ROHILKHAND MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL, BAREILLYversusMEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ANOTHER

                       [2013] 9 S.C.R. 692


A       ROHILKHAND MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL,
                       BAREILLY
                                 v.
           MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ANOTHER
              (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 585 of 2012
B                     SEPTEMBER 06, 2013
         [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.]

        Medical Colleges Regulation (Amendment 2010 Part//):
c       Clause 8(3)(1)(d) - Revocation of permission/recognition
  for award of MBBS degree - Approval for renewal of
  permission to Medical College for increased intake from 100
  to 150 seats for academic year 2013-2014 - Revoked by MCI
  on receipt of information from CBI with _regard to conspiracy
0 between the Chairman of the Medicai College on the one
  hand and public functionaries of Union Ministry and
  Government Hospital on the other, which Jed to issuance of
  order passed for additional intake of students for academic
  year 2008-2009 - Held: CBI, in its charge-sheet, pointed out
E serious infirmities in the report submitted by the inspection
  team constituted by the Union Ministry- CBI investigation has
  revealed that fraud was practiced by the Central team as well
  as the college to get the sanction for the 3rd batch of MBBS
  students for the academic year 2008-09 - That was sufficient
F for the MCI to take action, and revoke the Jetter of permission
  granted for academic year 2013-14 - The decision of MCI is
  in accordance with Regulations 8(3)(1)(d) - Minimum
  Standard Requirements for the Medical College for 100
  Admissions Annually Regulations, 1999.
G
        Indian Medical Council Act, 1956:

       ss. 10A and 19A - s. 10A, mandates that when a new
    medical college is to be established or the number of seats
                                692
H
   ROHILKHAND MED. COLLEGE & HOSP., BAREILLY v.          693
            MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
to be increased, the permission of Central Government is a       A
pre-requisite - s. 19A obliges MCI to prescribe minimum
required standards for medical education and the
recommendations made by MCI to Central Government carry
considerable weight - In the instant case, MCI constantly on
all the occasions, recommended to Central Government not         B
to renew permission for admission of the third batch for the
academic year 2008-09, but in spite of the same, a Central
Team was appointed, a favourable report was got and
permission was accorded by Central Government for the year
2008-09, which was the subject matter of CBI investigation.      c
    Education/Educational Institutions:

      Admission to medical courses - Court took notice with
concern, of unprecedented growth of Technical and Medical
Institutions in the country which has resulted in widespread     D
prevalence of various unethical practices and emphasized
that there is extreme necessity of a Parliamentary Legislation
for curbing these unfair practices - Legislation - Judicial
notice - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 21.
                                                                 E
    The petitioner-Medical College and Hospital was
established in the year 2005. It started the first M.B.B.S.
course during the year 2006-07 with an annual intake of
100 seats for which permission was granted by the
Central Government uls 10A of the Indian Medical Council
                                                                 F
Act, 1956. The Medical Council of India (MCI) granted
recognition to the College to award M.B.B.S. Degree by
the University concerned. The College later submitted an
application to the MCI for extension of renewal of
permission for admission of 3rd batch of 100 seats of
M.B.B.S. for the academic year 2008-09. The MCI after            G
getting inspections of the College conducted, and on
receipt of reports of the inspection teams and compliance
reports submitted by the College, intimated the Central
Government by letters dated 16.04.2008, 14.6.2008 and
                                                                 H
    694      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A 4.9.2008 not to renew the permission for admission of the
  3rd batch of students for the academic session 2008-09.
  The Central Government on receipt of report of the
  inspection team constituted by it, also asked the College
  on 27.7.2008 not to admit any fresh batch of MBBS
B students for the academic year 2008-09. However, on
  12.9.2008, the College requested the Central Government
  to accord permission for 50 students of MBBS for the
  academic session 2008-09. Thereupon the Union Ministry
  constituted another team of two doctors, who conducted
c inspection of the College on 25.9.2009 and on the basis
  of its report, the Central Government issued the letter
  dated 26.9.2008 according sanction for renewal of
  permission for admission of 3rd batch of 100 students for
  the academic year 2008-09.
D      The MCI, by its letter dated 20.06.2013 conveyed its
  order of approval dated 4.6.2013 for renewal of
  permission for admission for the second batch of MBBS
  students against the increased intake i.e. from100 to 150
  seats to the College for the academic year 2013-14. In the
E meantime, the MCI received a confidential letter dated
  11.07 .2013 from the Central Bureau of Investigation
  informing that it had registered a case against the
  Chairman of the College and officers of the Union Ministry
  of Health and Family Welfare, u/s 1208 IPC and s. 13(2)
F read with s. 13(1 )(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
  1988. A Charge-sheet was also enclosed along with the
  letter. The MCI by order dated 13. 7 .2013 revoked its
  decision dated 04.06.2013 and, communicated the same
  to the College. The College challenged legality of the said
G decision in the instant writ petition.

          Dismissing the writ petition, the Court

       HELD: 1.1. The Medical Council Act, 1956, especially
  s. 1OA thereof, mandates that when a new medical college
H is to be established or the number of seats to be
    ROHILKHAND MED. COLLEGE & HOSP, BAREILLYv.            695
             MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA

increased, permission of the Central Government is a              A
pre-requisite. Section 19A obliges the MCI to prescribe
minimum required standards for medical education and
the recommendation made by MCI to the Central
Government carry considerable weight, it being an
Expert Body. MCI has prescribed the regulation -                  B
"Minimum Standard Requirements for the Medical
College for 100 Admissions Annually Regulations, 1999".
In order to verify the minimum requirements, MCI gets
inspection conducted by Inspectors, who are experts and
submit their reports on the availability of the staff -           c
teaching and residents - and other infrastructural
facilities, clinical availability, etc. as per the regulations.
[para 28] [713-G-H; 714-A-C]

     1.2. In the instant case, the MCI constantly on all the
occasions, recommended to the Central Government not D
to renew permission for admission of the third batch for
the academic year 2008-.09, but in spite of the same, a
Central Team was appointed, a favourable report was got
and permission was accorded by the Central Government
for the year 2008-09. CBI in its charge-sheet has E
categorically reported that this was done on the basis of
bogus, fake and forged records. CBI noticed that the
college authorities had produced fabricated and forged
documents before the inspection team and the team failed
to verify the correctness or otherwise of those documents. F
CBI investigation has revealed that fraud has been
practiced by the Central Team as well as the college to get
the sanction for the 3rd batch of MBBS students for the
academic year 2008-09. CBl's investigation prima facie
establishes the criminal conspiracy between the Chairman G
of the College and the then Union Minister of Health and
Family Welfare along with the then Deputy Secretary,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and two doctors of
the Government Hospital which led to the issuance of the
order passed for the additional intake of 50 students for H
    696      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013) 9 S.C.R.

