Supreme Court of India
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIAversusRAMA MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE, KANPUR & ANR.
- Citation
- 2012 INSC 268
- Decided
- 4 July 2012
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- ALTAMAS KABIR
Holding
An increase in admission capacity of a medical college without prior Central Government permission, as required by Section 10A, does not confer recognised medical qualification under Section 11.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined whether a medical college can increase its MBBS seats without prior permission of the Central Government under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The Court held that Section 10A requires prior Central Government permission, based on the Council’s recommendation, for any increase in admission capacity, and that such permission is not equivalent to recognition. Consequently, degrees awarded on the basis of an unauthorized increase are not recognised under Section 11. The Court set aside the High Court judgments that had allowed the increase from 100 to 150 seats and affirmed that colleges may apply for seat increases only after complying with the statutory scheme and regulations. The appeals filed by the Medical Council of India were allowed and the writ petitions seeking the increase were dismissed.
Issues considered
- The scope of Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 with respect to increase in admission capacity.
- Whether permission granted under Section 10A amounts to recognition of a medical college for the purpose of Section 11.
- The role of the Medical Council of India versus the Central Government in granting permission and recognition.
- The applicability of the 1999 and 2000 Medical Council Regulations to seat increase.
- The constitutional validity of the restriction on seat increase under Article 19(1)(g).
Legislation cited
- Indian Medical Council Act, 1956s. 108(3), s. 10A, s. 10B, s. 11, s. 33
Subjects
Medical Council of IndiaIndian Medical Council ActSection 10ASection 11Admission capacityPermission vs recognitionCentral GovernmentMedical college regulationsConstitutional lawArticle 19(1)(g)
Judgment
[2012] 6 S.C.R. 449
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA A
v.
RAMA MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL & RESEARCH
CENTRE, KANPUR & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 4911 of 2012 etc.)
B
JULY 4, 2012
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.]
IND/AN MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT, 1956:
c
ss. 10A, 108(3) and 11 read with Regulations of 1999
and Regulations of 2000 - MBBS Course - Increase in
admission capacity - Held: In view of sub-s. (3) of s. 10-8,
where any medical college increases its admission capacity
in (;'lny course of study or training, except with the previous 0
permission of the Central Government in accordance with the
provisions of s. 1OA, no medical qualification granted to any
student of such medical college on the basis of the increase
in its admission capacity, shall be a recognised medical
qualification for the purposes of the Act - s. 1OA speaks of E .
permission and not recognition on a year to year basis -
Recognition follows once the newly-established medical
colleges/institutions satisfac(ori/y complete five years with the
graduation of the first batch of students admitted to the
institution when initial permission is granted -It is the .Central
Government which is empowered to grant recognition to a F
medical college or institution on the recommendation made
by the Medical Council of India - Single Judge and Division
Bench of High Court erred in arriving at the finding that once
permission had been granted u/s 10A of the Act, it would
amount to grant of recognition and, thereafter, the medic(;'!/ G
college/institution was free to enhance the number of seats
without· the permission either of the Council or the Central
Government - Judgments of Single Judge and Division
Bench of High Court and the directions given to increase the
449 H
450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 6 S.C.R.
A number of seats from 100 to 150 in the MBBS course run by
the Institutions concerned are set aside - Establishment of
Medical College Regulations, 1999 - The Opening of a New
or Higher Course of Study or Training (including Post-
Graduate Course of Study or Training) and Increase of
B Admission Capacity in any Course of Study or Training
(including a Post-Graduate Course of Study or Training)
Regulations, 2000.
In the instant appeals and the writ petitions the
question for consideration before the Court was: whether
C the medical colleges/institutions were entitled to increase
the number of seats without the prior permission of the
Central Government?
Disposing of the matters, the Court
D
HELD: 1.1 Section 10-A of the Indian Medical Council
Act, 1956 provides that no person would be entitled to
establish a Medical College except in the manner
provided in the Section and that no medical college shall
E open a new or higher course of study or training,
including a post-graduate course of training, which
would enable a student of such course or training to
qualify himself for the award of recognised medical
qualification, except with the previous permission of the
Central Government. The said prohibition also extends to
F the increase in admission capacity in any course of study
or training, including post-graduate study or training,
except with such previous permission of the Central
Government. [para 4] [462-B-D]
G 1.2 Sub-s. (3) of s.1 OB in no uncertain terms, provides
that where any medical college increases its admission
capacity in any course of study or training, except with
the previous permission of the Central Government in
accordance with the provisions of s. 10A, no medical
H qualification granted to any student of such medical
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. RAMA MEDICAL COLLEGE 451
HOSPITAL & RES. CENT., KANPUR
college on the basis of· the increase in its admission A
capacity, shall be a recognised medical qualification for
the purposes of the Act. Thus, without the previous
permission of the Central Government within the scheme,
as prescribed u/s 10A, i.e., without the recommendation
of the Medical Council, any degree granted would not be B
recognised as a medical degree which would entitle such
degree holder to function as a medical practitioner. [para
45] [484-G-H; 485-A-B]
K. S. Bhoir Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2001 (5) C
Suppl. SCR 593 = (2001) 10 SCC 264 - referred to.
1.3 Section 1QA lays down the criteria for grant of
permission for establishment of a new medical college
and s.1 OB supplements the same by making it clear that
even while increasing the number of seats in a medical D
college/institution, the procedure indicated in s.10A, and
in particular s.10A(2), would have to be followed. At every
stage, it is the Council which plays a very important role
in either the grant of permission to establish a new
medical college or to increase the number of seats. [para E
46] [485-C-D]
1.4 Furthermore, the norms relating to eligibility
criteria, as set out in the 1999 Regulations as also in the
2000 Regulations, have to be complied with, either for the
F
purpose of grant of permission for establishing a new
medical college or for introducing a new course of study
along with the intention of increasing the number of
students in the medical institution. [para 46] [485-E]
1.5 In Part II of the 2000 Regulations, which deals with G
the scheme for obtaining the permission of the Central
Government to increase the admission capacity in any
course of study or training, including Post Graduat~
course of study or training, in the existing medical
colleges/ institutions, another set of "qualification criteria" H
452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R.
A has been set out in Regulation 3(1 ), which has created
some confusion in the minds of the Judges in the High
Court by use of the expression "recognised by the
Medical Council of India". What it seeks to indicate is that
for the purpose of applying for increase in the number
B of seats, the medical college must be one which, in the
·opinion of the Medical Council, was capable of running
the Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery/ Post-
graduate Course. It also provides that the medical college/
institute which is not yet recognised by the Medical
c Council for the award of MBBS degree, may also apply
for increase of intake in Post Graduate Course in pre-
clinical and para-clinical subjects such as Anatomy,
Physiology, Biochemistry, Pharmacology, Pathology,
Microbiology, Forensic Medicine and Community
Medicine, at the time of fourth renewal, i.e, along with the
0
admission of the fifth batch for the MBBS Course, which
are courses not connected with the regular course of
study. [para 47] [485-F-H; 486-A-C]
1.6 Regulation 8 of the 1999 Regulations makes it
E clear that irrespective of whether the applicant is the
Central Government or a State Government or a private
person, the Central Government may, on the
recommendation of the Medical Counc-il, issue a Letter of
Intent to set up a new medical college and formal
F permission may be granted initially for a period of one
year and may be renewed on yearly basis subject to
verification of the achievements of annual targets, once
the conditions and modifications indicated in the Letter
of Intent are accepted and after consulting the Medical
G Council of India. Sub-regulation (3) provides, without any
ambiguity, that the permission to establish a medical
college and to admit students may be granted initially for
a .period of one year and may be renewed on yearly basis
subject to verification of the achievement of annual
H targets. [para 11] [466-E-H; 467-A]
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. RAMA MEDICAL COLLEGE 453
HOSPITAL & RES. CENT, KANPUR
2.1 Section 10A of the 1956 Act speaks of permission· A
and not recognition on a year to year basis. Recognition
follows once the newly-established medical colleges/
institutions satisfactorily complete five years with the
graduation of the first batch of students admitted to the
institution when' initial permission is granted. It also s
provides with complete clarity that it shall be the
responsibility of the applicant to apply to the Medical
Council for renewal of permission six months before the
expiry of the initial permission and that the process of
renewal of permission will continue till all the required c
formalities are completed and a formal recognition of the
medical college is granted. [para 11) [467-A-C]
2.2 Thus, it is v.ery clear that recognition to a degree
awarded by a newly-established medical college can be
given only after all the requirements for the establishment D
of the medical college and expansion of the hospital
facilities are completed. It has also been stipulated that
further admissions shall not be made at any stage unless
the requirements of the Council are fulfilled. [para 12)
[467-D] E
Medical Council of India Vs. State of Kamataka & Ors.
