2004 Supreme(Kar) 582

Karnataka High Court
B.R.AMBEDKAR MEDICAL COLLEGE, BANGALORE - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Decided On : 10-07-04
. : .

Headnote:Stoppage of admissions by MCI

       ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICAL COLLEGE REGULATIONS, 1999

       Regulation 8(3) - Stoppage of admissions by Medical Council of India - Regulations cannot confer absolute Power on a statutory body like Medical Council of India to stop admissions in already recognised Medical Colleges.

       Cases Referred: AIR 1996 ALL 135 ; 1998(6) SCC 131; (1999) 7 SCC 120 ; (1994) 4 SCC 401; AIR 1967 SC 389 ; AIR 1977 SC 915; AIR 1989 SC 1582 ; ILR 1996 KAR 3136; (1981) 4 SCC 296 ; (2004) 4 SCC 79; 2003 AIR SCW 3387 ; AIR 1976 SC 789.

       Powers of Medical Council of India

       ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW MEDICAL COLLEGES, OPENING OF HIGH COURSES OF STUDY AND INCREASE OF ADMISSION CAPACITY IN MEDICAL COLLEGES REGULATIONS, 1993

       Powers of Medical Council of India - Regulations cannot confer absolute power on a statutory body like Medical Council of India to stop admissions in already recognised Medical Colleges.

       [N. Kumar, J]: A regulation, providing for a power to direct stoppage of an admission to the MCI in case of a scheme, is made for obtaining permission from the Central Government for establishment of medical college, cannot be construed as conferring such owner to stop admission to medical colleges of recognised institutions, where a formal recognition has been granted before the Amendment Act came into force or such a formal recognition has been granted in terms of Section 10A. When no such power has been conferred on the central Government under the Statute such wide powers cannot be conferred on the MCI by way of a regulation. When that being the case the reliance placed by the Council on these regulations as a source of power to stop admission to medical colleges has no substance in it.

       Explanation

       INTERPRETATION OF STATUES

       Explanation - Interpretation of - An Explanation should be read to harmonise any ambiguity in the section.

       [N. Kumar, J]: An explanation is at times, appended to a section to explain the meaning of words contained in the Section. It becomes a part and parcel of the enactment. The meaning to be given to an explanation must depend upon its terms and no theory of its purpose can be entertained unless it is inferred from the language used. But if the language of the explanation shows a purpose and a construction consistent with that purpose can be reasonably placed upon it, that construction will be preferred as against any other construction which does not fit in with the description or the avowed purpose. The explanation may be added to include something within or to exclude something from the ambit of the main enactment or connotation to some word occurring in it. An explanation, normally, should be so read, as to harmonize with and clear up any ambiguity in the main section and should not be so construed as to widen the ambit of the section. It is also possible that an explanation may have been added ex abundanti cautela to allay groundless apprehensions.

       Cases Referred: AIR 1996 ALL 135 ; 1998(6) SCC 131; (1999) 7 SCC 120 ; (1994) 4 SCC 401; AIR 1967 SC 389 ; AIR 1977 SC 915; AIR 1989 SC 1582 ; ILR 1996 KAR 3136; (1981) 4 SCC 296 ; (2004) 4 SCC 79; 2003 AIR SCW 3387; AIR 1976 SC 789.

       Interpretation by Courts

       INTERPRETATION OF STATUES

       Interpretation by Courts -Guidelines to be followed.

       [N. Kumar, J]: It is well recognised that a Court while interpreting a statute should keep the purpose of the enactment in mind and every effort should be made to give effect to the said purpose so as to remedy the mischief or defect for which the law does not provide. The interpretation must depend upon the text and context. They are the bases of interpretation. The text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With this knowledge the statute must be read, first as a whole and then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. A bare mechanical interpretation of the words and application of the legislative intend devoid of concept of purpose and object will render the legislature insane. The object of all interpretation is to discover the intention of the legislature, but the intention of the legislature must be deduced from the language used and it has to be construed according to the intention expressed in the Acts themselves. If the words of the statute are themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their ordinary and natural sense. Not only the intention of the legislature has to be gathered from the language used in the statute, thus paying attention to what has been said as also to what has not been said. Under the guise of purposive construction of a statute the Court cannot add words or read words into the Section which the legislature has deliberately omitted to add. Then it would be case of the Court legislating and not interpreting which is its role.

       Explanation

       MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT, 1956 - Section 10A - Explanation - Scope and purpose of Explanation.

       [N. Kumar, J]: This explanation has to be understood in this context that on the day Section 10A was introduced into the Act already there were in existence several medical colleges in the country. The admission capacity of such medical colleges were fixed by the MCI, respective State Governments and in some cases the Universities to which those colleges were affiliated. Therefore, if any, of those colleges were to make an application for increase in the admission capacity, the question would arise as to what is the admission capacity existing in that college, which is to be taken into consideration for granting Increase in the admission capacity. There should be a bench mark and it is beyond that mark there could be an increase. There was a lot of controversy over who is the authority which is competent to decide the intake of a medical college. It is in this background when Section 10A was introduced it was clarified that for the purpose of increase in the admission capacity of any college after these amended provisions came into force, it is the intake fixed by the Council which is decisive and not the intake fixed by the Government or the University.

       Explanation

       MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT, 1956 - Section 10A - Explanation - Scope and purpose of Explanation.