A   the academic year 2008-09 on 26.09.2008. The CBI, in its
    charge-sheet, points out serious infirmities in the report
    submitted by the central team, which conducted the
    inspection of the College on 25.09.2008. [para 25-27 and
    29) [709-G-H; 710-B-C; 713-E-G; 714-D-E]
B
       1.3. When sanction was accorded and
  communicated by letter dated 20.06.2013 it was
  categorically stated by the MCI that the same was
  accorded subject to certain conditions. It was stated that
  in case false/wrong declaration or fabricated documents
C were used for procuring permission of the Board of
  Governors of the increased intake and if said misconduct
  was brought to the notice or comes to the knowledge of
  the MCI, at any stage during the current academic year
  (2013-14) institution/college would not be entitled to be
D considered for renewal of the permission against
  increased intake for the next academic year and that
  renewal of permission against the increased intake for the
  academic year 2013-14 and for the next academic year
  would be liable to be revoked. Having received the letter
E of the CBI as well as the charge-sheet, the decision taken
  by the MCI on 13.07.2013 revoking the letter of permission
  granted for the academic year 2013-14 is in accordance
  with Clause 8(3)(1)(d) of the Establishment of Medical
  Colleges Regulation (Amendment 2010 Part II), which
F states that when MIC finds that the college has employed
  fake/forged documents for renewal of permission/
  recognition for processing applications etc., that institute
  will not be able to be considered for renewal of
  permission/ recognition for award of MBBS Degree/
G processing the application for post-graduate courses for
  two academic years i.e. that academic year and the next
  academic year. [para 30-32 and 35] [714-F-H; 715-A-B;
  717-C-D]

          1.4. MCI need not wait till the culmination of the trial
H
   ROHILKHAND MED. COLLEGE & HOSP., BAREILLY v.       697
            MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA

initiated on the basis of the charge-sheet filed by the CBI. A
The investigation by a premier agency like the CBI has
prima facie revealed that the college has used fake and
forged materials to get sanction for the intake for the year
2008-09 and that is sufficient for the MCI to take action in
accordance with the Regulations 8(3)(1 )(d) of 2013 B
Regulations. [para 36 [717-F-G]

COURT'S CONCERN
    2.1. Investigation of CBI, however, reveals a sorry
state of affairs, which is an eye-opener for taking C
appropriate remedial measures in future so that medical
education may attain the goals envisaged by the IMC Act
and the Regulations and serve the community. It indicates
the falling standards of our educational system at the
highest level; sometimes even at the level of the Central D
Government making a serious inroad to the right to life
guaranteed to the citizens of the country under Art. 21 of
the Constitution. [para 39] [719-B-C, D-E]
     T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others v. State of Kamataka
                                     =
and others 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 (2002) 8 sec 481 E
and P.A. lnamdar and others v. State of Maharashtra and
others 2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 603 = (2005) 6 SCC 537 -
referred to.
     2.2. The Court took notice with concern of the F
unprecedented growth of the Technical and Medical
Institutions in the country which has resulted in
widespread prevalence of various unethical practices.
Collection of large amount by way of capitation fee,
exorbitant fee, donation etc, by many of such self
financing institutions, has kept the meritorious financially G
poor students away from those institutions. This Court
can also take judicial notice of the fact that many a times
the medical colleges, engineering colleges, etc. are
established after availing large amounts by way of loans
from the financial institutions and other borrowings, with H
    698       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A   no funds of their own, and once the college gets approval
    and students are admitted, loan availed of is being repaid
    from the capitation fee charged from the students and
    ultimately that amount constitute their capital. Many a
    times, even without any sufficient facilities they put
B   pressure on the various agencies and the Central
    Government and get approval overlooking the regulatory
    authority, like MCI, which adversely affects the quality of
    medical education. [para 24 and 27] [709-D-E; 713-8-D]

         2.3. The Court also took notice that current policy of
C   the Central Government in the higher education is to
    provide autonomy of institutions, but adoption of unfair
    practices is a serious violation of the law. Few States
    have passed some legislation to prohibit demand/
    collection of capitation fee which have no teeth, the
D   institutions who indulges in such practices can get away
    by paying some fine, which is meager. It is, therefore,
    emphasized that there is extreme necessity of a
    Parliamentary Legislation for curbing these unfair
    practices. [para 41-42) [720-8-E]
E
                           Case Law Reference:
          2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587        referred to       para 38
          2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 603         referred to      para 38
F         CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
    585 of2013.
          Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

G        Rakesh Kr. Khanna, ASG, Mukul Rohatgi, Guru Krishna
    Kumar, Mukul Gupta, Amrendra Sharan, Abdhesh Choudhary,
    Amit Jaiswal, Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, Amit Kumar, Avijit Mani
    Tripathi, Rituraj Kumar, V. Mohana, Anirudh Tanwar, Dushyant
    Arora, Mudrika Bansal, Komal Jaiswal, B. Subrahmanya
H   Prasad for the appearing parties.
   ROHILKHAND MED. COLLEGE & HOSP, BAREILLYv.               699
            MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                     A

     K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. The petitioners have
invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court conferred
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India to quash the letter
dated 13.07.2013 issued by the Medical Council of India by
                                                                    8
which the permission granted for renewal of admission for
additional intake of students for the academic session 2013-
2014 was revoked.

