Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1757-1759 OF 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014)

Medical Council of India   .… Appellant

         versus

Dr. M.G.R. Educational and Research Institute ... Respondents  University & Anr.

WITH

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) 5153/2015 @ CC  No.837/2015)

J U D G M E N T

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. Leave granted in S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014.

2. The question before us relates to the validity of admissions  

made in the academic year 2009-10 by the Dr. M.G.R. Educational  

and Research Institute, Chennai (for short ‘the Institute’) in the  

C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014)    Page 1 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015)

Page 2

A.C.S. Medical College and Hospital (for short ‘the College’) for the  

2nd batch of MBBS course.  In our opinion, the admissions were  

unauthorized. However, we are not visiting the students with the  

natural  consequence of  setting aside their  admissions,  but  are  

passing directions to deal with the exigencies of the situation.       

Preliminary

3. A few facts are not in dispute. The Institute was declared as  

a Deemed to be University by a notification dated 21st January,  

2003 issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development of  

the Government of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MHRD’).  

The declaration was in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3  

of  the University  Grants Commission Act,  1956 (the ‘UGC Act’)  

and was for the purposes of the Act.1  At that time the Institute  

comprised of two institutions: a dental college and hospital and  

an engineering college.

4. The Institute desired to establish a medical college being  

the  ACS  Medical  College  and  Hospital  and  the  necessary  

1 3. Application of Act to institutions for higher studies other than Universities .—The Central Government may, on the  advice of the Commission, declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, that any institution for higher education, other than a   University, shall be deemed to be a University for the purposes of this Act,  and on such a declaration being made,  all  the   provisions of this Act shall apply to such institution as if it were a University within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2. C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014)    Page 2 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015)

Page 3

paperwork for this was carried out. However, the College was not  

within the ambit of the Institute (Deemed to be University) when  

admissions were made in the academic year 2008-09 and in the  

academic year 2009-10. The admissions made in both academic  

years were therefore unauthorized. However, the Medical Council  

of India (for short ‘the MCI’) is not making an issue of the validity  

of  the admissions made in  the academic  year  2008-09 due to  

subsequent events and, therefore, it  is not necessary for us to  

dwell  on  that  issue.  The  limited  scope  of  inquiry  is  only  with  

reference to the admissions made in the academic year 2009-10  

for the 2nd batch of students.  

Admissions made in 2009-10

5. Having  admitted  students  in  2008-09  the  Institute  was  

required,  in  terms  of  the  Establishment  of  Medical  Colleges  

Regulations, 1999 of the MCI to renew the permission granted to  

admit the 2nd batch of students in the academic year 2009-10. In  

this context, the MCI wrote to the College on 10th November, 2008  

that, for the renewal of permission for admission of the 2nd batch  

of  students  in  the  academic  year  2009-10  it  may  send  the  

C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014)    Page 3 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015)

Page 4

proposed dates for carrying out an inspection before 15th March,  

2009 and submit all requisite documents.  

6. Pursuant to this, an inspection of the College was carried  

out by the MCI on 23rd/24th March, 2009. The inspection report was  

placed  before  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  MCI  and  in  its  

meeting held on 8th April, 2009 the MCI decided to recommend to  

the Central Government [the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare  

or the MH&FW] to renew the permission to admit the 2nd batch of  

students in the College in the academic year 2009-10.

7.    Soon thereafter on 9th April, 2009 the MCI received a letter  

dated 1st April, 2009 from the Institute.  The letter intimated that  

the Institute would be forwarding the notification of approval for  

inclusion of the College within the ambit of the Institute under  

Section  3  of  the  UGC  Act  as  soon  as  it  was  received.   This  

indicated to the MCI that the College was not yet under the ambit  

of the Institute.  Accordingly, on 1st May, 2009 the MCI requested  

the  Central  Government  [MH&FW]  to  keep  in  abeyance  the  

renewal of permission to admit the 2nd batch of students in the  

College till  it  was brought within the ambit of a Deemed to be  

C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014)    Page 4 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015)

Page 5

University by an appropriate notification.

8. In light of the information received, the issue of renewal of  

permission was considered by the Executive Committee of  the  

MCI  in  its  meeting  held  on  9th May,  2009.  The  Executive  

Committee decided to ratify the abeyance communication dated  

1st May, 2009. It also decided to recall the recommendation earlier  

made of the renewal of permission for admission to the 2nd batch  

of  MBBS  students  for  the  academic  year  2009-10.  This  was  

communicated by the MCI by a letter of 15th May, 2009 to the  

MH&FW  while  reiterating  its  decision  to  recall  the  

recommendation of renewal of permission.

