Back
1996 Supreme(Kar) 549
Karnataka High Court
CITIZEN OF INDIA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA - Respondent
Decided On : 09-20-96
Headnote:
The court held that the state government's power to fix or increase the intake of medical colleges is void and inoperative as it is repugnant to the provisions of the Central Act. The power to fix and/or increase the admission capacities of the medical colleges is governed exclusively under the provisions of the Central Act. No medical college can admit any student in excess of its admission capacity fixed by the council subject to any increase thereof as approved by the central government under and in accordance with the provisions of the Central Act. The regulations framed on the aspects of medical education referred to in the Central Act are mandatory in nature. The central or the state government cannot exercise their executive powers in respect of any aspect of medical education for which provisions have been made under the central or state legislation. Even the high courts in exercise of their extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot direct, regularise or approve admissions in excess of the legally permissible admission capacities of the medical colleges on the ground of "judicial sympathy" towards the students.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a challenge to the state government's authority to fix or increase the intake of medical colleges. The petitioners argued that the state government's power was void and inoperative as it was repugnant to the provisions of the Central Act. The state government argued that it had the exclusive power to fix the admission capacities of the medical colleges under the provisions of the state universities Act and the state capitation fee Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the state government's power to fix or increase the intake of medical colleges is void and inoperative as it is repugnant to the provisions of the Central Act. The power to fix and/or increase the admission capacities of the medical colleges is governed exclusively under the provisions of the Central Act. No medical college can admit any student in excess of its admission capacity fixed by the council subject to any increase thereof as approved by the central government under and in accordance with the provisions of the Central Act. The regulations framed on the aspects of medical education referred to in the Central Act are mandatory in nature. The central or the state government cannot exercise their executive powers in respect of any aspect of medical education for which provisions have been made under the central or state legislation. Even the high courts in exercise of their extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot direct, regularise or approve admissions in excess of the legally permissible admission capacities of the medical colleges on the ground of "judicial sympathy" towards the students.
Issues: 1. Whether the state government's power to fix or increase the intake of medical colleges is void and inoperative as it is repugnant to the provisions of the Central Act. 2. Whether the power to fix and/or increase the admission capacities of the medical colleges is governed exclusively under the provisions of the Central Act. 3. Whether any medical college can admit any student in excess of its admission capacity fixed by the council subject to any increase thereof as approved by the central government under and in accordance with the provisions of the Central Act. 4. Whether the regulations framed on the aspects of medical education referred to in the Central Act are mandatory in nature. 5. Whether the central or the state government can exercise their executive powers in respect of any aspect of medical education for which provisions have been made under the central or state legislation. 6. Whether the high courts in exercise of their extraordinary writ jurisdiction can direct, regularise or approve admissions in excess of the legally permissible admission capacities of the medical colleges on the ground of "judicial sympathy" towards the students.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the state government's power to fix or increase the intake of medical colleges is void and inoperative as it is repugnant to the provisions of the Central Act. The power to fix and/or increase the admission capacities of the medical colleges is governed exclusively under the provisions of the Central Act. No medical college can admit any student in excess of its admission capacity fixed by the council subject to any increase thereof as approved by the central government under and in accordance with the provisions of the Central Act. The regulations framed on the aspects of medical education referred to in the Central Act are mandatory in nature. The central or the state government cannot exercise their executive powers in respect of any aspect of medical education for which provisions have been made under the central or state legislation. Even the high courts in exercise of their extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot direct, regularise or approve admissions in excess of the legally permissible admission capacities of the medical colleges on the ground of "judicial sympathy" towards the students. The court relied on the provisions of the Central Act, the state universities Act, and the state capitation fee Act, as well as case law on the issue of the powers of the state government and the central government in relation to medical education.
Final Decision: The court held that the state government's power to fix or increase the intake of medical colleges is void and inoperative as it is repugnant to the provisions of the Central Act. The power to fix and/or increase the admission capacities of the medical colleges is governed exclusively under the provisions of the Central Act. No medical college can admit any student in excess of its admission capacity fixed by the council subject to any increase thereof as approved by the central government under and in accordance with the provisions of the Central Act. The regulations framed on the aspects of medical education referred to in the Central Act are mandatory in nature. The central or the state government cannot exercise their executive powers in respect of any aspect of medical education for which provisions have been made under the central or state legislation. Even the high courts in exercise of their extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot direct, regularise or approve admissions in excess of the legally permissible admission capacities of the medical colleges on the ground of "judicial sympathy" towards the students.
( 1 ) THE national law school of India university, bangalore, in its publication "march of the law, 1994", while reviewing legal developments in India in the field of education law, has noticed that 1992-93 will go down in the history of constitutional litigation on education. The debate that started with Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India and others, on the issue of policy on education, specially relating to professional education, dictates several dimensions and Reached Unni Krishnan J. P. and Others V. State of Andhra Pradesh and others , via, Miss Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka and others. The parliament also took immediate notice of the said developments and appropriately responded by enacting Indian medical council (Amendment) Act, 1993 and the dentists (Amendment) Act, 1993. But all in vain. The mischief sought to be remedied could still find their ways to survive with higher vigour openly declaring "we are unconquerable. We survive with ten heads like ravana". The enquires conducted in these proceedings, the documents produced by the central government, the medical council of India and the dental council of India conclusively proves that the managements of the medical and dental colleges in the state, with the support, active or tacit, of the state government and the university authorities have conveniently flouted the judicial and parliamentary mandates by admitting students far in excess of their legally permissible overall intake as also the prescribed management quota. Shockingly, it has not only been so done at the cost of the statutorily defined minimum standards of medical and dental education, rather it has also subjected the students so admitted to their utter dismay exposing their careers to peril particularly keeping in view the mandatory provisions contained in Section 10-b of the above acts. It may be noticed here that if the admission of any student is found to be hit by the said provisions, the medical or dental qualifications acquired by them may remain wholly futile and fruitless having no practical utility thus resulting in complete waste of time, energy and money spent in pursuing the said professional courses. background settings
( 2 ) THIS participatory judicial proceeding in the nature of apublic interest litigation was registered on the basis of a public complaint received through post inter alia alleging therein that the medical colleges in the state of Karnataka have been permitted by the state government to admit students far in excess of the admission capacities fixed by the medical council of India (in short, 'council') despite the direction and request of the latter under its letter dated 21-11-1994 addressed to the state government through its secretary, health and family welfare, with copies to the director of medical education and to the principals and deans of the said medical colleges inviting their pointed attention to the provisions of sections 10-a, 10-b and 10-c of the Indian medical council Act, 1956 (in short, 'the Central Act') as inserted by the 1993 amendment with effect from 27-8-1992. It is also alleged that the managements of the colleges have regularly indulged in admitting students even in excess of the intakes fixed by the state government under the guise of "backlog vacancies" a concept unsupportable with reference to any statutory provision and far in excess of 15% management quota fixed by the Supreme Court. The' reason implicitly suggested for commission of these illegalities cannot be outrightly rejected as frivolous or mala fide, since of late it has surfaced as a reality in various spheres. The complainant says "sir, you may know the fee for each seat is 75,000 us dollars". Even the Supreme Court has taken judicial notice of this fact in its Order dated 10-5-1995 in the case of T. M. A. Pal Foundation v. State of Karnataka, by observing "it is common knowledge that each seat under this quota is sold for huge sums not all accounted for and not al