      2. Rohilkhand Medical College and Hospital was
established by Rohilkhand Educational Charitable Trust in the       C
year 2005. The Medical College started the first M.B.B.S.
Course during the year 2006-07 with an annual intake of 100
seats for which permission was granted under Section 10A of
the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short "the IMC Act)
by the Central Government. Later, the Medical Council of India      D
(for short "the MCI") granted recognition to the College to award
M.B.B.S. Degree granted by M.J.P. Rohilkhand University,
Bareily, U.P. The College is also conducting post-graduate
courses during the year 2011-12.
                                                                    E
     3. Permission was granted under Section 10A of the IMC
Act for admitting the second batch of 100 students in the year
2007-08. The College later submitted an application for
extension of renewal of permission for the admission of 3rd
batch of 100 seats of M.B.B.S. for the academic year 2008-
09 to the MCI. The MCI after processing the application
                                                                    F
constituted a medical team for inspection of the College. The
team conducted the inspection on 1st and 2nd April, 2008. The
MCI team then submitted its report to the Secretary, MCI, New
Delhi on 02.04.2008. The MCI team pointed out the following
deficiencies in the College as per the MCI Regulations:             G

    ''There was a shortage of teaching faculty by 21.05% (24
    out of 114) and residents by 37.03% (30 out of 81) As
    under:
                                                                    H
    700          SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A         (a)      Professor - 4

          (b)      Associate Professor - 13

          (c)      Asstt. Professor - 3

B          (d)     Tutor-4

           (e)     Sr. Resident - 16

           (f)     Jr. Resident - 14"

C      4. The MCI team also noticed that OPD attendance on the
  date of inspection was only 421 as against the minimum
  requirement of 850-900 and OPD bed occupancy was only
  55% as against the minimum requirement of 83-85%. The MCI
  team inspection report, as per the Board Regulation, was
o placed before the Executive Committee in its meeting held on
  14.04.2008 and it intimated its decision to the Central
  Government not to renew the permission for the admission of
  the 3rd batch of students for the academic session for the year
  2008-09, vide its letter dated 16.04.2008. A copy of the letter
E was also sent to the Principal of the College with a request to
  submit the compliance in respect of the deficiencies pointed
  out by the MCI team on or before 30.04.2008.

       5. The College later submitted its "compliance report". The
  MCI again constituted a team to examine whether the College
F had rectified the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI team. The
  MCI team again conducted an inspection on 20.05.2008 and
  submitted its report to the MCI. The report pointed out the
  following deficiencies :

G         "(1) There was a shortage of teaching faculty by 18% (22
          out of 110) and Residents by 5% (5 out of 82) as under:

           (a)     Professor - 6

           (b)     Associate Professor - 12
H
   ROHILKHAND MED. COLLEGE & HOSP, BAREILLYv.               701
  MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
      (c)     Asstt. Professor - 4                                 A

      (d)     Tutor - NIL

      (e)     Sr. Resident - 3

      (f)     Jr. Resident - 2                                     B

      (ii)    The OPD attendance on the date of inspection was
              only 691 against the minimum requirement of 850-
              900.

      (iii)   IPD bed occupancy was only 55(74%) against the       C
              minimum requirement of 83-95%."

     6. The MCI inspection report was later placed before the
Executive Committee of MCI in its meeting held on 13/14-06-
2008 and it was decided by the Committee not to renew the          D
permission for the admission of 3rd batch of students for the
academic year 2008-09. The Executive Committee's decision
was communicated to the Central Government vide its letter
dated 14.06.2008. The then Under Secretary, Ministry of Health
and Family Welfare, New Delhi on 19.06.2008 forwarded the          E
letter received from the MCI to the College requesting to submit
the compliance in respect of the deficiencies pointed by the MCI
inspection team. The College then forwarded the compliance
report to the Secretary, MCI vide its letter dated 24.06.2008.
The College also sent another letter dated 01.07.2008 to the
                                                                   F
Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi
stating that the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI team were
of minor nature and, therefore, requested to grant necessary
permission by the Central Government for admission of the 3rd
batch for the academic year 2008-09.
                                                                   G
     7. The Chairman of the Roholhand Medical College and
Hospital on 03.07.2008 sent a letter to the Health Minister,
Government of India requesting to grant necessary permission
and the Central Government, for admission of the 3rd batch,
followed by yet another letter on 04.07.2008 to the Secretary,     H
    702      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A   Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi.

          8. We notice, following the letter received by the Minister
    as well as the Secretary, the Central Government constituted
    a team of two doctors to carry out the compliance verification/
    inspection of the College. The central team conducted the
8
    verification inspection on 11.07 .2008 and submitted its report
    to the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
    New Delhi on 10.07.2008. The central team pointed out the
    following deficiencies:

C         "(i) The shortage of teaching staff was found more than
                 11% (13 out of 116) as under:

          (a) Professor

          (b) Associate Professor - 7
D
          (c) Asstt. Professor - 2

          (d) Tutor - NIL

          (e) Sr. Resident - 1
E
          (f) Jr. Resident - 1

                (ii) The faculty members holding same post were
                getting different salaries. Some of faculty members
F               were getting less salary than resident doctors.
                Some of the Junior Residents were old in age.
                Some of Sr. Residents presented with their
                declaration forms seemed to be specialists doing
                private practice, as they were in the town much
                before the inception of the College/Institution. Some
G
                of the area and buildings were under construction,
                which was not advisable in working in working
                areas."

