Supreme Court of India
STATE OF M.P. & ANR.versusSURESH NARAYAN VIJAYVARGIYA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2014 INSC 151
- Decided
- 27 February 2014
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- B S CHAUHAN
Holding
Willful violation of the Supreme Court's interim seat‑sharing orders constitutes contempt of court, and an apology does not excuse liability, warranting a fine of Rs.50 lakhs and directions to adjust excess admissions.
Summary
The Supreme Court had earlier issued interim orders directing that MBBS seats in private medical colleges in Madhya Pradesh be shared with the State Government on a 50:50 basis, after excluding a 15% NRI quota. The respondents‑private colleges admitted all 150 seats for the 2011‑12 academic year without sharing, and later admitted an additional 95 students, raising total admissions to 245, far exceeding the sanctioned strength of 150. The State Government filed a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of the Court's orders; the colleges attempted to justify their actions under the Private Universities Act and claimed the AFRC Act no longer applied. The Court held that a court order cannot be evaded by invoking statutory provisions, that an unconditional apology does not absolve contempt, and imposed a fine of Rs.50 lakhs while directing the adjustment of excess seats in subsequent years. The contempt petition was disposed with the fine and directions for regularising state‑quota admissions.
Issues considered
- Whether the private medical colleges violated the Supreme Court's interim orders on seat sharing for MBBS admissions.
- Whether reliance on the Private Universities Act, 2007 or the AFRC Act, 2007 can override the Supreme Court's orders.
- Whether an unconditional and unqualified apology can exempt the contemnors from contempt liability.
- Whether a fine can be imposed for contempt in the circumstances.
- How the excess admissions should be regularised and adjusted in future academic sessions.
Legislation cited
Subjects
contempt of courtmedical admissionsseat sharingprivate medical collegesinterim ordersapologyfineadjustment of excess seatsrule of law
Judgment
[2014] 3 S.C.R. 374
A STATE OF M.P. & ANR.
v.
SURESH NARAYAN VIJAYVARGIYA & ORS.
(Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 390 of 2011)
IN
B Civil Appeal No. 4060 of 20.09.
FEBRUARY 27, 2014
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND
S.A. BOBDE, JJ.]
c
CONTEMPT OF COURT:
Medical admissions - Admission to MBBS seats - Interim
orders by Supreme Court in matter of sharing of seats
0 between State Government and respon_qent-private medical
colleges - Admissions made by respondents on all seats in
violation of orders of Supreme Court - By order of High Court
state quota students also admitted resulting in admissions in
excess of sanctioned strength - Held: Once the court passes
E an order, the parties to the proceed 9ings before the court
cannot avoid implementation of that order by seeking refuge
under any statutory rule and it is not open to the parties to go
behind the orders and truncate the effect of those orders -
There has been a willful disobedience by the contemnors of
the orders passed by the Court, which is nothing but
F interference with the administration of justice - Contemnors
have shown scant respect to the orders passed by the highest
Court of the land and depicted undue haste to fill up the entire
seats evidently not to attract better students or recognize
merit, but possibly to make unlawful gain, adopting unhealthy
G practices - Contemnors have tendered unconditional and
unqualified apology and volunteered to set right the illegality
committed by them, but the purpose for flouting the orders has
been achieved, that is, the contemnors wanted to fill up the
entire seats by themselves - Therefore, to maintain the
H 374
STATE OF M.P. & ANR. v. SURESH NARAYAN 375
VIJAYVARGIYA & ORS.
sanctity of the orders of the Court and to give a message that. A
the parties cannot get away by merely tendering an
unconditional and unqualified apology after enjoying the fruits
of their illegality, the Court imposes a fine of Rs. 50 lakhs -
Directions given for adjustment of seats in the following
academic sessions - Medical education. B
The Supreme Court of India passed interim order
dated 27.5.2009 and 27.1.2011 in the matter of sharing of
MBBS seats between private medical colleges and the
State Government. The State Government and the
Director of Medical Education filed the instant contempt C
petition alleging that the respondents-private medical ·
colleges filled up the entire 150 seats for the year 2011-
2012 without sharing it with the State Government and
thus violated the orders of Court passed on 27.5.2009 and
27.1.2011. The students of the State quota; approached D
the High Court, which directed the respondents to admit
the said students and with that the number of admitted
students. went upto 245 as against sanctioned strength
of 150. It was further stated that since the respondents
did not have infrastructural facility to admit 245 students, E
it adversely affected the academic standards of the
students admitted.