9. Thereafter on 24th June, 2009 the MCI once again wrote to  

the  MH&FW  informing  it  of  the  decision  of  the  Executive  

Committee to recall the recommendation of renewal of permission  

for admission to the 2nd batch of MBBS students for the academic  

year 2009-10 till  the College is brought within the ambit of the  

Institute  by  the  UGC.  This  letter  was  also  endorsed  to  the  

Dean/Principal of the College with a request to submit a copy of  

the notification for  inclusion of the College in the ambit  of the  

C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014)    Page 5 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015)

Page 6

Institute under Section 3 of the UGC Act.

10. Since the Institute was not able to produce any document to  

show that the College was within its ambit, the MCI wrote a letter  

to the MH&FW on 15th July, 2009 reiterating its earlier decision of  

15th May,  2009  recalling  the  recommendation  for  renewal  of  

permission for admission of the 2nd batch of MBBS students in the  

academic year 2009-10 till the College is brought within the ambit  

of a Deemed to be University.

11. Earlier, on 10th August, 2009 the MH&FW wrote to the Tmt.  

Kannammal  Educational  Trust  (or  ‘the  Trust’  which  runs  the  

Institute) with a copy to the MCI and the Institute that in view of  

the recall of the recommendation for renewal of permission it was  

decided that permission could not be renewed for that academic  

year.  A specific request was made to the College that in view of  

the above it should not admit any fresh batch of students for the  

academic year 2009-10 and also to comply with the observations  

made by the MCI.  

12. The Institute filed a writ petition in this Court on or about  

10th August,  2009  being  W.P.  No.349  of  2009  in  which  it  was  

C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014)    Page 6 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015)

Page 7

prayed, inter alia, for a direction to the respondents therein, that  

is, the MH&FW, the UGC and the MCI to consider grant of renewal  

of permission to admit students in the academic year 2009-10 in  

terms of the decision taken by the MCI on 15th April, 2009. It was  

also prayed that permission may be granted to admit students  

from the academic year 2009-10.2 This Court did not grant any  

interim relief to the Institute to admit students for the academic  

year 2009-10.   

13. The position as it stood was that the College was not within  

the ambit of the Institute; the permission granted by the MCI to  

the Institute and the College to admit students for the 2nd batch in  

the academic  year  2009-10 was initially  kept in  abeyance and  

thereafter withdrawn (with several reiterations), and the Institute  

had  petitioned  this  Court  for  permitting  admission  for  the  2nd  

batch of students for the academic year 2009-10 but no interim  

2 The reliefs prayed for in the writ petition were: (a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith consider the renewal of permission in  

terms of the decision of April 2009 of the Medical Council of India and accord permission to admit the   second batch of students for the academic year 2009-10.

(b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to allow the first batch of students admitted during  the academic year 2008-2009 to pursue the course in the second year MBBS course.  

(c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus restraining the MCI in any manner in seeking to recall the recommendation of   renewal of permission for admission of second batch of students; and  

(d) Pass such other order and/or direction, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and   circumstances of the case.     

C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014)    Page 7 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015)

Page 8

relief was granted to the Institute in this regard.  

14. Therefore,  both  the  Institute  and  the  College  were  fully  

aware that they could not admit students for the 2nd batch in the  

academic  year  2009-10.  Notwithstanding  these  facts  and  the  

specific direction (given on 10th August, 2009) not to do so, the  

Institute and the College went ahead and admitted students for  

the 2nd batch of MBBS course in the academic year 2009-10.  

Justification for admissions made in 2009-10

15. The main hurdle faced by the Institute in making admissions  

in 2009-10 was the absence of any approval given by the MCI and  

no  approval  was  possible  in  the  absence  of  any  notification  

bringing the College in the ambit of the Institute.  

16. Apart from the writ petition filed in this Court, the Institute  

had also filed W.P. No.13419 of 2009 in the Madras High Court for  

a direction to the MHRD to take a decision regarding issuance of  

an appropriate notification bringing the College in its ambit.  This  

writ petition was allowed by the High Court by an order passed on  

17th August, 2009 with a direction to take a decision within six  

weeks.

