1 Reportable

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6001   OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.14972 of 2018)

Medical Council of India      ……Appellant

Versus

N.C. Medical College and Hospital and Ors.   ..…. Respondents

JUDGMENT

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

Leave granted.

2. This  appeal  questions  the  correctness  of  interim  order  dated

29.05.2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Writ

Petition No.13366 of 2018 and thereby permitting the Respondent Medical

College to go ahead with admissions to first MBBS Course for the Academic

Session 2018-19.

3. Shanti Devi Charitable Trust made an application for establishment of

a new Medical College in the name and style of NC Medical College and

2 Hospital, Panipat for the Academic Sessions 2016-17.  An assessment was

accordingly undertaken by the assessors appointed by Medical Council of

India (MCI, for short) who found as many as 25 deficiencies.  By its letter

dated  30.12.2015,  MCI  recommended  to  the  Central  Government  not  to

issue letter of permission for establishment of said college for the Academic

Year 2016-17.  In compliance verification carried out by MCI on 01.04.2016

the deficiencies were still found to be existing and as such MCI vide letter

dated  14.05.2016 again  recommended disapproval  of  the  scheme for  the

Academic Year 2016-17.

4. The Central Government accepted such negative recommendation and

disapproved  the  scheme  so  proposed.   However,  the  Supreme  Court

mandated Oversight Committee vide letter dated 11.08.2016 approved the

scheme and as such admissions to 1st MBBS Course for the Academic Year

2016-17 with intake of 150 seats could be made by the Respondent College.

Since such approval was subject to certain conditions, a further verification

was undertaken by MCI on 7/8.11.2016 to assess whether those conditions

were complied with or not.  This assessment was again considered by the

Executive  Committee  of  MCI  and  in  its  noting  dated  22.12.2016,  the

deficiencies  were  still  found  to  be  persisting.   MCI  by  its  letter  dated

3 26.12.2016  informed  the  Central  Government  that  since  the  Respondent

College had failed to abide by the undertaking, it be debarred from admitting

students for two academic sessions namely 2017-18 and 2018-19 and the

bank guarantee be encashed.  The Central Government approved the report

submitted by MCI.  The matter was again placed before the Supreme Court

mandated Oversight Committee which directed that a further opportunity be

given to the Respondent College and an assessment be made whether the

Respondent  College  had  complied  with  the  conditions.   The  matter  was

again  considered  and  the  Central  Government  accepted  the

recommendations of MCI, and by its order dated 09.06.2017 debarred the

Respondent College from admitting students for two years namely 2017-18

and  2018-19  and  authorized  MCI  to  encash  the  bank  guarantee  of  Rs.2

crores.

5. The aforesaid order dated 09.06.2017 was questioned in this Court by

way of Writ Petition No.432 of 2017 and by its order dated 01.08.2017 this

Court directed the Central Government to re-consider the case and pass a

reasoned order.  Pursuant thereto, the Central Government by its reasoned

order  dated  10.08.2017  reiterated  its  earlier  decision  dated  09.06.2017.

When  aforesaid  Writ  Petition  No.423  of  2017  was  again  listed  on

4 09.10.2017, MCI was directed to conduct physical inspection for grant of

permission for the Academic Session 2018-2019 as per MCI regulations.  In

compliance, the physical assessment was carried out by the assessors of MCI

on 17/18.11.2017 and the report found various deficiencies of Infrastructure,

Teaching Faculty, Clinical Material and other physical facilities.  Executive

Council  of  MCI  therefore  by  its  decision  dated  14.12.2017  decided  to

recommend to the Central Government not to grant renewal permission for

admitting  students  for  the  academic  year  2018-2019.   Said  writ  petition

No.432 of  2017 was  thereafter  disposed  of  by  this  Court  on  17.01.2018

directing MCI to take proper decision on or before 31.03.2018.