Disposing of the petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The situation has been created by the F
contemnors themselves by filling up of the entire 150
seats in total defiance of the interim orders passed by this
Court on 27.5.2009 and 27.1.2011 making an interim
arrangement for seat sharing between the State
Government and the private educational institutions from G
the year 2009-10 onwards in the State of Madhya
Pradesh, which are binding on the contemnors. The
contemnors attempted to justify their action on the
ground that they are regulated by the Private Universities
Act and that AFRC Act has ceased to apply and, after the H
376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R.
A notification dated 4.5.2011, the State Government has no
right even to share seats in their institution, de hors the
interim orders passed by this Court. This stand taken- by
the contemnors is also not correct, since s. 7(m) of the
Private University Act, 2007 provides that admission shall
B not be started till the concerned statutes and ordinances
are approved as per s. 35 of the Act, which states that the
statutes and ordinances shall come into force only upon
publication in the official Gazette. Even otherwise, once
there is an order in force binding on the parties, they
c cannot violate or ignore that order, taking shelter under
a statutory provision and if any modification of the orders
is warranted, parties should have approached this Court
and sought for clarification or modification of those
orders. However, without doing so, in total defiance of
the orders passed by this Court, they filled up the entire
0
seats, leaving the students who figured in the State list
in the lurch. Later, though they were admitted in the
College having the infrastructure for accommodating
only 150 students, it has affected the quality and standard
E of medical education. [para 13) [386-D-H; 387-A-B]
1.2 There has been a willful disobedience by the
contemnors of the orders passed by this Court, which is
nothing but interference with the administration of justice.
Disobedience of an order of a court, which is willful,
F shakes the very foundation of the judicial system and can
erode the faith and confidence reposed by the people in
the Judiciary and undermines rule of law. The
contemnors have shown scant respect to the orders
passed by the highest Court of the land and depicted
G undue haste to fill up the entire seats evidently not to
attract better students or recognize merit, but possibly to
make unlawful gain, adopting unhealthy practices. [para
14) (387-D-F]
TMA Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
t H 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 = (2002) 8 SCC 48 - referred to.
·STATE OF M.P. & ANR. v. SURESH NARAYAN 377
VIJAYVARGIYA & ORS.
1.3 Once the Court passes an order, the parties to the A
proceedings before the court cannot avoid
implementation of that order by seeking refuge under any
statutory rule and it is not open to the parties to go behind
the orders and truncate the effect of those orders. [para
14] [387-F-G] B
T.R. Dhananjaya v. J. Vasudevan 1995 (3) Suppl. SCR
64 = (1995) 5 SCC 619; Mohd. Aslam alias Bhure, Acchan
=
Rizvi v. Union of India 1994 (5) Suppl. SCR 104 (1994) 6
sec 442 - relied on.
c
1.4 Contemnors cannot take refuse under a
notification issued under a Statute to defeat the interim
orders passed by this Court which are binding on the
parties, unless varied or modified by this Court. In the
instant case, all the appeals in which interim orders have o
been passed, are pending before this Court and if the
contemnors had any doubt on the applicability of those
orders, they could have sought clarification or
modification of the order. By tendering unconditional and
unqualified apology, the contemnors are trying to wriggle E
out of the possible action for Contempt of Court, after
violating the orders causing considerable inconvenience
to the students and after enjoying the fruits of the illegality
committed by them. It is trite law that apology is neither
a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their offence
F
nor is it intended to operate as universal panacea; it is
intended to be evidence of real contriteness. [para 15]
[388-C-F]
M. Y. Shareef & Anr. v. Hon'ble Judges of the High Court
of Nagpur & Ors. (1955) 1 SCR 757; MB. Sanghi, Advocate G
v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana & Ors. 1991 (3) SCR 312
= (1991) 3 sec 600 - relied on.