C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014)    Page 8 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015)

Page 9

17. Pursuant to the direction given by the High Court, the UGC  

appointed a committee on 2nd September,  2009 to inspect  the  

College  for  bringing  it  under  the  ambit  of  the  Institute.   The  

committee conducted an inspection on 7th/8th September, 2009. It  

is not clear when the report was given by the committee, but on  

10th September,  2009 the  UGC recommended  to  the  MHRD to  

grant ex-post facto approval for bringing the College under the  

ambit of the Institute from the academic year 2008-2009.

18. The College also  received a  letter  dated 15th September,  

2009 (though the letter was of a general nature) from the MCI to  

all medical colleges to furnish the list of students admitted for the  

academic year 2009-10.  Further,  on 17th September, 2009 the  

MCI  wrote  to  the  College  requesting  for  some  documents  but  

more  importantly  informing  it  of  a  proposed  inspection  for  

renewal of permission for admission to the 3rd batch of students  

from the academic year 2010-11.

19. Be that as it may, in compliance with the letter dated 15th  

September, 2009 the College sent on 30th September, 2009 a list  

C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014)    Page 9 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015)

Page 10

of students that it had admitted in the 2nd batch of MBBS course  

from the academic year 2009-10.  

20. Learned counsel for the Institute justified the actions of the  

Institute on the above facts and submitted that the admissions  

made  were  bona  fide  and  anticipatory.  Three  facts  were  

highlighted in this regard: (i) W.P. No.13419 of 2009 was allowed  

by  the  Madras  High  Court  on  17th August,  2009  and  a  

recommendation given by the UGC on 10th September, 2009 to  

the MHRD to grant ex-post facto approval for bringing the College  

under the ambit of the Institute from the academic year 2008-

2009; (ii) The College had received a letter dated 15th September,  

2009 (though the letter was of a general nature) from the MCI to  

all medical colleges to furnish the list of students admitted for the  

academic  year  2009-10;  and  (iii)  More  importantly,  on  17th  

September,  2009  the  MCI  wrote  to  the  College  requesting  for  

some documents and informing it  of  a proposed inspection for  

renewal of permission for admission to the 3rd batch of students  

for the academic year 2010-11. These three facts led the Institute  

to believe that the admissions made in the academic year 2008-

C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014)    Page 10 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015)

Page 11

09 were now acceptable to the MHRD and that the MCI also had  

no real objections if admissions were made in the academic year  

2009-10.  In  fact,  there  was  even  a  possibility  that  admissions  

could be made in the academic year 2010-11. On a cumulative  

assessment of these facts the College admitted students in the  

2nd batch and sent the list of admitted students to the MCI on 30 th  

September, 2009.

Discharge of students admitted in 2009-10

21. Pursuant to the directions given by the MH&FW to the Trust  

(on 10th August, 2009) not to admit the 2nd batch of students for  

the academic year 2009-10, the MCI also wrote to the College on  

4th February, 2010 that the students who had been admitted by  

the College for  the academic year 2009-10 may be discharged  

immediately and compliance submitted.  

22. On  1st April,  2010  the  MCI  again  wrote  to  the  College  

reiterating its request to discharge the students admitted in the  

academic year 2009-10 since the compliance report pursuant to  

the  earlier  letter  dated  4th February,  2010  had  not  yet  been  

received.  This was followed soon thereafter by an order passed  

C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014)    Page 11 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015)

Page 12

by the MH&FW on 5th April, 2010 that regularization of admission  

of students in the academic years 2008-09 and 2009-10 cannot  

arise since there is no notification bringing the College under the  

ambit of the Institute.  It was also mentioned in the order that the  

renewal of permission from the academic year 2010-11 could not  

be considered for the same reason.

23. Despite the letter dated 4th February, 2010 and the order  

dated  5th April,  2010  no  steps  were  taken  by  the  College  for  

discharging  the  students  admitted  to  the  2nd batch  in  the  

academic year 2009-10. Accordingly, by a letter dated 19th May,  

2010  (the  third  in  the  series)  the  MCI  wrote  to  the  College  

reiterating its request that the students admitted in the academic  

year  2009-10 in  the 2nd batch may be discharged and that  no  

compliance report had been received pursuant to the letter dated  

4th February, 2010.   

Bringing the College within the ambit of the Institute  

24. The Institute continued to pursue its proposal to bring the  

College under its ambit of the Institute. This eventually led to the  

UGC deciding  on  25th September,  2009  to  accord  ex-post  fact  

C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014)    Page 12 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015)

Page 13

approval to the admissions made by the Institute in the College in  

the academic year 2008-09. However, the MCI continued to hold  

the view that  the admission of  students of  2008-09 cannot be  

regularized  as  no  notification  had  been  issued  by  the  MHRD  

bringing the College within the ambit of the Institute. This was  

communicated by the MCI to the MH&FW on 18th March, 2010.  

