1. Establishment of medical college — Grant of conditional Letter of Permission — Detection of infrastructure and clinical deficiencies — Debarment from admitting students under Indian Medical Council Act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 964
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, CJI., Amitava Roy, A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ.
Ponnaiyah Ramajayam Institute of Medical Sciences – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Another – Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 438 of 2017 With IA No. 74486 of 2017
Decided On : 22-09-2017
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Permission for admitting students to medical courses cannot be granted unless the Institution is norms compliant.
Permission for admitting students to medical courses cannot be granted unless the Institution is norms compliant.
Subject
Education Law - Medical Education
Act Referred
MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT: S.10(a)
Headnote
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 – Section 10A – MCI pointing out deficiencies – Petitioner partly accepting – MCI debarring petitioner from admitting students for two academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19 – Endorsed. (Para 22)
(2016) 7 SCC 353; Writ Petition (C) No. 747 of 2017; (2015) 10 SCC 19 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
This case pertains to obtaining permission for the establishment of a new medical college.
The petitioner has been debarred from admitting students for the next two academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and the Medical Council of India, has been authorised to encash the bank guarantee of Rs. 2 crores submitted by it in terms of the stipulations, subject to which such conditional permission had been granted.
Finding of the Court:
The petitioner/college is not entitled to LOP for the academic year 2017-18 and the application/scheme, if submitted by it for the academic year 2017-18 would be treated as one for 2018-19.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:- G. Umapathy, Rakesh K. Sharma, ALeo G. Rozario, Aditya Singh, Advs.
For the Petitioners:- G. Umapathy, Rakesh K. Sharma, ALeo G. Rozario, Aditya Singh, Advs.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claims deficiencies are non-existent or insufficient for debarment — Respondents assert persistent shortcomings in infrastructure and clinical facilities and breach of undertakings. (Para 16 , 17 )
3. Court noted persistent deficiencies in faculty and clinical material — Judicial review cannot substitute expert findings of regulatory bodies with court's views on medical education standards. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
4. Judicial review is not an appeal; courts should not re-appreciate evidence or substitute expert regulatory findings regarding medical education standards with their own views. (Para 24 , 26 )
5. Debarment for current academic year upheld — Bank guarantee not encashed — Fresh inspection ordered for subsequent year — Existing students permitted to complete course. (Para 28 , 29 )
6. What is the distinction between the power of judicial review and the power of appeal in administrative decisions?
Judicial review is not an appeal; constitutional courts cannot re-appreciate materials on record or adjudicate on merit as an appellate court would. The extent of review varies based on factual projections. (Para 24 )
7. To what extent can a court substitute its own views for the findings of expert regulatory bodies regarding medical education?
Courts are ill-equipped to substitute expert findings on medical education standards due to a lack of judicially manageable parameters. Regulatory bodies are the best judges of statutory imperatives for health facility quality. (Para 26 )
8. Must an administrative order by a Hearing Committee be as detailed as a judicial judgment to be valid?
No. An administrative order must reflect application of mind and indicate reasons, but it is not expected to be passed with the same formality or detail as a judgment by a judge. (Para 25 )
9. What factors must be considered when approving a scheme for a new medical college under Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act?
Authorities must consider minimum standards of medical education, adequacy of financial resources, availability of staff, equipment, accommodation, hospital facilities, and manpower requirements in the field of medicine. (Para 18 )
JUDGMENT
Amitava Roy, J.
The instant adjudication witnesses a relentless pursuit of the petitioner to secure the letter of permission (for short, hereafter referred to as "LOP") for the establishment of its new medical college in the name & style of "Ponnaiyah Ramajayam Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology" at Manamai-Nallur, Tamil Nadu with an annual intake of 150 MBBS students for the academic year 2016-17 and further renewal of such LOP for the next academic year 2017-18.
2. As the facts would unfold hereinafter, conditional permission was granted for such establishment for the academic year 2016-17, but eventually on the detection of lingering deficiencies in its infrastructure and clinical materials, it was, by order dated 9.6.2017 of the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, debarred from admitting students for the next two academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and the Medical Council of India, (for short hereinafter referred to as "MCI") was authorised to encash the bank guarantee of Rs. 2 crores submitted by it in terms of the stipulations, subject to which such conditional permission had been granted. This order was successfully challenged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition, whereupon by this Court's verdict dated 1.8.2017 rendered in a batch of writ petitions including the one in hand, the lead petition being Writ Petition (C) No. 411 of 2017 (Glocal Medical College and Super Speciality Hospital and Research Centre v. Union of India and Another), this order of debarment and encashment of bank guarantee was interfered with and the issue of confirmation or otherwise of the LOP was remanded to the Central Government for fresh consideration of the materials on record and a decision thereon after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/college to the extent necessary. In undertaking this exercise, the Central Government was, amongst others directed to re-evaluate the recommendations/views of the MCI, Hearing Committee, Director General of Health Services (for short, hereafter to be referred to as "DGHS") and the Oversight Committee, as available on records.
3. Thereafter, the Hearing Committee of the Central Government considered the matter afresh and after the appraisal of the oral and written submissions of the petitioner/college, submitted its report, whereupon the Central Government by order dated 10.8.2017 has reiterated its earlier decision dated 9.6.2017 to debar the petitioner/college from admitting students in next two academic years i.e. 2017-18 and 2018-19 and also to authorise the MCI to encash the bank guarantee of Rs. 2 crores. Noticeably, after setting at naught the earlier order dated 9.6.2017 of the Central Government, the writ petition was kept pending before this Court. The petitioner has thus returned with the impeachment of the order dated 10.8.2017.
4. We have heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India and Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel for the Medical Council of India.
5. The foundational facts in bare essentials present the backdrop. As required under Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act") and the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 (abbreviated hereinafter as the "Regulations") framed thereunder, the petitioner had submitted its scheme for grant of LOP to establish its new medical college with the annual intake of 150 MBBS seats for the academic year 2016-17 as referred to hereinabove. The MCI conducted assessment of the college on 29/30.12.2015 and on a consideration of the assessment report, its Executive Committee, in its meeting held on 30.1.2016 noticed the following deficiencies/short-comings in its infrastructure and clinical facilities:
"I. Deficiency of faculty is 46.15% as detailed in the report.
II Shortage of Residents is 45.65% on day of assessme