1.5 Contemnors have tendered unconditional and
unqualified apology and volunteered to set right the H
378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R.
A illegality committed by them, but the purpose of flouting
the orders has been achieved, that is the contemnors
wanted to fill up the entire seats by themselves.
Therefore, to maintain the sanctity of the orders of this
Court and to give a message that the parties cannot get
8 away by merely tendering an unconditional and
unqualified apology after enjoying the fruits of their
illegality, this Court imposes a fine of Rs.50 lakhs. [para
16) [388-G-H; 389-A]
1.6 In the circumstances, it is ordered that the
C admission of students under the State quota for the
academic year 2011-12 in Medical College is valid and
legal and appropriate steps should be taken by the State
Government and the Medical Council of India to
regularize the admission. The excess 107 admissions
O made by the Medical College for the MBBS during the
year 2011-12 and the previous year, be adjusted in the
session 2014-15 in full taking note of the full sanctioned
strength and the balance seats be adjusted in the year
2015-16. The unconditional and unqualified apology
E tendered by the contemnors is accepted. [para 20) [390-
D-F]
Mridul Dhar (Minor) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. 2005
(1) SCR 380 = (2005) 2 SCC 65 - referred to.
F Case Law Reference:
2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 referred to para 14
1995 (3) Suppl. SCR 64 relied on para 14
1994 (5) Suppl. SCR 104 relied on para 14
G (1955) 1 SCR 757 relied on para 15
1991 (3) SCR 312 relied on para 15
2005 (1) SCR 380 referred to para 18
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition
H (Civil) No. 390 of 2011.
STATE OF M.P. & ANR. v. SURESH NARAYAN 379
VIJAYVARGIYA & ORS.
IN A
Civil Appeal No. 4060 of 2009.
Vibha Datta Makhija, Mishra Saurabh, Vanshaja Shukla,
Archi Agnihotri, Ankit Lal, B.S. Banthia for the Petitioners.
B
Sushil Kumar Jain, Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Puneet Jain,
Christ Jain, Navdeep, Pratibha Jain, Amal Pushp Shroti,
Gaurav Sharma, Vivek Shiwastava for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. We are, in this contempt
petition, concerned with the question whether the contemnors
have violated the interim orders passed by this Court on
· 27.5.2009 and 27.1.2011 in Civil Appeal No. 4060 of 2009 in
the matter of sharing of MBBS seats between the respondent o
private medical college and the State Government. ,
, \
2. Civil Appeal No. 4060 of 2009 was preferred by the
respondents/contemnors herein, challenging the judgment of
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 15.5.2009, which
upheld the validity of the Madhya Pradesh (Admission and Fee E
Regulatory Committee) Act, 2007 (for short "AFRC Act"),
empowering the State Government to fill all the seats (including
the NRI seats) in all the education institutions in the State of
Madhya Pradesh, including private medical and dental collages.
Since serious disputes were raised with regard to seat sharing F
and fixation of quota of seats for MBBS/BDS, this Court felt that
some interim arrangement should be made taking note of the
interest of both the parties and also that of the students. This
Court, therefore, .as an interim measure, passed an order on
27.5.2009 in C.A. No.4060 of 2009 and the connected G
appeals, which reads as follows:
"We, therefore, direct that the admissions in the
private unaided medical/dental colleges in the State of
Madhya Pradesh will be done by first excluding 15% NRI H
380 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R.
A seats (which can be filled up by the private institutions as
per para 131 of lnamdar case), and allotting half of the
85% seats for admission to the undergraduate and post-
graduate courses to be filled in by an open competitive
examination by the State Government, and the remaining
B half by the Association of the Private Medical and Dental
Colleges. Both the State Government as well as the
Association of Private Medical and Dental Colleges will
hold their own separate entrance examination for this
purpose. As regards "the NRI seats", they will be filled as
c provided under the Act and the Rules, in the manner they
were done earlier.
