1. Challenge to a notification amending regulations for establishing dental colleges, specifically requiring attachment to a recognized medical college under the Dentists Act, 1948. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 342
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur)
L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, JJ.
DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
BIYANI SHIKSHAN SAMITI & ANR. – RESPONDENT(S)
Civil Appeal No. 2912 of 2022 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.26855 of 2018]
Decided On : 12-04-2022
Important Points
The amended Regulation had a direct nexus with the object of providing adequate teaching and training facilities to the students and was not manifestly arbitrary. The differential treatment for different classes of Dental Colleges did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The impugned Notification was made to ensure the maintenance of proper academic standards and infrastructure, in line with the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case.
Subject
Administrative Law - Regulatory Law
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.14, Art.19(1)(g)
DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW DENTAL COLLEGES OPENING OF NEW OR HIGHER COURSE OF STUDY OR TRAINING AND INCREASE OF ADMISSION CAPACITY IN DENTAL COLLEGE REGULATIONS: Reg.6(2)(h)
DENTISTS ACT: S.10(a), S.20
DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW DENTAL COLLEGES OPENING OF NEW OR HIGHER COURSE OF STUDY OR TRAINING AND INCREASE OF ADMISSION CAPACITY IN DENTAL COLLEGE REGULATIONS: Reg.6(2)(h)
DENTISTS ACT: S.10(a), S.20
Headnote
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a challenge to the amendment of Regulation 6(2)(h) of the Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or Higher Course of Studies or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006. The respondent No.1 sought reconsideration of its application for establishment of a new Dental College after the Council substituted the regulation, and the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition, striking down the impugned Notification and directing reconsideration of the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the amended Regulation had a direct nexus with the object of providing adequate teaching and training facilities to the students and was not manifestly arbitrary. The court also held that the differential treatment for different classes of Dental Colleges did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The court further found that the impugned Notification was made to ensure the maintenance of proper academic standards and infrastructure, in line with the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case. The court also criticized the Division Bench for entertaining a fresh writ petition for a prayer that had already been rejected, and set aside the impugned judgment and order.
Issues: The issues involved the consistency of the amended Regulation with the Dentists Act, 1948, and Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, as well as the principles of judicial propriety.
Ratio Decidendi: The amended Regulation had a direct nexus with the object of providing adequate teaching and training facilities to the students and was not manifestly arbitrary. The differential treatment for different classes of Dental Colleges did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The impugned Notification was made to ensure the maintenance of proper academic standards and infrastructure, in line with the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case. The Division Bench erred in entertaining a fresh writ petition for a prayer that had already been rejected.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment and order dated 24th April, 2018 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court was quashed and set aside, and the D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3260 of 2017 filed by the respondent No.1 before the Division Bench of the High Court was dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- constitutional law
- practice and procedure
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Gaurav Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Shobha Gupta, Vidit Agarwal, Nishant Bahuguna, Jessy Kurien, Shubham Jalan, Prachi Sharma, Sakshi Tiwari, Aishwarya Bhati, Ld. ASG Ruchi Kohli, Shailesh Madiyal, Digvijay Dam, Bhuvan Kapoor, Himanshu Satija, Poornima Singh, Rustam Singh Chauhan, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Advocates
For the Petitioner(s):Gaurav Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Shobha Gupta, Vidit Agarwal, Nishant Bahuguna, Jessy Kurien, Shubham Jalan, Prachi Sharma, Sakshi Tiwari, Aishwarya Bhati, Ld. ASG Ruchi Kohli, Shailesh Madiyal, Digvijay Dam, Bhuvan Kapoor, Himanshu Satija, Poornima Singh, Rustam Singh Chauhan, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Advocates
Table of Contents
2. Whether the amended regulation is ultra vires the parent Act, manifestly arbitrary, or violative of fundamental rights to equality and profession. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
3. The Council is an expert body; the amendment has a rational nexus with maintaining academic standards and falls within the residual power to prescribe factors. (Para 21 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 )
4. Subordinate legislation is valid unless manifestly arbitrary or inconsistent with the parent Act; courts should not substitute their wisdom for that of expert bodies. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 35 , 36 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court judgment quashed and the writ petition dismissed. (Para 45 )