6. It appears that according to the Respondent College it had complied

with  and  removed  the  deficiencies.   The  Central  Government  therefore

directed MCI to review the case.  The papers and documents submitted by

the Respondent College were duly considered and on the strength of those

documents themselves, it was found that deficiencies 3, 6 and 7 were still

not  rectified.   This  assessment  was made by the Sub-Committee of  MCI

without inspection and purely on the strength of documentation submitted by

the respondent.   The Respondent  College was therefore called upon vide

letter dated 07.03.2018 to submit satisfactory compliance in respect of said

5 deficiencies at Serial Nos.3, 6 and 7.  The Respondent College by its letter

dated  24.03.2018  claimed  to  have  rectified  all  the  deficiencies  and

accordingly a compliance verification was carried out by the assessors of

MCI on 13.04.2018.  This verification found that the deficiencies continued

to persist  and therefore the Executive Committee in  its  Meeting held on

26.04.2018 decided to recommend to the Central Government not to grant

renewal of permission for admitting students for the academic year 2018-

2019.  This decision was squarely put in challenge by filing writ petition

No.400 of 2018 in this Court which was dismissed on 01.05.2018 leaving all

questions open.   

7. On 07.05.2018 and 09.05.2018 the Respondent College requested the

Central  Government  to  grant  personal  hearing  before  any  adverse  order

could  be  passed.   The  request  was  however  declined  by  the  Central

Government on 17.05.2018, as the Respondent College was already granted

personal hearing in the matter.  The respondent being aggrieved, challenged

the decision dated 17.05.2018 by filing civil writ petition No.13366 of 2018

in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.  

6 8. By  its  order  dated  29.05.2018,  the  High  Court  directed  MCI  to

undertake  another  inspection  within  two  weeks  and  permitted  the

Respondent  College  to  go  ahead  with  provisional  admissions  for  the

academic session 2018-2019.  One of the conditions stipulated by the High

Court  was  that  all  the  students  would  be  put  to  notice  while  granting

admission about the pendency of the writ petition.  The High Court was of

the view that only three deficiencies were found to be persisting by MCI on

07.03.2018 and as such the report of the Verification Inspection undertaken

on 13.04.2018 was not justified.  The observations of the High Court in that

behalf were as under:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that once on 07.03.2018 the deficiencies had been narrowed down to  only  3  which  he  has  since  removed,  the  report  by  the Verification Committee of Inspection on 13.04.2018 can not be said to be justified for the simple reason that barely a month back  they  themselves  on  an  Inspection  in  March,  2018 established only 3 deficiencies.”   

9. This direction of allowing the Respondent College to go ahead with

admissions to first MBBS course for the academic session 2018-2019 has

been challenged in the present matter by MCI.  Appearing for the Appellant,

Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the

compliance verification undertaken on 07.03.2018 was purely on the basis of

7 documentation  submitted  by  the  Respondent  College  and  there  was  no

physical verification whether the assertions made by the respondent about

alleged  compliance  were  correct  or  not.   In  his  submission  the  actual

physical verification was undertaken on 13.04.2018 where such assertions

were  found  to  be  completely  unsustainable.   As  such,  the  report  of  the

Verification Committee on 13.04.2018  was fully justified and there was no

reason for the High Court to entertain any prayer for any interim direction.

In any case according to him the law laid down by this Court is very clear

that admissions ought not to be allowed to be effected on the strength of

interim directions.

Mr.  Govind  Goel,  learned  Advocate  appearing  for  the  Respondent

College  sought  to  support  the  order  passed  by  the  High  Court.   In  his

submission several  safeguards were put by the High Court while passing

such interim directions.   

10. On 14.06.2018 this matter was heard alongwith another matter where

similar interim order was passed by the High Court of Rajasthan.  Both the

matters were reserved for judgment and following order was passed:-

“Heard learned counsel.  In both these matters, the High Courts  have  permitted  the  concerned medical  colleges  to  go ahead with admissions.  The correctness of those orders passed at  an  interim stage  is  under  challenge  at  the  instance  of  the Medical College of India.  We have been given to understand

8 by the learned counsel appearing for both the medical colleges that till this date, no admissions have been effected despite the interim orders passed by the High Court in their favour.  The statement is taken on record.

