Supreme Court of India
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIAversusMEDICITI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES (MIMS) & ORS.
- Citation
- 2015 INSC 879
- Decided
- 1 December 2015
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ANIL R DAVE
Holding
The High Court erred in directing the MCI to carry out another inspection; the direction is set aside.
Summary
The Mediciti Institute of Medical Sciences (MIMS) applied to the Medical Council of India (MCI) for renewal of permission to increase its MBBS intake from 100 to 150 seats for the 2015‑16 academic year. MCI inspections in December 2014 and May 2015 identified serious deficiencies in faculty, resident numbers, infrastructure and other norms prescribed under the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999, and consequently recommended to the Central Government that the permission not be renewed under Section 10 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. MIMS challenged the rejection in the Delhi High Court, which directed the MCI to conduct a fresh re‑inspection of the institute. The Supreme Court examined whether a court could compel the apex regulatory body to deviate from the standards it had set and whether such a direction was consistent with the statutory schedule. Relying on earlier judgments, the Court held that the High Court’s direction was impermissible as the MCI had already found the institute non‑compliant and the judiciary cannot order the regulator to ignore its own regulations. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and allowed the appeals. The decision reaffirmed the primacy of the MCI’s statutory standards in regulating medical education.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court could direct the Medical Council of India to conduct a fresh inspection of a medical college despite existing findings of deficiency.
- Whether such a judicial direction would compel the MCI to depart from the standards and schedule prescribed under the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 and the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
Legislation cited
Subjects
medical educationMedical Council of Indiaintake capacityinspectionregulatory standardsjudicial reviewmedical college regulationsstatutory compliance
Judgment
(2015) 14 S.C.R. 164
A MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
v.
MEDICITI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES (MIMS) &
ORS.
B (Civil Appeal Nos. 13957-13958 of 2015)
DECEMBER 01, 2015
[ANIL R. DAVE AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.]
c Education/Educational Institution:
Medical College - MBBS course - Application by
Medical Institute-respondent no. 1 - Seeking renewal of
permission for increase in admission capacity of MBBS
students for the academic year - Pursuant thereto inspection
D of Medical Institute - Certain deficiencies found and decision
taken by Committee not to renew the permission for
admission of increased students - Communication of the
said decision to respondent no. 1 -Another inspection carried
E out, deficiencies found and the same decision conveyed -
Writ petition challenging the said decision - Direction by High
Court to Medical Council of India-appellant to conduct a re-
inspection of respondent no. 1-institute - On appeal, held: If
infrastructure of any training institute is not sufficient to train
F and groom its students, even if they pass out at the final
examination, may not turn out to be good professionals -
Once the apex body supervising education in the field of
medicine has set-up a particular set of standards, it would
not be proper on the part of the judiciary to direct that body to
G digress from the standards so fixed - Since all the norms
had not been fulfilled, which were necessary for the purpose
of grant of permission to have 50 additional students, the
High Court was not justified in dir(!cting the appellant to have
additional inspection - Direction by the High Court was .also
H not in consonance with the schedule of dates fixed - Thus,
164
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. MEDICITI INSTITUTE OF 165
MEDICAL SCIENCES (MIMS)
the direction given by the High Court is set aside - A
Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999.
"
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India
(2013) 10 sec 60 : 2013 (9) SCA 325; Royal
Medical Trµst (Regd.) and Anr. v. Union oflndia & B
Anr. (2015) 9 SCALE 68 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
2013 (9) SCA 325 referred to Para 14
c
(2015) 9 SCALE 68 referred to Para 17
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
13957-13958 of 2015.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.08.2015 of the D
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 7101
of 2015 & C. M. No. 13021 of 2015.
Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Sharma, Prateek Bhatia
for the Appellant.
E
Dr. Raj iv Dhawan, Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Advs., A. Ramesh,
Amit Kumar, Ankit for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ANIL R. DAVE, J. 1. Leave granted. F
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
Looking at the facts of the case and at the request of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, it was decided to hear the
appeals expeditiously. G
3. A short issue that has come up for consideration in
these appeals is whether it was open to the High Court to give
a direction to the Medical Council of India (for short, the MCl)-
the appellant herein, by its order dated 13.08.2015, to conduct H
166 SUPREME GOU.RT REPORTS (2015] 14 S.C.R.
A a re-inspection of Respondent no.1 institute. The said direction
was. given in relation to an application made by Respondent
no.1 for renewal of permission for increase in admission
capacity of MBBS students from 100 to 150 for the academic
year 2015-16.
B
4. Respondent no.1 is a hospital-cum-medical college,
which had been formerly granted permission to teach 100
MBBS students per academic year. From 2012-2013,
respondent no.3 had permitted increase in intake capacity from
c 100 to 150 MBBS students. For the academic year 2013-14,
respondent no.3 had renewed the said permission.
