IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rekha Palli, J.
Santosh Trust - Appellant
Versus
National Medical Commission - Respondent
W.P.(C) 1958 of 2022
Decided On : 15-03-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. disapproval of petitioners' applications (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. grounds for rejection of applications (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. petitioners' counterarguments against rejection (Para 12 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. respondents' arguments and legal justification (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. court's review of arguments presented (Para 29 , 31 , 33) |
| 6. legal standards regarding public interest (Para 36 , 40 , 44) |
| 7. conclusion reached and implications for future (Para 50 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the disapproval letters issued by the respondent no.1/National Medical Commission (hereinafter referred to as `NMC') rejecting the petitioners' request for grant of permission for increase of seats in the petitioner no.2 college in the Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (hereinafter referred to as `MBBS') course as also in post-graduate courses of MS (Obstetrics & Gynaecology) and MS (Orthopaedics). The petitioners also assail the order dated 22.12.2021 vide which the respondents have directed an interim inspection of the petitioner no.2 college for continuation of its existing recognition for 100 MBBS seats.
2. The petitioner no.1 (formerly known as the Maharaji Educational Trust) is a trust which runs and manages a group of medical, dental, paramedical, and paradental colleges/institutions in the National Capital Region, including the petitioner no.2, a medical educational institute, offering MBBS course and post-graduate courses like MD, MS, M.Sc. and Ph.D. On 13.06.2007, the petitioner no.2, along with the Santosh Dental College, Ghaziabad, which college is also managed by the petitioner no.1 trust, was on the recommendations of the University Grants Commission (`UGC'), granted the status of a `Deemed to be University' by the Central Government, which university is known as the Santosh University.
3. The respondent no.1/NMC, constituted under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the `NMC Act'), was set up in place of the erstwhile Medical Council of India (hereinafter referred to as `MCI') with an aim to inter alia improve access to quality and affordable medical education, ensure availability of adequate and high-quality medical professionals in all parts of the country, and objectively assess the medical institutions periodically in a transparent manner. The respondent no.2/Medical Assessment and Rating Board (hereinafter referred to as `MARB') is an autonomous board set up by the NMC for the purpose of assessing and rating medical institutions to ensure compliance with the standards laid down by the Under Graduate (`UG') as well as the Post Graduate (`PG') Medical Education Boards constituted as per the regulations under the NMC Act.
4. Based upon the permission granted to the petitioner no.1 trust on 15.01.1996 by the Government of India to establish a medical college for conducting MBBS course with a strength of 50 students, the petitioner no.2 college was set up. On 26.06.2001, the petitioner institute was granted recognition by the MCI for 50 seats in MBBS and thereafter for 3 seats in MD (Paediatrics) on 16.02.2004. The seats in MBBS were subsequently increased from 50 to 100 and the petitioner institute was also granted permission by the MCI for conducting PG courses in 18 disciplines.
5. The petitioner no.2 being desirous of seeking a further increase in the MBBS seats, applied to the MCI, pursuant whereto, an inspection was carried out on 13.12.2018. As during the inspection, certain deficiencies were found by the assessors, a further inspection was carried out on 16.04.2019 where again, some deficiencies were reported. Consequently, the petitioner institute was, on 30.05.2019, issued a show cause notice under clause 8 (3)(1)(C) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations (Amendment), 2010 (Part-II) by the MCI. This led to further inspections being carri
When public interest is involved, facts emerging from subsequent events can be looked into to support an administrative order.
The court held that expert regulatory bodies' assessments of medical institutions' deficiencies are not to be overridden by the judiciary unless significant jurisdictional errors are proven.
The distinction between the establishment of new medical colleges and the enhancement of student intake in existing colleges is critical; prior judicial rulings must not impede justified applications....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of the petitioner's request for increasing the intake of students in the MBBS course was unjustified and unsustainable, as it....
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : Siddharth Radhe Lal Gupta For the Respondent : J. K. Jain, Anoop Nair, Akshay Pawar
Enhancement of medical college seats must be evaluated based on current infrastructure and faculty, not solely on past deficiencies or penalties.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a medical college can increase its seats with prior approval from the MARB, and the court has the authority to step in and rectify any injusti....
The court established that the National Medical Commission Act grants the MARB the authority to regulate medical education standards, including the power to reduce student intake based on inspection ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.