1998 (3) SCR 740 = (1998) 6 SCC 131; and Dr. Preeti
Srivastava & Anr. vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 1999 (1) Suppl.
SCR 249 = (1999) 7 sec. 120 - relied on. F
State of M.P. Vs. Nivedita Jain 1982 (1) SCR 759 =
(1981) 4 sec 296 - stood overruled.
Minor P. Rajendran Vs. State of Madras 1968 SCR 786
=AIR 1968 SC 1012; Chitra Ghosh Vs. Union of India 1970 G
(1) SCR 413 = (1969) 2 SCC 228; Stat~ of A.P. Vs. Lavu
Narendranath (1971) 1 SCC 607; and Ambesh Kumar (Dr.)
Vs. Principal, L.L.R.M. Medical College 1987 SCR 661 =
(1986) Supp. SCC 543 - distinguished.
H
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R.
A 2.3 The expression "recognition by the Medical
Council of India" has to be read and understood as
meaning that the medical college/institution concerned
was recognised by the Medical Council of India as having
the capacity to run such an institution. It is amply clear
B from s.10A that what is contemplated thereunder is
permission for establishing a new medical college, which
is to be granted by the Central Government upon the
recommendation of the Council. The use of the
expression "recognition" in the Regulation does not
c affect or alter the intention of the legislature expressed
in unambiguous terms in s.10A as well as in ss. 10B and
11 of the 1956 Act. Both the 1956 Act and the Regulations
framed by the Medical Council make it very clear that
while the Central Government has the authority to
recognize the degree awarded by a newly-established
0
medical college/institution, it does so on the evaluation
made by the Medical Council and its subsequent
recommendation. [para 42) [482-0-H]
2.4 Section 33, which empowers the Medical Council
E to frame Regulations, provides in Sub-ss (fa) and (fb), the
right to the Medical Council to frame a scheme in terms
of Sub-s. (2) of s. 1OA and also in regard to ,any other
factors under Clause (g) of Sub-s. (7) of s.10A: It is quite
clear that the legislature has given the Med~'cal Council
F of India wide authority to take all steps which are
necessary to ensure that a medical institution, either at
the time of establishment, or later at the time of applying
for increase in the number of seats, has the capacity and
the necessary infrastructure, not only to run the college,
G but also to sustain the increase in the number of seats
applied for. To that extent, since the Act is silent, the
Regulations which have statutory force will be applicable
to the scheme as contemplated under the Act. [para 44]
[484-B-D]
H 2.5 In view of the decision of the Constitution Bench
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. RAMA MEDICAL COLLEGE 455
HOSPITAL & RES. CENT., KANPUR
in Dr. Preeti Srivastava's case, the position is quite clear A
that in terms of the scheme of the Act and the
Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India, it is
the Central Government which is empowered to grant
recognition to a medical college or institution on the
recommendation made by the Medical Council of India. B
The role of the Medical Council of India in the grant of
recognition to a medical college/institution is
recommendatory and the Council has no power to grant
recognition to a medical institution. Such power lies with
the Central government. No provision is available under c
the Act relating to grant of recognition of a medical
college/ institution, since s.10A speaks only of permission
and not recognition. The same has been supplemented
by the provisions of the 1999 and 2000 Regulations for
the purpose of s.1 OA(7)(g) of the Act. [para 48] [486-E-H;
D
487-A]
Dr. Preeti Srivastava & Anr. vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 1999
(1) Suppl. SCR 249 = (1999) 7 sec 120 - relied on.
2.6 Therefore, the Single Judge and the Division E
Bench of the High Court erred in arriving at the finding
that once permission had been granted u/s 10A of the
Act, it would amount to grant of recognition and,
thereafter, the medical college/ institution, was free to
enhance the number of seats without the permission F
either of the Council or the Central Government. The
judgments of the Single Judge as also of the Division
Bench of the High Court, and the directions given to
increase the number of seats from 100 to 150 in the
MBBS course run by the writ petitioners are set aside. G
[para 49-50] [487-B-D)
2.7 Since the 2000 Regulations provide for a newly-
established medical college/ institution to seek
permission each year to continue with the MBBS course
till the first batch of the students graduated, the position H
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R.
A is quite clear that the recognition referred to in ss.108
and 11 of the 1956 Act would have to relate to the grant
of recognition to a medical institution u/s 11 for the
purpose of recognition of its qualifications as a medical
degree, which would entitle the holder thereof to practise
B medicine. [para 50] [487-D-E]
2.8 It is made clear that this will not prevent the
medical colleges/institutions from applying for increase
in the number of students, provided such application
fulfils the conditions and criteria of s.1 OA and the
C Regulations framed thereunder by the Medical Council of
India. [para 51] [487-F-G]
Govt. of A.P. & Anr. Vs. Medwin Educational Society &
Ors. 2003 (5) Suppl. SCR 408 = (2004) 1 SCC 86; Shiv
D Kumar Chadha Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi 1993 (3)
SCR 522 = (1993) 3· SCC 161; and Mridhu/ Dhar Vs. Union
of India 2005 (1) SCR 380 =(2005) 2 SCC 65 - cited.
Case Law Reference:
E 1998 (3) SCR740 relied on para 19
1982 (1) SCR 759 overrurled para 20
1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 249 relied on para 21
1968 SCR 786 distinguished para 21
F
1970 (1) SCR 413 distinguished para 21
(1971 > 1 sec 607 distinguished para 21
1987 SCR 661 distinguished para 21
G
2001 (5) Suppl. SCR 593 referred to para 23
2003 (5) Suppl. SCR 408 referred to para 24
1993 (3) SCR 522 referred to para 34
H
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. RAMA MEDICAL COLLEGE 457
HOSPITAL & RES. CENT, KANPUR
2005 (1) SCR 380 referred to para 37 A
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
4911 of 2012 etc.
From the Judgment & Order dated 13.10.2011 of the High
Court of Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal No. 820 of 2011. B
WITH
SLP (C) Nos. 30332, 30338 of 2011 & 3732 of 2012.
W.P. (C) Nos. 457, 458 & 489 of 2011.
c
Nideshe Gupta, P.S. Narasimha, V. Giri, Dushyant Dave,
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Pradip Ghosh, T.S. Doabia, Amit
Kumar, Ashish Kumar, Atul Kumar, Rekha Bakshi, Shilandra
K. Panday, Rajiv Agrawal, Kunal Cheema, Dhruv Kapur, Yash
Pal Dhingra, Ranjan Kr. Pandey, Kaushal P. Gautam, M.P. D
Vinod, Ashok K. Jain, Dillip Pillai, Neeraj Shekar, Ashutosh
Thakur, Priya Ranjan Roi, Arun Monga, Gaurav Sharma, Ranjan
Kumar Pandey, Rekha Pandey, Rashmi Malhotra, D.S. Mahra,
Shalinder Saini for the appearing parties.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, hereinafter
referred to as the "1956 Act", was enacted, inter alia, to provide F
for the reconstitution of the Medical Council of India and the
maintenance of a Medical. Register for India and for matters
<:;onnected therewith. Section 3 of the Act empowered the
Central Government to constitute a Council, which as per
Section 4(1) means the Medical Council _of India, hereinafter G
referred to as the "Medical Council", constituted under the 1956
Act.
3. In these matters, we are mainly concerned with the
interpretation of Sections 1OA and 11 of the 1956 Act. Section
H
458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 6 S.C.R.
