IMPORTANT POINT
Rights conferred under Article 19(1)(g) are subject to restrictions and imposition of condition under Article 19(6).
Affiliation or recognition of medical college is not a right, much less a fundamental right.
Article 32 cannot be invoked to assail administrative order in absence of challenge to the statute.
No challenge to a statute on ground other than fundamental rights will be maintainable under Article 32.
Where the existence of fundamental right has to be established by acceptance of a particular policy, or a course of action for which there is no legal compulsion or statutory imperative and on which there are divergent views, the same cannot be sought to be enforced by Article 32.
Wrong application of law would not amount to a violation of fundamental right.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 19(1)(g) and 19(6) – Rights conferred under Article 19(1)(g) – Are subject to restrictions and imposition of condition under Article 19(6). (Para 14)
       (b) Constitution of India – Article 19(1)(g) – Medical education – Admission to MBBS course – Imparting education not a trade or business – Affiliation or recognition of medical college is not a right, much less a fundamental right. (Para 15, 16)
       (1993) 1 SCC 645 – Relied upon
       (c) Constitution of India – Article 32 and 226 – Article 32 can be invoked only for enforcing a fundamental right – No other question can be determined in a proceeding under Article 32 – Article 226, on the other hand, is much wider – Questions of fundamental right as well as ordinary legal rights can be raised under Article 226 – Article 32 cannot be invoked to assail administrative order in absence of challenge to the statute – Also no challenge to a statute on ground other than fundamental rights will be maintainable under Article 32 – Violation of Fundamental Right is sine qua non invoking Article 32 – Consequences of such violation should be direct and inevitable – Where the existence of fundamental right has to be established by acceptance of a particular policy, or a course of action for which there is no legal compulsion or statutory imperative and on which there are divergent views, the same cannot be sought to be enforced by Article 32 – Wrong application of law would not amount to a violation of fundamental right. (Para 18, 22, 23)
       (1990) 4 SCC 239; AIR 1987 SC 1159; AIR 1955 SC 549 : (1955) 2 SCR 225; (1990) 2 SCC 352; (1975) 1 SCC 716; AIR 1962 SC 1621: (1963) 1 SCR 778 – Relied upon
       (2012) 7 SCC 433; (2011) 4 SCC 623 – Distinguished impliedly
       (d) Constitution of India – Article 32 – Decision of MCI refusing renewal of permission to admission to MBBS course challenged under Article 32 – Affiliation and recognition not being a right much less fundamental right – Supreme Court under Article 32 is not supposed to go into finding of facts recorded by the authorities and to come to a different conclusion – Petition, held, not maintainable. (Para 27)
       Facts of the case:
       These two writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenge the refusal of the Medical Council of India (MCI) to recommend the renewal of permission for admitting students for the academic year 2015-16 in the MBBS Course of the petitioner institutes and the consequent refusal of the Union Government to renew such permission.
       Finding of the Court:
       The writ petitions are not maintainable.
       Result: Petitions dismissed.

Judgment

M.Y. Eqbal, J.

Knocking the doors of this Court in the first instance under the garb of a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, instead of approaching the High Court, for the enforcement of right claimed in these writ petitions is the preliminary question we are deciding herein.

2. In these two writ petitions, the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the refusal of the Medical Council of India (MCI) to recommend the renewal of permission for admitting students for the academic year 2015-16 in the MBBS Course of the petitioner institutes and the consequent refusal of the Union Government to renew such permission.

W.P. (Civil) No. 441 of 2015:

3. The petitioner institute was said to have been granted permission for admitting 150 students in the MBBS course for the academic year 2013-14 and permission was renewed for the academic year 2014-15. The petitioner applied for renewal of permission for the academic year 2015-16 pursuant to which the assessors from the MCI conducted an inspection on 12th and 13th December, 2014 and submitted a report dated 15.12.2014 in which no deficiencies were alleged to have been pointed out.

4. However, the assessors from MCI were alleged to have made another surprise inspection on 6th February, 2015 at 3.00 PM and directed the Dean to call for a faculty meeting at 3.30 PM. Many teachers could not attend the meeting alleged to have left the college for lunch or Friday prayers or having gone home for the weekend while many others who came after 3.30 PM from different parts of the campus were not allowed to attend the meeting. Many of the Resident Doctors were stated to have been absent on account of the imminent State Level PG Entrance Test. Another inspection was conducted on 7th February, 2015. The inspection report was alleged to have been inaccurate and signed in protest by the Dean.

5. The aforesaid report was considered by the Executive Committee of the MCI on 10th February, 2015 and it was decided not to recommend the renewal of the permission of the petitioner and the same was communicated to the Union Government, which sent letter dated 04.03.2015 to the petitioner to appear for a hearing. After the hearing where the petitioner was said to have justified the deficiencies that were pointed out, the Central Government sent letter dated 22.05.2015 directing the MCI to conduct a reassessment. However, the MCI was alleged to have not done a re-inspection as directed on the ground that a decision had already been made not to recommend the renewal by invoking Regulation 8 (3) (1) (a) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999.

6. Thereafter, the Union Government published a list on 17.06.2015 stating that the permission of the petitioner college for the academic year 2015-16 had not been renewed and a letter dated 15.06.2015 was sent to the petitioner informing the same.

7. The petitioner filed the present petition praying for declaring the second inspection conducted on 6th and 7th February, 2015 to be illegal and for directing the MCI to recommend the renewal of the approval of the petitioner college for the academic year 2015-16 on the basis of the first inspection conducted on 12th and 13th December, 2014. A prayer has also been made for directing the Central Government to issue the letter of renewal accordingly.

W.P. (Civil) No.448 of 2015

8. The petitioner-college was granted provisional affiliation for starting the MBBS course for the academic session 2014-15 with 150 students. It appears that a surprise inspection was made by MCI and many deficiencies were pointed out. The Executive Committee of MCI after considering the inspection report recommended disapproval of the college. The Central Government directed the MCI to reconsider the matter. However, the MCI reiterated its stand of not recommending the renewal of permission for the sessions 2015-16. The petitioner has challenged the decision

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(SC) 727

Cases Referred (9)