
the deficiencies pointed out were rectified or not - If MCI is
not satisfied with compliance, it can conduct a surprise
inspection - After that, no further time or opportunity to rectify
the deficiencies is contemplated nor further opportunity of
C being heard, is provided - In the instant case, order of MCI is
not vitiated as violative of principles of natural justice,
especially, when no allegation of bias or ma/a fide has been
attributed against the doctors who conducted the surprise
inspection - Administrative law - Natural justice - Opportunity
of hearing.
D
The Medical College In the instant case, was
established during the year 2011-12 and It admitted 150
M.B.B.S. students for that year. Renewal of permission for
the second batch was sought for the academic year 2012-
E 13. The MCI after conducting an Inspection· and
considering the compliance report submitted by the
College, informed the College by communication dated
27 .06.2012, Its decision not to grant renewal of the
permission sought for. The Medical College approached
F the High Court, which directed to conduct a fresh
inspection after giving an opportunity of hearing to the
College. During the pendency of the special leave petition
before the Supreme Court, the direction issued by the
High Court was carried out and an Inspection was
G conducted by the MCI Team and as not much major
deficiencies were noticed, the Supreme Court disposed
of the SLP. The MCI, accordingly, granted renewal of
permission for the academic year 2013-14. However, on
receipt of reports of routine inspection conducted on 1/2
H April, 2013, and surprise inspection conducted on
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. M.C.I. 327
06.07.2013, pointing out several deficiencies, the Board A
of Governors decided to reject the renewal of permission
granted for the academic year 2013-14. The College
authorities then apprised the MCI of the order passed by
the Supreme Court on 27 .09.2012. The MCI recalled its
letter dated 14.07.2013 issued to the College and issued 8
the Letter of Permission dated 15.07.2013 granting
permission for admission of a batch of 150 MBBS
students for the academic year 2013-14. The said order
was challenged in the instant writ petition. The MCI also
preferred I.A. No.2 of 2013 in SLP(C) No.28480 of 2012 C
. seeking clarification/modification of the order dated
27 .09.2012.
Disposing of the matters, the Court
HELD: 1.1. It is the legislative mandate that when a o
new medical college Is established or the existing medical
college seeks to open a new or higher course of study
or training, for accommodating the increased admission
capacity, it would be in a position to offer the minimum
standards of medical education as prescribed by the MCI E
u/s 19A or, as the case may be, u/s 20 in the case of post-
graduate medical education. Schedule II of the Minimum
Standard Requirements for the Medical College for 150
Admissions Annually Regulations, 1999 deals with
equipment required for various departments in the F
college and hospital. The requirements are statutorily
prescribed and, therefore, the Board of Governors of MCI
has no power to dilute the statutory requirements
mentioned in the Regulations. [para 15 and 17] [341-C-D;
342-G-H; 343-A]
G
1.2. MCI is a body constituted under the provisions of
the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and has been given
the responsibility of discharging the duty of maintenance
of the standards of medical education in the country. It has
the power to supervise the qualifications or eligibility H
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.
A standards for admission into the medical institutions. MCI
on the basis of regular inspection and compliance reports,
is 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
8 other facilities to ensure proper functioning of the medical
college or for increase of admission capacity. [para 13 and
15] [338-F-G; 339-F-G]
State of Kera/av. Kumari T P. Roshana and Others 1979
(2) SCR974 =AIR 1979 SC 765 India v. State of Kamataka
C and Others 1998 (3) SCR 740 = (1998) 6 sec 131, relied
on.