A 1OA of the 1956 Act, which provides for permission for
establishment of new medical colleges and new courses of
study, is extracted hereinbelow :
"10A. Permission for establishment of new medical
college, new course of study.- (1) Notwithstanding anything
B
contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in
force:-
a) no person shall establish a medical college; or
c b) no medical college shall -
(i) open a new or higher course of study or
training (including a post-graduate course of
study or training) which would enable a
student of such course or training to qualify
D himself for the award of any recognised
medical qualification; or
(ii) increase its admission capacity in any
course of study or training (including a post-
E graduate course of study or training), except
with the previous permission of the Central
Government obtained in accordance with the
provisions of this Section.
Explanation 1.-For the purposes of this Section,
F "person" includes any University or a trust but does not
include the Central Government.
Explanation 2.- For the purposes of this Section
"admission capacity" in relation to any course of study or
G training (including post-graduate course of study or training)
in a medical college, means the maximum number of
students that may be fixed by the Council from time to time
for being admitted to such course or training.
(2) (a) Every person or medical college shall, for the
H
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. RAMA MEDICAL COLLEGE 459
HOSPITAL & RES. CENT., KANPUR [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
purpose of obtaining permission under sub-Section (1), A
submit to the Central Government a scheme in accordance
with the provisions of clause (b) and the Central
Government shall refer the scheme to the Council for its
recommendations.
B
(b} The scheme referred to in clause (a) shall be in
such form and contain such particulars and be preferred
in such manner and be accompanied with such fee as may.
be prescribed.
(3) On receipt of a scheme by the Council under sub- C
Section (2) the Council may obtain such other particulars
as may b~ considered necessary by it from the person or
the medical college concerned, and thereafter, it may, -
a) if the scheme is defective and does not contain any D
necessary particulars, give a reasonable
opportunity to the person or college concerned for
making a written representation and it shall be open
to such person or medical college to rectify the
defects, if any, specified by the Council;
E
b) consider the scheme, having regard to the factors
referred to in sub-Section (7), and submit the
scheme together with its recommendations thereon
to the Central Government.
F
(4) The Central Government may, after considering
the scheme and the recommendations of the Council under
sub-Section (3) and after obtaining, where necessary, such
other particulars as may be considered necessary by it
from the person or college ·concerned, and having regard G
to the factors referred to in sub-Section (7), either approve
(with such conditions, if any, as it may consider necessary)
or disapprove the scheme and any such approval shall be
a permission under sub-Section (1 ):
Provided that no scheme shall be disapproved by the H
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R. -
A Central Government except after giving the person or
college concerned a reasonable opportunity of being
heard:
Provided further !hat nothing in this sub Section shall
prevent any person or medical college whose scheme has
B
not been approved by the Central Government to submit
a fresh scheme and the provisions of this Section shall
apply to such scheme, as if such scheme has been
submitted for the first time under sub-Section (2).
c (5) Where, within a period of one year from the date
of submission of the scheme to the Central Government
under sub-Section (2), no order passed t:iy the Central
Government has been communicated to the person or
college submitting the scheme, such scheme shall be
D deemed to have been approved by the Central
Government in the form in which it had been submitted, and
accordingly, the permission of the Central Government
required under sub-Section (1) shall also be deemed to
have been granted.
E
(6) In computing the time-limit specified in sub-
section (5), the time taken by the person or college
concerned submitting the scheme, in furnishing any
particulars called for by the Council, or by the Central
Government, shall be excluded.
F
(7) The Council, while making its recommendations
under clause (b) of sub-Section (3) and the Central
Government, while passing an order, either approving or
disapproving the scheme under sub-Section (4), shall have
G due regard to the following factors, namely:-
a) whether the proposed medical college or the
existing medical college seeking to open a new or
higher course of study or training, would be in a
position to offer the minimum standards of medical
H
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. RAMA MEDICAL COLLEGE 461
HOSPITAL & RES. CENT, KANPUR [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
education as prescribed by the Council under A
Section 19A or, as the case may be, under Section
20 in the case of post-graduate medical education;
b) whether the person seeking to establish a medical
college or the existing medical college seeking to
8
open a new or higher course of study or training or
to increase its admission capacity has adequate
financial resources;
c) whether necessary facilities in respect of staff,
equipment, accommodation, training and other C
facilities to ensure proper functioning of the medical
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 D
scheme;
d) whether adequate hospital facilities, having regard
to the number or students likely to attend such
medical college or course of study or training or as
E
a result of the increased admission capacity, have
been provided or would be provided within the time-
limit specified in the scheme;
e) whether any arrangement has been made or
programme drawn to impart proper training to F
students likely to attend such medical college or
course of study or training by persons having the
recognised medical qualifications;
f) the requirement of manpower in the field of practice G
of medicine; and
g) any other factors as may be prescribed.
(8) Where the Central Government passes an order
either approving or disapproving a scheme under this H
462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R.
A Section, a copy of the order shall be communicated to the
person or college concerned."
4. It would be seen from the above that after the
promulgation of the 1956 Act, no person would be entitled to
B establish a Medical College except in the manner provided in
Section 1OA, which, in addition provides that no medical
college shall open a new or higher course of study or training,
including a post-graduate course of training, which would
enable a student of such course or training to qualify himself
C for the award of recognised medical qualification, except with
the previous permission of the Central Government. The said
prohibition also extends to the increase in admission capacity
in any course of study or training, including post-graduate study
or training, except with such previous permission of the Central
Government. Sub-Section (2) categorically provides that every
D person or medical college shall, for the purpose of obtaining
permission under Sub-Section (1 ), submit to the Central
Government a scheme in accordance with the provisions of
Clause (b) and the Central Government shall refer the scheme
to the Medical Council for its recommendations. The said
E Council has been authorized to scrutinize the scheme and
make such suggestions, as may be necessary, to rectify any
defect and, thereafter, to forward the same, together with its
recommendations, to the Central Government. Sub-Section (7)
provides that the Council while making its recommendations
F shall take into consideration the factors mentioned therein.
5. In other words, although, the Central Government is the
authority to grant sanction to the establishment of a medical
college, it is the Medical Council of India which plays a major
G role in deciding whether such sanction could be given by the
Central Government.
6. Section 11 of the 1956 Act deals with recognition of
medical qualifications granted by universities or medical
institutions in India. The same also being relevant to the facts
H of this case, is reproduced hereinbelow :
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. RAMA MEDICAL COLLEGE 463
HOSPITAL & RES. CENT, KANPUR [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
"11. Recognition of medical qualifications granted by A
Universities or medical institutions in India.- (1) The
medical qualifications granted by any University or medical
institution in India which are included in the First Schedule
shall be recognised medical qualifications for the purposes
of this Act. B
(2) Any University or medical institution in India which grants
a medical qualification not included in the First Schedule
may apply to the Central Government to have such
qualification recognised, and the Central Government, after C
consulting the Council, may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, amend the First Schedule so as to include such
qualification therein, and any such notification may also
direct that an entry shall be made in the last column of the
First Schedule against such medical qualification declaring
0
that it shall be a recognised medical qualification only when
granted after a specified date."
7. In addition to the aforesaid provisions, Section 10-B of
the 1956 Act is also of significance as it deals with non-
recognition of medical qualifications in certain cases. For the E
sake of reference, the same is also extracted hereinbelow :-
"10-8. Non-recognition of medical qualifications in certain
cases.- (1) Where any medical college is established
except with the previous permission of the Central F
Government in accordance with .the provision of Section
1OA, no medical qualification granted to any student of
such medical college shall be a recognised medical
qualification for the purposes of this Act.
(2) Where any medical college opens a new or higher G
course of study or training (including a post-graduate
course of study or training) except with the previous
permission of the Central Government in accordance with
the provisions of Section 1OA, no medical qualification
granted to any student of such medical college on the basis H
464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012) 6 S.C.R.
A of such study or training shall be a recognised medical
qualification for the purposes of this Act.
(3) Where any medical college increases its admission
capacity in any course of study or training except with the
previous permission of the Central Government in
B
accordance with the provision of Section 1OA, no medical
qualification granted to any student of such medical college
on the basis of the increase in its admission capacity shall
be a recognised medical qualification for the purposes of
this Act.
c
Explanation - For the purposes of this Section, the criteria
for identifying a student who has been granted a medical
qualification on the basis of such increase in the admission
capacity shall be such as may be prescribed."
D
8. It is amply clear from Section 1OB that if a Medical
College is established, ~xcept with the previous permission of
the Central Government, as provided under Section 10A, no
medical qualification granted to any student of such medical
E college shall be recognized as a medical qualification for the
purposes of the Act.
