MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA Vs. MEDICITI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES (MIMS) AND ORS.
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 13957-13958 of 2015, Judgment Date: Dec 01, 2015
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 13957-13958 OF 2015
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.26227-26228 of 2015)
Medical Council of India .....Appellant
VERSUS
Mediciti Institute of Medical Sciences
(MIMS) & Ors. …..Respondents
J U D G M E N T
ANIL R. DAVE, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Looking at the
facts of the case and at the request of the learned counsel appearing for
the parties, it was decided to hear the appeals expeditiously.
3. A short issue that has come up for consideration in these appeals is
whether it was open to the High Court to give a direction to the Medical
Council of India (for short, the MCI)-the appellant herein, by its order
dated 13.08.2015, to conduct a re-inspection of Respondent no.1 institute.
The said direction was given in relation to an application made by
Respondent no.1 for renewal of permission for increase in admission
capacity of MBBS students from 100 to 150 for the academic year 2015-16.
4. Respondent no.1 is a hospital-cum-medical college, which had been
formerly granted permission to teach 100 MBBS students per academic year.
From 2012-2013, respondent no.3 had permitted increase in intake capacity
from 100 to 150 MBBS students. For the academic year 2013-14, respondent
no.3 had renewed the said permission. Respondent no.1 wanted to get the
said permission renewed for the academic year 2014-15 and therefore, it had
submitted an application, as prescribed under the Establishment of Medical
College Regulations, 1999. The said application had been rejected as the
Executive Committee of the MCI found certain deficiencies in the
functioning of Respondent no.1 institute. Some litigation had taken place
with regard to the said rejection, but the said rejection is not much
relevant for the present petition.
5. For renewal of the said permission for additional 50 MBBS students
for the academic year 2015-16, another application was made by respondent
no.1 and in pursuance of the said application, an inspection of Respondent
No.1 institute had taken place on 5th and 6th December, 2014 by the MCI and
at the time of said inspection, following deficiencies had been noted by
the representatives of the MCI:
“1. Deficiency of faculty is 10% as detailed in report.
2. Shortage of Residents is 16.5% as detailed in report.
3. Common Room for Girls is in corridor and requires improvement.
4. O.T.: There are 15 tables in 11 O.T.s indicating more than 1 table
in several O.T.s which is not as per norms.
5. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment report.”
6. Report of the aforestated inspection, which had taken place on 5th
and 6th December, 2014, was placed before the Executive Committee of the
MCI on 13th January, 2015 for its consideration. The aforestated
deficiencies were found by the Executive Committee of the MCI of serious
nature and therefore, the Committee decided “to recommend to the Central
Government not to renew the permission for admission of 4th batch of MMBS
students against the increased intake i.e. from 100 to 150” students of
Respondent no.1 and the said decision was communicated to Respondent no.1
by the MCI under its letter dated 21st January, 2015.
7. Though not much relevant, it is pertinent to note that in pursuance
of some litigation which had taken place in the meantime, Respondent no.1
gave admission to 50 additional students to MBBS course for the academic
year 2014-15 on the basis of an undertaking given to this Court. Thus, in
fact, 150 students were given admission to MBBS course for the academic
year 2014-15. The said undertaking was ultimately found to be incorrect by
the MCI.
8. Respondent no.1 institute had thereafter addressed a letter dated
14th February, 2015 to the MCI, wherein it was claimed that the
deficiencies which had been found by the MCI at the time of inspection of
Respondent no.1, which had taken place on 5th and 6th December, 2014, had
been removed. Respondent no.1 was also given a personal hearing by
respondent no.3.
9. Respondent no.3 had requested the MCI to reconsider the case of
Respondent no.1 institute and in pursuance of the said request, the
assessors of the MCI had carried out another inspection on 8th May, 2015
and submitted the report of inspection to the Executive Committee of the
MCI. Even at the time of inspection, which had taken place on 8th May,
2015, several deficiencies had been found and therefore, ultimately on 13th
May, 2015, the Executive Committee of the MCI decided to recommend to the
Central Government not to renew the permission for admission of 4th batch
of increased MBBS students from 100 to 150 under Section 10A of the IMC
Act, 1956 for the academic year 2015-16. The said decision had been
communicated by Respondent no.3 to Respondent no.1 under letter dated 15th
June, 2015.