1.3'.. The MCI has got the p·ower to conduct a surprise
inspection to find out whether the deficiencies pointed
o out by the MCI have been rectified or not, especially when
the College submits a compliance report. Surprise
inspection naturally contemplates no notice. Surprise
inspection, in the instant case, was conducted to
ascertain whether compliance report could be accepted
E and whether the deficiencies pointed out in the regular
inspection were rectified or not. MCI , by pointing out the
deficiencies noticed by the Inspection Team,. gives an
opportunity to the College to rectify the same. It is the
duty of the College to submit the compliance report, after
F rectifying the deficiencies. The· MCI can conduct a
surprise inspection to ascertain whether the deficiencies
had been rectified and the compliance report be
accepted or not. [para 18] [343-B-E]
1.4. The MCI, while deciding to grant permission, is
G not functioning as a quasi-judicial authority, but only as
an administrative authority. Rigid rules of natural justice
are, therefore, not contemplated or envisaged. Rule
8(3)(1) of the Establishment of Medical College
Regulations (Amendment) Act, 2010 (Part II), provides for
H only an "opportunity and time to rectify the deficiencies".
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. M.C.I. 329
Compliance report is called for only to ascertain whether A
the deficiencies pointed out were rectified or not. If the
MCI is not satisfied with the manner of compliance, it can
conduct a surprise inspection. After that, no further time
or opportunity to rectify the deficiencies is contemplated,
nor further opportunity of being heard, is provided. [para B
19) [343-F-H]
1.5. In the instant case, the deficiencies pointed out
by the MCI team in its report dated 06.07 .2013 are
fundamental and very crucial, which cannot be ignored C
in the interest of medical education. MCI and the College
authorities have to bear in mind, what is prescribed is the
minimum, if the MCI dilutes the minimum standards, they
will be doing violence to the statutory requirements. MCI
is duty bound to cancel the request if fundamental and
minimum requirements are not satisfied. The infirmities D
pointed out by the Inspection Team are serious
deficiencies. [para 20) [344-A-D]
1.6. The order of MCI is not vitiated as violative of
principles of natural justice, especially, when no E
allegation of bias or mala fide has been attributed against
the doctors who conducted the surprise inspection on
06.01.2013. When the Inspection Team consists of
doctors of unquestionable integrity and reputation, who
are experts in the field, there is no ~eason to discard the F
report of such inspection. In the circumstances, the MCI
has rightly passed the order rejecting the approval for
renewal of permission of 3rd batch of 150 MBBS students
granted for the academic year 2013-14. [para 21) [344-E-
~ G
Case Law Reference:
1979 (2) SCR 97 4 relied on para 14
1998 (3) SCR 740 relied on para 14
H
330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 9 S.C.R.
A CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 590 of 2013.
WITH
B I.A. No.2 in SLP (Civil) No. 28480 of 2012.
A.D.N. Rao, Abhishek Agarwal, K. Sarada Devi for the
Petitioner and petitioner-in-person.
C P.S. Patwalia, Vikas Singh, Amit Kumar, Atul Kumar, Avijit
Mani Tripathi, Ankit Rajgharia, Gaurav Sharma for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. We are, in these cases,
concerned with the legal validity of the approval granted by the
Medical Council of India (for short "the MCI") dated 15th ~'uly,
2013 for renewal of permission for admission of the third batch
of 150 M.B.B.S. students at Chintpurni Medical College &
E Hospital (for short "the College") for the academic year 2013-
14. The above mentioned College was established during the
year 2011-12 and it admitted 150 M.B.B.S. students for that
year. Renewal of permission for the second batch was sought
for the academic year 2012-13. The MCI carried out an
F inspection on 19/20th April, 2012 and noticed various
deficiencies and, in addition, one fake faculty was also
presented before the Inspection Team. Copy of the assessment
report was placed before the Board of Governors of the MCI.
The Board of Governors, therefore, issued a show cause notice
G dated 20.6.2012 to the faculty, stating as follows:
"Chintpurni Medical College & Hospital, Pathankot was
assessed on 19th and 20th April, 2012 by Assessors of
MCI and you have been shown as Associate Professor in
the Department of Chest & TB. It was declared in the
H
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. M.C.I. 331
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
declaration form submitted to MCI by the College A
authorities of Chintpurni Medical College and Hospital,
Pathankot that you have joined the college on 07.06.2011
and have joined the college on 07.06.2011 and have been
working in the department of Chest & TB since then.