      9. The then Under Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family
H Welfare, New Delhi then sent a letter dated 27.07.2008 to the
   ROHILKHAND MED. COLLEGE & HOSP., BAREILLY v.               703
  MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
Chairman of the College requesting him not to admit any fresh        A
batch of MBBS students for the academic year 2008-09. The
College was also advised to rectify the deficiencies and send
compliance report for consideration for the academic year
2009-10 for further admission.
                                                                     B
     10. The Chairman of the College then filed a Writ Petition
(C) No.294 of 2008 before this Court which was clubbed with
other similar writ petitions filed by other medical colleges. This
Court passed an order on 03.09.2008 directing the MCI to
submit its recommendations to the Central Government within          C
two days and Ministry of Health and Family Welfare was
directed to consider the issue of grant of permission within a
week. Further it was also directed that the College be given
an opportunity of being heard by the Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare, New Delhi.
                                                                     D
     11. The MCI, in the meantime, conducted yet another
inspection of the College on 19.08.2008 and the MCI team
submitted its report to the Secretary, MCI again pointing out
the following deficiencies:
                                                                     E
     "(i) The shortage of teaching staff was found to be 2.3.68%
(27 out of 114):-

             Professor - 3

             Associate Professor -13                                 F
             Asstt. Professor - 5

             Tutor- 5

      (ii)   The shortage of resident was found to be 20.9%          G
             (17 out of 81):-

             Sr. Resident - 5

             Jr. Resident - 12"
                                                                     H
    704    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A       12. The MCI report was then placed before the Executive
  Committee and the MCI in its meeting held on 21.08.2008,
  decided to inform the Central Government not to renew the
  permission for admission of the 3rd batch of students for the
  academic year 2008-09. The decision of the Executive
B Committee was communicated to the Central Government vide
  its letter dated 04.09.2008 with reference to the order passed
  by this Court on 03.09.2008 in Writ Petition (C) No.294 of 2008,
  filed the College.

       13. The Under Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family
C Welfare, New Delhi then sent a letter dated 09.09.2008 to the
  Chairman of the College to appear before the Deputy Secretary,
  (Medical Education), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
  New Delhi on 10.09.2008 along with the compliance report and
  other documents mentioned in the order passed by this Court
D on 03.09.2008. The Chairman of the College then appeared,
  as directed, on 10.09.2008. The Under Secretary, Ministry of
  Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi then issued a letter to
  the Chairman of the College intimating that after considering
  the facts submitted by the College at the time of personal
E hearing and the recommendations of the MCI, it was decided
  by the Ministry not to grant renewal of permission for admission
  of 3rd batch of MBBS students for the academic year 2008-
  09.

F      14. The Chairman of the College then vide his letter dated
  12.09.2008, addressed to the Secretary, Medical Education,
  Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi requested him
  to grant permission for 50 students of MBBS for the academic
  session 2008-09. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
G New Delhi again constituted a central team and deputed the
  team to inspect the College and submit a report by 25.09.2009
  positively. The two doctors then conducted inspection of the
  College on 25.09.2008 and submitted the report on 26.09.2008
  to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on the same day.
H On the basis of that report the Central Government issued a
   ROHILKHAND MED. COLLEGE & HOSP, BAREILLYv.               705
  MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
letter dated 26.09.2008 according sanction for renewal of          A
permission for admission of 3rd batch of 100 students for the
academic year 2008-09.

     15. On receipt of the said letter dated 12.09.2008 from the
Chairman of the College, the Under Secretary, Ministry of Health   8
and Family Welfare, wrote a letter on 24.09.2008 to the
Secretary, MCI requesting to furnish their recommendations
regarding reduced intake. The Secretary, MCI, in tum, intimated
that on the basis of the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI
team during the inspection of the College on 19.08.2008 the
College was grossly lacking facilities even for admission of 50    C
students.

     16. MCI team, it is seen, constituted yet another
Committee to conduct an inspection of the College on
01.10.2008 and a report was submitted to the MCI on the same       D
day pointing out various deficiencies. The report was submitted
to the Executive Committee of MCI in its meeting held on
06.10.2008 and the Committee took a decision to inform the
Central Government not to renew the permission for the
academic year 2008-09 and urge the Central Government to           E
recall the letter of permission dated 26.09.2008 issued to the
College. The decision of the Executive Committee of the MCI
was communicated to the Central Government vide its letter
dated 06.10.2008.
                                                                   F
     17. We have noticed that the Central Government had
accorded approval for 3rd batch of 100 students for the
academic year 2008-09 on 26.09.2008, despite the repeated
negative recommendations made by the MCI and before the
grant of permission on 26.09.2008, the MCI was not even
consulted. We have indicated the facts to show the situation       G
that prevailed in the year 2008-09 and the manner in which
permission was accorded for intake of 100 students by the
Central Government.

    18. The MCI, following its decision taken on 04.06.2013,       H
    706       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 9 S.C.R. -


A vide its letter dated 20.06.2013 decided to convey its approval
  for renewal of permission for admission for the second batch
  of MBBS students against the increased intake i.e. from100
  to 150 seats to the College for the academic year 2013-14.
  The approval was granted taking into consideration of the
B assessment report dated 26/27-02-2013 submitted to the
  Board of Governors of MCI subject to certain conditions which
  are extracted herein below:

          "I am further directed to inform that you and your institution
          are fully responsible to fulfill and maintain norms including
c         the infrastructure both physical and human resource,
          teaching faculty and clinical material, etc. throughout the
          academic year, as stipulated in Regulation of Medical
          Council of India. In case false/wrong declaration or
          fabricated documents have been used for procuring
D         permission of the Board of Governors for the increased
          intake and the said misconduct is brought to notice or
          comes to tlie knowledge of MCI at any stage during the
          current academic year, your institution is not liable to be
          considered for renewal of permission against increased
E         intake for the next academic year and this renewal of
          permission against the increased intake for the next
          academic year and this renewal of permission against the
          increased intake is also liable to be revoked for current
          academic year. Besides, MCI is entitled to take all such
F         measures against you and your college/institution as
          permissible under the law."

       19. The MCI, in the meantime, received a confidential letter
  dated 11.07 .2013 from the Central Bureau of Investigation (for
G short "the CBI") informing that the CBI has registered a case
  against the Chairman of the College and officers of the Ministry
  of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi under Section 120B
  IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1 )(d) of the
  Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the PC Act").
H Charge-sheet was also enclosed along with the letter, which
   ROHILKHAND MED. COLLEGE & HOSP., B.A.REILLY v.             707
  MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
was placed before the Board of Governors of the MCI in its            A
meeting held on 12.07.2013. The Board then revoked its
decision dated 04.06.2013land communicated the same to the
College vide its letter dated 20.06.2013. The Board of
Governors of the MCI informed the College that the letter of
permission accorded for renewal of admission of the 2nd. batch        B
of students age.inst the increased intake i.e. from 100 to 150
for the acaden.ic year 2013-14 would stand revoked with
immediate effect

    20. The legality of that decision, as already indicated, is       C
the main issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition.

