Holding

Vesting state governments with absolute, uncontrolled discretion to nominate candidates to medical college seats outside the state violates Article 14, and such power must be exercised only under reasonable, objective criteria.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined a scheme whereby several states reserved a percentage of seats in medical colleges for candidates from other states to promote national integration. The Jammu & Kashmir and Andhra Pradesh governments nominated candidates to these seats without any objective criteria, prompting the petitioners—students who had higher merit—to challenge the nominations as arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The Court held that vesting state governments with absolute, unfettered discretion to nominate candidates is unconstitutional because it results in unfairness and arbitrariness, breaching the requirement of reasonableness under Article 14. However, the Court declined to set aside the nominations already made, directing that they continue on a merit‑based basis pending a proper policy. The Medical Council of India was instructed to formulate a constitutional framework and concrete criteria for future nominations.

Issues considered

The power of state governments to nominate candidates to medical college seats outside the state without objective criteria violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether an absolute and unfettered discretion in such nominations is constitutionally permissible.
Whether the nominations already made should be set aside.
Whether the Medical Council of India should be directed to devise a constitutional basis and criteria for future nominations.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art. 14, s. Art. 32

Subjects

Article 14Administrative lawArbitrarinessAbsolute discretionNational integrationMedical educationReservationMeritConstitutional lawPublic authority

Judgment

985

SUMAN GUPTA AND OTHERS ETC.
A
v.

STATE OF·J & KAND OTHERS

September 19, 1983
B
(Y. v. CHANDRACHUD, c. J., R. s. PATHAK AND_
. SABYASAC'Hl MUKHARJJ, JJ.]

CoKstitution of India, Art. 14-Powers and procedures resulting in
unfairness· and arbitrariness....:....vio/ative of Art. 14.
c
Ad"tinistrative Law-Vesting of absolute and un( ontrolled power in public
authoritJ-;_Falls outside the Constitution and invalid.

With a view to encourage national integration, a few States including
respondent states agreed upon an arrangement by which a certain percentage
of the seats in medical colleges was reserved for candidates from other States D
on a reciprocal basis. In the y'ear 1982-83 the respondent States made some
nominations under the above arrangement. T.he validity of these non1inations
was challenged in these y.•rit petitions and civil appeals on the ground, inter alia,
ihat these nominations had been made by the State Governments in their
absolute and arbitrary discretion, without reference to any obj~ctive criterion,
or any controlling norms or guidetines._
l!l
Partly auowing the writ petitions and the appeals,

HELD : The :Drincipl~ adopted by. the State Governments of nomi-
nating candidates in their absolute and unfettered choice to seats in !\1edical
Colleges outside the State is invalid . But the non1inations already made will F
not be affected. [991 F-G; E] \

the exercise of all adn1inistrative power vested in public authority mus~
be structured within a system of controls informed by both relevance and
reason-relevance in relation to the object which it seeks to serve, and reason
in regerd to the manner in which attempts to do so. Art. 14 of the Consti- ' G
tution is violated by powers and procedures w'..ich in themselves result in
• unfairness and asbitrariness. There is no doubt that in the realm of adminis~
trative power the element of disCieation may properly, find place, where the
statute or the nature of the power intends so. But there is a well recoinised
distinction between an administrative power to be exercised within defined
limits in-the reasonable diScretion of designated authority and the vesting of H
an absolute and uncontrolled power in such authority. One is power con-
trolled by law i;:ountenanced by the Constitution, the other falls outside the
Constitution alto$etber. Prqceedin~ from there, it is evii;l~nt that ~fJPQ St;;lte
986. SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1983] 3 s.c.a.