B
Simultaneously, you were produced before the
assessment team of MCI on 20th and 21st April, 2012 at
S.N. Medical College, Agra as Associate Professor in the
Department of Chest & TB and it was declared in the.
declaration form submitted to MCI that you have joined in C
the college on 19.04.2012.
Since, it is clear that you have been working at both
the medical colleges simultaneously, you are required to
explain as to why action be not taken against you for the
above said misrepresentation. D
You are therefore directed to appear before the
Secretary, Medical Council of India on 25.06.2012 along
with your explanation failing which Council would be free
to initiate action as deemed fit including canceilation of
registration." E
2. MCI also sent a letter dated 22.06.2012 to the Medical
College stating that the deficiencies pointed out by the
Inspection Team of the MCI on 19/20 April 2012 were of serious
nature and, hence, Board of Governors had decided not to
renew the permission to admit 2nd batch of students, however, F
the Medical College was given an opportunity to present their
case on 25.06.2012.
3. The College, in response to the letter, sent a
compliance report dated 23/25-06.2012. The Board of G
Governors of the MCI, after considering the assessment report,
nature of deficiencies and the explanation submitted by ~he
College in the personal hearing, finally decided not. to grant
renewal of permission for admitting fresh batch of 150 M.B.B.S.
students for the academic year 2012-13. Communication dated
27.06.2012, in this regard, was sent by the MCI to the College. H
332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.
A 4. The College then filed Writ Petition No.12368 of 2012
before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the
order dated 27.06.2012 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash
the decision taken by the Board of Governors of the MCI on
22.06.2012 and 27.06.2012 and also for a direction to admit
B the second batch of MBBS students for the academic year
2012-13. The learned Single Judge of the High·Court passed
an interim order on 02.08.2012° directing the MCI to conduct
another inspection to assess the deficiencies pointed out
earlier. Aggrieved by the same, the MCI filed LPA No.1228 of
c 2012 before the Division Bench of the High Court. The LPA
was disposed of by the Division Bench on 10.09.2012 nullifying
the decision of the Board of Governors of the MCI dated
29.05.2012 and directed a fresh inspection after giving an
opportunity of hearing to the College and it was permitted to
D place all materials before the Inspection Team. Aggrieved by
the same, the MCI preferred Special Leave Petition (C)
No.28480 of 2012. By the time, the direction issued by the High.
Court was carried out and an inspection was conducted by the
MCI Team and not much major deficiencies were noticed and
the assessment report of September 2012 was placed before
E the Board of Governors on 21.09.2012, which accepted the
report. The said fact was brought to the notice of this Court and
this Court disposed of SLP(C) No.28480 of 2012 on
27.09.2012. Operative portion of the order reads as follow:
F "
However, learned senior counsel appearing for the MCI
stated that in obedience to the direction of the High Court
the inspection was conducted on 19.09.2012 and the
report of the Inspection Team was accepted by the Board-.
G
of Governors on 21.09.2012. Under such circumstances,
we find that there is no impediment in granting permission
for the 2013-14 batch. Appropriate admission orders,
therefore, be passed within one month."
H 5. The MCI, in obedience to the direction issued by this
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. M.C.I. 333
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
Court passed an order on 25.10.2012 granting permission to A
the College for renewal of permission for admission of the third
batch of MBBS students for the academic year 2013-14. The
MCI, in the meantime, conducted a routine inspection on 1/2
April, 2013 to verify whether the Medical College is maintaining
infrastructure, facilities, faculty and clinical material etc. or not B
and certain deficiencies were noticed and conveyed to the
College directing them to rectify the same and submit a
compliance report. The College then submitted its compliance
report, which was placed before the Board of Governors in its
meeting held on 19.06.2013, and the following order was c
passed:
"Chintpurni Medical College & Hospital, Pathankot.