      21. Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioners submitted that the letter dated 13.07.2013
revoking the permission granted for admission for the increased
intake was mala fide and in violation of the principles of natural    D
justice. Learned senior counsel submitted that a right has
already been accrued to the petitioners by virtue of the decision
taken by the MCI on 04.06.2013, which was communicated to
the College vide its letter dated 20.06.2013. Learned senior
counsel submitted that such a decision was validly taken on the       E
inspection report dated 26/27.02.2013. Learned senior counsel
submitted that since the College has complied with all the
conditions stipulated in the Regulations and that there is no
deficiency, as reported by the inspection team, there is no
justification in revoking the permission already granted, that too,   F
without giving the petitioners an opportunity of being heard.
 Learned senior counsel also submitted that mere fact that the
CBI has registered a case against few officers of the Ministry
of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi and also against the
Chairman of the College is not a ground at all to revoke the          G
permission already granted for the additional intake of students
for the academic year 2013-14 since the College has satisfied
all the requirements under the Regulations for Establishment
 of Medical College Regulations, 1999. Learned senior counsel
 also submitted that even though the Chairman of the College
                                                                      H
    708     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013) 9 S.C.R.

A has been charge-sheeted, that itself is not a ground to revoke
  the letter of permission accorded by the Board of Governors,
  unless he has been convicted by a court of competent
  jurisdiction in a criminal investigation. Learned senior counsel
  made a reference to Regulations 3(5) of the "Enhancement of
B Annual Intake Capacity in Under-graduate Courses in Medical
  College for the Academic Session 2013-14 Only Regulation,
  2013 (for short "the Regulation 2013).

        22. Shri Amrendra Sharan, learned senior counsel
C appearing for the students submitted that on the basis of the
  decision of the MCI dated 20.06.2013, 21 students have
  already secured admission in the College by 10th July, 2013,
  since they were allotted the College after successfully
  competing the U.P. Combined Medical Entrance Test (for short
  "the UPCMET) and the decision taken by the MCI on
D 13.07.2013 would have serious consequences so far as the
  students are concerned since they would not be able to get
  admission in any other private institution for this academic year.
  Learned senior counsel also submitted that the College has
  facilitated as per the University Grants Commission (UGC)
E Regulations and there is no justification in not permitting the
  students to continue with their study in the College even if there
  was some infirmity in the grant of permission granted by the
  Central Government for the additional intake during the year
  2008-09.
F
        23. Shri Amit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
  Medical Council of India, on the other hand, justified the decision
  taken by the MCI on 13.07.2013. Learned counsel submitted
  that the MCI has the power to revoke its earlier decision taken
G on 04.06.2013 if sufficient materials have been brought to its
  knowledge which have got a vital bearing in the matter of
  conduct of courses in the College. Learned counsel also
  submitted and referred to the letter dated 20.06.2013 and
  pointed out that permission was accorded subject to certain
  conditions and those conditions have been violated by the
H
   ROHILKHAND MED. COLLEGE & HOSP, BAREILLY v.               709
  MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
College. Learned counsel submitted that as per clause                A
8(3)(1)(d) of the Establishment of Medical Regulations
(Amendment 2010 Part II), the MCI has got the power not to
renew the permission/recognition, if it is observed later that any
institute is found to have acted on fake/forged documents, such
an institute could not be considered for renewai of permission/      B
recognition for the post-graduate courses for two years i.e for
the academic year and the next academic year also. Hence,
the decision taken by the MCI revoking the letter of permission
for renewal of admission of the 2nd batch of students against
the increased intake from 100 to 150 students for the academic       c
year 2013-14 was justified.

     24. We may notice with concern the unprecedented growth
of the Technical and Medical Institutions in this country which
has resulted in widespread prevalence of various unethical
practices. Collection of large amount by way of capitation fee       D
running into crores of rupees for MBBS and Post-Graduate
seats, exorbitant fee, donation etc, by many of such self
financing institutions, has kept the meritorious financially poor
students away from those institutions. Pressure, it is also seen,
is being extended by various institutions, for the additional        E
intake of students, not always for the benefit of the student
community and thereby serve the community, but for their own
betterment.

    25. We are not commenting upon the acceptability, or             F
otherwise, of the charges leveled against the Minister,
bureaucrats or the Chairman of the College. But the fact
remains, the CBI after conducting an investigation had to
charge-sheet them under Section 120B, 468, 471 IPC and
Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. CBl's        G
investigation prima facie establishes the criminal conspiracy
between the Chairman of the College and the then Union
Minister of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India,
New Delhi along with the then Deputy Secretary, Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, two doctors, one is the
                                                                     H
    710       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A head of Nephrology VMMV and Safdarjung Hospital and the
  other is Professor of Department of Community Medicine,
  VMMC and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi which lead to the
  issuance of the order passed for the additional intake of 50
  students for the academic year 2008-09 on 26.09.2008. For
B the prosecution of both the doctors necessary prior sanction
  was obtained from the competent authority by the CBI.