We  reserve  the  judgment  and  till  the  judgment  is pronounced, no admission shall take place in respect of both the institutions to the course of 1st MBBS for the ensuing academic session 2018-2019.

Permission  is  granted  to  place  on  record  requisite documents by 16.06.2018.”

11. The facts on record disclose:-

a) Even at the initial stage, the physical inspection was undertaken

twice and since the deficiencies were found, the scheme was not approved

by MCI and the Central Government.  It was only because of the approval

accorded  by the  Supreme Court  mandated  Oversight  Committee  that  the

Respondent  College  was permitted to  make admissions  for  the academic

year 2016-2017.

b) The conditions  subject  to  which said  approval  was  accorded

were not found to have been complied and the deficiencies were found to be

persisting.   The  matter  was  considered  twice  by  MCI  and  the  Central

Government and it was decided to debar the Respondent College for two

years.  

9 c) The  physical  verification  in  compliance  of  the  order  of  this

Court  again  found  deficiencies.   The  matter  was  again  considered  but

resulted in negative recommendation.   

d) The  assertion  that  there  had  been  compliance  was,  on  the

strength of documentation itself, found to be inaccurate and wanting in three

areas.   The  subsequent  inspection  found  such  assertion  completely

inaccurate and therefore resulted in negative recommendation.

e) While  the  contest  was  pending  at  the  level  of  the  Central

Government,  the  present  Writ  Petition  was  filed  in  which  the  interim

direction has been issued.

12. In the face of repeated failures on part of the Respondent College to

remove the deficiencies, no permission to make admissions for the current

academic  session  could  have  been  granted  unless  and  until  on  physical

verification everything was found to be in order. A condition such as making

students  aware  about  the  pendency  of  the  matter  and  stating  that  their

admissions  would  be  subject  to  the  result  of  pending litigation,  is  not  a

sufficient  insulation.   We have repeatedly seen cases  where after  making

such provisional admissions the Colleges have been denied permission upon

physical verification.  Questions then come up as to what is the status of

such students and how best their interest can be protected.  Theoretically, in

10 terms  of  conditions  of  Essentiality  Certificate  the  concerned  State

Government is obliged to take care of interest  of such students.   But the

harsh reality is such students cannot be accommodated because in normal

circumstances all the seats in every Medical College are filled up.  It then

becomes  a  case  of  impossibility  of  accommodating such students  in  any

existing College.  The entire exercise may thus result in great hardship and

wastage of academic years of the concerned students.  It is for this reason

that while granting any interim relief very cautious approach needs to be

adopted.  It may be possible to expedite the process of physical verification

in a given case but to allow provisional admissions and make them subject

to the result of the petition may entail tremendous adverse consequences and

prejudice to students.

13. At  this  juncture  we  may advert  to  certain  decisions  of  this  Court

where the issues regarding propriety and correctness of similar such interim

order were put in question.

A. In  Medical  Council  of  India  v. Rajiv  Gandhi University  of Health Sciences and others1, it was observed :- :  

“14. In the normal circumstances, the High Court ought not  to  issue  an interim order  when for  the earlier  year  itself permission had not  been granted by the Council.  Indeed,  by grant of such interim orders students who have been admitted in

1(2004) 6 SCC 76

11 such institutions would be put to serious jeopardy, apart from the fact whether such institutions could run the medical college without following the law. Therefore, we make it clear that the High Court ought not to grant such interim orders in any of the cases where the Council has not granted permission in terms of Section 10-A of the Medical Council Act. If interim orders are granted  to  those  institutions  which  have  been  established without fulfilling the prescribed conditions to admit students, it will lead to serious jeopardy to the students admitted in these institutions.”