Punjab for Renewal of permission of 3rd Batch of 150
MBBS students - The Board of Governors considered
the assessment report dated 1st-2nd April, 2013 along D
with the notes of the Undergraduate Committee and the
compliance report submitted by the College authorities of
Chintpurni Medical College &Hospital, Pathankot, Punjab
for renewal of permission of 3rd batch of 150 MBBS
students and decided to verify the compliance submitted E
by the college authorities by way of physical verification
assessment.·
6. The Board of Governors, following the above decision,
decided to conduct a surprise inspection by a team of two F
doctors, namely, Dr. Mukesh Kalra and Dr. Ashok Agarwal. The
Inspection Team was directed to verify as to whether the
College had rectified the deficiencies by looking to the
compliance report as well as to verify the credibility of a
complaint received against the College. Surprise inspection G
was conducted by the Team on 06.07.2013 and following
deficiencies were pointed out:
1. At first we visited the Emergency Services of the
hospital. On our observation only one junior resident
H
334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.
A was there with one or two nursing staff. There was
one bed occupied and one or two OPD patients
seen in emergency of the hospital.
2. Then we met the Dean and Principal of the college
and asked them to arrange for the videography
B
which they said was difficult to arrange. Then we
took some videos and photographs in our personal
camera if MCI wants we can provide the same.
3. We took complete round of all the departments'
c wards, OPD and verified the working and presence
offaculty at 10.30 am. List is enclosed for reference.
This was around total 15 teachers in all specialties
and 5 (JR+SRs). There were one or two patients in
each OPDs. There were no IPD patients in any
D ward and any paramedical and medical staff
available in any of the ward.
4. Then we verified the compliance of last inspection.
Regarding student accommodation there was only
one girl's hostel of 4 floors with two floors ready (15
E rooms on ground floor and 22 rooms in first floor with
capacity of 3 students in one room). Rest two floors
were under renovation. No boy's hostel was there.
The boys were housed in two villas (No. 3 and No.
4) which were meant for faculty. There was no
F nurse's hostel. They were housed in 1st villa. The no.
2 villa was occupied by director and total of 5 villas
were there, which were meant for senior faculty.
There were two other buildings under construction,
one of 3 bed room flats (8 flats) and another of 2
G bed room flats (8 flats) were under construction and
out of which in one building of 3 bed room flats, two
ground floor flats were ready and occupied by male
students. No other resident accommodation is
available for teaching and non teaching staff.
H
MAN.OHAR LAL SHARMA v. M.C.I. 335
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
5. Only one batch of 150 students is admitted as last A
year in 2012-13 and no batch was admitted after
that in 2012-13.
6. On being asked we were not provided with AERB
approval documentary proof and list of
8
histopathology and cytopathological investigations
done on the day of inspection. MRD record
regarding histopathology and cytopathology was not
given for verification.
7. At 2 pm we did the head count by previous C
declaration forms submitted in last inspection to
MCI. The list is enclosed for reference. There were
44 faculty members (108 required) and 6 residents
(60SR required, 75JR required) including tutors (29
required) verified. Although their physical presence D
could be verified but there was no address proof
shown on being asked: we were told that rest of the
staff is on summer vacation and college provided
the list of faculty on leave which is enclosed for
reference. But only 6 residents were verified and E
residents are not provided any summer holidays.
We did not agree to this version of holidays from
college authorities.
8. At 4 pm we again took round of the hospital and
verified the computerized record provided by F
college. We could not verify the census of last day
(5-07-13) from wards. The census showed 243 IPD
patients but in morning round there was no patient
in the wards. On the day of inspection the record
showed 518 patients but we hardly saw any G
patients. We feel not above 100 patients would
have come to hospital on the day of inspection till
3 pm. Therefore, the hospital record was not
authenticated physically.
H
336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.
A 9. The pharmacological and forensic Medicine
department was not having concrete roof top.
10. The nursing college is shown part of medical
college building and is not separate.
B 11. The library has external space for reading for
students. The required 2400 sq.m. space is there.
12. On an average 3-4/day both major and minor
surgeries are done in all subjects. The OT's were
c equipped but looked unused. In July till the day of
the inspection 6 major surgeries were done in all
subjects.
