Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. PANCHAL
Yash Ahuja & Others
Versus
Medical Council of India & Others
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (CIVIL) No. 26777 OF 2008) With CIVIL APPEAL Nos. OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 28228 & 28487 of 2008) With Writ Petition (C) No. 154 of 2009
Decided on : 17-09-2009
Indian Medical Council Act, 1933 - Section 13 - Special Leave Petition - Appellants in appeal arising out Special Leave Petition have challenged validity of common Judgment rendered by the High Court and other cognate petitions by which the prayer made by them to direct the Medical Council of India to grant forthwith the provisional as well as permanent registration to them - Held, Most of the students had qualified in the undergraduate course but some of them, who had joined such courses, were still pursuing the course - After considering the provisions of the Act a Three Judge Bench of this Court uniformly applied the screening test provisions to all the candidates from the cut-off - Therefore, there is no doubt that the provisions of sub-Section (4A) of Section 13 of the Act are not being applied retrospectively but from the date specified by the Central Government - Under the circumstances the plea based on retrospective application of sub-Section (4A) of Section 13 of the Act cannot be accepted and is hereby rejected - Application dismissed.
Judgment :-
J.M. Panchal, J.
Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.
2. The appellants in appeal arising out Special Leave Petition (C) No. 26777 of 2008 have challenged validity of common Judgment dated September 26, 2008 rendered by the High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 8056 of 2007 and other cognate petitions by which the prayer made by them to direct the Medical Council of India to grant forthwith the provisional as well as permanent registration to them, as they have acquired medical qualifications granted by the Manipal College of Medical Science, Pokhara, Nepal which are recognized by Medical Council of India, without insisting that they should qualify the screening test, is rejected.
3. In order to appreciate the controversy raised before this Court, it would be advantageous to notice certain facts, which are as under:-
Earlier the medical education in India was governed by the provisions of Indian Medical Council Act, 1933. Thereunder also the Medical Council of India (`MCI for short) was constituted on which certain powers were conferred and duties were imposed. However, with the passage of time, it was noticed that there was no representation to licentiate members of the medical profession nor there was provision:-
a) to provide for registration of the names of citizens of India who had obtained foreign medical qualifications which were not recognized by the Indian Medical Council Act, 1933;
b) to provide for temporary recognition of medical qualifications granted by medical institutions in countries outside India with which scheme of reciprocity exists;
c) to provide for the formation of a committee of post-graduate medical education for the purpose of assisting the MCI to prescribe standards of post- graduate medical education for the guidance of Universities and;
d) to provide for the maintenance of an All-India register by the MCI.
Thus it became necessary to bring a legislation to provide for the reconstitution of MCI and the maintenance of a medical register for India and for matters connected therewith. That is how, the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (`the Act for short) came to be enacted by Parliament repealing the Act of 1933.
4. Section 12 of the Act deals with recognition of medical qualifications granted by medical institutions in countries with which there is a scheme of reciprocity. The MCI is empowered to enter into negotiations with the authority in any country outside India which by law of such country is entrusted with the maintenance of a register of medical practitioners, for settling a scheme of reciprocity for the recognition of medical qualifications. Once such a scheme is settled, the Central Government is authorized to amend the second schedule so as to include therein the medical qualification which the council has decided should be recognised. The medical qualifications granted by medical institutions outside India which are included in the second schedule are recognized medical qualifications.
5. The Nepal authority had forwarded a scheme for grant of recognition of MBBS qualifications conferred by Kathmandu University, in respect of students of Manipal College of Medical Sciences, Pokhara, Nepal. The MCI entered into negotiation with the Nepal Authority for settling a scheme of reciprocity for recognition of medical qualifications. One of the conditions of recognition was that the college would not admit more than 100 students annually. On the request of Ministry of health, Government of India, the MCI inspected the said college in the year 2000. The college was assessed and evaluated in the light of minimum standards prescribed by the MCI relating to infrastructure, teaching facilities, etc. After inspection, a report was submitted to Government of India. On the basis of the said report, scheme of reciprocity was settled after which the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Department of health) issued notification dated September 26, 2001, amending Se
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.