        26. The CBI, in its charge-sheet, points out serious
  infirmities in the report submitted by the central team, which
C conducted the inspection of the College on 25.09.2008, which
  are as follow:

          ''The above chart clearly proves that accused Dr. Vindu
          Amitabh and accused Dr. S.K.Rasania were party to the
          larger conspiracy and they deliberately by way of limiting
D         the shortage of faculty to 2% in their report; had glossed
          over the glaring deficiencies in the strength of the faculty
          members (15% i.e. 17 out of 115) and thereby, facilitated
          the private College in getting permission of the Central
          Govt.
E
                Their involvement in the criminal conspiracy is further
          established by the fact that during the inspection they did
          not ask the faculty members as to whether they (faculty
          members) were full timers or part-timers/merely called to
          make up the members for the purpose of inspection. The
F         investigation has established that at least 5 doctors,
          namely, Dr. Harbeer Singh Sodhi, Dr. Anil Madan, Dr.
          Birendra Kumar Sinha, Dr. Jamaludin and Dr. Shiv Nath
          Banerjee, who have been shown as full time faculty
          members and residents in the records of Rohilkhand
G         Medical College, Bareily during 2008, have confirmed that
          they had never worked as full-timers in the said College
          during 2008, but were rather, visiting faculty. These facts
          prove that the inspection report of accused Dr. Vindu
          Amitabh and accused Dr. S.K. Rasania was perfunctory
H         and biased in favour to the private Medical College.
 ROHILKHAND MED. COLLEGE & HOSP, BAREILLYv.                  711
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
        The investigation further disclosed that accused Dr.         A
  Vindu Amitabh and accused Dr. S.K. Rasania have
  claimed to have done personal inspection of the wards and
  the departments. In their inspection report, they mentioned
  that the presence (of patients in the OPDs of all
  Departments was good, the bed occupancy was about                  B
  90% and that the ICU was full to its capacity. However,
  during the investigation , physical verification of 14 patients,
  who were shown present in the OPD registers on the date
  of inspection, i.e. 25.09.2003, was got conducted through
  the Postal Deptt. on the random basis. It was revealed that        c
  09 of them were fake or non-existent. The claim of the
  accused doctors of the Central Team of having done
  personal inspection of the wards and the departments,
  which was one of the important criteria, on the basis of
  which they gave a green signal to the College, thus turns          D
  out to be devoid of merit and a falsehood.

         The investigation further revealed that the Central
  Team comprising of accused Dr. Vindu Amitabh and
  accused Dr. S.K. Rasania has stated in its report that it
  accepted the photocopies of the declaration forms,                 E
  submitted to MCI, for verification. During the investigation,
  it has been revealed that declaration forms are provided
  by the College concerned, include details of all faculty
  members, their educational qualification, appointment
  letter, identification documents (like PAN card, etc.)             F
  documents in support of their residence in the Medical
  College (like ration card, in order to certify their being
  permanent faculty members there).

        During the investigation, 5 so called faculty members        G
  (Dr. Harbeer Singh Sodhi, Dr. Anil Madan, Dr. Birendra
  Kumar Sinha, Dr. Jamaludin and Dr. Shiv Nath Banerjee)
  have stated that they used to be called only for the
  inspections of the said College. They were at best, visiting
  faculty members. Incidentally, the MCI rules have not              H
    712      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A         provision for part-timers or visiting faculty members.
          Though the said 5 doctors have owned their signatures on
          their Declaration Forms, they have denied receiving the
          appointment letters shown to be annexed with their
          respective declaration forms. They have also stated that
B         the ration cards, residential certificates, Form-16 (Income
          Tax) etc. shown as having been issued in their names, were
          never given to them. Besides, it has been found that they
          are all bogus/fake and forged, as they (the doctors) were
          neither resident on the addresses shown in the records nor
c         had they ever applied for any ration card. The District
          Supply Officer, Bareilly has denied their issuance and
          confirmed that the said ration cards are fake and forged.
          It is pertinent to mention that the fake ration cards have
          been used by the College authorities to falsely establish
          before the MCI Inspectors that th said doctors were their
D
          permanent faculty members. Similarly no Form-16 was
          ever issued to them by the College.

                The investigation further disclosed that in case of the
          aforesaid doctors, the appointment letters were issued in
E         their name by the College authorities without their
          knowledge and the details of appointments do not even
          bear the signatures of their doctors/employees of the
          College in the acceptable column. This proves the
          fabrication and use of (forged) documents by the College
F         authorities, for the purpose of obtaining the approval of
          Govt. of India on the recommendations of MCI/Central
          Team deputed by GOI. However, the accused doctors i.e.
          Dr. Vindu Amitabh and Dr. S.K. Rasania of the Central
          Team in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy did not
G         confirm the genuineness of the documents put up by the
          College authorities and without verifying the documents
          accepted photocopies of the Declaration Forms and
          furnished a positive report in favour of the College on the
          very next day. It is pertinent to mention that despite
H         mentioning about the presence of such doctors, who were
   ROHILKHAND MED. COLLEGE & HOSP., BAREILLY v.               713
  MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
     even practicing in Bareilly and the non-production of the        A
     original appointment letters, even when asked for, the said
     Central Team still went ahead to give a clean chit to the
     College. "

     27. We can also take judicial notice of the fact that many       B
a times the medical colleges and engineering colleges and
others are being established after availing large amounts by
way of loans from the financial institutions and other borrowings,
with no funds of their own, and once the college gets approval
and students are admitted, loan availed of is being repaid from
the capitation fee charged from the students and ultimately that      C
amount constitute their capital. Many a times, even without any
sufficient facilities they put pressure on the various agencies
and the Central Government and get approval overlooking the
regulatory authority, like MCI, which adversely affects the quality
of medical education in this country. For instance, the MCI has       D
taken in the instant case a consistent view and sent negative
reports to the Central Government, but overlooking all the
reports submitted by the MCI, the Central Government got a
report of its own and granted permission vide its letter dated
26.09.2008. CBI in its charge-sheet has categorically and             E
clearly reported that this was done on the basis of bogus, fake
and forged records. CBI noticed that the college authorities had
produced fabricated and forged documents before the
inspection team and the team failed to verify the correctness
or otherwise of those documents. CBI investigation has                F
revealed that fraud has been practiced by the Central team as
well as the college to get the sanction for the 3rd batch of
MBBS students for the academic year 2008-09.