13. A demand draft for Rs.3 lacs was asked from
college as instructed from MCI. The Director
D Principal gave a letter that it will be forwarded in one
week time as today (on inspection day) is Saturday
and bank is closed here. The copy of letter is
enclosed."
E 7. The College having come to know about the surprise
inspection made a request on 08.07 .2013 to the Board of
Governors of the MCI to afford them a personal hearing to
present their case. The Board of Governors, however, met on
10.07.2013 and having come to know about the gross
F deficiencies pointed out by the MCI Team in its surprise
inspection report dated 06.07 .2013, decided to reject the
renewal of permission granted for the academic year 2013-14.
Copy of the order was communicated to the College vide its
letter dated 14.07.2013.
G 8. The College authorities then approached the MCI and
placed the order passed by this Court on 27.09.2012, wherein
this Court had ordered that there is no impediment in granting
permission for the academic year 2012-13. The Board of
Governors, so as to give effect to this Court's order, reealled
H
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. M.C.I. 337
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
their earlier letter dated 14.07 .2013 issued to the College and, A
in obedience to the directions of this Court, issued the Letter
of Permission (in short "LoP") dated 15.07 .2013 granting
permission for admission of a batch of 150 MBBS students for
the academic year 2013-14. It is that order that has been
challenged in Writ Petition (C) No.590 of 2013. After getting B
the legal opinion the MCI also preferred, as already stated, I.A.
No.2 of 2013 in SLP(C) No.28480 of 2012 seeking
clarification/modification on the order dated 27.09.2012.
9. We have heard counsel on either side at length. We are
in this case primarily concerned with the question whether the C
MCI was justified in passing the order dated 14.07.2013
rejecting the request for renewal of permission for the 3rd batch
of MBBS students for the year 2013-14.
10. Shri Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing D
for the College, submitted that the decision taken, rejecting the
request for renewal of permission for the year 2013-14, was
illegal, since the College had rectified the deficiencies pointed
out and that the orderwas passed in violative of principles of
natural justice. Learned senior counsel submitted that the E
College was also not given any opportunity to file the objection
to the report dated 06.07.2013, before the same was accepted
by the Board of Governors rejecting the request for renewal of
permission. Learned senior counsel also submitted that since
the inspection was conducted on a holiday, some deficiencies/ F
infirmities might have been noticed by the Inspection Team, but
those infirmities were not that serious to reject permission
sought for. Learned senior counsel submitted that, for the year
2012-13, the College could not admit the 2nd batch of MBBS
students, consequently, the parameters followed by the team G
for giving an adverse report were incorrect and those aspects
also could not be brought to the notice of the Board of
Governors of the MCI. Learned senior counsel also submitted
that, in any view, the College is willing to have yet another
inspection by the inspection team.
H
338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 9 S.C.R.
A 11. Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing
for the MCI, and Shri Amit Kumar, counsel for the MCI,
submitted that the Board of Governors was justified in passing
an order on 14.07 .2013, after having noticed the serious
deficiencies pointed out by the surprise Inspection Team in their
B inspection dated 06.07.2013. Learned senior counsel.
submitted that the deficiencies pointed out by the Inspection
Team are fundamental in nature, hence, could not be brushed
aside in the larger public interest and also in the interest of the
student community. Learned senior counsel also submitted that
c deficiencies were pointed out to the College when regular
inspection was conducted and the College was given an
opportunity to rectify those deficiencies. Surprise inspection
revealed that those deficiencies were not rectified and, hence,
the order was issued on 14.07.2013 refusing renewal for the
year 2013-14.
0
12. Shri Manohar Lal Sharma, appearing-in-person,
pointed out that there is no reason to discard the report of the
Inspection Team dated 06.07.2013 and that the College
authorities had committed fraud in not placing th~ correct
E materials before the Board of Governors of the MCI and also
before the Inspection Team.
