Holding

No permission for admissions can be granted unless a physical verification confirms that all deficiencies have been remedied; the High Court's interim order was therefore unjustified and set aside.

Summary

The Medical Council of India (MCI) identified 25 deficiencies in the proposed NC Medical College and recommended that the Central Government not grant permission for its establishment. Although the Supreme Court‑mandated Oversight Committee temporarily allowed admissions for 2016‑17, the college failed to remedy the deficiencies, leading MCI to recommend debarment for the 2017‑18 and 2018‑19 sessions, which the Central Government approved. The High Court, however, issued an interim order permitting provisional admissions for 2018‑19 on the condition that students be informed of the pending litigation. The Supreme Court held that such a conditional permission is impermissible because admissions may be granted only after a physical verification confirms compliance with all statutory requirements; merely informing students does not provide sufficient insulation. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s interim order, emphasizing the potential prejudice to students and the need for a cautious approach in granting interim relief in medical education matters.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court can grant an interim order permitting admissions to a medical college that has not complied with MCI and Central Government approvals.
Whether the condition of informing students about pending litigation suffices as protection for their interests.
Whether provisional admissions can be allowed pending final determination under the Medical Council of India Act.

Legislation cited

Medical Council of India Acts. 10-A

Subjects

Medical educationMedical Council of IndiaAdmissionProvisional admissionInterim orderRegulatory complianceDeficienciesDebarment

Judgment

184 [2018]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 5 S.C.R. 184 [2018] 5 S.C.R.

A MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
v.
N.C. MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6001 of 2018)
B JULY 04, 2018
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions – Medical education –
MBBS course – On facts, respondent applied for establishment of
medical college – Deficiencies found and scheme not approved by
C
MCI and the Central Government – Approval accorded by the
Supreme Court mandated Oversight Committee that the college was
permitted to make admissions for the academic year – However,
conditions subject to which approval accorded, not complied with
– Repeated failure on the part of the College to remove the
D deficiencies – On physical verification again deficiencies found –
During pendency of the matter before the Central Government, filing
of writ petition – Interim order by the High Court permitting the
Medical College to grant provisional admissions for the Academic
Session – Justification of – Held: Not justified – Permission to make
admissions for the current academic session could not have been
E
granted unless and until on physical verification everything was
found to be in order – Condition of making students aware about
the pendency of the matter and stating that their admissions would
be subject to the result of pending litigation, not a sufficient
insulation – Provisional admission and making them subject to the
F result of the petition may entail tremendous adverse consequences
and prejudice to students – Thus, the interim order passed by the
High Court set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: In the face of repeated failures on part of the
G Respondent College to remove the deficiencies, no permission
to make admissions for the current academic session could have
been granted unless and until on physical verification everything
was found to be in order. A condition such as making students
aware about the pendency of the matter and stating that their
H
184
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. N.C. MEDICAL COLLEGE 185
AND HOSPITAL

admissions would be subject to the result of pending litigation, is A
not a sufficient insulation. There have been cases where after
making such provisional admissions the Colleges have been
denied permission upon physical verification. Questions then
come up as to what is the status of such students and how best
their interest can be protected. Theoretically, in terms of
B
conditions of Essentiality Certificate the concerned State
Government is obliged to take care of interest of such students.
But the harsh reality is such students cannot be accommodated
because in normal circumstances all the seats in every Medical
College are filled up. It then becomes a case of impossibility of
accommodating such students in any existing College. The entire C
exercise may thus result in great hardship and wastage of
academic years of the concerned students. It is for this reason
that while granting any interim relief very cautious approach needs
to be adopted. It may be possible to expedite the process of
physical verification in a given case but to allow provisional
D
admissions and make them subject to the result of the petition
may entail tremendous adverse consequences and prejudice to
students. Thus, the High Court was not justified in passing interim
directions and permitting the College to go ahead with provisional
admissions for the Academic Session. The interim order is set
aside. [Paras 12, 14][190-F-H; 191-A-B; 194-B] E
Medical Council of India v. Rajiv Gandhi University of
Health Sciences and others (2004) 6 SCC 76 : [2004]
3 SCR 1119; Medical Council of India v. JSS Medical
College and another (2012) 5 SCC 628 : [2012] 1 SCR
136; Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of F
Medical Sciences (KIMS) and ors. (2016) 11 SCC 530
: [2016] 4 SCR 403; Dental Council of India v. Dr
Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandal Hingoli and
Others (2017) 13 SCC 115 – referred to.
Case Law Reference G
[2004] 3 SCR 1119 referred to Para 13
[2012] 1 SCR 136 referred to Para 13
[2016] 4 SCR 403 referred to Para 13
(2017) 13 SCC 115 referred to Para 13 H
186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 5 S.C.R.