Government desires to.advance the objective of national integration it must
adopt procedures which are reasonable and are· related to the objective. In
this Age of Reason, all law must measur~ upto. that standard, and necessarily :),.
so also must all executive acts. [989 E-F; 989 G; 990 A·D]

Jn the present cases,. viewed in this context and tested on the touchstone
of our constitutional values, the claim of the State Government that the
nature of the objective and the means adopted to serve ii' entitle it legitimately
B to vest in itself an absolute power in choosing candidates for nominaHon is
to deny a fundament~l prin.ciple of our constitutional life and cannot be
allowed to prevail. [990 D-E]

Chifra Ghosh and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., [1970] I S.C.R., 413,
420; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 621; and Ramona
c Daya"ram Shelly v. The I"hternational Airpott Authority of India & Ors., [1979 j
3 S.C.R. 1015, referred to. ·

The Medical Council of India is directed to formulate a proper consti-
tutional basis for determining the seiection of candidates for nomination to
seats in Medical Colleges outside the State in the light of the observations
contained in this judgment. Until a policy is s~ formulated and concrete
D criteria are embodied in the procedure selected, the nominations shall be made
by selecting candidates strictly on the basis of merit, the candidates nominated
being those, -in order of merit, irilmediately below the candidates selected for
admission to the Medical Colleges of the home State. [991 G-H; 992 A]

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition Nos. 9078 to 9106,
~ 9025·43 of 1982, 24 & 35. 43-46 and 2839 of 1983 .
.,_,i··

(Under article 32 of the Constitution of India).

WITH
F
Civil Appeal° Nos. 3812 & 3813 of 1983.

Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the 31st December, 1982 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P.
Nos. 6844 of 1982 & 693.7 of 1982.
G
'· AND

(CMP. Nos. 13616, 16617, 22151, 22125 & 23486 of 1983).

For the Appearing Petitioners in Writ Petitions :
H
M.K. Ramamurthi, Anil Dev Singh, Subhash Sharma, Salish Vig,
Shri Narain, V.K. Pandita, R.D. Upadhyay and E.C. Acarwa/a.
SUMAN.GUPTA i>. i AND K (Pathak, J.)° 981
For the Appearing Respondents in Writ Petitions :
A
GL. Sanghi and Mr. S.N. Kacker Alta/ Ahmad and Ir/an
Ahmad.

A. Subba Rao for the Appellants in Ci~il Appeals.
B
S.S. ·Ray, Vineet Kumar, T.V.S. Narasimhachari, G.V.L.
Narasimh~ Rao and·Mrs. Urmi/a Sirur for the Respondents in Civil
Appeals.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c
PATHAK, J. This Conrt has had occasion in the past to
entertain the complaints of several young men and women who
· · a~ired to admission to the Medical Colleges of their States and had
been wrongly denied admission thereto. In the writ petitions and D
civil appeals now before us, the grievance voiced by the· petitioners
and the appellants takes us to a new category of cases and to a new
~· dimension. They question the validity of nominations ·by the State
· Government of Jammu and Kashmir and the State Government of
Andhra Pradesh of' candidates to seats rese,rved in the Medical
Colleges of other States. The civil appeals are directed against the E
judgment dated December 31, 1982 of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court dismissing writ petitions filed by the appellants.

The Medical Council of India, in its report on ·under-graduate
medical education, recommended that with a view to encouraging F
national integration, ten per cent of the seats in veery Medical
College, other than those where admissions were planned on an all
India basis, should be reserved, on a reciprocal basis for students ·
from other States. At the Joint Conference of the Central Council
of Health and the Central Family Welfare Council, held from
December 28, 1977 to January 3.J, 1978, the matter was considered G
and a resolution was passed recommending that five per cent of the
seats _in Medical Colleges should be reserved for candidates from
othel' States on a reciprocal basis. After protracted correspondence
between a number of. State Governments, the States of Andhra H
· Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu
agreed upon such an arrangement. It was decided that each of
them would have the right to nominate candidates to seats reserved
'
988 SU PRE Mil CO!!R T REPORTS [1983) 3 s:c.ll..

in the Medical Colleges of the other participating States. We are
A ·concerned herewith nominations made by the 'state Government of
Jammu and Kashmir and the State Government of Andhra Pradesh. i
Twentytwo of the thirty nominations made. by the State Government
of Jammu and Kashmir for the year 1982-83 have been challenged
in these wrif petitions and all the nominations made by the State
Government of Andhra Pradesh have been assailed in the associated
B
Civil Appeals.

