IMPORTANT POINTS
Entry 25, List III is subject to Entry 66, List I.
Grant of reservations or a separate source of entry for in-service candidates contrary to Regulation 9(IV) and directly impinging on authority of MCI to coordinate and determine standards of medical education.

ORDER :

Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J

1. The judgment rendered by a three judge Bench in State of Uttar Pradesh v Dinesh Singh Chauhan, (2016) 9 SCC 749, construed the provisions of Regulations 9(IV) and 9(VII) of the Medical Council of India Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2000, as amended on 15 February 2012. In the present batch of cases, a Bench of three Judges opined, by an order dated 13 April 2018, that these petitions require consideration by a larger Bench.

2. In making this reference, the referring order primarily indicated the following reasons :

(i) The decision in Dinesh Singh Chauhan has not considered the entries in the legislative lists of the Seventh Schedule, more particularly Entry 66 of the Union List and Entry 25 of the Concurrent List;

(ii) The main contention of the petitioners is that while coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education falls within the exclusive domain of the Union (Entry 66 List I), medical education is a subject in the Concurrent List (Entry 25 List III). Though, Entry 25 of List III is subject to Entry 66 of List I, the State is not denuded of its power to legislate on the manner and method of making admissions to post-graduate medical courses;

(iii) The contentions which have been raised in the present batch of petitions were not addressed before this Court in Dinesh Singh Chauhan;

(iv) The judgment in Dinesh Singh Chauhan does not consider three decisions of the Constitution Bench in R Chitralekha v State of Mysore, (1964) 6 SCR 368, Kumari Chitra Ghosh v Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 228 and Modern Dental College and Research Centre v State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 7 SCC 353; and

(v) There are decisions rendered by Benches of an equal strength as in Dinesh Singh Chauhan.

3. While making a reference to a larger Bench, the referring order observed that it would be “appropriate that even the interim relief should be considered by the larger Bench”. Accordingly, on the directions of the learned Chief Justice, the proceedings have been placed before the Constitution Bench to consider the question of interim relief.

4. We have heard Mr Arvind Datar and Mr K V Vishwanathan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Mr Aman Lekhi, learned Additional Solicitor General and Mr A K Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents - Union of India, Mr Vikas Singh learned Senior Counsel for the MCI and Mr V Giri, learned Senior Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu.

5. In Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v Union of India, WP (C) No. 196 of 2018, the following reliefs have been sought :

“(a) Declare by issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ/order/direction that Regulation 9 of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 (more particularly, Regulation 9(iv) and 9(vii), does not take away the power of the States under Entry 25, List III to provide for a separate source of entry for in-service candidates seeking admission to Degree Courses;

(b) Alternatively, if Regulation 9 of the Post Graduate Medical Regulations, 2000 is understood to not allow for States to provide for a separate source of entry for in-service candidates seeking admission to Degree Courses, declare by issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ/order/direction, Regulation 9 (more particularly, Regulations 9(iv) and 9 (vii) as being arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and also ultra vires the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956;”

6. The interim prayer is that this Court should stay the operation of Regulation 9 of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2000, to the extent that it is deemed to prohibit the states from providing a separate source of entry to in-service candidates seeking admission to post-graduate degree courses. A direction has been sought permitting the State of Tamil Nadu to implement its policy of providing for a separate source of entry to in-service