MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA Vs MEDICITI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES (MIMS) .
Bench: ANIL R. DAVE,ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
Case number: C.A. No.-013957-013958 / 2015
Diary number: 27708 / 2015
Advocates: GAURAV SHARMA Vs
Page 1
1
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.
Page 2
2
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
Page 3
3
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.
Page 4
4
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.
Page 5
5
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
Page 6
6
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
Page 7
7
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
Page 8
8
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
Page 9
9
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
Page 10
10
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.
Page 11
11
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.