The petitioners in the writ petitions and the appellants in the
appeals were candidates for admission to the M.B.B.S. course of
studies in the Medical Colleges of their respective States, and not
c having sncceeded ill that object, they· claim that they should have
been properly considered for nomination by their State Governments
·to the seats reserved in the Medical Colleges .ontside their home
States because they have secured higher marks in th.e qualifying
examination than the nominated candidates. They urge that the
nominations actually made by the ·state Governments have been
D
made in their absolute and arbitrary discretion, without reference to
any objective criterion, or any controlling norms or guidelines. They
also allege that the nominations have been influenced by the personai · ·1
relationship of the candidates to persons in the ruling political party
or to Government officers in positi<lns of high authority.
E
The position taken by the Jammu and Kashmir Government
and by the Andhra Pradesh Government is that to serve the objective
of national integratio~ the selection of a. candid.ate has to be deter-
. mined not merely by the marks obtained by him. in the qualifying
F examination but also. by his ability to proj~ct an appropriate 'image
of the culture of his home State in the State to which he is 11omina-
. ted. It is submitted that no objective criterion is possible in that
context, and the selection must perforce be left; to ·the absolute and
unfettered choice of the State Government. The Andhra Pradesh
Governmet relies on G.O.M. No. 508, M & H dated July '1.7, 1979,
G which brings the scheme into ·effect from the academic year 1979~80 .
. It expressly proyides that the selection of candidates for ~uch nomi-
nations is excluded from the purview of the Selection Committees
. constituted f9r admission to the M.B.B.S. Course in the States.
/
IJ
At the outset, we may dispose of an objectipn taken on· behalf
· of the respondents. It is pointed out that the petitioners in the writ,
petitions and the appellants in t!ie. civil appeals applied merely for
'

suM.\~ GUPTA v' ~ AND K (Pathak, i.) 9M
admission to the Medical Colleges of the home State and have not
alleged anywhere that they applied for nomination to a seat in a A
Medical College outside the State. It is urged that inasmuch as the
scheme of nominations to Medical Colleges .outside the State is
'
distinct altogether from the scheme of admissions- to Medical Colleges
within the State the petitioners and the appellants are not entitled to
question the validity of those nominations. We are referred to
Chitra Ghosh and Another v. Union of India and Others.(1) · In the B
civil appeals before us, however, we find that some of the appellants
did apply for nomination to a seat in a Medical College outside the
State. Besides, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has elaborately consi-
dered the question on its merits, aud it seems desirable in the
circumstances to pronounce our opinion on the .controversy. The
obje.ction is overruled.
c
For the purpose of these· ~ases, we shall proceed on the ·
assumption that national integration, which is undeniably in itself a
higly commendable and laudable objeetive, will be effectively served
by a policy encouraging the admission of candidates of one State to D
seats in the Medical Colleges of another State. After considering
the matter carefully, we confess, we are unable to subscribe to the
view that the selection. of candidates for that purpose must remain
in the unlimited discretion and the uncontrolled choice of the State
Governmnnt. We think it beyound dispute that the exereis<; of all
administrative power vested in public authority must be structured
E
within a system of controls informed by both relevance and reason-
relevance in rdation to the object which it seeks to serve, and reason
in regard to the manner in which it attempts to do so. Wherever the
exercise of such power affects individual rights, there can be no
greater assurance protecting its valid exercise than its governance by
these twin tests. ·A stream of case law radiating from the now well
known decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union ,of India(')
has laid down in clear terms that.-