9. At this juncture, reference may be made to the
"Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999", framed
by the Medical Council of India in exercise of powers conferred
F under Section 1QA read with Section 33 of the 1956 Act, and ·
notified on 30th July, 1999. The same came into force on their
publication in the Official Gazette on 28th August, 1999, and
is hereinafter referred to as the "1999 Regulations".
G 10. Regulation 4 of the 1999 Regulations, inter alia,
provides that applications for permission to set up Medical
Colleges are to be submitted to the Secretary (Health), Ministry
of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, along with
a non-refundable application fee of Rs.3.5 lakhs in the form of
H a demand draft/pay order in favour of the Medical Council of
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. RAMA MEDICAL COLLEGE 465
HOSPITAL & RES. CENT., KANPUR [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
India for Central and State Government Colleges and Rs.7 A
lakhs for private sector medical colleges and institutions.
Regulation 5 provides that applications received by the Ministry
of Health and Family Welfare are to be referred to the Medical
Council for registration and evaluation and recommendations.
Regulations 6 and 7 provide that after evaluation, the Council B
shall send a factual report to the Central Government with its
recommendations to issue or not to issue Letters of Intent.
Regulation 8 of the 1999 Regulations is the provision for grant
of permission and since it is of considerable significance to the
issue involved in these proceedings, the same is reproduced c
hereinbelow :
"8. GRANT OF PERMISSION:
(1) The Central Government on the recommendation of
the Council may issue a Letter of Intent to set up a D
new medical college with such conditions or
modifications in the original proposal as may be
considered necessary. This letter of Intent will also
include a clear cut statement of preliminary
requirements to be met in respect of buildings, E
infrastructural facilities, medical and allied
equipments, faculty and staff before admitting the
first batch of students. The formal permission may
be granted after the above conditions and
modifications are accepted and the performance F
bank guarantees for the required sums are
furnished by the person and after consulting the
Medical Council of India.
(2) The formal permission may include a time bound
programme for the establishment of the medical G
college and expansion of the hospital facilities. The
permission may also define annual targets as may
be fixed by the Council to be achieved by the
person to commensurate with the intake of students
during the following years. H
466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R.
A (3) The permission to establish a medical college and
admit students may be granted initially for a period
of one year and may be renewed on yearly basis
subject to verification of the achievements of annual
targets. It shall be the responsibility of the person
B to apply to the Medical Council of India for purpose
of renewal six months prior to the expiry of the initial
permission. This process of renewal of permission
will continue till such time the establishment of the
medical college and expansion of the hospital
c facilities are completed and a formal recognition of
the medical college is granted. Further admissions
shall not be made at any stage unless the
requirements of the Council are fulfilled. The
Central Government may at any stage convey the
deficiencies to the applicant and provide him an
D
opportunity and time to rectify the deficiencies.
(4) The council may obtain any other information from
the proposed medical college as it deems fit and
necessary."
E
11. The above Regulation makes it clear that irrespective
of whether the applicant is the Central Government or a State
Government or a private person, the Central Government may,
on the recommendation of the Medical Council, issue a Letter
F of Intent to set up a new medical college and formal permission
may be granted initially for a period of one year and may be
renewed on yearly basis subject to verification of the
achievements of annual targets, once the conditions and
modifications indicated in the Letter of Intent are accepted and
G after consulting the Medical Council of India. Sub-regulation (3)
is important for our purpose as it also related to certain other
Regulations published by the Medical Council in 2000. It
provides, without any ambiguity that the provision to establish
a medical college and to admit students may be granted initially
for a period of one year and may be renewed on yearly basis
H
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. RAMA MEDICAL COLLEGE 467
HOSPITAL & RES. CENT, KANPUR [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
subject to verification of the achievement of annual targets. It A
may be noted that Section 1OA speaks of permission and not
recognition on a year to year basis. Recognition follows once
the newly-established medical colleges/institutions satisfactorily
complete five years with the graduation of the first batch of
students admitted to the institution when initial permission is B
granted. It also provides with complete clarity that it shall be the
responsibility of the applicant to apply to the Medical Council
for renewal of permission six months before the expiry of the
initial permission and that the process of renewal of permission
will continue till all the required formalities are completed and c
a formal recognition of the medical college is granted.
12. From the aforesaid provisions it is very clear that
recognition to a degree awarded by a newly-established
medical college can be given only after all the requirements for
the establishment of the medical college and expansion of the D
hospital facilities are completed. It has also been stipulated that
further admissions shall not be made at any stage unless the
requirements of the Council are fulfilled.
13. Reference may also be made to the Regulations E
framed by the Medical Council of India relating to opening of
higher courses of study and increase of admission capacity in
medical colleges and published by the Medical Council of India
under notification dated 14th August, 2000. The same are
known as "The Opening of a New or Higher Course of Study F
or Training (including Post-Graduate Course of Study or
Training) and Increase of Admission Capacity in any Course
of Study or Training (including a Post-Graduate Course of Study
Or Training) Regulations, 2000", hereinafter referred to as "the
2000 Regulations", which came into force on 7th October, G
2000. Thereafter, Regulation 3, which provides for permission
for establishment of a new or higher course of study, etc., reads
as follows :-
"(3) The permission for establishment of a new or higher
course of study, etc. - H
468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R.
A No medical college, shall -
(a) open a new or higher course of study or training
(including a post-graduate course of study or
training) which would enable a student of such
course or training to qualify himself for the award
B
of any recognized medical qualification; or
(b) increase admission capacity in any course of study
or training (including a post-graduate course of
study or training); except after obtaining the
c previous permission of the Central Government by
submitting Scheme annexed to these regulations."
14. Regulation 3 of Part I of the said Regulations sets out
.
the "Qualifying Criteria" which provides as follows :
D "QUALIFYING CRITERIA :
The medical college/institution shall qualify for
opening a New or Higher Course of Study or Training
(including a Post-graduate Course of Study or Training) in
E the medical colleges/institutions if the following cond,itions
are fulfilled :
1. ( 1) The medical college/institution must be recognised
by the Medical Council of India for running Bachelor of
Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery/Post-graduate Course;
F
however, the medical college/Institute which is not yet
recognised by the Medical Council of India for the award
of MBBS Degree may apply for starting of a Post-
Graduate Course in pre-clinical and para-clinical subjects
of Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry, Pharmacology,
G Pathology, Microbiology, Forensic Medicine and
Community Medicine at the time of third renewal - i.e. along
with the admission of fourth batch for the MBBS Course";
[Emphasis Supplied]
H ..
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. RAMA MEDICAL COLLEGE 469
HOSPITAL & RES. CENT., KANPUR [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
15. Regulation 3 of Part II of the Regulations, dealing with A
Qualification Criteria initially provided that a medical college/
institution would qualify to apply for increasing the number of
admissions in MBBS/PG Diploma/Degree/Higher Speciality
Course in the existing medical college/institution, if it fulfilled
certain conditions, one of which was that the medical college/ B
Institution had been recognized by the Medical Council of India
as being capable of running such courses. The aforesaid
paragraph was, subsequently substituted by the following :
''The medical college/institution must be recognized by the C
Medical Council of India for running Bachelor of Medicine
and Bachelor of Surgery/Post-Graduate Course; however,
the Medial College/Institute which is not yet recognized by
the Medical Council of India for the award of MBBS
Degree may apply for starting of a Post-Graduate Course
in pre-clinical and para-clinical subjects of Anatomy, D
Physiology, Biochemistry, Pharmacology, Pathology,
Microbiology, Forensic Medicine and Community
Medicine at the time of fourth renewal- i.e. along with the
admission of fifth batch for the MB.BS Course."
E
[Emphasis Supplied]
16. It is in the aforesaid background that the Medical
Council of India filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.28996
of 2011, and two other Special Leave Petitions, which are
being heard along with three Writ Petitions filed by private F
institutions claiming the right to increase their admission
capacity.
17. Appearing on behalf of the Medical Council of India,
Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, referred to the G
relevant provisions of the 1956 Act, which have been referred
to and reproduced hereinabove. Mr. Gupta relied heavily on the
requirements to be fulfilled by the Applicant colleges for
obtaining Letter of Intent and Letter of Permission for
establishment of new medical colleges and yearly renewals HI
47Q SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2Q12] 6 S.C.R.