       [N. Kumar, J]: This explanation has to be understood in this context that on the day Section 10A was introduced into the Act already there were in existence several medical colleges in the country. The admission capacity of such medical colleges were fixed by the MCI, respective State Governments and in some cases the Universities to which those colleges were affiliated. Therefore, if any, of those colleges were to make an application for increase in the admission capacity, the question would arise as to what is the admission capacity existing in that college, which is to be taken into consideration for granting Increase in the admission capacity. There should be a bench mark and it is beyond that mark there could be an increase. There was a lot of controversy over who is the authority which is competent to decide the intake of a medical college. It is in this background when Section 10A was introduced it was clarified that for the purpose of increase in the admission capacity of any college after these amended provisions came into force, it is the intake fixed by the Council which is decisive and not the intake fixed by the Government or the University.

       Powers of Medical Council of India

       MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT, 1956 - Section 10A - Powers of Medical Council of India - The Council has no power to stop admission to recognized Medical Colleges for any academic year.

       [N. Kumar, J]: The MCI has no power to stop admission of students to a recognised medical college under Section 10A of the Act for any academic year.

       Powers of Medical Council of India

       MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT, 1956 - Sections 10A - Powers of Medical Council of India - In ILR 2005 Kar 783 there was a divergent opinion - Matter referred to third Judge - Third Judge concurring with one opinion - Resultant position is that, Medical Council of India has no power to stop admissions to already recognised Medical Colleges - It is not conferred with absolute power - It s action is vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice.

       Deficiencies noticed by council

       MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT, 1956 - Section 19 - Deficiencies noticed by council - Course to be followed thereafter.

       [N. Kumar, J]: When the MCI noticed the deficiencies in the appellant s college, they were under an obligation to make a representation to the effect to the Central Government as prescribed under Section 19 of the Act. It is thereafter, the Central Government a after considering such representation, may send to the State Government, in which the University or Medical Institution is situated and thereafter the State Government shall forward it along with such remarks as it think fit to the University or Medical Institution intimating the period within which the University or Medical Institution may submit its explanation to the State Government. On receipt of the explanation, the State Government shall make its recommendation to the Central Government. Thereafter, the Central Government after making such enquiry may by notification in the official gazette direct an entry shall be made to the appropriate schedule against the medical qualification declaring it recognised medical qualification only when granted before a specified date. Therefore, the Parliament in its wisdom has provided an elaborate procedure for taking action against the Universities or Medical Institutions which are not conforming to the specification prescribed by the Council. When once statutes prescribes a particular mode, this statutory authority under the Act is bound to exercise the power in the manner prescribed under the Statute.

       Violation of

       NATURAL JUSTICE -Violation of - Medical Council of India - Cannot direct an already recognised Medical College to stop admissions without affording an opportunity of being heard.

       [N. Kumar, J]: Such an order would have serious consequences not only affecting the institution but would also affect the interest of students who, are pursuing their studies in the said college. When power of that nature is sought to be exercised, it is the minimum requirement of law that the affected persons should be heard and should be given an opportunity not only to explain as to why action should not be taken, but an opportunity to rectify the deficiencies pointed out by them and only thereafter, in spite of such opportunity being given, the deficiencies are not rectified, it could be said, that the authorities which are vested with the power to maintain minimum standards of medical education could initiate any proceedings in pursuant to the statutory obligation cast on them and if such power is vested in them they would be justified in passing any such order.

       Violation of

       NATURAL JUSTICE -Violation of -Medial Council of India directing already recognised Medical Colleges to stop admissions -Whether violates principles of natural justice?

       [S. R. Nayak, J]: From the corres-pondence laid before the Court, it will be totally unfair and unreasonable to infer that the deficiencies pointed out by the Inspectors and stated by the MCI in its communications are with regard to 100 intake already fixed by the MCI. Such an inference is neither possible nor permissible. Such an inference cannot- be drawn from the communication- Annexure R. A careful reading of the last paragraph of Annexure-R would suggest that because of the deficiencies referred to in Annexure R, the college could not be permitted to increase its admission capacity from 100 to 120. There is no whisper in Annexure-R regarding the fact that the institution lacked any infrastructure even for imparting training to the permitted intake of 100 students. In the light of what is noticed above, the impugned directives came to be issued by the MCI in utter breach of principles of natural justice and fairness in action and without application of mind.

       [Shylendra Kumar, J]:It is always known to the College or the Medical Institution that it is required to adhere to this standard as the minimum required for running the institution with given admission capacity. It is no doubt true that Medical Council has to point out as to what is lacking in terms of the requisite facilities and standards, but that in itself will not attract the principles of natural justice. In fact, the principles of natural justice is attracted to a situation where a person having a right is denied or deprived of the right without giving an opportunity. If the examination for answering the question in issue is not in the context of any of the right of the appellant, it may be difficult to accept that it is a situation where action on the part of the Medical Council is required to be invalidated on the ground of non-compliance of the principles of natural Justice. Here again the situation where an Administrative Authority passes orders which has the effect of affecting rights of citizens and even without giving an opportunity to the affected person attracting the principles of natural justice or rather the violation of it is not the same when a Professional Body which has a duty to ensure maintenance of professional standards, directs an institution imparting medical education in its college to restore the requisite standards in the institution and pending such restoration, directs the college not to admit students for the course.

       Cases Referred:

       AIR 1996 ALL 135; 1998(6) SCC 131; (1999) 7 SCC 120; (1994) 4 SCC 401; AIR 1967 SC 389; AIR 1977 SC 915; AIR 1989 SC 1582; ILR 1996 KAR 3136; (1981) 4 SCC 296; (2004) 4 SCC 79; 2003 AIR SCW 3387 ; AIR 1976 SC 789.