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6001
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.05.2018 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No.13366 of 2018.
Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG, Gaurav Sharma, Prateek Bhatia, Advs.
B
for the Appellant.
Govind Goel, Ankit Goel, Alok Kumar Dwivedi, R.
Balasubramanium, Sachin Sharma, Arvind K. Sharma, Advs. for the
Respondents.
C The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal questions the correctness of interim order dated
29.05.2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil
Writ Petition No.13366 of 2018 and thereby permitting the Respondent
D
Medical College to go ahead with admissions to first MBBS Course for
the Academic Session 2018-19.
3. Shanti Devi Charitable Trust made an application for
establishment of a new Medical College in the name and style of NC
Medical College and Hospital, Panipat for the Academic Sessions 2016-
E
17. An assessment was accordingly undertaken by the assessors
appointed by Medical Council of India (MCI, for short) who found as
many as 25 deficiencies. By its letter dated 30.12.2015, MCI
recommended to the Central Government not to issue letter of permission
for establishment of said college for the Academic Year 2016-17. In
F compliance verification carried out by MCI on 01.04.2016 the deficiencies
were still found to be existing and as such MCI vide letter dated
14.05.2016 again recommended disapproval of the scheme for the
Academic Year 2016-17.
4. The Central Government accepted such negative
G recommendation and disapproved the scheme so proposed. However,
the Supreme Court mandated Oversight Committee vide letter dated
11.08.2016 approved the scheme and as such admissions to 1st MBBS
Course for the Academic Year 2016-17 with intake of 150 seats could
be made by the Respondent College. Since such approval was subject
H
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. N.C. MEDICAL COLLEGE 187
AND HOSPITAL [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

to certain conditions, a further verification was undertaken by MCI on A
7/8.11.2016 to assess whether those conditions were complied with or
not. This assessment was again considered by the Executive Committee
of MCI and in its noting dated 22.12.2016, the deficiencies were still
found to be persisting. MCI by its letter dated 26.12.2016 informed the
Central Government that since the Respondent College had failed to
B
abide by the undertaking, it be debarred from admitting students for two
academic sessions namely 2017-18 and 2018-19 and the bank guarantee
be encashed. The Central Government approved the report submitted
by MCI. The matter was again placed before the Supreme Court
mandated Oversight Committee which directed that a further opportunity
be given to the Respondent College and an assessment be made whether C
the Respondent College had complied with the conditions. The matter
was again considered and the Central Government accepted the
recommendations of MCI, and by its order dated 09.06.2017 debarred
the Respondent College from admitting students for two years namely
2017-18 and 2018-19 and authorized MCI to encash the bank guarantee
D
of Rs.2 crores.
5. The aforesaid order dated 09.06.2017 was questioned in this
Court by way of Writ Petition No.432 of 2017 and by its order dated
01.08.2017 this Court directed the Central Government to re-consider
the case and pass a reasoned order. Pursuant thereto, the Central
E
Government by its reasoned order dated 10.08.2017 reiterated its earlier
decision dated 09.06.2017. When aforesaid Writ Petition No.423 of
2017 was again listed on 09.10.2017, MCI was directed to conduct
physical inspection for grant of permission for the Academic Session
2018-2019 as per MCI regulations. In compliance, the physical
assessment was carried out by the assessors of MCI on 17/18.11.2017 F
and the report found various deficiencies of Infrastructure, Teaching
Faculty, Clinical Material and other physical facilities. Executive Council
of MCI therefore by its decision dated 14.12.2017 decided to recommend
to the Central Government not to grant renewal permission for admitting
students for the academic year 2018-2019. Said writ petition No.432 of
2017 was thereafter disposed of by this Court on 17.01.2018 directing G
MCI to take proper decision on or before 31.03.2018.
6. It appears that according to the Respondent College it had
complied with and removed the deficiencies. The Central Government
therefore directed MCI to review the case. The papers and documents
H
188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 5 S.C.R.

