Back
2018 Supreme(Online)(SC) 3561
SUPREME COURT
K.M. Joseph, A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ
Medical Council of India v. The Chairman S.R. Educational and Charitable Trust and Another
Civil Appeal No.8429 of 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul
For the Respondents: Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Shri Hufeza H. Ahmedi
Regulatory adherence is essential for medical college admissions; deficiencies found preclude compliance verification for the same academic year.
Headnote:(A) Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - Regulations 8(3)(1)(a) and 8(3)(1)(b) - Renewal of permission for medical colleges - High Court quashed Government's order denying admissions for 2018-2019, directing inspections for rectifying deficiencies found in earlier assessments - Variance noted in regulatory standards for admitting students and collated inspection reports - Court emphasized strict adherence to Regulations to ensure quality in medical education. (Paras 1-41)
(B) Administrative Law - Natural justice - Requirement of timely assessment and hearings under regulations, and due opportunity for colleges to rectify deficiencies precluded under certain conditions - Renewal and admissions can only be granted when compliance of deficiencies is met. (Paras 4, 5, 6)
(C) Judicial Review - Differential treatment of medical colleges based on individual deficiency assessment - The High Court's reliance on previous invalid decisions introduced inconsistencies and contradicted established norms governing recognition and admission set by MCI. (Paras 22, 28, 41)
Facts of the case:
The Medical Council of India challenged a High Court ruling which ordered admissions to medical colleges despite identified deficiencies and procedural lapses on their part in compliance with regulatory standards. The deficiencies ranged widely impacting faculty presence, patient treatment, and infrastructural quality.
Findings of Court:
High Court's decision quashed, emphasizing the necessity for regulatory compliance and adherence to MCI's standards for educational institutions to function effectively.
Issues: Appropriateness of allowing admissions based on varied compliance deficiencies across different institutions and the legal implications of the MCI's regulatory framework.
Ratio Decidendi: Court underscored strict adherence to minimum standards of education required under applicable regulations, asserting that deficiencies found preempted the possibility for compliance verification within the same academic year.
Result: Appeals allowed; previous High Court's quashing of Government's order overturned.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of mci's grievances (Para 1) |
| 2. high court's observation about deficiencies (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. arguments by colleges regarding rectification (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. details of specific deficiencies found (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. regulatory framework for medical college admissions (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. legal principles concerning mci's powers (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. conclusion on high court's judgment errors (Para 33 , 34 , 39) |
| 8. final ruling on appeals (Para 42) |
1. The Medical Council of India (for short, “the MCI”) is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.8.2018 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The High Court has quashed the order passed by the Government of India declining to grant renewal permission / recognition to respondents - medical colleges. The High Court has directed the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, Government of Kerala to allot students to the colleges for the academic year 2018-2019 immediately. The MCI has also been directed to carry out the inspection to verify whether the colleges had rectified the deficiencies found at the time of earlier inspection. In case they have not done so, the MCI shall be at liberty to take appropriate action against them including the enforcement of the Bank Guarantees. At the same time, it has been ordered that in case fresh deficiencies are detected, the colleges shall be given the opportunity to rectify such deficiencies within a stipulated time.
2. The High Court has decided the petitions of the four colleges by the common order. Probably, High Court had felt that the question on which it decided the matters was common, however, the facts of each and every college are different, the deficiencies found obviously varies and the order of the High Court is subject to further judicial review. It would have been appropriate for the High Court to decide the matter by separate orders duly reflecting the facts of each case and the deficiencies found. Clubbing of matters in the method and manner it had been done may indicate non - serious approach. In three of the matters, question was that of admissions in the academic session 2018-2019 and in one of the matters, the question pertains to the grant of recognition as well as admissions.
3. The High Court has observed that there are many serious deficiencies and the lack of patients would result in a lack of exposure of the students in so far as treatment of patients was concerned. The deficiencies, such as lack of teaching faculty, residents, lack of a sufficient number of surgical procedures, though, are of nature which would have a serious impact on the quality of education, the explanation offered by the colleges on the deficiencies has not been found to be genuine to impress the court. Notwithstanding the aforesaid observations, the High Court has proceeded to grant the relief to the medical colleges.
4. The colleges had contended that they had rectified the deficiencies and the Hearing Committee had recommended the MCI to review the case. Accordingly, the Central Government had required the MCI to review its earlier stand. However, the Executive Committee of MCI refused to reconsider its earlier stand in view of the provisions contained in the Regulations 8(3)(1)(a) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 (for short, “the Regulations”). The MCI declined to review the order on the ground that the time for the MCI to send its recommendations to Central Government had already expired on 30th April 2018 and the schedule was required to be strictly adhered to.
5. The High Court had observed that opportunity of hearing would mean to make a representation. Timely assessment is integral to the scheme and such an opportunity is to be given not only when permission for the establishment of a new college is under consideration but even in cases of subsequent renewal of such permission. The High Court had referred to the decisions in Swamy Devi Dayal Hospital & D