Respondent no.1 wanted to get the said permission renewed
for the academic year 2014-15 and therefore, it had submitted
an application, as prescribed under the Establishment of
D Medical College Regulations, 1999. The said application had
been rejected as the Executive Committee of the MCI found
certain deficiencies in the functioning of Respondent no.1
institute. Some litigation had taken place with regard to the
said rejection, but the said rejection is not much relevant for
E the present petition.
5. For renewal of the said permission for additional 50
MBBS students for the academic year 2015-16, another
application was made by respondent no.1 and in pursuance
F of the said application, an inspection of Respondent No.1
institute had taken place on 5th and 5th December, 2014 by the
MCI and at the time of said inspection, following deficiencies
had been noted by the representatives of the MCI:
"1. Deficiency of faculty is 10% as detailed in report.
G
2. Shortage of Residents is 16.5% as detailed (n
report.
3. Common Room tor Girls is in corridor and
H requires improvement.
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. MEDICITI INSTITUTE OF 157
MEDICAL SCIENCES (MIMS) [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]
4. 0. T.: There are 15 tables in 11 0. T.s indicating A
more than 1 table in several 0. T.s which is not as
per norms.
5. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the
assessment report." B
5. Report of the aforestated inspection, which had taken
place on 5th and 5th December, 2014, was placed before the
Executive Committee of the MCI on 13th January, 2015 for its
consideration. The aforestated deficiencies were fqund by the C
Executive Committee of the MCI of serious nature and
therefore, the Committee decided "to recommend to the
Central Government not to renew the permission for admission
of 4th batch of MMBS students against the increased intake
i.e. from 100 to 150" students of Respondent no.1 and the D
said decision was communicated to Respondent no.1 by the
MCI under its letter dated 21" January, 2015.
7. Though not much relevant, it is pertinent to note that in
pursuance of some litigation which had taken place in the
meantime, Respondent no.1 gave admission to 50 additional E
students to MBBS course for the academic year 2014-15 on
the basis of an undertaking given to this Court. Thus, in fact,
150 students were given admission to MBBS course for the
academic year 2014-15. The said undertaking was ultimately F
found to be incorrect by the MCI.
8. Respondent no.1 institute had thereafter addressed a
letter dated 14th February, 2015 to the MCI, wherein it was
claimed that the deficiencies which had been fouhd by the MCI
at the time of inspection of Respondent no.1, which had taken G
place on 5th and 5th December, 2014, had been removed.
Respondent no.1 was also given a personal hearing by •
respondent no.3.
9. Respondent no.3 had requested the MCI to reconsider H
' I
I \ '
\ 168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS .. (2015] 14 S.C.R..
\ . .·, I . ~. ,...., : , . '
.•~1:·'.:'·\~:.
,.
A ·the case of Respondent no.1 institute and in pursuance of the
· said request, the assessors of the MCI had carried out another
. inspection on Sth. May, 2015 and submitted the. report of ·
• inspection to the Executive Committee of the MCI. Even at
' ' • • ' ' " ' < \ • ' •, ' • •
. the time of inspection, which had taken place on Bth May, 2015,
B ~·several deficiencies had been found and therefore, ultimately
·on 13th May, 2015, the Executive Committee:ofthe MCI
decided to recommend to the Central Government not to renew .:
th.e permission for admission of 4th batch of increased MBBS :1
•. students from 100 toJ 50 under Section 1OA of the IMC Act,,.
C . 1956 for the academic year2015-16 .• The said decision had:;
been communicated by Respondent no.3 to Respondent no.1.~J
under letter dated 15~ June, 2015. ,.. ; : <." , .. ,
: ~ .. " .~ .. , ; ' , . ' . - . • ' • .: .• ' • •- , -' . ~; :I • .' .• ~ -• ,·
o:
·. 1 In the aforestated circumstances, the application for'·
D increase in intake of 50 MBBS students had beeri'rejected: • '
! .· .·;'.. <';···., ;,,1,-,.,·;.--,· .. ,·~- -~:· .. ·. ·::··-·.:.:~·'.~
11. Aggrieved' thereby, r Respondent No~ 1. filed Writ.·
Petition (C) No. 7101 of 2015 before the High Court of Delhi
challenging
. '
the communication
•. . . '
dated- - ' 15.6:2015
.. ' - ) . -
made
. . ·, .
to .'t·
E . Respondent No.1 by Respondent No.3, whereby the '
application' made by RespondentNo.1 for increasing iniake''
i.e.,· frorri'1'06
· >!
to 1 i'-seats r''•'·'•\'
academic
:l
sci
session 2015-16 had ~
·'•". ,· ·,
" •-·'I
ior t .. , , , , . )'' , .•• ,,~,-.)
b¢en finally reject~d'.' In ,t~~ .~:a.i,d petlti?.~.. tbe if!1pugne9 9i.qer'.'
dated
,, -- .•··
J3.08.2015.
.·, --
has. been·
,,, ...
passed; .whereby.'r--:·•-.,
·-,·~
the present•
...... - .. • ,•r:·'"'!~ .~r--).~I:• ~-
F. Appellant-the MCI has been directed·to'carry , .....
out' another'.