DUTY OF INSPECTION TEAM:
                                                                      G
     28. The Medical Council Act, 1956, especially Section 1OA,
mandates that when a new medical college is to be established
or the number of seats to be increased, the permission of the
Central Government is a pre-requisite. Section 19A obliges the
MCI to prescribe minimum required standards for medical               H
    714       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A education and the recommendation made by MCI to the
  Central Government carry considerable weight, it being an
  Expert Body. MCI had prescribed the regulation - "Minimum
  Standard Requirements for the Medical College for 100
  Admissions Annually Regulations, 1999" which is germane for
B our case, was published in the Gazette of India dated 29.1.2000.
  In order to verify the minimum requirements, MCI gets the
  inspection conducted by Inspectors, who are experts, submit
  their reports on the availability of the staff - teaching and
  residents - and other infrastructural facilities, clinical availability,
c etc. as per the regulations.
      29. We notice, in this case, constantly on all the occasions,
  the MCI Team decided to recommend to the Central
  Government not to renew permission for admission of the third
  batch for the academic year 2008-09. Consistent stand of the
D MCI was communicated to the Central Government on various
  occasions, but without even ascertaining their view, a Central
  Team was appointed, got a favourable report and permission
  was accorded by the Central Government for the year 2008-
  09, which was the subject matter of CBI investigation.
E
       30. We have now to examine the legality of decision of the
  MCI taken on 13.07.2013 in the light of the above factual and
  legal scenario. We have already indicated that when sanction
  was accorded on 20.06.2013 it was categorically stated by the
F MCI that the same was accorded subject to certain conditions.
  It was stated therein that in case false/wrong declaration or
  fabricated documents have been used for procuring permission
  of the Board of Governors of the increased intake and if said
  misconduct was brought to the notice or comes to the
G knowledge of the MCI, at any stage during the current academic
  year (2013-14) institution/college would not be liable to be
  considered for renewal of the permission against increased
  intake for the next academic year and that renewal of
  permission against the increased intake for the academic year
H 2013-14 and for the next academic year and the same would
  be liable to be revoked.
   ROHILKHAND MED. COLLEGE & HOSP, BAREILLY v.               715
  MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
     31. Having received the letter of the CBI as well as the        A
charge-sheet the impugned order dated 13.07.2013 was
issued by the MCI revoking the letter of permission granted for
the academic year 2013-14.

     32. We are of the view that the above decision taken by
                                                                     8
the MCI is in accordance with the Establishment of Medical
Colleges Regulation (Amendment 2010 Part II). The above-
mentioned Regulation was issued by the MCI in exercise of its
powers under Section 33 of the IMC Act, 1956 with the previous
sanction of the Central Government. Clause 8.3 of the
Regulation deals with the Grant of Permission, sub-clause            C
8(3)(1)(d) deals with the colleges which are found to have
employed teachers with faked/forged documents. Those
provisions are extracted herein below:

    "8(3)(1)(d) Colleges which are found to have employed            D
    teachers with faked/forged documents:

    If it is observed that any institute is found to have employed
    a teacher with faked/forged documents and have
    submitted the Declaration Form of such a teacher, such           E
    an institute will not be considered for renewal of
    permission/recognition for award of M.B.B.S. degree/
    processing the applications for postgraduate courses for
    two Academic Years - i.e. that Academic Year and the
    next Academic Year also.
                                                                     F
    However, the office of the Council shall ensure that such
    inspections are not carried out at least 3 days before upto
    3 days after important religious and festival holidays
    declared by the Central/State Government."
                                                                     G
     33. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, as already
indicated, submitted that only if the Chairman of the College is
convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction in a criminal
investigation then only the sanction accorded could be revoked.
Such an argument was raised relying upon 2013 Regulations,
                                                                     H
    716      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A   which in our view, would not apply to the facts of this case.
    Regulation 3 of Regulations 2013 reads as follow:

          "3. Eligibility to make application : (1) the application
          for enhance of annual intake capacity in the existing
          Medical Colleges may be made by the recognizations that
B
          have established the Medical College to the Board of
          Governors in supersession of the Medical Council of India.
          The format of application for Government and non-
          governmental owned Medical College is prescribed in
          Schedule I appended to these Regulations.
c
          (2) Only such existing Medical Colleges shall be eligible
          to apply under these Regulations that enjoy minimum ten
          years of standing from the date of grant of initial letter of
          permission by the Central Government and the MBBS
D         qualification awarded by them stands included in the First
          Schedule of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (Act
          No.102 of 1956).

          (3) The Medical Colleges with an annual intake of 50 or
          more but below 100 MBBS seats shall be eligible to apply
E
          for enhance for annual intake capacity to 100, as one-time
          measure.

          (4) The Medical Colleges with an annual intake of 100 or
          more but below 150 MBBS seats shall be eligible to apply
F         for enhancement for annual intake capacity to 150, as one-
          time measure.

          (5) Such Medical Colleges that have not been granted
          letter of permission by the Board of Governors in Super-
G         session of the Medical Council of India in accordance with
          clause 8(1 )(3)(d) of the Establishment of Medical Colleges
          Regulations, 1999 (notified in the Official Gazette on
          16.04.2010) and/or the person who has established the
          Medical College has been convicted by a Court of
          Competent jurisdiction in a criminal investigation initiated
H
    ROHILKHAND MED. COLLEGE & HOSP., BAREILLY v.               717
   MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
     by the Central Bureau of Investigation or Police."                A

      34. Clause (2) of Regulation 3 clearly states that only such
medical colleges shall be eligible under these Regulations that
enjoy minimum 10 years of standing from the date of grant of
initial letter of permission by the Central Government. So far         B
as the petitioner is concerned, they have completed only eight
years, consequently, Regulations 2013 would not apply to them.

      35. The petitioners are governed by Establishment of
Medical Colleges Regulations, (Amendment), 2010 (Part II),
especially clause 8(3)(1)(d), in the event of which, when MIC          C
finds that the college has employed fake/forged documents for
renewal of permission/recognition for processing applications
etc., that institute will not be able to be considered for renewal
of permission/ recognition for award of MBBS Degree/
processing the application for post-graduate courses for two           D
academic years i.e. that academic year and the next academic
year. In this case, CBI letter was received on 11.07.2013 by
the MCI and it was placed before the Board of Governors on
12.07 .2013 and the revocation order was passed on
13.07 .2013 revoking the renewal of permission for the 2nd             E
batch of students against the increased intake from 100 to 150
students for the academic year 2013-14.