Article 14 of the Constitution is violated by powers and G
procedures which in themselves_ result in unf~irness and arbitrariness.
It must be remembered that our entire constitutional system is
founded in the Rule of Law, and in any system so designed it is
impossible to conceive of legitimate power ·which_ is arbitrary in
character ·and travels beyond the bounds· of reason. To contend that H
·---------
(1) (.1970] l S.C.R. 413, 420. ·
(2) (1978] 2 s.c.c. 621.
99b SUPREME COURT REPORTS [198313 s.c.tl.
the choice of a candidate seleeted on the basis of his ability to project
A the culture and ethos of his home State must necessarily be left to
unfettered discretion of executive authority is to deny a fundamental
prirlciple of our constitutional life; We do not doubt that in the
realm of administrative power the element of discretion may properly
find place, where the statute or the nature of the .power intends so.
But th.ere is a well recognised distinction between an administrative ...
B power to be exercised within defined limits in the reasonable discre-
tion of designated autnority and tl)e vesting of an absolute and
uncontrolled power in such authority. One is power controlled by
law countenanced by the Constitution, the other falls outside the
Constitution altogether. Proceeding from there, it is evident ·that if
c the State Government desires to advance the objective of national
integratio.n it must adopt procedures which are reasonable and are
related to the objective. In this Age of Reason, all law must
measure upto that standard, and necessarily so also must all execu-
tive acts; Viewed in this context, the claim of the State Government
in these cases that the nature of the objective and the means adopted
D to serve it entitle it legitimately to vest in itself an absolute power in
choosing candidates for nomination· cannot be allowed to prevail.
It is. incumbant on the State Government to adopt a criterion or
restrict its power by reference to norms which, while designed to
achieve it.s object, nevertheless confine the flow of that power within
E constitutional limits. We are not convinced that an adequate system
o(standards cannot be devised for that purpose. Tested on ·the
. touchstone of our constitutional values; the .claim of ·the State
Government to the content of the power assumed by it must, in onr
opinion, be declared invalid.

F
Now, the selection of an appropriate procedure lies ordinarily I
within the domain of administrative policy, and when the objective
can be fulfilled by more than one constitutionally valid method, the
selection must be left to administrative choice. The courts are
G 'generally concerned merely with the legal validity of the choice made.
·" • . We think it desirable, therefore, to leave it to the Medical Council of
India to formulate a proper constitutional basis for determining
. the selection of candidates for nomination to seats in Medical
Colleges ontside the State. The problem is one which needs to be
,H tackled at the national level, having regard to the objective which .is
sought to be achieved and to the circumstance that it calls for
reciprocal arrangements between Medical Colleges throughout the
I'
SVMAN GUPTA v.) AND K (Pathak, J.) 991
country. Until a policy is so·formulated and adopted aud concrete
criteria are embodied in the procedure to be selected, we direct that A
nominations be made by foliowing the procedure of selecting candi-
dates strictly on the basis of merit, the candidates nominated being
those, in order of merit, immediately next below the candidate.s
selected for admistion 10 the Medical Colleges of the home State.
• B
Before concluding it is desirable to advert to the contention
raised on behalf of the respondents that as the State Government
finances medical education within the State it is entitled to exercise
an absolute discretion in the nomination of candidates to seats in
Medical Colleges outside the State, specially when the nomination is
part of a reciprocal arrangement between the different States. In our C
opinion, the contention cannot be regarded as valid fa view of what
has been laid down now by this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shelly
v. The International Airport Authority of India and Ors.(1)

Considerable and vehement argument has been addressed on
behalf of the petitioners and the appellants that we should make an
D
order revoking.the nominations already made by the Jammu and
Kashmir Government and the Andhra Pradesh Government. We
do not propose to do so. The State Government proceeded in the
bona fide belief that· the procedure adopted by it was just and proper,
the basis being one which appears to have been uniformly adopted E
by all the participating Stat~s. Besides, the candidates nominated
have already covered a substantial part of their course of studies.
These considerations considered cumulatively dissuade us from
interfering with the nominations already made.
' I

In the res9lt, we allow the writ petitions a~d, the civil appeals F
insofar that the principle adopted by the State Governments of
nominating candidates in their absolute and unfettered choice to
seats in Medical Colleges outside the State is declared invalid. The
Medical Council of India is directed to formulate a proper- consti-
tutional basis for determining. the. selection of candidates for
G
nomination to seats in Medical Colleges outside the State in the
light of the observations contained in this judgment. Until a policy
is so formulated and concrete criteria are embodied in the procedure
selected, the nominations shall be made by selecting candidates ,
strictly on the basis of merit, the candidates nominated being those,
H

(I) [1979] 3 S.C.R. IOIS.
/

..
992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS tt983) l s.c.a.

in order of meri.t, immediately below the candidates selected for
A admission to the Medical E:olleges of.the home Stafe. The judgment
dated December 31, 1982 of the. Andhra Prade;h High Court is
modified accordingly. , In the circumstances of these cases, we make·
no order as to costs,

B A copy of this judgment and order shall be sent to the Medical
Council of India.

H.S.K.· Appeals & Petition partly allowed.

·I I

\

.,.