Discussions:
F 13. MCI is a body constituted under the provisions of the
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and has been given the
responsibility of discharging the duty of maintenance of the
standards of medical education in the country. It has the power
to supervise the qualifications or eligibility standards for
admission into the medical institutions. This Court in State of
G Kera/a v. Kumari T. P. Roshana and Others AIR 1979 SC
765, observed as follows:
"16. The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 has constituted
the Medical Council of India as an expert body to control
H the minimum standards of medical education and to
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. M.C.I. 339
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
regulate their observance. Obviously, this high-powered A
Council has power to prescribe the minimum standards of
medical education. It has implicit power to supervise the
qualifications or eligibility standards for admission into
Medical Institutions. Thus there is an over invigilation by
the Medical Council to prevent sub-standard entrance B
qualifications for medical courses."
. 14. The necessity of proper facilities, including teaching
faculty, clinical materials, has been highlighted by this Court. in
Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka and Others
(1998) 6 sec 131, which reads as follows: C
"A medical student requires gruelling study and that can
be done only if proper facilities are available in a medical
college and the hospital attached to it has to be well
equipped and the teaching faculty and doctors have to be D
competent enough that when a medical student comes out,
he is perfect in the science of treatment of human beings
and is not found wanting in any way. The country does not
want half-baked medical professionals coming out of
medical colleges when they did not have full facilities of E
teaching and were not exposed to the patients and their
ailments during the course of their study."
15. MCI on the basis of the reports, regular and
compliance, is legally obliged to form an opinion with regard
to the capacity of the college to provide necessary facilities in F
respecLof staff, equipments, accommodation, training .and
other facilities to ensure proper functioning of the medical
college or for increase of admission capacity. Section 1OA of
the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 deals with the permission
for establishment of new medical college, new course of study G
etc. Sub-section (7) of Section 1OA is extracted hereunder for
easy reference:
"10A. Permission for establishment of new
medical college, new course of study.- H
340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 9 S.C.R.
A )()()( )()()( )()()(
)()()( )()()( )()()(
7. The Council, while making its recommendations under
clause (b) of sub-section (3) and the Central Government,
B while passing 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
c existing medical college seeking to open a new or
higher course of study or training, 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
D 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 of study or training or
to increase its admission capacity has adequate
E financial resources;
(c) whether necessary facilities in respect of staff,
equipment, accommodation, training and other
facilities to ensure proper functioning of the medical
F college or conducting the new course or study or
training or accommodating the increased
admission capacity, have been provided or would
be provided within the time-limit specified in the
scheme.
G (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 capacity, have
been provided or would be provided within the
H time-limit specified in the scheme;
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. M.C.I. 341
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
(e) whether any arrangement has been made or A
programme drawn to impart proper training to
students likely to attend such medical college or
course of study or training by persons having the
recognised medical qualifications;
B
(f) the requirement of manpower in the field of practice
of medicine; and
(g) any other factors as may be prescribed."
It is the legislative mandate that when a new medical college c
. is established or the existing medical college seeks to open a
new or higher course of study or training, for accommodating
the increased admission capacity it would be in a position to
offer the minimum standards of medical education as
prescribed by the MCI under Section 19A or, as the case may 0
be, under Section 20 in the case of post-graduate medical
education.
16. The Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 2010
confers the following powers on the Board of Governors as per
Section 3B(b), which reads as follows: E
38. During the period when the Council stands
superseded,-
xxx xxx xxx F
(b) The Board of Governors shall-
(i) Exercise the powers and discharge the
functions of the Council under this Act and for
this purpose, the provisions of this Act shall G
have effect subject to the modification that
references therein to the Council shall be
construed as references to the Board of
Governors;
H
342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 9 S.C.R.
A (ii)· grant independently permission for
establishment of new medical colleges or
opening a new or higher course of study or
training or increase in admission capacity in
any course of study or training referred to in
B section 1OA or giving the person or college
concerned a reasonable opportunity of being
heard as provided under section 1OA without
prior permission of the Central Government
under that section, including exercise of the
c power to finally approve or disapprove the
same; and
(iii) dispose of the matters pending with the
Central Government under section 1OA upon
receipt of the same from it."