25. Apparently in view of this conflict of opinions, the Institute  

filed W.P.No.13044 of 2010 in the Madras High Court and on 14th  

July, 2010 the High Court passed an order to the effect that the  

notification  under  Section  3  of  the  UGC Act  may be  issued  in  

favour of the Institute subject to the decision in a public interest  

petition pending in this Court being W.P. No.142 of 2006 filed by  

one Viplav  Sharma.  Based on  this  order,  the  Institute  made a  

representation  on  20th July,  2010 to  the  MHRD for  appropriate  

orders.

26. Since the MHRD did not pass orders on the representation  

made  by  the  Institute,  yet  another  writ  petition  being  W.P.  

No.18682 of 2010 was filed by the Institute in the Madras High  

Court. This writ petition was decided on 18th August, 2010 and a  

C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014)    Page 13 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015)

Page 14

direction issued to the MHRD to pass appropriate orders in terms  

of  the  earlier  order  of  14th July,  2010  after  considering  the  

recommendations of the UGC within one week.

27. Upon receipt of the order passed by the Madras High Court  

in W.P. No. 18682 of 2010 an order was passed by the MHRD on  

31st August,  2010  rejecting  the  recommendations  of  the  UGC  

made on 30th September, 2009 to bring the College in the ambit  

of the Institute.   As a result, the ex-post facto approval granted to  

the  College  by  the  UGC  (on  25th September,  2009)  in  the  

academic year 2008-09 stood rejected.   

28. The order dated 31st August, 2010 passed by the MHRD was  

challenged by the Institute by filing W.P. No. 20995 of 2010 in the  

Madras High Court.   

29. Apparently since the writ petition was not being decided on  

a priority basis by the Madras High Court, a petition being T.P.(C)  

No. 512 of 2011 was filed by the Institute in this Court for the  

transfer of W.P. No. 20995 of 2010 to this Court for disposal. While  

declining the request, this Court passed an order on 24 th February,  

C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014)    Page 14 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015)

Page 15

2012 requesting the Madras High Court to dispose of the pending  

writ  petition preferably within three months without waiting for  

the decision in Viplav Sharma’s case.3 Acting upon the request, a  

learned Single Judge disposed of the pending writ petition on 9th  

November, 2012 and quashed the order dated 31st August, 2010  

passed by the MHRD. While doing so, a direction was given to the  

MHRD to  issue  a  notification  under  Section  3  of  the  UGC  Act  

bringing the College under the ambit of the Institute with effect  

from  2008-09.   The  MHRD  was  also  directed  to  consider  

regularizing admissions made by the Institute and the College in  

2009-10 and to grant renewal of permission for admissions for the  

academic year 2010-11.

30.  Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the  

learned Single Judge, the MCI and the MHRD filed writ  appeals  

being  Writ  Appeal  Nos.  2772/2012  and  256/2013  before  the  

3 The order passed by this Court reads: “The petitioner - Institute has filed a writ petition (Writ Petition No.20995/2010) before  the High Court of Judicature at Madras for bringing the ACS Medical College and Hospital under the ambit of the Deemed  University, which is pending before the High Court. This transfer petition has been filed by the petitioner - Institute under Article   139A of the Constitution for transfer of Writ Petition No.20995/2010 from Madras High Court to this Court for being decided by   this Court along with W.P.(C)No.142/2006:Viplav Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Deemed University case).

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.  We are not inclined to transfer the writ petition. However, in the  peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we request the High Court of Judicature at Madras to dispose of the Writ Petition  No.20995 of 2010 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of communication of this order,  without waiting for the decision of this Court in Viplav Sharma's case (supra).

The parties would be at liberty to complete pleadings before the High Court within six weeks from today. The transfer petition is disposed of with the aforementioned observations.”

C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014)    Page 15 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015)

Page 16

Division Bench of the Madras High Court.  By its  judgment and  

order  dated  15th April,  2013  the  Division  Bench  set  aside  the  

direction  given  by  the  learned  Single  Judge  for  issuing  a  

notification under Section 3 of the UGC Act and remanded the  

entire matter for reconsideration by the MHRD.