A under Section 1QA of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956,
published by the Medical Council of India and approved by the
Central Government in its Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
vide letter dated 13th October, 2QQ9. Laying stress on the
requirements to be fulfilled for yearly renewals under Section
B 1QA of the 1956 Act, Mr. Gupta also referred to the 2QQQ
Regulations, with particular reference to Regulation 3 of Part I
of the Regulations dealing with QuaUfication Criteria as set out
hereinabove. Mr. Gupta submitted that it would be clear from
the substituted Sub-Regulation (1) of Regulation 3 that it was
c always the intention of the Central Government and the Medical
Council of India that for the purpose of .increase in the number
of admissions in the different courses, the medical college/
institution had to be recognized by the Medical Council of India
of being capable of running Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor
of Surgery/Post-Graduate Courses. Mr. Gupta urged that the
0
said clause also provides that even in cases of medical
colleges and institutes, which were not yet recognized by the
Medical Council of India for the award of MBBS degree, they ·
could also apply for increase of intake in the Post-Graduate
Courses at the time of fourth renewal i.e. along with the
E admission of the fifth batch for the MBBS Course. Mr. Gupta
submitted that the said provision makes it very clear that
degrees awarded by medical colleges and institutions could not
be recognized prior to the completion of the five year course
and that only at the time of the fourth renewal, namely, for the
F final year course, could an application be made for such
purpose along with the admission of the fifth batch for the
MBBS Course, or in other words, with the admission of the final
year students of the MBBS Course. Mr. Gupta submitted that
the said provisions unambiguously indicate that without
G completion of the five-year course and the graduation of the first
batch of MBBS students, a medical college or institution could
not be recognized for the purposes of Section 1QA or 11 of the
1956 Act.
18. In addition to what has been mentioned hereinabove,
H
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. RAMA MEDICAL COLLEGE 471
HOSPITAL & RES. CENT., KANPUR [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
Mr. Gupta laid special stress on Regulation 8 of the 1999 A
Regulations relating to grant of permission for setting up of a
new medical college. He laid special stress on Sub-Regulation
3, extracted hereinbefore, which provides that the permission
to establish a medical college and admit students may be
granted initially for a period of one year and may be renewed B
on yearly basis, subject to verification of the achievements of
annual targets. The said Regulation further provides that, for the
purpose of renewal, an application would have to be made to
the Medical Council of India at least six months prior to the
expiry of the initial permission and that the process of renewal c
of permission would continue till such time as the establishment
of the medical college and expansion of the hospital facilities
are not completed and a formal recognition of the medical
college is not granted. Mr. Gupta also laid stress on the further
provision contained in the said Regulation to the effect that 0
further admissions would not be made at any stage, unless the
requirements of the Council are fulfilled. The said submissions
were made in the light of Regulation 3 of Part II dealing with
the question of "qualification criteria", whereunder it has been
provided that the medical college/institution must be recognised
E
by the Medical Council of India for running Bachelor of Medicine
and Bachelor of Surgery/Post-Graduate Courses. The said
Regulation further provides for fourth renewal, along with the
admission of the fifth batch for the MBBS Course. Mr. Gupta
submitted that the aforesaid provisions were sufficient to prove
his case that recognition of the degree awarded by the newly- F
established medical college could only be given by the Central
Government after the first batch of students of the MBBS
Course had completed the said Course and recommendations
had been made by the Medical Council to grant such
recognition. G
19. In support of his submissions, Mr. Gupta referred to
and relied upon several decision.s of this Court. Referring to the
three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in the case of
Medical Council of India Vs. State of Kamataka & Ors. [(1998} H
4 72 ·SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 6 S.C.R.
A 6 SCC 131), Mr. Gupta st.:cmitted that one of the questions
which fell for decision in the said case was the extent of the
powers of the Medical Council of India to fix the admission
capacity in the medical colleges/institutions and its role in regard
to the increase in number of admissions in such institutions.
B One other question which also fell for consideration was with
regard to the status of the regulations framed by the Medical
Council under the 1956 Act.
20. On the first issue, one question which was raised was
C whether the directions given by the Medical Council under the
Regulations framed by it were mandatory or directory in ·
character. In this connection, this Court had occasion to
consider its decision in State of M.P. Vs. Nivedita Jain [(1981)
4 sec 296), in which it had, inter alia, been held that all the
Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India under the
D 1956 Act, were directory in nature. While considering the
matter, this Court held that the Indian Medical Council Act is
relatable to Entry 66 of List I and prevails over any State
enactment to the extent the State enactment is repugnant to the
provisions of the said Act, even though the State Act may be
E relatable to Entry 25 or 26 of the Concurrent List. This Court
further held that Regulations framed under Section 33 of the
1956 Act, with the previous sanction of the Central Government,
are statutory and had been framed to carry out the purposes
of the Act and for various other purposes mentioned in Section
F 33. This Court further held that if a Regulation falls within the
purposes referred to under Section 33 of the Act, it would have
statutory force. It was ultimately held that the State Acts, and in
the said case, the Kamataka Universities Act and the Karnataka
Capitation Fee Act, would have to give way to the Indian
G Medical Council of India Act, 1956, which was a Central Act.
21. The next case referred to by Mr. Gupta is a decision
of the Constitution Bench in several writ petitions in which the
lead writ petition, being No.290of1997, was filed by Dr. Preeti
H Srivastava & Anr. against the State of M.P. & Ors. [(1999) 7
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. RAMA MEDICAL COLLEGE 4 73
HOSPITAL & RES. CENT., KANPUR [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
SCC 120]. Some of the questions which fell for the A
determination of the Constitution Bench were similar to those
which had been taken up and decided in Nivedita Jain's case
(supra). While 4 out of 5 Judges were unanimous on the issue
that by virtue of Entry 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List Ill, the
State's competence to control or regulate higher education is B
subject to the standards so laid down by the Union of India, the
dissenting view taken by one of the Hon'ble Judges was that
while the Parliament was competent to authorize the Medical
Council of India to prescribe basic standards of eligibility and
qualification for admission to the Post-Graduate Courses under c
· the Medical Council Act, the States were fully competent to
control admission to Post-Graduate Medical Courses in the
absence of any central legislation on these aspects. The
majority view was similar to the view expressed in the decision
in the Medical Council of India case (supra). It was further held 0
that in view of Entry 66 of List I, a State has the right to control
education, including medical education, so long as the field is
not occupied by any Union List entry. Secondly, the State,
cannot, by controlling education in the State, encroach upon the
standards in institutions for higher education, because the E
same was exclusively within the purview of the Union
Government. Distinguishing various earlier decisions of this
Court in the cases of Minor P. Rajendran Vs. State of Madras
[AIR 1968 SC 1012]; Chitra Ghosh Vs. Union of India [{1969)
2 SCC 228]; State of AP. Vs. Lavu Narendranath [{1971) 1
SCC 607]; and Ambesh Kumar (Dr.) Vs. Principal, L.L.R.M. F
Medical College [{1986) Supp. SCC 543], the Constitution
Bench criticized the decision rendered in Nivedita Jain's case
{supra). Apart from the above, the majority view was that the
power vested in the Medical Council under Section 20 of the
1956 Act, to prescribe the minimum standards for Post- G
Graduate education, was not merely advisory in nature, but that
the universities were bound to abide ·by the standards
prescribed. It was also the majority view that the norms had to
be laid down by the Medical Council for determining
H
474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 6 S.C.R.
A reservation of seats for SCs/STs/OBCs and minimum
qualifying marks for the candidates had also to be prescribed.
22. In his dissenting judgment, Justice S.B. Majmudar held
that the provisions of Section 20 read with Section 33
empowers the Medical Council to lay down basic requirements
8
of quantifications and eligibility conditions and once the same
was done, it was for the States under Entry 25 of List Ill to
control admission and to lay down the criteria for shortlisting
the eligible candidates, since Parliament had not legislated on
C this aspect. The Hon'ble Judges representing the majority view
made it clear that under the 1956 Act, the Medical Council had
been set up as an expert body to control the minimum
standards of medical education, including Post-Graduate
medical education, and to regulate their observance. Their
Lordships also held that the Council had implicit power to
D supervise the qualifications or eligibility standards for admission
into medical institutions and that the Act provided for an overall
vigilance by the Medical Council to prevent sub-standard
entrance qualifications for medical courses. It was further.held
that the scheme of the 1956 Act did not give an option to the
E universities to follow or not to follow the standards laid down
by the Medical Council.
