Back
1998(6) Supreme 20
Supreme Court of India
(Karnataka High Court)
M.M. Punchhi, CJI & K.T. Thomas, D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
Medical Council of India —Appellant
versus
State of Karnataka & Ors. etc. —Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3275 of 1998
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14839 of 1997)
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 3576-3577 of 1998
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 20035/97 and 5471 of 1998)
Decided on 16-7-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : V.R. Reddy and M.S. Usgaonkar, Additional Solicitor Generals, Dushyant Dave, R. Venkataramani, R. Rama Jois, Sushil Kumar, N.N. Goswami, Sr. Advocates, Maninder Singh, S.M. Garg, S. Vidya Shankar, K.R. Nagaraja, K.K. Tyagi, U.U. Lalit, D.M. Nargolkar, Ms. Minakshi Vij, K. Ram Kumar, Ms. Lalita Kaushik, Naresh Kaushik, S.A. Divate, Ms. Kiran Suri, Maninder Singh, Girish Ananthamurthy, (M.R. Naik) for P.P. Singh, S. Vijaya Shankar, K.K. Tyagi, R.P. Wadhwani, P. Mahale, S.N. Bhat, R. Jagannath Gouley, Ms. Abha Jain, L.R. Singh, Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Rajiv Nanda, B.K. Prasad, Advocates.
Held : Mr. Dave appearing for the Medical Council submitted that this Court in Nivedita Jain’s case did not say that all the Regulations framed by the Medical Council under Section 33 of the Medical Council Act were directory. He said that the Court in that case was considering Regulations 1 and 2 only and it had held that while Regulation 1 was mandatory, Regulation 2 was of directory character, i.e, it was recommendatory. Mr. Dave is correct in his submission. The Division Bench in the impugned judgment fell into basic error in holding that this Court in Nivedita Jain’s case said as if all the Regulations were directory in nature. We may now examine that judgment and a few others cited at Bar. (Para 17)
(ii) Indian Medical Council Act, 1956—Sections 10A, 10B and 10C—Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976—Section 53(10)—Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984—Section 41(b)—D.B. of Karnataka High Court putting a question mark on the authority of Medical Council of India in its Judgment dated 16.7.97 to fix intake for admission of students to various Medical Colleges in the State of Karnataka—Whether correct? (No).
Held : The State Acts, namely, Karnataka Universities Act and Karnataka Capitation Fee Act must give way to the Central Act, namely, the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. (Para 28)
In the colleges in the State of Karnataka, the Medical Council prescribed the number of admissions that these colleges could take annually on the basis of these Regulations. Without permission of the Medical Council, the number of admissions could not be more than that prescribed at the time of granting recognition to the college. However, it appears that in violation of the provisions of the Medical Council Act, the universities and the State Government have been allowing increase in admission intake in the medical colleges in the State in total disregard of the regulations and rather in violation thereof. These medical colleges cannot admit students over and above the intake fixed by the Medical Council. These colleges have acted illegally in admitting more students than prescribed. Universities and the State Government had no authority to allow increase in the number of admissions in the medical colleges in the State. (Para 29)
The Medical Council, in all fairness, does not wish to invalidate the admissions made in excess of that fixed by it and does not wish to take any action of withdrawing recognition of the medical colleges violating the regulation. Henceforth, however, these medical colleges must restrict the number of admissions fixed by the Medical Council. After the insertion of Sections 10A, 10B and 10C in the Medical Council Act, the Medical Council has framed regulations with the previous approval of the Central Government which were published in the Gazette of India dated September 29, 1993 (though the notification is dated September 20, 1993). Any medical college or institution which wishes to increase the admission capacity in MBBS/higher courses (including diploma/degree/ higher specialities) has to apply to the Central Government for the permission along with the permission of the State Government and that of the university with which it is affiliated and in conformity with the regulations framed by the Medical Council. Only the medical college or institution which is recognised by the Medical Council can so apply. (Para 30)
Having thus held that it is the Medical Council which can prescribe the number of students to be admitted in medical courses in a medical college or institution it is the Central Government alone which can direct increase in the number of admissions but only on the recommendation of the Medical Council. In our opinion, the learned single Judge was right in his view that no medical college can admit any student in excess of its admission capacity fixed by the Medical Council subject to any increase thereof as approved by the Central Government and that Sections 10A, 10B and 10C will prevail over Section 53(10) of the State Universities Act and Section 41(b) of the State Capitation Fee Act. To say that the number of students as permitted by the State Government and or University before June 1, 1992 could continue would be allowing an illegality to perpetuate for all time to come. The Division Bench, in our opinion, in the