A submitted by the Respondent College were duly considered and on the
strength of those documents themselves, it was found that deficiencies
3, 6 and 7 were still not rectified. This assessment was made by the
Sub-Committee of MCI without inspection and purely on the strength of
documentation submitted by the respondent. The Respondent College
was therefore called upon vide letter dated 07.03.2018 to submit
B
satisfactory compliance in respect of said deficiencies at Serial Nos.3, 6
and 7. The Respondent College by its letter dated 24.03.2018 claimed
to have rectified all the deficiencies and accordingly a compliance
verification was carried out by the assessors of MCI on 13.04.2018.
This verification found that the deficiencies continued to persist and
C therefore the Executive Committee in its Meeting held on 26.04.2018
decided to recommend to the Central Government not to grant renewal
of permission for admitting students for the academic year 2018-2019.
This decision was squarely put in challenge by filing writ petition No.400
of 2018 in this Court which was dismissed on 01.05.2018 leaving all
questions open.
D
7. On 07.05.2018 and 09.05.2018 the Respondent College
requested the Central Government to grant personal hearing before any
adverse order could be passed. The request was however declined by
the Central Government on 17.05.2018, as the Respondent College was
already granted personal hearing in the matter. The respondent being
E aggrieved, challenged the decision dated 17.05.2018 by filing civil writ
petition No.13366 of 2018 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
8. By its order dated 29.05.2018, the High Court directed MCI to
undertake another inspection within two weeks and permitted the
Respondent College to go ahead with provisional admissions for the
F academic session 2018-2019. One of the conditions stipulated by the
High Court was that all the students would be put to notice while granting
admission about the pendency of the writ petition. The High Court was
of the view that only three deficiencies were found to be persisting by
MCI on 07.03.2018 and as such the report of the Verification Inspection
G undertaken on 13.04.2018 was not justified. The observations of the
High Court in that behalf were as under:-
“Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that once
on 07.03.2018 the deficiencies had been narrowed down to only 3
which he has since removed, the report by the Verification
H Committee of Inspection on 13.04.2018 can not be said to be
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. N.C. MEDICAL COLLEGE 189
AND HOSPITAL [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

justified for the simple reason that barely a month back they A
themselves on an Inspection in March, 2018 established only 3
deficiencies.”
9. This direction of allowing the Respondent College to go ahead
with admissions to first MBBS course for the academic session 2018-
2019 has been challenged in the present matter by MCI. Appearing for B
the Appellant, Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General
submitted that the compliance verification undertaken on 07.03.2018 was
purely on the basis of documentation submitted by the Respondent College
and there was no physical verification whether the assertions made by
the respondent about alleged compliance were correct or not. In his
submission the actual physical verification was undertaken on 13.04.2018 C
where such assertions were found to be completely unsustainable. As
such, the report of the Verification Committee on 13.04.2018 was fully
justified and there was no reason for the High Court to entertain any
prayer for any interim direction. In any case according to him the law
laid down by this Court is very clear that admissions ought not to be D
allowed to be effected on the strength of interim directions.
Mr. Govind Goel, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent
College sought to support the order passed by the High Court. In his
submission several safeguards were put by the High Court while passing
such interim directions. E
10. On 14.06.2018 this matter was heard alongwith another matter
where similar interim order was passed by the High Court of Rajasthan.
Both the matters were reserved for judgment and following order was
passed:-
“Heard learned counsel. In both these matters, the High Courts F
have permitted the concerned medical colleges to go ahead with
admissions. The correctness of those orders passed at an interim
stage is under challenge at the instance of the Medical College of
India. We have been given to understand by the learned counsel
appearing for both the medical colleges that till this date, no G
admissions have been effected despite the interim orders passed
by the High Court in their favour. The statement is taken on record.
We reserve the judgment and till the judgment is pronounced, no
admission shall take place in respect of both the institutions to the
course of 1st MBBS for the ensuing academic session 2018-2019.
H
190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 5 S.C.R.