23. Reference was also made to the decision rendered
by a Bench of two Judges in K. S. Bhoir Vs. State of
F Maharashtra & Ors. [(2001) 10 SCC 264), which was heard
along with some other Civil Appeals, where the issues were
common. The first issue raised and deliberated upon was the
proposed one-time increase in admission capacity in medical
colleges. Striking out the State provision, this Court held that
the non-obstante clause contained in Section 10A(1) means
G that an increase in admission capacity in a medical college is
prohibited, unless previous permission is obtained from the
Central Government in accordance with the recommendation
of the Medical Council of India. Their Lordships also observed
that the entire scheme of Section 1OA of the Act had to be read
H
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. RAMA MEDICAL COLLEGE 4 75
HOSPITAL & RES. CENT., KANPUR [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
in consonance with the other Sub-Sections to further the object A
behind the amending Act which was to achieve the highest
standard of medical education. Their Lordships observed that
the objective could be achieved only by ensuring that a medical
college had the requisite infrastructure to impart medical
education. In the facts of the said case and in view of Section B
1OA(1 ), Their Lordships ultimately held that the one-time
increase proposed by the State Government in the admission
capacity in the various medical colleges, should have been
accompanied by a scheme prepared in accordance with the
Act and the Regulations and submitted to the Central c
Government. Their Lordships also held that in the absence of
any scheme submitted to the Central Government in regard to
the one-time increase in the admission capacity in the medical
colleges, the Central Government was justified in refusing
permission for the same. o
24. The next decision referred to by Mr. Gupta was that
render.ed in the case of Govt. of A.P. & Anr. Vs. Medwin
Educational Society & Ors. [(2004) 1 SCC 86], wherein the
same view, as was expressed in the decision in K.S. Bhoir's
case, was reiterated. It was reiterated that the decision of the E
State Government in the matter was not final, as the final
decision had to be taken by the Central Government on the
basis of the recommendations of the Medical Council under the
-relevant provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
F
25. Mr. Gupta lastly submitted that it is settled law that an
individual State is entitled to legislate on any of the Entries
contained in the Concurrent List even if there was in existence
a central law on the said subject, but in case of repugnancy,
the law enacted by the State would have to give way to the G
central law. Mr. Gupta urged that the Division Bench of the High
Court had erred in interpreting the use of the expression "formal
recognition" in Sub-Regulation (3) of Regulation 8 of the 1999
Regulations, and had erroneously held that the same could be
preceded by grant of adhoc recognition, which could
H
476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R.
A subsequently be converted into a formal recognition, as
contemplated by Section 11 of the 1956 Act. Mr. Gupta also
urged that the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court
concurring with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge that
the Regulation does not contemplate that a college must be
B recognised to award degrees, i.e., it does not contemplate
recognition under Section 11 of the 1956 Act and that it is
permissible in a college to effect increase in the admission
capacity, even at the stage when it has permission/recognition
under Section 1OA of the 1956 Act, was wholly erroneous and
c was liable to be struck down.
26. Mr. Gupta pointed out from a number of decisions of.
this Court that in an extraordinary case the Court may itself pass
an order .to give directions which the Government or public
authority should have passed or issued. Mr. Gupta submitted
D that having held as much, the learned Single Judge had quite
wrongly issued a mandamus to increase the capacity pertaining
to the MBBS course from 100 to 150 seats in each of the three
colleges, thus wandering into the territory of the Medical Council
of India which had the necessary expertise and the authority
E under the Regulations to evaluate as to whether the medical
institution was capable of catering to more students than initially
envisaged. Mr. Gupta submitted that while increasing the
number of students from 100 to 150, the Court not only acted
beyond its jurisdiction in giving such direction, but it failed to
F take into consideration the fact that under the relevant
regulations it was only the Medical Council which could have
allowed such increase, once it was satisfied that the concerned
institution had proper facilities to support such an increase.
G 27. Mr. Gupta, therefore, urged that since the process
adopted by the learned Single Judge, which was affirmed by
the Division Bench of the High Court, being contrary to the
Rules and Regulations in respect of the issues raised in the
appeals, the same could not be sustained and were liable to
be set aside.
H
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. RAMA MEDICAL COLLEGE 4 77
HOSPITAL & RES. CENT, KANPUR [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
28. Mr. T.S. Doabia, learned Senior Advocate, who A
appeared for the Union of India, adopted the submissions
made by Mr. Nidhesh Gupta and added that the scheme for
granting permission to establish new medical colleges/
institutions and also for granting permission to increase the
number of seats in the institution, made it quite clear that it was B
only the Central Government, acting on the recommendation of
the Medical Council of India, which could either grant
permission for the establishment of a new medical institution
or grant recognition to the institution itself, once the "first batch
of students admitted had completed their fifth year and had c
graduated. Mr. Doabia submitted that this was a scheme which
had been framed both under the Act and the Rules and
Regulations framed thereunder and the Medical Council of India
and the Union of India had complete say in the matter. The
inclusion of a third party was not contemplated under the D
provisions of Sections 1OA or 1OB of the 1956 Act. Accordingly,
the mandamus issued by the learned Single Judge of the High
Court, which was affirmed by the Division Bench, was liable to
be set aside.
29. Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned Senior Advocate E
appearing for the School of Medical Sciences and Research,
Sharda Education Trust, the Respondent No.1 in
SLP(C)No.30338 of 2011, raised the question as to whether
it could have been the intention of the legislature to grant year
to year recognition when a medical college was newly- F
established, till the first batch of students graduated therefrom
after five years. Questioning the reasonability of such a view,
Mr. Dave submitted that once permission was granted to a
medical college/institution to commence classes, it would be
quite absurd to accept the reasoning that such permission G
would have to be renewed annually, since after being satisfied
that the institution was capable of running a medical course,
permission had been granted to commence the classes for the
first year.
H
478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R.
A
'
30. Referring to Sections 10A(1)(b) and (4), Mr. Dave
pointed out that the said provisions contemplated a one-time
recognition and a citizen's inherent right to establish medical
colleges cannot be curtailed by the provisions for grant of year
to year recognition. Mr. Dave also urged that under the garb of
B exercising its powers under Section 19 of the 1956 Act, the
Council could not assert that it could also regulate the manner
in which the recognition was to be granted.
31. Mr. Dave submitted that the provisions of Section 19A
could not be read into the provisions of Sec_tion 1OA for
C permission to establish a new medical college or new course
of study, as otherwise the grant of recognition from year to year
would deter students from taking admissions in' the medical
college on account of the uncertainty of being a~le to continue
the MBBS course in the event recognition was not granted for
D the subsequent year.
32. Mr. Dave, however, confined his submissions only to
the question of increase in the number of students, in respect
whereof he submitted that there could not be any fetters. Mr.
E Dave contended that the curtailment of the right of an institution
to increase its admission capacity in any course of study or
training, including a Post-Graduate Course of study or training,
except with the previous permission of the Central Government,
was in violation of the provisions of Article 19(1 )(g) of the
F Constitution, as such prohibition was not only illogical, but was
unreasonable c;ilso. Mr. Dave submitted that if permission could
be granted to admit 100 students, there could be no logical
reason as to why, in order to increase the number of students/
seats, an institution would have to wait for five years before
G recognition was granted to the institution by the Central
Government on the recommendation of the Medical Council.
33. Drawing an analogy with the provisions of Order
XXXIX Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
Mr. Dave submitted that it would always be prudent to look into
H the matter at length before granting ad-interim orders.
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. RAMA MEDICAL COLLEGE 4 79
HOSPITAL & RES. CENT., KANPUR [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
According to Mr. Dave, before imposing conditions regarding A
grant of recognition from year to year, it would be more
pragmatic to think over the matter with greater intensity before
uniformly contending that a newly-established medical college/
institution would have to seek fresh permission/recognition
each year, before being finally granted recognition after the fifth B
year, when the first batch of students would graduate from the
institution.
