2009 Supreme(SC) 1597

2009(8) Supreme 527
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.G. Balakrishnan, CJI., P. Sathasivam and J.M. Panchal,JJ.
Yash Ahuja and others — Appellants
versus
Medical Council of India & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. of 2009
(Arising out of S.L.P. (CIVIL) No. 26777 of 2008)
Decided on : 17-09-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
Mischief rule enables consideration of four matters in construing an Act , what was the law before the making of the Act, what was the mischief or defect for which the law did not provide, what is remedy that the Act has provided and what is the reason of the remedy. The rule then directs that courts must adopt that construction which suppresses the mischief and advances the remedy.

Headnote:Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 – Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 2001 – Section 13(4A) – Appeal against Judgment of High Court by which the prayer made by appellants to direct the Medical Council of India to grant forthwith the provisional as well as permanent registration to them, as they had acquired medical qualifications granted by Manipal College of Medical Science, Pokhara, Nepal which are recognized by Medical Council of India, without insisting that they should qualify the screening test, was rejected- Held law before the enactment of sub – Section (4A) of Section 13 of the Act was that medical qualifications granted by medical institutions in countries with which there was a scheme of reciprocity included in the Second Schedule, were recognized qualifications for purposes of the Act – However, over a period of time, it had come to notice of Legislature that a large number of private agencies sponsored students for medical studies in institutions outside India for commercial consideration – It was noticed that such students also included those students, who did not fulfill minimum eligibility requirements for admission to medical courses in India – Serious aberrations were noticed in the standard of medical education in some of the foreign countries, which were not on par with standards of medical education available in India – These were the defects and/or mischiefs noticed for which no provision was made either in Section 12 or sub – Sections (3) and (4) of Section 13 of the Act – In the year 1956, when the Indian Medical Council Act was enacted, it must not have been contemplated by any one that a large number of private agencies would sponsor students for medical studies in institutions outside India for commercial considerations including those students who were not fulfilling the minimum eligibility requirements for admission to medical courses in India, etc – It was, therefore, felt necessary by Parliament to make a provision to enable the Council to conduct a screening test- This was the remedy that sub-Section (4A) had provided – This remedy was prescribed to satisfy the MCI with regard to adequacy of knowledge and skills acquired by citizens of India, who obtain medical qualifications from Universities or medical institutions outside India and to ensure that those students have secured the standards of medical education in foreign countries, which were at par with standards of medical education in India – The remedies mentioned in Sections 13(4A) and 13(4B) were prescribed because citizens of India, who had obtained medical qualifications from Universities or medical institutions outside India, would be entitled to practice medicine in India and they could not be permitted to treat other citizens of India with their half-baked knowledge and jeopardize their precious lives – Appeals dismissed. (Para 29)

        Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 – Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 2001 – Section 13(4A) – Appeal against Judgment of High Court by which the prayer made by appellants to direct the Medical Council of India to grant forthwith the provisional as well as permanent registration to them, as they had acquired medical qualifications granted by Manipal College of Medical Science, Pokhara, Nepal which are recognized by Medical Council of India, without insisting that they should qualify the screening test, was rejected-The argument that MCI had admittedly understood and applied the provisions of the Act by releasing press note to mean that the screening test would not be necessary for students who had obtained degree from foreign medical institutions recognised under Section 12 of the Act and, hence MCI was precluded in insisting that students, who had obtained degrees from foreign medical institutions, held devoid of merit- It is true that at one stage the MCI had released a press note clarifying for information of general public that eligibility requirements for taking admission in an undergraduate medical course mentioned in Foreign Medical Institutions Regulations, 2002 and Screening Test Regulation, 2002 would not be applicable to the students joining an undergraduate medical course in foreign countries, recognised and included in the Second Schedule under Section 12 of the Act – However, this was the understanding of MCI, which was one of the parties before the Court-The scope of Section 13(4A) is quite clear and covers all foreign medical institutions falling within ambit of Sections 12 and 13 of the Act- On a close and careful reading, provisions of the Amending Act of 2001 with the Eligibility Requirement Regulations and Screening Test Regulation, both of 2002, it becomes at once clear that the MCI is obliged to stipulate the screening test in the case of all those candidates, who obtained medical qualification from medical institutions outside India filling within purview of Sections 12 and 13 of the Act in view of the statutory provisions of Section 13(4A) of the Act – The press release could not be interpreted as precluding MCI from canvassing correct import of provisions of the Act – In any view of the matter, press release by MCI could not preclude the court from placing correct interpretation of the Act-Therefore, said plea having no substance held liable to be rejected. (Para 30)

        Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 – Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 2001 –Section 13(4A) – Appeal against Judgment of High Court by which the prayer made by appellants to direct the Medical Council of India to grant forthwith the provisional as well as permanent registration to them, as they had acquired medical qualifications granted by Manipal College of Medical Science, Pokhara, Nepal which are recognized by Medical Council of India, without insisting that they should qualify the screening test, was rejected – The contention that if the provisions of the Screening Test Regulations, 2002 are made applicable to citizens of India, who have obtained medical qualifications granted by Universities or medical institutions outside India, a serious anomaly would arise as all those students who are similarly placed as the appellants, but who are not Indian citizens, would be entitled to be enrolled on Medical Register maintained by the State Medical Council or to have their names entered in the Indian Medical Register without undergoing the screening test whereas appellants and other students, who are citizens of India, would not be so entitled without qualifying screening test, which would be discriminatory, held liable to be rejected – Appellants were students, who had obtained MBBS degree granted by Kathmandu University in respect of Manipal College of Medical Sciences, Pokhara, Nepal – They have not laid any factual data to indicate that in Nepal education system of 10+2 was prevalent and that a student becomes entitled to get admission to medical course only after he clears Central Admission Test in order of merits-No case of appellants that students of Nepal or students of other countries prosecuting medical studies in Manipal College of Medical Sciences were/are not fulfilling miinimum eligibility requirements for admission to medical courses prescribed in their respective countries- The appellants failed to bring on record facts, which would prima facie show that standards of medical education prescribed either by Government of Nepal or by Nepal Medical Council were at par with the standards of medical education available in India – Under such circumstances, there was no scope for Parliament of India to prescribe that students of Nepal or students of other countries prosecuting medical studies in Manipal College of Medical Sciences should also qualify the screening test prescribed before they were enrolled on Medical Register maintained by the State Medical Council or get their names entered in Indian Medical Register – The plea based on so called discrimination having no substance held liable to be ,rejected. (Para 31)

        Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 – Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 2001 – Section 13(4A) – Appeal against Judgment of High Court by which the prayer made by appellants to direct the Medical Council of India to grant forthwith the provisional as well as permanent registration to them, as they had acquired medical qualifications granted by Manipal College of Medical Science, Pokhara, Nepal which are recognized by Medical Council of India, without insisting that they should qualify the screening test, was rejected – The alternative plea that the provisions of sub – Sections (4A) and (4B) of Section 13 of the Act were prospective in nature and as the appellants had not incurred any disqualification after obtaining medical qualification of MBBS degree from Kathmandu University, which is included in the Second Schedule and, therefore, they could not be asked to qualify screening test, held devoid of merits – It was an admitted fact that the date specified by Central Government under sub – Section (3) of Section 13 was March 15, 2002 – Therefore, in view of stipulations contained in sub-Section (4A) of Section 13 of the Act, the provisions of said sub – Sections would be applicable with effect from March 15, 2002-The effect of specification of the date of March 15, 2002 was that a person who was citizen of India and obtains medical qualification granted by any medical institution in any country outside India, recognized for enrolment as medical practitioner in that country, shall not be entitled to be enrolled on Medical Register maintained by a State Medical Council or to have his name entered in the Indian Medical Register after March 15, 2002, unless he qualifies the screening test prescribed- As made clear by MCI, the provisions of sub-Section (4A) of Section 13 of the Act are applicable to all medical qualifications included in the Second Schedule- It is an admitted position that appellants and others had applied for provisional registration/ permanent registration after March 15,2002 – Therefore, the appellants had to appear in the screening test conducted by the National Board of Examination in terms of the Screening Test Regulations made by the MCI -Therefore, there was no doubt that provisions of sub-Section (4A) of Section 13 of Act were not being applied retrospectively but from date specified by the Central Government – Under the circumstances the plea based on retrospective application of sub-Section (4A) of Section 13 of Act rejected – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 32 to 34)

       Facts of the Case :

        Present Appeals have been filed against Judgment of High Court by which the prayer made by appellants to direct the Medical Council of India to grant forthwith the provisional as well as permanent registration to them, as they had acquired medical qualifications granted by Manipal College of Medical Science, Pokhara, Nepal which are recognized by Medical Council of India, without insisting that they should qualify the screening test, was rejected.

       Findings of the Court :

        Held law before the enactment of sub – Section (4A) of Section 13 of the Act was that medical qualifications granted by medical institutions in countries with which there was a scheme of reciprocity included in the Second Schedule, were recognized qualifications for purposes of the Act. However, over a period of time, it had come to notice of Legislature that a large number of private agencies sponsored students for medical studies in institutions outside India for commercial consideration. It was noticed that such students also included those students, who did not fulfill minimum eligibility requirements for admission to medical courses in India. Serious aberrations were noticed in the standard of medical education in some of the foreign countries, which were not on par with standards of medical education available in India. These were the defects and/or mischiefs noticed for which no provision was made either in Section 12 or sub-Sections (3) and (4) of Section 13 of the Act. In the year 1956, when the Indian Medical Council Act was enacted, it must not have been contemplated by any one that a large number of private agencies would sponsor students for medical studies in institutions outside India for commercial considerations including those students who were not fulfilling the minimum eligibility requirements for admission to medical courses in India, etc. It was, therefore, felt necessary by Parliament to make a provision to enable the Council to conduct a screening test. This was the remedy that sub-Section (4A) had provided. This remedy was prescribed to satisfy the MCI with regard to adequacy of knowledge and skills acquired by citizens of India, who obtain medical qualifications from Universities or medical institutions outside India and to ensure that those students have secured the standards of medical education in foreign countries, which were at par with standards of medical education in India.The remedies mentioned in Sections 13(4A) and 13(4B) were prescribed because citizens of India, who had obtained medical qualifications from Universities or medical institutions outside India, would be entitled to practice medicine in India and they could not be permitted to treat other citizens of India with their half-baked knowledge and jeopardize their precious lives. Appeals were dismissed.

       Result : Appeals dismissed.