..... -' ,, "- "" { ., \ ~-\·'· -~~
inspection to find out whether the deficiencies found at an .
earlie~ point of time have been remov~d. 1 ·:·, J:-i •: .b .
~--· ",-; ,.·- :,, .·, •: _,..,,. ' \ ' ";~'' - ', ',. _:~ •. ~· ;,. >..,..:, . . ;... .. \....,.•
• . · 12.
'-
Being
· · ' '
aggrieved
. I '
by ' the' aforestated
' .-, ·. -- - · • .
order passed
- -1 ' - · - ·.·- ,... •· '·" ~
G, by the.High, Court, the Appellant hc;tsappr~ac~ed ~~is Cowr
a
. with prayer that the said interim direction be quashed, as
according to the Appellant, Respondentno'.i
' . " '' ·1 , • ' '
cannot be 1
f'' ·• "• - '' · . 1' I '. · • •' · ' "I - ~
permitted to have 50 more students for acaderriic year 2015~ · ..
16. ·"_..c .. ,·::':1· ';~t~ ;-.
H ·.. I~.' . . ' I'.
.-
_.,.- \ '>
- .
I
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. MEDICITI INSTITUTE OF '169
MEDICAL SCIENCES (MIMS) [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]
. 13. In the aforestated circumstances, present appeals A
have been filed before this Court and upon hearing the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the view that the
High Court has committed an error by directing the Appellant
to carry out another insp'ection: '·'. ,) -
t '.',:':··~,--,<:.:··'"'.;Ji;,: ,·.)':?!~l~• ·",_i' .. ·,~.·-,- 8 1
T
14. Looking at the fact that the norms set up by the
Appellant had not been fulfiiled by Respondent No~ 1, in our
opinion, it-would not be ·just and proper to constrain th"e
Appellant to·carry'out one more inspection which is not
warranted under any legal provision. It is a well-known fact c
that if infrastructure of any training institute is not sufficient to
train and groom its students, the students, even if they pass
out at the final examination, may not turn out to be good
professionals.' At this juncture, we thinkit proper to quote what
this Court'has said in Manohar Lat'Sharma'vs.'·Medical D
Council of/ndia (2013) 10 SQC 60: ' ...
' ' • '., ' • ,· : - • '~·.:, i ',.~ :: .__ I .,
·• "2S: We'have already dealt with, in-extenso, ·the
· · deficiencies pointed out by the MCI team in its'report
·i 'dated 6-7"2013.!ln our view~ the deficiencies pointed E
·out are fundamental and very crucial, which cannot be
ignored in the interest of medical education and in the.
-' · interest of the student community. MCI and the College
·' authorities tiave to bear in mind; what is prescribed is
. '' · · · the minimum, if MCI dilutes the minimum standards; they F
will be doing violence to the statutory requirements. MCI
: 'is duty-bound to cancel the request if fundamental ancf
' ' . •'minimum_ requirements are not satisfied or-else the
.. , College_ Y"ill .b~ pr~du~ng half-baked -~rid poor_~uality .
, _, do.ctors. and they.would do more' ~arrp_!o thesoc_ieiy G
than service. In our view, the infirmitiesI pointed
'' • 1
out by
"' .. ,,. : > ' -
the inspection team are serious deficiencies and the
' . '- Board of Governors of MCI rightly not granted approval · 1,-/
'. for renewal of permission for the third batch of 150 I!
MBBSstudents for the academic year 2013-2014." H
•\
170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015) 14 S.C.R.
A 15. Looking at the aforestated observations made by this
Court and in view of the fact that all the norms had not been
fulfilled, which were necessary for the purpose of grant of.
permission to have 50 additional students, in our opinion, it
was not just and proper on the part of the High Court to direct
B the Appellant to have additional inspection.
16. Once the apex body supervising education in the field
of medicine has set-up a particular set of standards, it would
not proper on the part of the judiciary to direct that body to
c digress from the standards so fixed. In the circumstances, we
are of the view that the direction given by the High Court is not
proper.
17. We have further noted the fact thatthe la'J'."with regard
to grant of permission to a medical college or with regard to
0
permission for having additional students is regulated by the
Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999. We
have duly considered the said Regulations in the case of Raval
Medical Trust <Reqd.J and Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.
E (2015) 9 SCALE 68. This Court has prescribed a time
schedule which is to be followed by all authorities concerned
either for giving permission for establishment of a new medical
college or for the purpose of increasing the strength of students.
The direction given by the High Court is also not in consonance
F with the said schedule of dates fixed by this Court and therefore
also, in our opinion, the said direction is not justifiable.
18. For the aforestated reasons, we set aside the
direction given by the High Court dated 13.8.2015, whereby
G the Appellant has been asked to carry out inspection of
Respondent no.1 institute and therefore, allow these appeals
with no order as to costs.
Nidhi Jain Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "medical education"Sign in to search