· 34. In support of his submission, Mr. Dave firstly referred
to the decision of this Court in Shiv Kumar Chadha Vs.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi [(1993) 3 SCC 161], in which C
a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while considering the
provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 C.P.C. and the proviso
thereto held that the proviso had been introduced in order to
compel the Court to give reasons as to why the provisions
relating to notice was being dispensed with. Mr. Dave D
contended that instead of prohibiting the creation of new seats
in the medical college/institution, the concerned authorities
should sit and ponder over the matter to come to a conclusion
as to whether such a bar was necessary when the institution
was already running a medical course with a sizable number E
of students.
35. Mr. Dave urged that the doctrine of proportionality has
been introduced by the Courts to ensure that the action taken
against any individual did not transgress the constitutional F
provisions relating to the right of an individual to establish
medical colleges/institutions as a concomitant of the right
contained in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Mr. Dave
concluded his submissions by urging that the attempt to impose
extra-constitutional obstructions to a person's right to establish G
a medical college/ institution, could not have been the intention
of the framers of the Constitution, who all were in favour of the
right to practise any profession or trade and included the same
as a fundamental right under Part Ill of the Constitution.
36. While endorsing the submissions advanced by Mr. H
480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R.
A Dave, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate,
who appeared for the Respondent No.1, Rama Medical
College, in SLP(C)No.28996 of 2011, submitted that there was
a waste of human resources by denying admission to
deserving students who wanted to pursue a medical course,
B although, the required facilities were available, only on the
ground that such increase had not been sanctioned by the
concerned authorities. Referring to the provisions of Sections
1OA and 11 (2) of the 1956 Act, Dr. Singhvi submitt~that an
interpretation of Section 10 of the aforesaid Act, as s being
c sought to be given, was entirely illogical, particularly wh there
was no specific legislation to the contrary. Dr. Singhvi urged
that when facilities had been found to be sufficient for 100
students, facilities providing for 150 students,. would have to be
presumed to be sufficient as well.
D 37. Dr. Singhvi submitted that it is Section 1OA of the 1956
Act which deals with setting up of new medical colleges/
institutions or enhancement of numbers. According to learned
counsel, Section 11 of the 1956 Act had been wrongly pressed
into service, since it concerns the Centre's power to recognize
E degrees. Expressing himself idiomatically, Dr. Singhvi urged
that trying to read Section 11 with Section 1OA was like trying
to mix chalk and cheese and an attempt to do so would lead
to absurdity. In this connection, Dr. Singhvi referred to a three-
Judge Bench decision in Mridhul Dhar Vs. Union of India
F ((2005) 2 sec 65], in which among several issues, one issue
which fell for consideration was about not taking into
consideration, for determining All-India quota, those seats which
were created under Section 1OA of the Act. The Hon'ble Judge
recorded that according to the Medical Council of India, only
G seats recognised under Section 11 are taken into consideration
and not the seats which are permitted under Section 1OA of
the Act. The provisions of Regulation 8(3) of the 1999
Regulations were also noted.
38. Having considered the said Regulation and the effect
H of Section 1OA and Section 11 of the 1956 Act, Their Lordships
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. RAMA MEDICAL COLLEGE 481
HOSPITAL & RES. CENT, KANPUR [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
gave various directions, including a direction that the States, A
through the Chief Secretaries/Health Secretaries, should file a
report in regard to admissions with the Director General of
Health Services, by 31st October, 2004, with the DGHS giving
details about adhering to the time schedule and the number of
admissions granted as per the prescribed quota. Dr. Singhvi B
urged that the non-utilization of available resources was not
intended by the legislature and the same also amounted to
violation of the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution.
39. Mr. Pradip K. Ghosh, learned Senior Advocate, who C
appeared for the Respondent No.1 in SLP(C)No.30332 of
2011, briefly reiterated the submissions already made.
Referring to the writ petition filed by the Teertb'ankar Mahaveer
Institute of Management and Technology, Moradabad, which
was the petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No. 5763 of 2011, Mr.
Ghosh urged that the society was running a large numb~r of D
0ducationa1 institutions in which about 8,500 students were
pursuing their respective courses. Mr. Ghosh submitted that in
2008, the said society was granted the status of a private
university and since it had all the required facilities, it moved
the said writ petition for a mandamus on the respondents to E
grant permission to the writ petitioner college to admit 150
MBBS students, instead of 100, for the academic year 2011-
• 12.
40. Mr. Kunal Cheema, learned Advocate, who appeared F
for the petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No.489 of 2011, Dashmesh
Educational Charitable Trust, introduced a new dimension in
the submissions by indicating that the expression "recognition"
had not been used by the legislature in Section 1OA of the Act.
It talks of permission to establish a medical college/institution G
but the said expression finds place in the Regulations framed
by the Medical Council under Section 1OA(7)(g) read with
Sections 33(fa) and 66 of the Act. According to Mr. Cheema,
the permission granted to establish a medical college must be
held to be sufficient for allowing the medical college/institution
H
482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 6 S.C.R.
A to deal with the problems relating to increase in the number of
students in a given year for the medical course.
41, Mr. Mukesh Giri, learned Advocate, adopted the
submissions made by the learned counsel before him and also
B questioned the stand taken on behalf of the appellants that the
Regulations contemplated a situation where before the Section
11 stage is reached, an institution could not apply for increase
in the number of students, even when the other conditions
relating to infrastructure were fulfilled.
C 42. As indicated at the beginning of this judgment, in these
matters we are mainly concerned with the interpretation of
Sections 1OA and 11, together with Sections 1O and 33 of the
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The Division Bench of the
High Court, while considering the decision of the learned Single
D Judge, has laid undue stress on the expression "recognition by
the Medical Council of India", used in the 2000 Regulations,
since such expression has been used in a completely different
sense other than granting recognition to a medical college/
institution for the purposes of Sections 1OB and 11 of the 1956
E Act. The said expression has to be read and understood as
meaning that the concerned .medical college/institution was
recognised by the Medical Council of India as having the
capacity to run such an institution. It is amply clear from Section •
1QA that what is contemplated thereunder is permission for
F establishing a new medical college, which is to be granted by
the Central Government upon the recommendation of the
Council. The use of the expression "recognition" in the
Regulation does not affect or alter the intention of the legislature
expressed in unambiguous terms in Section 10A as well as in
Sections 1OB and 11 of the 1956 Act. Both the 1956 Act and
G the Regulations framed by the Medical Council make it very
clear that while the Central Government has the authority to
recognize the degree awarded by a newly-established medical
college/institution, it does so on the evaluation made by the
Medical Council and its subsequent recommendation.
H
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. RAMA MEDICAL COLLEGE 483
HOSPITAL & RES. CENT., KANPUR [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
43. By pursuing the line of reasoning adopted by the A
learned Single Judg~ the Division Bench allowed itself to be
led into the error of coming to a finding that once permission/
recognition was granted under Section 1OA of the 1956 Act, it
gave the grantee permission to run a complete course. The
Division Bench led itself further into the quagmire created by it B
by dividing Regulation 3(1) into two parts in the following
manner:
a) The medical college/institution must be recognised by
the Medical Council of India for running Bachelor of C
Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery/Post Graduate Course;
however
b) The medical college/institute which is not yet recognised
by the Medical Council of India for the award of MBBS o
degree may apply for increase of intake in Post Graduate
courses in pre-clinical and para-clinical subjects of
Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry, Pharmacology,
Pathology, Microbiology, Forensic Medicine & Community
Medicine at the time of 4th renewal i.e. along with the E
admission of 5th Batch for the MBBS Course.
44. The interpretation sought to be given to Regulation 3(1)
in the manner aforesaid portrays a totally wrong understanding
of the scheme of the Act itself and the all-pervading presence
of the Medical Council of India in the process of grant of F
recognition for running of medical colleges/ institutions. The said
reasoning has also led the Division Bench to misconstrue the
provisions of Sections 1OB and 11 of the 1956 Act as to the
right given to a medical college/institution, which has been
established without the permission of the Central Government G
as provided in Section 1OA of the Act, to increase its admission
capacity. Following the reasoning of the Single Judge, the
Division Bench failed to see that Regulation 3(1) of the 2000
Regulations made it amply clear that those institutions which
were yet to be recognised could apply for a Post-Graduate H
484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 6 S.C.R.