impugned judgment was not correct in holding that admission capacity for the purpose of increase or decrease in each of the medical colleges/institutions has got to be determined as on or before June 1, 1992 with reference to what had been fixed by the State Government or the admission capacity fixed by the medical colleges and not with reference to the minimum standard of education prescribed under Section 19A of the Medical Council Act which the Division Bench said were only recommendatory. Nivedita Jain’s case (supra) does not say that all the regulations framed by the Medical Council with the previous approval of the Central Government are directory or mere recommendatory. It is not that only future admission will have to be regulated on the basis of capacity fixed or determined by the Medical Council. Plea of the State Government that power to regulate admission to medical colleges is prerogative of the State has to be rejected. What we have said about the authority of the Medical Council under the Indian Medical Council Act would equally apply to the Dental Council under the Dentists Act. Accordingly, appeal by the Medical Council of India (SLP (C) No. 14839/97) is allowed and the impugned judgment of the Division Bench is set aside and we restore the judgment of the learned single Judge. Other appeals by the State of Karnataka (SLP (C) No. 20035/97) and Rajiv Gandhi Dental College (SLP (C) No. 5471/98) are dismissed. Medical Council of India shall be entitled to costs. (Paras 31, 32, 33)
Judgment
D.P. Wadhwa, J.—Leave granted.
2. A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court has put a question mark on the authority of the Medical Council of India (for short, the ‘Medical Council’) - the appellant —in its judgment dated July 16, 1997 to fix intake for admission of students to various medical colleges in the State of Karnataka. Medical Council is aggrieved by that part of the impugned judgment where the Division Bench held that prior to insertion of Sections 10A, 10B and 10C in the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short, the ‘Medical Council Act’) by the Amending Act 31 of 1993 neither the Central Government nor the Medical Council could fix the admission capacity in the medical colleges in the State and that this authority to determine the admission capacity in the medical colleges vested in State by virtue of two State enactments, namely, Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (for short, ‘Karnataka Universities Act’) and Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 (for short, ‘Karnataka Capitation Fee Act’). The Division Bench, however, held that after the amendment of the Indian Medical Council Act by insertion of Sections 10A, 10B and 10C, the two State enactments would yield to the provisions of the Medical Council Act to the extent of repugnancy and that now the power to fix admission capacity rests with the Medical Council. The Division Bench said that admission capacity for purpose of increase or decrease in each of the college, has got to be determined as on or before June 1, 1992 with reference to what had been fixed by the State Government or that fixed by the medical colleges and not with reference to the minimum standard of education regulations prescribed under Section 19A of the Medical Council Act by the Medical Council which it said were only “recommendatory” as held in State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Kumari Nivedita Jain & Ors.1. Thus, according to the Division Bench future admission will, however, have to be regulated on the basis of the capacity fixed or determined by the Medical Council as provisions of Sections 10A, 10B and 10C are prospective.
3. State of Karnataka has also filed appeal. It felt aggrieved by that part of the impugned judgment of the Division Bench where it scuttled the powers of the State to fix admission capacity to the medical colleges. Stand of the State is that Section 10A is applicable only when it comes to increase the existing admission capacity in the colleges and that the intake capacity already fixed by the State under its statutory powers could not be reduced.
4. In the third appeal filed by the Rajiv Gandhi Dental College and which pertains to Dental Colleges under the provisions of the Dentists Act, 1948, there is similar challenge to the authority of the Dental Council of India to fix the intake of admission of students to Dental Colleges. The provisions of this Act are in peri materia to that of the Indian Medical Council Act and decision in the appeal filed by the Medical Council of India would be applicable to the appeal filed by Rajiv Gandhi Dental College.
5. Impugned Division Bench decision was rendered in an appeal against the judgment dated September 20, 1996 of a single Judge (G.C. Bharuka, J.) of the High Court in a writ petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation. Learned Single Judge considered the whole spectrum of law relating to admission in Medical Colleges in the State and held as under :
“I. Section 53(10) of the State Universities Act and Section 4(1)(b) of the State Capitation Fee Act empowering the universities and/or the State Government to fix or increase intakes of the medical colleges being repugnant to Sections 10A, 10B and 10C of the Central Act, are held as void and inoperative.
II. The power in relation to fixation and/or increase of the admission capacities of the medical colleges has to be governed strictly and exclusively under the provisions of Secti
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