We make it clear that the aforesaid directions will for
the time being only be applicable for this Academic Year
i.e. 2009-2010. We also make it clear that if there are an
D odd number of seats then it will be rounded off in favour
of the private institutions. For example, if there are 25
seats, 12 will be filled up by the State Government and 13
will be filled up by the Association of Private Medical/
Dental Colleges. In specialities in PG courses also half the
E seats will be filled in by the State Government and half by
the Association of Private Medical/Dental Colleges and
any fraction will be rounded off in favour of the Association.
In other words if in any discipline there are, say, 9 seats,
then 5 will be filled in by the Association and the remaining
F 4 will by the State Government. Capitation fee is
prohibited, both to the State Government as well as the
private institutions, vide para 140 of lnamdar case. Both
the State Government and the Association of Private
Medical/Dental Colleges will separately hold single window
G examinations for the whole State (vide para 136 of
lnamdar case).
We make it clear that the solution we have arrived
at may not be perfect, but we have tried to do our best to
find out the best via media. Although this order is only for
H
STATE OF M.P. & ANR. v. SURESH NARAYAN 381
VIJAYVARGIYA & ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
Academic Year 2009-2010, we recommend that it may A
also be considered for future sessions.
Six weeks' time is allowed for filing counter-affidavit
and four weeks thereafter for filing rejoinder.
List these appeals for final hearing in September B
2009. In the meantime, pleadings may be completed by
the parties."
3. The interim arrangement made continued in the
subsequent years as well and in the year 2011-2012, this Court C
vide its order dated 27 .1.2011 in I.A. No. 50 of 2011 passed
the following order:
"The order dated 27th May, 2009 made in Civil Appeal No.
4060 of 2009 etc. shall be applicable for the academic D
year 2011-2012.
There shall be an order accordingly."
4. This contempt petition has been preferred by the State
Government and the Director of Medical Education Department D
alleging that the contemnors have filled up the entire 150 seats
available for the year 2011-2012, without sharing it with the
State Government, violating the orders of this Court dated
27.5.2009 and 27.1.2011. Petitioners pointed out that the
contemnors had sent a letter dated 23.5.2011 stating that they E
would fill up the entire seats during the academic year 2011-
2012 since their colleges would be functioning under the
Madhya Pradesh Niji Vishwavidyalaya (Sthapana Avam
Sanchalan) Adhiniyam, 2007 [for short "Adhiniyam 2007"],
consequent to the establishment of the Peoples' University
F
under M.P. Act No.18 of 2011 and the admission process of
those constituent institutions would be governed by the statutes
and ordinances framed under the above-mentioned Act. The
State Government noticing the stand taken by the contemnors,
wrote a letter dated 14.7.2011 to the Managing Director of the
G
. 382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R.
A Medical College stating that the admissions have to be made
only following the arrangement made by this Court vide order
dated 27.1.2011 and, if any change has to be made, the same
could be done only with the permission of this Court.
5. The Directorate of Medical Education of the State
B Government also wrote a letter dated 14.7.2011 to the Medical
Council of India, informing the Council of the defiant attitude
taken by the contemnors by not giving admission to any of the
students included in the State quota for the academic year
2010-11.
c
6. The Directorate of Medical Education then wrote a
detailed letter dated 8.8.2011 to the Secretary, Association of
Private Dental & Medical Colleges, in the State, specifically
referring to the interim order passed by this Court on 27.1.2011
D reminding them of the necessity of the complianc~ of the
Court's directions in the matter of seat sharing. The
contemnors, ignoring those letters, published an advertisement
in a !bcal newspaper "People Samachar" on 9.8.2011 informing
the public that 150 seats would be availa.ble with them for
E admission to MBBS course under the management quota for
the year 2011-12.
7. The Directorate of Medical Education, in the meanwhile,
sent a list of 66 students under the State quota to the Medical
College for admission to MBBS course. The contemnors
F refused to admit those students under the State quota and the
State Government received several complaints from the
students who were included in the State quota, but not admitted
by the contemnors. The State Government then sent a notice
dated 17 .8.2011, to the Dean of the Medical College to show
G cause why the following action be not initiated against the
college:-
(a) withdraw the Desirability and Feasibility Certificates
issued in favour of the college;
H
STATE OF M.P. & ANR. v. SURESH NARAYAN 383
VIJAYVARGIYA & ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
· (b) report the matter to the Medical Council of India to A
take suitable action against the college.