A Course in subjects which were not part of the -regular Post-
Graduate Courses which were available to those who were in
possession of a recognised MBBS degree. Both the Single
Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court seem to have
ignored the provisions of the 1999 and 2000 Regulations,
B framed by the Medical Council of India under the provisions of
Sections 1OA and 33, of the 1956 Act. It may be of interest to
note that Section 33, which empowers the Medical Council to
frame Regulations, provides in Sub-Sections (fa} and (fb}, the
right to the Medical Council to frame a scheme in terms of Sub-
C Section (2) of Section 1OA and also in regard to any other
factors under Clause (g} of Sub-Section (7) of Section 1OA. It
is quite clear that the legislature has given the Medical Council
of India wide authority to take all steps which are necessary to
ensure that a medical institution, either at the time of
establishment, or later at the time of applying for increase in
0
the number of seats, has the capacity and the necessary
infrastructure, not only to run the college, but also to sustain the
increase in the number of seats applied for. To that extent, since·
the Act is silent, the Regulations which have statutory force will
be applicable to the scheme as contemplated under the Act.
E We repeat that by allowing itself to get confused with the use
of the expression "recognition" in Regulation 3(1} of the 2000
Regulations, both the learned Single Judge and the Division
Bench of the High Court came to the erroneous conclusion that
once permission had been granted under Section 1QA to
F establish a new medical college/institution, the question of
having to take fresh permission each year for any subsequent
steps to be taken after grant of such permission till the fifth year
of the course was completed, did not arise.
G 45. The aforesaid position would be doubly clear from the
provisions of Sub-Section (3) of Section 1OB, which, in no
uncertain terms, provide that where any medical college
increases its admission capacity in any course of study or
training, except with the previous permission of the Central
H Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 1OA,
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. RAMA MEDICAL COLLEGE 485
HOSPITAL & RES. CENT, KANPUR [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
no medical qualification granted to any student of such medical A
college on the basis of the increase in its admission capacity,
shall be a recognised medical qualification for the purposes of
the Act. In other words, without the previous permission of the
Central Government within the scheme, as prescribed under
Section 10A, i.e., without the recommendation of the Medical B
Council, any degree granted would not be recognised as a
medical degree which would entitle such degree holder to
function as a medical practitioner.
46. There is no getting away from the fact that Section 1OA
lays down the criteria for grant of permission for establishment C
of a new medical college and that Section 1OB supplements
the same by making it clear that even while increasing the
number of seats in a medical college/institution, the procedure
indicated in Section 10A, and in particular Section 10A(2),
would have to be followed. At every stage, it is the Council D
which plays a very important role in either the grant of permission
to establish a new medical college or to increase the number
of seats. Furthermore, on account of the Regulations of 1999
and 2000, the norms relating to eligibility criteria, as set out in
the 1999 Regulations, as also in the 2000 Regulations, have E
to be complied with, either for the purpose of grant of
permission for establishing a new medical college or for
introducing a new course of study along with the intention of
increasing the number of students in the medical institution.
F
47. In Part II of the 2000 Regulations, which deals with the
scheme for obtaining the permission of the Central Government
to increase the admission capacity in any course of study or
training, including Post Graduate course of study or training, in
the existing medical colleges/ institutions, another set of G
"qualification criteria" has been set out in Regulation 3(1) which
has created some confusion in the minds of the learned Judges
in the High Court by use of the expression "recognised by the
Medical Council of India". As indicated hereinbefore, what it
seeks to indicate is that for the purpose of applying for increase
H
486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 6 S.C.R.
A in the number of seats, the medical college must bar.one which,
in the opinion of the Medical Council, was capable of running
the Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery/Post-
graduate Course. It also provides that the medical college/
institute which is not yet recognised by the Medical Council for
B the award of MBBS degree, may also apply for increase of
intake in Post Graduate Course in pre-clinical and para-clinical
subjects such as Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry,
Pharmacology, Pathology, Microbiology, Forensic Medicine
and Community Medicine, at the time of fourth renewal, i.e,
c along with the admission of the fifth batch for the MBBS
Course, which are courses not connected with the regular
course of study. In fact, the controversy which surfaced in
Nivedita Jain's case (supra} that the Regulations framed by the
Medical Council of India under Section 1OA read with Section
33 of the 1956 Act, were directory in nature, was subsequently
0
set at rest by the Constitution Bench decision in Dr. Preeti
Srivastava's case (supra}, wherein the view expressed in
Nivedita Jain's case was overruled.
48. In view of the decision of the Constitution Bench, it is
E not necessary for us to refer to the other decisions cited both
on behalf of the Medical Council of India and the respondents,
since, in our view, the position is quite clear that in terms of
the scheme of the Act and the Regulations framed by the
Medical Council of India, it is the Central Government which is
F empowered to grant recognition to a medical college or
institution on the recommendation made by the Medical Council
of India. The role of the Medical Council of India in .the grant of
recognition to a medical college/institution is recommendatory
and the Council has no power to grant recognition to a medical
G institution. Such power lies with the Central government. As
pointed out by Mr. Cheema, no provision is available under the
Act relating to grant. of recognition of a medical college/
institution, since Section 10A speaks only of permission and
not recognition. The same has been supplemented by the
H
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. RAMA MEDICAL COLLEGE 487
HOSPITAL& RES. CENT., KANPUR [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
provisions of the 1999 and 2000 Regulations for the purpose A
of Section 1OA(7)(g) of the Act. ·
49. For the reasons aforesaid, we are unable to agree with
the reasoning of either the learned Single Judge or the Division
Bench of the High Court in arriving at the finding that once B
permission had been granted under Section 10A of the Act, it
would amount to grant of recognition and, thereafter, the
medical college/institution, was free to enhance the number of
seats without the permission either of the Council or the Central
Government.
c
50. We, therefore, have no hesitation in setting aside the
judgments, both of the learned Single Judge as also that of the
Division Bench of the High Court, and the directions given to
increase the number of seats from 100 to 150 in the MBBS
course run by the writ petitioners. Since the 2000 Regulations D
provide for a newly-established medical college/institution to
seek permission each year to continue with the MBBS course
till the first batch of the students graduated, in our view, the
position is quite clear that the recognition referred to in Sections
1OB and 11 of the 1956 Act would have to relate to the grant E
of recognition to a medical institution under Section 11 for the
purpose of recognition of its qualifications as a medical
degree, which would entitle the holder thereof to practise
medicine.
51. Consequently, upon setting aside the judgments of the
F
learned Single Judge and the Division Bench and the directions
contained therein, we also make it clear that this will not prevent
the medical colleges/institutions from applying for increase in
the number of students, provided such application fulfils the
conditions and criteria of Section 1QA and the Regulations G
framed thereunder by the Medical Council of India.
52. The appeals arising out of SLP(C)Nos.28996 and
30332 of 2011, preferred by the Medical Council of India and
the appeal arising out of SLP(C)No.30338 of 2011, preferred H
488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R.
A by the Board of Governors, against the judgment and order
dated 13th October, 2011, passed by the Delhi High Court in
Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 820, 819 and 816 of 2011
respectively, along with the appeal arising out of
SLP(C)No.3732 of 2012, preferred by the Medical Council of
B India against the judgment and order dated 14th November,
2011, passed by the Punjab and Haryaoa High Court in Civil
Writ Petition No.16235 of 2011, are allowed. The impugned
judgments and orders passed by the Delhi High Court, as also
the Punjab ~nd Haryana High Court, are set aside.
c 53. Consequently, Writ Petition (C) No.457 of 2011, filed
by the School of Medical Sciences & Research, Sharda
University; Writ Petition (C) No.458 of 2011, filed by
Teerthanker Mahaveer Institute of Management & Technology
Society, Moradabad; and Writ Petition (C) No.489 of 2011, filed
D by Dashmesh Educational Charitable Trust, are dismissed, as
the reliefs prayed for therein are in direct conflict with the
provisions of Section 1OA of the 1956 Act and Regulation 8(3)
of the 1999 Regulations.
E 54. Having regard to the facts involved, all the parties in
each of the matters will bear their own costs.
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