31. Pursuant to the decision rendered by the Division Bench,  

the MHRD gave a hearing to the Institute on 8th May, 2013 and  

passed an order on 23rd May, 2013 to the effect that the College  

was a constituent unit under the ambit of the Institute for two  

academic  years  that  is  2008-09  and  2009-10  subject  to  the  

fulfillment of certain conditions and also subject to the decision in  

Viplav Sharma’s case.

32. On 24th May, 2013 the Institute sent a representation to the  

MH&FW in respect of the order passed by the MHRD on 23rd May,  

2013.   This  representation  was  forwarded  to  the  MCI  which  

decided to make an assessment of the College for recognition of  

the admissions made in 2008-09.  The assessment was made on  

7th/8th August,  2013  and  the  consequent  report  was  then  

considered  by  the  Under  Graduate  Committee  of  the  MCI  and  

C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014)    Page 16 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015)

Page 17

subsequently by the Board of Governors of the MCI.  By a decision  

taken on 2nd September, 2013 the Board of Governors of the MCI  

decided to recognize the admissions made in the academic year  

2008-09  but  reiterated  the  earlier  decisions  that  the  students  

admitted in the 2nd batch in the year 2009-10 be discharged.  The  

Board of Governors also decided to black list the Institute and the  

Trust for a period of five years.4  

33. A copy of the assessment report of 7th/8th August, 2013 was  

sent by the MCI to the MH&FW on 12th September, 2013 and on  

the same day the MCI passed a detailed order on the lines of the  

resolution  of  the  Board  of  Governors  to  the  MCI  and  

communicated it to the College.

34. Acting  upon  the  order  passed  by  the  MCI,  the  MH&FW  

issued a notification on 1st October, 2013 under Section 11(2) of  

the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 recognizing the MBBS degree  

for the students admitted in the academic year 2008-09.5  The  4 The order of black listing has since been set aside and is not an issue before us. 5 11.  Recognition of  medical  qualifications granted by Universities  or medical  institutions in India.—(1) The medical  qualifications  granted  by  any  University  or  medical  institution  in  India  which  are  included  in  the  First  Schedule  shall  be  recognised medical qualifications for the purposes of this Act.

(2) Any University or medical institution in India which grants a medical qualification not included in the First Schedule   may apply to the Central Government to have such qualification recognised, and the Central Government, after consulting the   Council, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the First Schedule so as to include such qualification therein, and any   such notification may also direct that an entry shall be made in the last column of the First Schedule against such medical   qualification declaring that it shall be a recognised medical qualification only when granted after a specified date. C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014)    Page 17 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015)

Page 18

Institute  was  also  included  in  the  First  Schedule  to  the  Indian  

Medical Council   Act, 1956.

35. However, the Institute was not fully satisfied with the order  

of 12th September, 2013 passed by the MCI and so it filed W.P.  

Nos.1959 and 1964 of 2014 in the Madras High Court challenging  

that order.  By a decision rendered on 14th July,  2014 a learned  

Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court  did  not  interfere  with  the  

recognition  of  the  admissions  made  of  the  2008-09  batch  of  

students  but  the  order  passed  by  the  MCI  to  discharge  the  

students of the 2009-10 batch was set aside. The MCI was also  

directed to consider the case of those students in the light of the  

order  passed  by  the  MHRD  on  23rd May,  2013  after  giving  a  

hearing to the Institute.

36. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 14th July, 2014 the MCI  

preferred an appeal before the Division Bench and that came to  

be disposed of by the order dated 13th August, 2014 impugned  

before us.  The Division  Bench did  not  interfere  with  the  order  

passed by the learned Single Judge and affirmed the remand with  

respect to the students admitted for the academic year 2009-10.  

C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014)    Page 18 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015)

Page 19

The order dated 13th August, 2014 underwent a minor clarification  

on 19th August, 2014 to the effect that the MCI may pass an order  

(on  remand)  without  being  influenced  by  the  findings  of  the  

learned Single Judge. It is under these circumstances that the MCI  

does not challenge the admission of students in the College in the  

academic  year  2008-09 but  questions  the  admissions  made in  

2009-10.

Subsequent events

37. After  the  order  dated  13th/19th August,  2014  passed  by  

Madras High Court, the MHRD constituted an Expert Committee to  

re-examine the issue of bringing the College under the ambit of  

the Institute and that Expert Committee gave a recommendation  

on 22nd September, 2014 that there is no provision for the grant of  

an ambit order only for two years that is 2008-09 and 2009-10 but  

that the ambit order “should have been for the entirety.”   