A Permission is granted to place on record requisite documents by
16.06.2018.”
11. The facts on record disclose:-
a) Even at the initial stage, the physical inspection was undertaken
twice and since the deficiencies were found, the scheme was not
B approved by MCI and the Central Government. It was only because of
the approval accorded by the Supreme Court mandated Oversight
Committee that the Respondent College was permitted to make
admissions for the academic year 2016-2017.
b) The conditions subject to which said approval was accorded
C were not found to have been complied and the deficiencies were found
to be persisting. The matter was considered twice by MCI and the Central
Government and it was decided to debar the Respondent College for
two years.
c) The physical verification in compliance of the order of this
D Court again found deficiencies. The matter was again considered but
resulted in negative recommendation.
d) The assertion that there had been compliance was, on the
strength of documentation itself, found to be inaccurate and wanting in
three areas. The subsequent inspection found such assertion completely
E inaccurate and therefore resulted in negative recommendation.
e) While the contest was pending at the level of the Central
Government, the present Writ Petition was filed in which the interim
direction has been issued.
12. In the face of repeated failures on part of the Respondent
F
College to remove the deficiencies, no permission to make admissions
for the current academic session could have been granted unless and
until on physical verification everything was found to be in order. A
condition such as making students aware about the pendency of the
matter and stating that their admissions would be subject to the result of
G pending litigation, is not a sufficient insulation. We have repeatedly seen
cases where after making such provisional admissions the Colleges have
been denied permission upon physical verification. Questions then come
up as to what is the status of such students and how best their interest
can be protected. Theoretically, in terms of conditions of Essentiality
Certificate the concerned State Government is obliged to take care of
H
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. N.C. MEDICAL COLLEGE 191
AND HOSPITAL [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

interest of such students. But the harsh reality is such students cannot A
be accommodated because in normal circumstances all the seats in every
Medical College are filled up. It then becomes a case of impossibility of
accommodating such students in any existing College. The entire exercise
may thus result in great hardship and wastage of academic years of the
concerned students. It is for this reason that while granting any interim
B
relief very cautious approach needs to be adopted. It may be possible to
expedite the process of physical verification in a given case but to allow
provisional admissions and make them subject to the result of the petition
may entail tremendous adverse consequences and prejudice to students.
13. At this juncture we may advert to certain decisions of this
Court where the issues regarding propriety and correctness of similar C
such interim order were put in question.
A. In Medical Council of India v. Rajiv Gandhi University of
Health Sciences and others1, it was observed :- :
“14. In the normal circumstances, the High Court ought not to D
issue an interim order when for the earlier year itself permission
had not been granted by the Council. Indeed, by grant of such
interim orders students who have been admitted in such institutions
would be put to serious jeopardy, apart from the fact whether
such institutions could run the medical college without following
the law. Therefore, we make it clear that the High Court ought E
not to grant such interim orders in any of the cases where the
Council has not granted permission in terms of Section 10-A of
the Medical Council Act. If interim orders are granted to those
institutions which have been established without fulfilling the
prescribed conditions to admit students, it will lead to serious F
jeopardy to the students admitted in these institutions.”
B. In Medical Council of India v. JSS Medical College and
another2, this Court stated :-
“…..12. Without adverting to the aforesaid issues and many other
issues which may arise for determination, the High Court, in our G
opinion, erred in permitting increase in seats by an interim order.
In normal circumstances the High Court should not issue interim
order granting permission for increase of the seats. The High
1
(2004) 6 SCC 76
2
(2012) 5 SCC 628
H
192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 5 S.C.R.