(c) report the matter to the concerned authorities for
action against Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik
Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam 8
ShulkKa Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007.
8. The contemnors, in total defiance of the Court's order
as well as the various directions issued by the Directorate of
Medical Education, filled up the entire 150 seats in the
management quota for the academic year 2011-12. C
9. The students, who figured in the State quota, then
approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court
directed the contemnors to admit students who were included
in the State quota. Consequently, they admitted those students D
and the number of students admitted in the College went up to
· 245 as against the sanctioned strength of 150 seats. The
Medical College does not have the infrastructural facilities to
admit 245 students, which has adversely affected the academic
standards of the students admitted. The State Government, as E
also the Directorate of Medical Education, in the above-
mentioned circumstances, approached this Court and filed the
present Contempt Petition for taking appropriate action against
the contemnors for violating the orders passed by this Court
on 27.5.2009 and 27.1.2011 and also by not complying with
F
the various directions issued by the State Government as well
as the Directorate of Medical Education.
10. When the matter came up for hearing, this Court
issued notice to the contemnors. Learned senior counsel
appearing for the contemnors, submitted before this Court on G
3.2.2014 that they would be tendering their unconditional and
unqualified apology for their actions and made a proposal to
set right the illegalities committed, which reads as under :-
(a) None of the 245 students admitted in the Institution H
384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R.
A - Peoples College of Medical Sciences (PCMS)
during the academic year 2011-12 shall be
disturbed and they all will continue to pursue their
course without any interruption. This would include
the students allotted by the State who had been
B given provisional admissions pursuant to the orders
of the Hon'ble High Court.
(b) In the academic session 2011-12 on the basis of
the 50-50 admissions between the College and
State after 15% NRI quota is deducted as per the
c orders of this Hon'ble Court, the State entitlement
filled in by the institution was 63 seats. The
institution shall accordingly surrender 21 seats in
each of the following three academic years i.e.
2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 to the State
D government to be filled in through the procedure laid
down in the order dated 27.5.2009.
11. The contemnors on 13.2.2014, filed a written note
wherein, after reiterating the proposals submitted on 3.2.2014,
E they stated as follows :
"13. Though admissions have already been made by the
State against the said 63 seats for the year 2011-12 in
the said year itself still in deference to the orders of this
Hon'ble Court the Respondent is willing to give up the said
F 63 seats. It is however requested that if these 63 seats are
adjusted only in one year, the college would suffer
adversely. Therefore, the Respondent again humbly
submits that it be permitted to surrender 21 seats in each
of the following three academic years i.e. 2014-15, 2015-
G 16 and 2016-17 as submitted before this Hon'ble Court
on 3.2.2014 to the State Government to be filled in through
the procedure laid down in the order dated 27.5.2009.
14. It is respectfully submitted that in the captioned
H contempt petition of the Petitioner State only relates to its
STATE OF M.P. & ANR. v. SURESH NARAYAN 385
VIJAYVARGIYA & ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
50% quota of admissions i.e. 63 seats in the academic A
year 2011-12.
15. The respondents reiterate the proposal submitted on
3.2.2014 and again tender an unconditional and
unqualified apology for their actions." 8
12. In the written note filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh
on 13.2.2014, in response to the submissions made by the
contemnors on 3.2.2014, the State of Madhya Pradesh stated
as follows :-
c
"20. For the academic session 2011-12, the State
Government had a quota of 107 students :-
63 seats as per the 50:50 order of this Hon'ble
Court.
D
42 seats as per letter dated 19.9.2011 of MCI since
Peoples College made excess admissions in
2010-11.
2 seats which were not filled in the NRI quota. E
21. The aforesaid position of State quota seats for 2011-
12 is explained in detail in the letter of MCI dated 5.3.2012
(annexed herewith as Annexure A-1).
22. For the academic session 2011-12 F
Total sanctioned strength 150
Total seats filled by College 245
College authorized to fill 43 G
State quota seats filled by College 95
Excess seats filled by College 107
23. The issue of excess admissions made by the College
H
386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R.