38. While  accepting  the  recommendation  of  the  Expert  

Committee the MHRD passed an order on 25th September, 2014 to  

the effect that the College is a constituent unit under the ambit of  

the Institute for the purposes of conducting an academic course  

C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014)    Page 19 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015)

Page 20

from 2014-15 batch onwards,  subject  to  the decision in  Viplav  

Sharma’s case.

39. These facts would indicate that the admissions made by the  

Institute and the College in 2008-09 are not in issue and this was  

in fact reiterated by the learned Additional Solicitor General who  

appeared for the MCI. The only issue is with regard to the validity  

of the admissions made by the Institute and the College in 2009-

10 despite specific directions given by the MCI and the MH&FW  

and  the  consequence  of  the  possibility  of  holding  those  

admissions as being unauthorized.

Discussion and findings

40. There  is  no  doubt  from  the  narration  of  facts  that  the  

Institute and the College, in complete defiance of the directions  

given by the MCI and the MH&FW admitted students to the 2nd  

batch of the MBBS course in the academic year 2009-10.  It is true  

that the Institute gave some justification for doing so namely that  

it was expecting grant of approval for admissions and that this  

was  fortified  by  some communications  received  from the  MCI.  

However, this justification wears extremely thin considering the  

C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014)    Page 20 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015)

Page 21

specific directions given by the MCI and the MH&FW not to admit  

students  in  the 2nd batch in  the academic  year  2009-10.   The  

Institute had also approached this Court praying for permission to  

admit students in the 2nd batch in 2009-10 but no permission or  

interim order was granted by this Court.   Notwithstanding this,  

the Institute went ahead and made admissions.  

41. To make matters worse, there is nothing to suggest that at  

the  relevant  time  the  College  was  within  the  ambit  of  the  

Institute. In fact it is only when the MHRD passed an order on 25th  

September,  2014  (after  the  judgment  under  appeal)  that  

recognition  was  given  to  the  Institute  but  limited  only  to  

conducting  the  MBBS  course  commencing  from  2008-09  and  

2009-10 and thereafter in 2014-15. Clearly, the admission of the  

students in the academic year 2009-10 was unauthorized at the  

relevant time.

42. It is a little disturbing that the MCI and the MH&FW were  

completely helpless for several years in taking any action against  

the Institute and the College in respect of the admission of the 2nd  

batch of students.   The UGC and the MHRD were also passive  

C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014)    Page 21 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015)

Page 22

spectators.  It is quite clear that the statutory authorities and the  

Government  were  toothless  tigers  when  it  came  to  retaining  

admission of the 2nd batch of students in the academic year 2009-

10  or  taking  quick  remedial  steps  after  the  admissions  were  

made.   Unless  the  statutory  authorities  and  the  Government  

realize and appreciate that by their inaction they are encouraging  

blatant defiance of their directions and are putting society at risk  

with  possibly  not  fully  competent  doctors,  the  possibility  of  

improving the health of our people will remain a pipe dream.   

43. It is also necessary to point out that though the MCI and the  

MH&FW  accorded  recognition  and  approval  to  the  admissions  

made  by  the  Institute  in  the  academic  year  2008-09,  no  

recognition or approval was accorded to the admissions made by  

the Institute to the 2nd batch of students in the academic year  

2009-10. However, the MHRD went a step ahead and accepted  

the report of the Expert Committee set up by it and brought the  

College within the ambit of the Institute from 2009-10 onwards.  

Clearly one Ministry of the Government is completely oblivious of  

the views of another Ministry of the Government and this absence  

C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014)    Page 22 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015)

Page 23

of  coordination  is  what  perhaps  enabled  the  Institute  and  the  

College to make admissions in the academic year 2008-09 and  

present  a  fait  accompli to  the  statutory  authorities  and  the  

Government  resulting  in  the  approval  and  recognition  of  the  

admissions made in that academic year. It is also this absence of  

coordination which perhaps enabled the Institute and the College  

to take similar advantage in respect of the admissions to the 2nd  

batch of MBBS students in the academic year 2009-10.

44. We are pained to point out that without the College being  

under the ambit of the Institute and having made unauthorized  

admissions in the academic year 2008-09, the MCI conducted an  

inspection  of  the  facilities  available  in  the  College  on  23rd/24th  

March, 2009 for renewal of permission to admit the 2nd batch of  

students  in  the  academic  year  2009-10.   Not  only  was  the  

inspection carried out but a positive recommendation was made  

by the MCI to the MH&FW to renew the permission.