A Court ought to realise that granting such permission by an interim
order has a cascading effect. By virtue of such order students
are admitted as in the present case and though many of them had
taken the risk knowingly but few may be ignorant. In most of
such cases when finally the issue is decided against the College
the welfare and plight of the students are ultimately projected to
B
arouse sympathy of the Court. It results in a very awkward and
difficult situation. If on ultimate analysis it is found that the College’s
claim for increase of seats is untenable, in such an event the
admission of students with reference to the increased seats shall
be illegal. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the
C rule of law than a direction by the Court to allow continuance of
such students, whose admissions is found illegal in the ultimate
analysis.
13. This Court is entrusted with the task to administer law and
uphold its majesty. Courts cannot by its fiat increase the seats, a
D task entrusted to the Board of Governors and that too by interim
order ….”
C. The observations in Medical Council of India v. Kalinga
Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) and others3, were
“27. That apart, we are of the opinion that the High Court ought
E to have been more circumspect in directing the admission of
students by its order dated 25-9-20154. There was no need for
the High Court to rush into an area that MCI feared to tread.
Granting admission to students in an educational institution when
there is a serious doubt whether admission should at all be granted
is not a matter to be taken lightly. First of all the career of a
F student is involved — what would a student do if his admission is
found to be illegal or is quashed? Is it not a huge waste of time for
him or her? Is it enough to say that the student will not claim any
equity in his or her favour? Is it enough for student to be told that
his or her admission is subject to the outcome of a pending litigation?
These are all questions that arise and for which there is no easy
G
answer. Generally speaking, it is better to err on the side of caution
and deny admission to a student rather than have the sword of
Damocles hanging over him or her. There would at least be some
certainty.
3
(2016) 11 SCC 530
4
Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences v. Unions of India, WP (C) No.15685 of 2015,
H order dated 25.09.2015 (ori).
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. N.C. MEDICAL COLLEGE 193
AND HOSPITAL [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

28. Whichever way the matter is looked at, we find no justification A
for the orders passed by the High Court, particularly the order
dated 25-9-2015 and order dated 4-3-20165.”
D. Further, in Dental Council of India v. Dr Hedgewar Smruti
Rugna Seva Mandal Hingoli and Others6, it was observed :-
“22. From the aforesaid authorities, it is perspicuous that the B
court should not pass such interim orders in the matters of
admission, more so, when the institution had not been accorded
approval. Such kind of interim orders are likely to cause chaos,
anarchy and uncertainty. And, there is no reason for creating such
situations. There is no justification or requirement. The High Court C
may feel that while exercising power under Article 226 of the
Constitution, it can pass such orders with certain qualifiers as has
been done by the impugned order, but it really does not save the
situation. It is because an institution which has not been given
approval for the course, gets a premium. That apart, by virtue of
interim order, the Court grants approval in a way which is the D
subject-matter of final adjudication before it. The anxiety of the
students to get admission reigns supreme as they feel that the
institution is granting admission on the basis of an order passed by
the High Court. The institution might be directed to inform the
students that the matter is sub judice, but the career oriented E
students get into the college with the hope and aspiration that in
the ultimate eventuate everything shall be correct for them and
they will be saved. It can be thought of from another perspective,
that is, the students had deliberately got into such a situation. But
it is seemly to note that it is the institution that had approached the
High Court and sought a relief of the present nature. By saying F
that the institution may give admission at its own risk invites further
chaotic and unfortunate situations.
23. The High Court has to realise the nature of the lis or the
controversy. It is quite different. It is not a construction which is
built at the risk of a plaintiff or the defendant which can be G
demolished or redeemed by grant of compensation. It is a situation
where the order has the potentiality to play with the career and
5
Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences v. Union of India, 2016 SCC Online Ori 134
6
(2017) 13 SCC 115
H
194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 5 S.C.R.

A life of young peoples. One may say, “… life is a foreign language;
all mispronounce it”, but it has to be borne in mind that artificial or
contrived accident is not the goal of life.
…….”
14. In the backdrop of the law laid down by this Court, the High
B Court was not justified in passing interim directions and permitting the
Respondent College to go ahead with provisional admissions for the
Academic Session 2018-19. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set
aside the order dated 29.05.2018 passed by the High Court.
15. We have stated the facts only by way of pure narration of
C events. Since the matter is pending in the High Court we make it clear
that we have not and shall not be taken to have dealt with factual
controversy in any manner and the matter shall be considered purely on
merits in the pending writ petition. The order under appeal directed that
the matter be listed on 11.07.2018. If the case is made out, the High
D Court may expedite the matter and hear it finally.
16. With these observations the present appeal is allowed and the
order under appeal is set aside without any order as to costs.

Nidhi Jain Appeal allowed.
E

F

G

H