     36. We are of the considered view that the MCI need not
wait till the culmination of the trial initiated on the basis of the
                                                                       F
charge-sheet filed by the CBI. The investigation by a premier
agency like the CBI has prima facie revealed that the college
has used fake and forged materials to get sanction for the
intake for the year 2008-09, in our view, that is sufficient for the
MCI to take action in accordance with the Regulations 8(1)(3)(d)
of Regulations 2013.                                                   G

     37. We are also not impressed by the argument raised by
Mr. Amrendra Sharan, learned senior counsel appearing for the
students that they have already joined the course on 10.07.2013.
The information brochure issued by the UPCMET refers to two            H
    718      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A important dates. The important dates are the date of results
  declaration as 15.06.2013 and counseling would start after
  15.07 .2013. If that be so, we fail to see how students could be
  admitted on 10.07.2013. Counsel, however, made reference
  to the newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' where it is indicated that the
B first counseling would be on July 5, 2013. We cannot give
  sanctity tc that news items compared to the information
  brochure published by the U.P. Unaided Medical Colleges
  Welfare Association for the conduct of UPCMET. Even
  otherwise, in our view, once the medical council finds that the
c sanction had been obtained on the basis of fake and forge
  documents, clause 8(3)(1)(d) kicks in and the fraud unravels
  everything. We make it clear that the criminal case charge-
  sheeted by the CBI will, however, be disposed of uninfluenced
  by observations, if any, made by us in this judgment.

D COURT'S CONCERN

          38. We think, this is an apt occasion to ponder over
    whether we have achieved the desired goals, eloquently
    highlighted by the Constitution Bench judgments of this Court
E   in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others v. State of Kamataka and
    others (2002) 8 SCC 481 and P.A. lnamdar and others v.
    State of Maharashtra and others (2005) 6 SCC 537. TMA Pai
    Foundation case (supra) has stated that there is nothing wrong
    if the entrance test being held by self financial institutions or by
F   a group of institutions but the entrance test they conduct should
    satisfy the triple test of being fair, transparent and not
    exploitative. TMA Pai Foundation (supra) and /namdar (supra)
    repeatedly stated that the object of establishing an educational
    institution is not to make profit and imparting education is
G   charitable in nature. Court has repeatedly said that the common
    entrance test conducted by private educational institutions mu•3t
    be one enjoined to ensure the fulfillment of twin object of
    transparency and merits and no capitation fee be charged and
    there should not be profiteering. Facts, however, give contrary
H   picture. In lnamdar, this Court, in categorical terms, has
   ROHILKHAND MED. COLLEGE & HOSP., BAREILLY v.                 719
  MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
declared that no capitation fee be permitted to be charged and          A
no seat can be permitted to be appropriated by payment of
capitation fee.

     39. The CBl's investigation, however, reveals a sorry state
of affairs, which is an eye-opener for taking appropriate               B
remedial measures in future so that medical education may
attain the goals envisaged by the IMC Act and the Regulations
and serve the community. CBI had to charge~sheet none other
than the then Union Minister of Health and Family Welfare, itself
which depict how the educational system in this country is
deteriorating. Many of regulatory bodies like MCI, AICTE, UGC           C
etc. were also under serious clout in the recent years. CBI, in
the year 2010, had to arrest the President of the MCI for
accepting bribe to grant recognition to one Medical College in
Punjab. Later, it is reported that the CBI found that the President
of the MCI and its family members possessed disproportionate            D
assets worth of 24 crores. We have referred to these instances
only to indicate the falling standards of our educational system
at the highest level, sometime even at the level of the Central
Government making a serious inroad to the right to life
guaranteed to the citizens of the country under Article 21 of the       E
Constitution of India.

      40. Mushrooming of large number of medical, engineering,
nursing and pharmaceutical colleges, which has definitely
affected the quality of education in this country, especially in the    F
medical field which call for serious introspection. Private
medical educational institutions are always demanding more
number of seats in their colleges even though many of them have
no sufficient infrastructural facilities, clinical materials, faculty
members, etc. Reports appear in every now and then that many            G
of the private institutions which are conducting medical colleges
are demanding laklis and sometimes crores of rupees for
MBBS and for post-graduate admission in their respective
colleges. Recently, it is reported that few MBBS seats were sold
in private colleges of Chennai. We cannot lose sight of the fact
that these things are happening in our country irrespective of          H
    720       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A the constitutional pronouncements by this Court in TMA Pai
  Foundation that there shall not be any profiteering or
  acceptance of capitation fee etc. Central Government, Ministry
  of Health and Family Welfare, Central Bureau of Investigation
  or the Intelligence Wing have to take effective steps to undo
B such unethical practices or else self-financing institutions will
  turn to be students financing institutions.

           41. We notice that the current policy of the Central
  Government in the higher education is to provide autonomy of
  institutions, but adoption of unfair practices is a serious violation
C of the law. Few States, like Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra
  Pradesh, Maharashtra, Kerala, Delhi etc. have passed some
  legislation to prohibit demand/collection of capitation fee which
  have no teeth, the institutions who indulges in such practices
  can get away by paying some fine, which is meager.
D
        42. We, therefore, emphasise the extreme necessity of a
  Parliamentary Legislation for curbing these unfair practices,
  which is the demand of our society. 'The Prohibition of Unfair
  Practices in Technical Educational Institutions, Medical
E Educational Institutions and University Bill, 201 O" has already
  been presented to both the Houses of Parliament. It is reported
  that the States have welcomed such a legislation, but no further
  follow up action has been taken. We are confident, earnest
  efforts would be made to bring in proper legislation, so that
F unethical and unfair practices prevalent in higher technical and
  medical institutions can be effectively curbed in the larger public
  interest.

       43. We, therefore, find no good reason to invoke Article
  32 of the Constitution of India and none of the fundamental
G rights guaranteed to the petitioners stand violated. The Petition,
  therefore, lacks merits and is dismissed ..

    R.P.                                    Writ Petition dismissed.