A is to be considered as per the Regulations framed by the
MCI under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the
submissions made by the MCI in that regard.
24. However, if the scheme formulated by the Peoples
B College is considered by this Hon'ble Court, then the
excess 107 admissions made by the College in 2011-12
be adjusted in the session of 2014-15 in full and remaining
seats be adjusted in 2015-16.
25. On account of illegal and unlawful acts of Respondents/
c Contemnors, not only the State Government, but the
students of the State quota, who were illegally denied
admissions were severely harassed and were drawn on
a long drawn legal battle with uncertainty of their respective
careers."
D
13. We have no hesitation in saying that the above situation
has been created by the contemnors themselves by filling up
of the entire 150 seats in total defiance of the interim orders
passed by this Court on 27.5.2009 and 27.1.2011 making an
E interim arrangement for seat sharing between the State
Government and the private educational institutions from the
year 2009-10 onwards in the State of Madhya Pradesh, which
are binding on the contemnors. The contemnors attempted to
justify their action on the ground that they are regulated by the
Private Universities Act and that AFRC Act has ceased to apply
F and, after the notification dated 4.5.2011, the State Government
has no right even to share seats in their institution, de hors the
interim orders passed by this Court. This stand taken by the
contemnors is also not correct, since Section 7(m) of the
Private University Act, 2007 provides that admission shall not
G be started till the concerned statutes and ordinances are
approved as per Section 35 of the Act, which states that the
statutes· and ordinances shall come into force only upon
publication in the official Gazette. Even otherwise. once there
is an order in force binding on the parties, they cannot violate
H or ignore that order, taking shelter under a statutory provision
STATE OF M.P. & ANR. v. SURESH NARAYAN 387
VAJAYVARGIYA & ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
and if any modification of the orders is warranted, parties should A
have approached this Court and sought for clarification or
modification of those orders. However, without doing so, in total
defiance of the orders passed by this Court, they filled up the
entire seats, leaving the students who figured in the State list
in the lurch. Later, though they were admitted in the College B
. having the infrastructure for accommodating only 150 students,
it has affected the quality and standard of medical education.
After having convinced that they had violated the orders of this
Court, they have come up with an unconditionaland unqualified
apology and making some suggestions to undo the illegality c
committed by them after eating away the seats from the State
quota.
14. We have, on facts, found that there has been a willful
disobedience by the contemnors of the orders passed by this
Court, which is nothing but interference with the administration D
of justice. Disobedience of an order of a Court, which is willful,
shakes the very foundation of the judicial system and can erode
the faith, and confidence reposed by the people in the Judiciary
and undermines rule of law. The Contemnors liave shown scant
respect to the orders passed by the highest Court of the land E
and depicted undue haste to fill up the entire seats evidently
not to attract better students or recognize merit, but possibly
to make unlawful gain, adopting unhealthy practices, as noticed
by this Court in TMA Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of
Karnataka & Ors. (2002) 8 sec 481 and various other cases. F
Once the Court passes an order, the parties to the proceedings
before the Court cannot avoid implementation of that order by
seeking refuge under any statutory rule and it is not open to the
parties to go behind the orders and truncate the effect of those
orders. This Court in T.R. Dhananjaya v. J. Vasudevan (1995) G
5 SCC 619, held that once the Court directed that appeal be
disposed of after giving him opportunity of hearing and such
direction was not appealed from, it is not open to the concerned
authority to deny the hearing on the ground that the Police
Manual does not provide for the same. This Court in Mohd. H
388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R.
A As/am alias Bhure, Acchan Rizvi v. Union of India (1994) 6
sec 442 held that circumvention of an order can be by
'positive acts of violation' or 'surreptitious and indirect aids to
circumvention and violation of orders. In the instant case, the
violation is a positive act of violation, which is apparent on the
B face of the record.