10. In the aforestated circumstances, the application for increase in
intake of 50 MBBS students had been rejected.
11. Aggrieved thereby, Respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition (C) No.7101 of
2015 before the High Court of Delhi challenging the communication dated
15.6.2015 made to Respondent No.1 by Respondent No.3, whereby the
application made by Respondent No.1 for increasing intake i.e. from 100 to
150 seats for academic session 2015-16 had been finally rejected. In the
said petition, the impugned order dated 13.08.2015 has been passed, whereby
the present Appellant-the MCI has been directed to carry out another
inspection to find out whether the deficiencies found at an earlier point
of time have been removed.
12. Being aggrieved by the aforestated order passed by the High Court,
the Appellant has approached this Court with a prayer that the said interim
direction be quashed, as according to the Appellant, Respondent no.1 cannot
be permitted to have 50 more students for academic year 2015-16.
13. In the aforestated circumstances, present appeals have been filed
before this Court and upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, we are of the view that the High Court has committed an error by
directing the Appellant to carry out another inspection.
14. Looking at the fact that the norms set up by the Appellant had not
been fulfilled by Respondent No.1, in our opinion, it would not be just and
proper to constrain the Appellant to carry out one more inspection which is
not warranted under any legal provision. It is a well-known fact that if
infrastructure of any training institute is not sufficient to train and
groom its students, the students, even if they pass out at the final
examination, may not turn out to be good professionals. At this juncture,
we think it proper to quote what this Court has said in Manohar Lal Sharma
vs. Medical Council of India (2013) 10 SCC 60:
“26. We have already dealt with, in extenso, the deficiencies pointed out
by the MCI team in its report dated 6-7-2013. In our view, the deficiencies
pointed out are fundamental and very crucial, which cannot be ignored in
the interest of medical education and in the interest of the student
community. MCI and the College authorities have to bear in mind, what is
prescribed is the minimum, if MCI dilutes the minimum standards, they will
be doing violence to the statutory requirements. MCI is duty-bound to
cancel the request if fundamental and minimum requirements are not
satisfied or else the College will be producing half-baked and poor quality
doctors and they would do more harm to the society than service. In our
view, the infirmities pointed out by the inspection team are serious
deficiencies and the Board of Governors of MCI rightly not granted approval
for renewal of permission for the third batch of 150 MBBS students for the
academic year 2013-2014.”
15. Looking at the aforestated observations made by this Court and in
view of the fact that all the norms had not been fulfilled, which were
necessary for the purpose of grant of permission to have 50 additional
students, in our opinion, it was not just and proper on the part of the
High Court to direct the Appellant to have additional inspection.
16. Once the apex body supervising education in the field of medicine has
set-up a particular set of standards, it would not proper on the part of
the judiciary to direct that body to digress from the standards so fixed.
In the circumstances, we are of the view that the direction given by the
High Court is not proper.
17. We have further noted the fact that the law with regard to grant of
permission to a medical college or with regard to permission for having
additional students is regulated by the Establishment of Medical College
Regulations, 1999. We have duly considered the said Regulations in the
case of Royal Medical Trust (Regd.) and Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.
(2015) 9 SCALE 68. This Court has prescribed a time schedule which is to
be followed by all authorities concerned either for giving permission for
establishment of a new medical college or for the purpose of increasing the
strength of students. The direction given by the High Court is also not in
consonance with the said schedule of dates fixed by this Court and
therefore also, in our opinion, the said direction is not justifiable.
18. For the aforestated reasons, we set aside the direction given by the
High Court dated 13.8.2015, whereby the Appellant has been asked to carry
out inspection of Respondent no.1 institute and therefore, allow these
appeals with no order as to costs.
………..……………………J.
(ANIL R. DAVE)
………..…………………….J.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
NEW DELHI
DECEMBER 1, 2015.
For the Latest Updates
Join Now