45. Again, when the College was not within the ambit  of the  

Institute and could not admit students in the 2nd batch beginning  

in the academic year 2009-10, the MCI sent a letter to the College  

C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014)    Page 23 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015)

Page 24

on 15th September, 2009 to furnish the list of students admitted in  

the academic year 2009-10.  It is true that the letter was of a  

general nature but obviously it was sent without any application  

of mind and the Institute sought to take advantage of this in the  

submissions  made  before  us.  What  is  worse  is  that  on  17th  

September,  2009  the  MCI  wrote  to  the  College  proposing  an  

inspection for renewal of permission for admission to the 3rd batch  

of  students from the academic year 2010-11.   The mechanical  

manner in which the MCI has acted is extremely unfortunate to  

say the least.

46. When  the  MCI  came  to  know  and  was  given  the  list  of  

students  admitted  to  the  2nd batch  in  2009-10  by  a  

communication dated 30th September, 2009 sent by the College,  

it kept quiet till 4th February, 2010 that is for a period of about  

four months.  The MCI could have and should have acted swiftly  

and taken some remedial  steps  but  it  permitted  the  unwitting  

students to continue their studies for which they would have had  

to pay a heavy price with the loss at least of one year of their  

education.  Even the MH&FW kept quiet till 5th April, 2010 that is  

C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014)    Page 24 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015)

Page 25

for  a  period  of  about  5  months.   It  is  unfortunate  that  

unauthorized admissions to a medical college are being taken in  

such a casual manner by the concerned statutory authorities and  

the Government.

47. In its order dated 12th September, 2013 the MCI referred to  

A.P.  Christian  Medical  Educational  Society  v. State  of  

Andhra Pradesh6 to the effect that no direction can be issued  

contrary to the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956  

or the Regulations framed thereunder.  Therefore, it was observed  

in  the  order  that  the  Board  of  Governors  in  the  MCI  cannot  

regularize  the  admission  of  the  2nd batch  of  students  in  the  

academic year 2009-10.

48. In the referred decision, one of the submissions made was  

that the interests of the students who had been admitted into the  

MBBS course of that institute “should not be sacrificed because of  

the conduct or folly of the management and that they should be  

permitted  to  appear  at  the  University  examination  

notwithstanding the circumstance that permission and affiliation  

6 1986 (2) SCC 667 C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014)    Page 25 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015)

Page 26

had not been granted to the Institute.”  It was noticed that the  

students  concerned  had  not  only  lost  their  money  to  gain  

admission into the institute but had lost one or two years of their  

precious time thereby virtually jeopardizing their future careers.  

Therefore,  this  Court  left  it  open  to  the  State  Government  to  

devise  suitable  ways,  legislative  and  administrative  to  

compensate the students, at least monetarily.

49. Insofar  as  the  present  appeals  are  concerned,  the  fact  

situation is somewhat different inasmuch as the MHRD has now  

brought the College within the ambit of the Institute not only for  

the academic year 2008-09 (about which there is no dispute) but  

also for the admissions made to the 2nd batch in the academic  

year 2009-10.  This is notwithstanding the objections of the MCI  

and  the  MH&FW.   That  being  the  position,  it  is  not  as  if  the  

admissions  made  by  the  Institute  and  the  College  in  2009-10  

continue to  be completely  unauthorized.  The admissions made  

were completely unauthorized at the relevant time but have now  

been  granted  approval  and  recognition  as  a  result  of  certain  

C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014)    Page 26 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015)

Page 27

subsequent events which have been taken into consideration by  

the MHRD.  The MCI and the MH&FW as well as the UGC have  

therefore little option but to fall in line in this regard.

50. We also find a substantial difference between the referred  

case  and  the  present  appeals  inasmuch  as  in  A.P.  Christian  

Medical Educational Society, the students had undergone one  

or two years of study.  However, in the present appeals they have  

undergone  the  entire  course  of  study  and  are  now waiting  to  

commence their internship.  Having spent five years in pursuing  

their MBBS course, to now tell the students that they have simply  

wasted their time would hardly be a just and fair view to take.  

The students in the present case appear to be mere pawns in a  

bigger game played by the Institute and the College in which the  

MCI, the MH&FW, the UGC and the MHRD have participated as  

spectators.  We cannot let the matter rest at that simply because  

the admission of the 2nd batch of students in the academic year  

2009-10 has been recognized and approved by the MHRD.