6. On what grounds can subordinate legislation be challenged in court?
Subordinate legislation may be challenged based on lack of legislative competence, violation of fundamental rights or other constitutional provisions, failure to conform to the enabling statute, repugnancy to other laws, or manifest arbitrariness/unreasonableness to the extent that the legislature could not have intended such authority. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 )
7. To what extent can courts interfere with academic standards set by statutory expert bodies?
Courts should not substitute their own opinion for that of expert bodies regarding academic policy or standards. As long as the regulations have a rational nexus with the statute's object, courts should not judge the wisdom or effectiveness of the policy. (Para 35 , 36 , 38 , 39 )
8. Does differential treatment of institutions established before and after a regulatory change violate Article 14?
No, provided the institutions form separate classes and the differential treatment has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Act, such as maintaining higher academic standards. (Para 31 )
9. Can the right to establish an educational institution under Article 19(1)(g) be regulated?
Yes, the right to establish an educational institution can be regulated through measures intended to ensure the maintenance of proper academic standards, atmosphere, and infrastructure, and to prevent maladministration. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 )
JUDGMENT
B.R. Gavai, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal challenges the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, dated 24th April, 2018, passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3260 of 2017, thereby allowing the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondent No.1-Biyani Shikshan Samiti (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent No.1”) and striking down the Notification dated 21st May, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned Notification”), vide which the appellant-Dental Council of India (hereinafter referred to as “the Council”), had substituted Regulation 6(2)(h) of the Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or Higher Course of Studies or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the Regulations”), on the ground of the same being inconsistent with the provisions of the Dentists Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) and also being violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
3. The facts in the present case are not in dispute.
4. The respondent No. 1 had submitted an application to the Government of India for grant of permission for establishment of dental college from academic year 2012-2013 on 24th September, 2011. This was after the Letter of Intent was issued by the State Government on 23rd September, 2011. The respondent No. 2 – Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Dental Education Section) [hereinafter referred to as “the respondent No.2”), noticed certain deficiencies in the proposal of the respondent No.1 and vide its letter dated 7th October, 2011, required the respondent No.1 to cure the said deficiencies.
5. After exchange of certain communications, on 6th January, 2012, the respondent No.2, returned the application of the respondent No.1 along with demand draft of Rs.6 lakh, on the ground that deficiencies pointed out were not cured prior to 31st December, 2011, i.e., the last date for curing the deficiencies.
6. In the meantime, the Government of Rajasthan issued Essentiality Certificate to the respondent No.1 on 11th January, 2012. However, on 17th February, 2012, the respondent No.2 declined to reconsider the application/request of the respondent No.1, on the grounds stated in its earlier letter, dated 6th January, 2012. As such, the request of the respondent No.1 for reconsideration of its proposal came to be rejected by the respondent No.2, vide its communication dated 17th February, 2012.
7. In the meantime, vide the impugned Notification, existing Regulation 6(2)(h) of the Regulations was substituted by amended Regulation 6(2)(h) on 21st May, 2012. Respondent No.1 again submitted its fresh application on 28th September, 2012 for academic year 2013-2014. The same was returned by the respondent No.2 vide its order dated 31st December, 2012, on the ground that the proposal/application was not in compliance with the amended Regulation 6(2)(h) of the Regulations. On 23rd January, 2013, the respondent No.1 thereafter wrote a letter to the respondent No.2, stating therein that since Essentiality Certificate was issued to it on 11th January, 2012, the impugned Notification was not applicable to it and requested for reconsideration of its application under the unamended Regulation 6(2)(h) of the Regulations. The respondent No.2 rejected the application of the respondent No.1 vide its order dated 5th March, 2013.
8. The respondent No.1 challenged the order passed by the respondent No.2 rejecting the request for reconsideration of its application before the learned single judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15090 of 2016. The respondent No.1 further sought a direction to reconsider the application submitted by it on 24th September, 2011 for establishment of a new dental college for academic session