15. We have already pointed out that the contemnors
earlier took up the stand that, after notifying their institution as
a University on 4.5.2011 under the Private University Act, 2007,
C the AFRC Act ceased to apply, hence, they are not bound by
the orders passed by this Court. Contemnors cannot take
refuse under a notification issued under a Statute to defeat the
interim orders passed by this Court which are binding on the
parties, unless varied or modified by this Court. In the instant
case, all the appeals in which interim orders have been passed,
D are pending before this Court and if the contemnors had any
doubt on the applicability of those orders, they could have
sought clarification or modification of the order. Now, by
tendering unconditional and unqualified apology, the
contemnors are trying to wriggle out of the possible action for
E Contempt of Court, after violating the orders causing
considerable inconvenience to the students and after enjoying
the fruits for the illegality committed by them. It is trite law that
apology is neither a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of
their offence; nor is it intended to operate as universal panacea,
F it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness. (See M. Y.
Shareef & Anr. v. Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur
& Ors. (1955) 1 SCR 757 and MB. Sanghi, Advocate v. High
Court of Punjab & Haryana & Ors. (1991) 3 SCC 600.
G 16. Contemnors have now tendered unconditional and
unqualified apology and volunteered to set right the illegality
committed by them, but the purpose for flouting the orders has
been achieved, that is the contemnors wanted to fill up the
entire seats by themselves. Therefore, to maintain the sanctity
of the orders of this Court and to give a message that the
H
STATE OF M.P. & ANR. v. SURESH NARAYAN 389
VIJAYVARGIYA & ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
parties cannot get away by merely tendering an unconditional A
and unqualified apology after enjoying the fruits of their illegality,
we are inclined to impose a fine, which we quantify at Rs.50
lakhs.
17. We may now examine how the illegality committed by 8
the contemnors can be rectified. For the academic year 2011-
12, the State Government's quota was 107 seats, details of
which is given below :-
63 seats as per the 50:50 order of this Hon'ble
Court. C
42 seats as per letter dated 19.9.2011 of MCI since
Peoples College made excess admissions in
2010-11.
D
2 seats which were not filled in the NRI quota.
18. The total sanctioned strength for the academic year
2011-12 was 150 students, but the contemnors had filled up
245 seats, though the college was authorized to fill up only 43
seats. The contemnors filled up 95 seats, which would have E
gone to the State quota. Consequently, 107 excess seats were
filled up by the college. The contemnors, however, took up the
stand that if 63 seats are to be adjusted for the academic year
2014-15 that may seriously affect the' functioning of the College,
hence their suggestion is that they will compensate the lost F
seats in a phased manner, that is 21 seats in the year 2014-
15 and the rest in equal proportion in the years 2015-16 and
2016-17, which we find difficult to accept. We are of the view
that the excess of 107 admissions made in the year 2011-12
have to be adjusted by adjusting the same for the academic G
session 2014-15 in full and remaining seats be adjusted in the
year 2015-16, because the illegality committed must be set right
at the earliest. This Court in Mridul Dhar (Minor) & Anr. v.
Union of India & Ors. (2005) 2 SCC 65, held (Direction No.11)
as follows:
H
390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R.
A "11. If any private medical college in a given academic
year for any reason grants admission in its management
quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management
quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so
as to set off the effect of excess admission in the
B management quota in the previous academic year."
19. We may reiterate that the above-mentioned situation
has been created by the contemnors themselves and due to
their illegal and unlawful acts, by admitting students over and
above the sanctioned strength, the students who were later
C admitted from the list of State quota, could not get the quality
medical education, which otherwise they would have got.
Further, they were also driven to unnecessary litigation before
the High Court creating uncertainty to their future.
D 20. We, therefore, order that the admission of students
under the State quota for the academic year 2011-12 in Medical
College is valid and legal and appropriate steps should be
taken by the State Government and the Medical Council of India
to regularize the admission. The excess 107 admissions made
E by the Medical College for the MBBS during the year 2011-12
and the previous year, be adjusted in the session 2014-15 in
full taking note of the full sanctioned strength and the balance
seats be adjusted in the year 2015-16. The unconditional and
unqualified apology tendered by the contemnors is accepted,
F but the contemnors are directed to pay a fine of Rs.SO lakhs in
two months from today, to the State Government. Ordered
accordingly.
21. The Contempt Petition is disposed of accordingly.
G R.P. Contempt Petition disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "contempt of court"Sign in to search