51. In view of this, we requested learned counsel for the parties  

to address us on the consequential orders that may be passed  

C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014)    Page 27 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015)

Page 28

keeping  in  view the  fact  that  it  is  not  very  clear  whether  the  

course of study undergone by the students admitted in the 2nd  

batch in the academic year 2009-10 matches up to the quality  

expected by the MCI and the MH&FW.

52. Learned  counsel  for  the  parties  (other  than  the  MCI)  

suggested7 a few alternatives to save the careers of the students.  

We  heard  and  took  note  of  various  suggestions  made  in  the  

consequence hearings and are of the view that given the peculiar  

facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is required to play  

the  role  of  a  bridge  over  troubled  water.   The  careers  of  the  

students certainly require to be saved but at the same time the  

interests of potential patients who may be treated by what might  

possibly be not fully qualified doctors has also to be considered.  

It is far too dangerous for our society to be treated by doctors who  

may not be fully qualified or equipped to handle the exigencies of  

medical  aid  and  services.   Lives  of  common men and women  

cannot be put to grave risk under these circumstances.

53. Therefore, since this issue has been debated and discussed  

7 Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Senior Advocate for the students and Mr. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior Advocate for the Institute. C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014)    Page 28 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015)

Page 29

from various  points  of  view,  and  to  strike  a  balance  between  

competing interests, we are of the opinion that:

(1) A student admitted by the Institution in the academic year  

2009-10  should  be  required  to  once  again  undergo  the  final  

examination  –  this  time  under  the  auspices  of  a  State  Health  

University  located  outside  the  State  of  Tamil  Nadu,  preferably  

Rajiv  Gandhi  University  of  Health  Sciences,  Bengaluru.   The  

examination should be held within three months from today.  The  

Institute  will  bear  the  expenses  for  conducting  the  said  

examination.

(2)  The  Institute/State  Health  University/Rajiv  Gandhi  

University of Health Sciences shall intimate to the Medical Council  

of India the proposed date of examination and the Medical Council  

of India shall appoint examiners to oversee the conduct of such  

examination. The Institute will bear the expenses for conducting  

the said examination.

(3) If a student qualifies in the said examination, he/she may  

be  allowed  to  begin  his/her  internship  programme  and  on  

successful completion thereof, an MBBS degree shall be awarded  

C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014)    Page 29 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015)

Page 30

by the Institute, subject to the final decision in Viplav Sharma’s  

case.  If a student does not qualify in that examination, he or she  

may be given another chance to qualify after a gap of six months  

in  a  similar  examination  conducted  under  the  auspices  of  a  

recognized University (but not Deemed to be University) located  

outside  the  State  of  Tamil  Nadu.   The  Institute  will  bear  the  

expenses for conducting the said examination.

(4) The MHRD and the MH&FW should put their house in order  

and  ensure  better  and  more  effective  coordination  with  each  

other as well as the MCI and the UGC.

(5) The MCI, the MH&FW, the UGC and the MHRD should take a  

joint inspection of the facilities in the College within a period of  

two months from today to ascertain and determine whether the  

College should be allowed to admit students in the academic year  

2015-16 and whether it provides necessary facilities as required  

by law and the regulations.

(6)  Costs of Rs.5 crores deserve to be imposed on the Institute  

for blatantly violating the directions of the MCI and the MH&FW  

and creating a complete mess insofar as the students admitted to  

C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014)    Page 30 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015)

Page 31

the 2nd batch of MBBS course in the College in the academic year  

2009-10 are concerned.   The amount will  be deposited by the  

Institute in the Registry of this Court within four weeks from today.  

The amount of Rs.5 crores so deposited towards costs shall not be  

recovered in any manner from any student or adjusted against  

the  fees  or  provision  of  facilities  for  students  of  subsequent  

batches.

54. We direct accordingly and dispose of the appeals with these  

directions.  A  copy  of  this  judgment  and  order  be  sent  to  the  

Secretary,  Ministry  of  Human  Resource  Development,  

Government  of  India  and  the  Secretary,  University  Grants  

Commission.

55. List for compliance after six weeks.

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.5153/15 @ CC  No.837/2015)

56. Delay  condoned.  The  SLP  is  disposed  of  in  terms  of  the  

decision in civil appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of  

2014.

 C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014)    Page 31 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015)

Page 32

…………………….…J       ( Madan B. Lokur )

…………………….…J       (Uday Umesh Lalit)

New Delhi; February 11, 2015

C.A. Nos.1757-1759 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.32770-32772 of 2014)    Page 32 of 32 with SLP (C) 5153/15@CC No.837 of 2015)