IMPORTANT POINT
Statutory provisions and rules prescribed for medical education should be strictly adhered to.

Headnote:Medical Council Act, 1956-Section 10A-Permission granted by Central Government to increase strength of students in Medical College-Whether permission is according to statutory requirements?-Appropriate directions to Medical Council of India and Central Government issued-I.A. disposed of accordingly.
Held : Prima facie, we do not think that the Central Government has power to issue such permission when the college is not complying with the requirements of the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India or the requirements of the Act. As the permission is already granted and probably, it appears that the colleges might have given admissions on the basis of so called increase in the strength renewal of permission for a college, we direct the Medical Council of India to carry out further inspection to find out whether there is compliance of the requirement of the Act and the Rules in all the colleges where increase of strength/renewal of permission for a college is permitted by the Central Government by its various orders issued in August, 2003. The Medical Council of India to carry out the inspection within a period of four weeks. In the meantime, the Central Government is directed not to grant any further permission without following the procedure prescribed under Section 10A(i) (ii) (iii) and (vii). For the time being, the D.G.H.S. inquiry as directed by the Central Government against Dr. Rangabashyam is stayed. However, it would be open to the aggrieved person to take appropriate action before an appropriate forum, if called for. (Paras 17, 18 and 19)

ORDER

Heard the learned Amicus Curiae and the counsel for the parties.

2. In pending Appeals learned Amicus Curiae is required to approach this Court for appropriate directions including the manner of working of the Ad-hoc Committee in the matter of recognition, renewal including grant of permission in respect of medical colleges.

3. Reasons for seeking this relief is, as contended by the senior counsel Mr. Salve and Mr. Venugopalan, that for some reason Central Government granted permission to increase the strength of students in medical colleges in violation of Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and the Regulations framed by Medical Council of India.

4. This Ad-hoc Committee was appointed by this Court s order dated 20th November. 2002. Relevant part of this order is as under: -

".... For enhancing the confidence of the people in the forthcoming of the Medical Council of India, which is having wide powers under the Medical Council Act, 1956, we order accordingly. We appoint a Committee of four eminent doctors namely. Dr. N. Rangabashyam of Chennai, Prof. P.N. Tandon of New Delhi, Dr. S.K. Bhansali of Mumbai and Dr. (Ms.) S. Kantha of Bangalore, as members of Ad-hoc Committee to assist and nominate the work of the Medical Council of India. The Ad-hoc Committee would work harmoniously and in full cooperation with the Executive Committee of the Council. The Committee would associate itself particularly in selection and appointment of Inspectors and scrutinize their reports and making recommendations for grant of recognition to medical college.

If any member of the Ad hoc Committee in course of working finds any practical or legal difficulty, it would be open for him/them to approach this Court for appropriate orders through learned senior counsel Mr. Harish N. Salve (Amicus Curiae). It would also be open to them to make recommendations how the functioning of the Executive Committee can be made more effectively and prompt......."

5. Thereafter, the Ad hoc Committee started its work in harmony with the Executive Committee of Medical Council of India overseeing, inter alia, the process of inspection of colleges and dealing with the recommendation to be made for the recognition grant of permission to such colleges.

6. The contention which is raised in the present I.As. is with regard to the exercise of power by the Central Government by by-passing the M.C.I. as well as the provisions of Section 10A of the Act.

7. This Court has repeatedly considered the provisions of the Act and the held that statutory provisions and rules prescribed for Medical education should be strictly adhered to. As early as in the case of A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of A.P. [(1986) 2 SCC 667 (p.678 para 10)], the Court observed thus:-

"Any direction of the nature sought by Shri Venugopal would be in clear transgression of the provisions of the University Act and the Regulations of the University. We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the Court to disobey the laws."

8. Thereafter, in 1994 again, this Court considered this aspect in State of Punjab v. Renuka Singla [(1994) 1 SCC 175 (p. 178 para 8) and held thus:-

"The High Courts or the Supreme Court cannot be generous or liberal in issuing such directions which in substance amount to directing the authorities concerned to violate their own statutory rules and regulations, in respect of admissions of students. Technical education, including medical education, requires infrastructure to cope with the requirement of giving proper education to the students, who are admitted. Taking into consideration the infrastructure, equipment, staff, the limit of the number of admissions is fixed either by the Medical Council of India or Dental Council of Indi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 941

IMPORTANT POINTStatutory provisions and rules prescribed for medical education should be strictly adhered to.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
Statutory provisions and rules prescribed for medical education should be strictly adhered to.