D
17. MCI, with the previous sanction by the Central
Government, in exercise of its powers conferred by Sections
10A and 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, made the
Regulations known as the Establishment of Medical College
E Regulations, 1999. Regulation 8 of the Regulations 1999 deals
with grant of permission 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 the MCI. The Board of
F Governors may grant LoP to the applicant for making
admissions in the first year of MBBS course in the medical
college 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
G above mentioned Regulation provides for accommodation in
the medical college and its teaching hospital. Schedule II deals
with equipment required for various departments in the college
and hospital. The requirements are statutorily prescribed and,
therefore, the Board of Governors has no power to dilute the
H
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. M.C.I. 343
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
statutory requirements mentioned in the above mentioned A .·
Regulations.
18. We have also gone through the report of the surprise
Inspection Team dated 06.07.2013 submitted by Dr. Mukesh
Kalra and Dr. Ajay Agarwal. The MCI has got the power to 8
conduct a surprise inspection to find out whether the
deficiencies pointed out by the MCI have been rectified or not,
especially when the College submits a compliance report.
Surprise inspection naturally contemplates no notice, if the
notice is given in advance, it would not be a surprise inspection C
and will give room for the College to hoodwink the assessors
by springing a surprise, by making perfect what was imperfect.
Surprise inspection, in this case, was conducted to ascertain
whether compliance report could be accepted and to ascertain
whether the deficiencies pointed out in the regular inspection
were rectified or not. By pointing out the deficiencies, MCI is D
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.
!he MCI can conduct a surprise inspection to ascertain whether
the deficiencies had been rectified and the compliance report E
be accepted or not.
19. MCI, while deciding to grant permission or not to grant
permission, is not functioning as a quasi-judicial authority, but
only as an administrative authority. Rigid rules of natural justice F
are, therefore, not contemplated or envisaged. Rule 8(3)(1) of
the Establishment of Medical College Regulations
(Amendment) Act, 201 O (Part II), provides for only an
"opportunity and time to rectify the deficiencies". Compliance
report is called for only to ascertain whether the deficiencies G
pointed out were rectified or not. If the MCI is not satisfied with
the manner of compliance, it can conduct a surprise inspection.
After that, no further time or opportunity to rectify the
deficiencies is contemplated, nor further opportunity of being
heard, is provided.
H
344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.
A 20. We have already dealt with, if?. extenso, the
9eficiencies pointed out by the MCI team in its report dated
06.07.2013. In our view, the deficiencies pointed out are
fundamental and very crucial, which cannot be ignored in the
interest of medical education and in the interest of student
8 community. MCI and the College authorities have to bear in
mind, what is prescribed is the minimum, if the MCI dilutes the
minimum standards, they will be doing violence to the statutory
requirements. MCI is duty bound to cancel the request if
fundamental and minimum requirements are not satisfied or
c else College will be producing half-backed and poor quality
Doctors and they would do more harm to the society than
service. In our view, the infirmities pointed out by the Inspection
Team are serious deficiencies and the Board of Governors of
the MCI rightly not granted approval for renewal of permission
for the 3rd batch of 150 MBBS students for the academic year
0
2013-14.
21. We are also of the view that such an order is not
vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice, especially,
when no allegation of bias or mala fide has been attributed
E against the two doctors who constituted the Inspection Team,
which conducted the surprise inspection on 06.07.2013. When
the Inspection Team consists of two doctors of unquestionable
integrity and reputation, who are experts in the field, there is
no reason to discard the report of such inspection. In such
F circumstances, we are of the view that the MCI has rightly
passed the order rejecting the approval for renewal of
permission of 3rd batch of 150 MBBS students granted for the
academic year 2013-14. Consequently, Writ Petition (C)
No.590 of 2013 is allowed and IA No.2 of 2013, filed in SLP(C)
G No.28480 of 2012, is disposed of, as above.
R.P. Matters disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Medical Council of India"Sign in to search