B. In Medical  Council  of  India  v. JSS  Medical  College  and another2, this Court stated :-  

“…..12. Without adverting to the aforesaid issues and many other issues which may arise for determination, the High Court, in  our  opinion,  erred  in  permitting  increase  in  seats  by  an interim order. In normal circumstances the High Court should not issue interim order granting permission for increase of the seats.  The  High  Court  ought  to  realise  that  granting  such permission by an interim order has a cascading effect. By virtue of such order students are admitted as in the present case and though many of them had taken the risk knowingly but few may be ignorant.  In  most  of  such cases  when finally  the  issue  is decided  against  the  College  the  welfare  and  plight  of  the students  are  ultimately  projected  to  arouse  sympathy  of  the Court. It results in a very awkward and difficult situation. If on ultimate  analysis  it  is  found  that  the  College’s  claim  for increase of seats is untenable, in such an event the admission of students with reference to the increased seats shall be illegal. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than  a  direction  by  the  Court  to  allow  continuance  of  such students,  whose  admissions  is  found  illegal  in  the  ultimate analysis.

13. This Court is entrusted with the task to administer law and uphold its majesty.  Courts cannot by its fiat increase the

2 (2012) 5 SCC 628

12 seats, a task entrusted to the Board of Governors and that too by interim order ….”

C. The observations in Medical Council of India v. Kalinga  Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) and others3, were   

“27. That apart, we are of the opinion that the High Court ought to have been more circumspect in directing the admission of students by its order dated 25-9-20154. There was no need for the High Court to rush into an area that MCI feared to tread. Granting  admission  to  students  in  an  educational  institution when there is a serious doubt whether admission should at all be granted is not a matter to be taken lightly. First of all the career of a student is involved — what would a student do if his admission is found to be illegal or is quashed? Is it not a huge waste of time for him or her? Is it enough to say that the student will not claim any equity in his or her favour? Is it enough for student to be told that his or her admission is subject  to the outcome of a pending litigation? These are all  questions that arise and for which there is no easy answer. Generally speaking, it is better to err on the side of caution and deny admission to a student rather than have the sword of Damocles hanging over him or her. There would at least be some certainty.

28. Whichever  way  the  matter  is  looked  at,  we  find  no justification  for  the  orders  passed  by  the  High  Court, particularly  the  order  dated  25-9-2015  and  order  dated  4-3- 20165.”

D. Further, in Dental Council of India  v. Dr Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandal Hingoli and Others6, it was observed :-

3 (2016) 11 SCC 530 4 Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences v. Unions of India, WP (C) No.15685 of 2015,  order dated 25.09.2015 (ori). 5 Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences v. Union of India, 2016 SCC Online   Ori 134 6 (2017) 13 SCC 115

13  “22. From the aforesaid authorities, it is perspicuous that the court  should  not  pass  such  interim  orders  in  the  matters  of admission, more so, when the institution had not been accorded approval. Such kind of interim orders are likely to cause chaos, anarchy and uncertainty.  And, there is no reason for creating such situations.  There is  no justification or  requirement.  The High Court may feel that while exercising power under Article 226 of  the Constitution,  it  can pass such orders  with certain qualifiers as has been done by the impugned order, but it really does not save the situation. It is because an institution which has not  been given approval  for the course,  gets a premium. That apart, by virtue of interim order, the Court grants approval in a way which is the subject-matter of final adjudication before it. The anxiety of the students to get admission reigns supreme as  they feel  that  the institution  is  granting  admission on the basis  of  an  order  passed  by  the  High  Court.  The  institution might be directed to inform the students that the matter is sub judice, but the career oriented students get into the college with the hope and aspiration that in the ultimate eventuate everything shall  be  correct  for  them and  they  will  be  saved.  It  can  be thought of from another perspective, that is,  the students had deliberately got into such a situation. But it is seemly to note that it is the institution that had approached the High Court and sought  a  relief  of  the  present  nature.  By  saying  that  the institution may give admission at  its  own risk invites further chaotic and unfortunate situations.

23. The High Court has to realise the nature of the lis or the controversy. It is quite different. It is not a construction which is built  at  the risk of a plaintiff  or  the defendant which can be demolished  or  redeemed  by  grant  of  compensation.  It  is  a situation where the order has the potentiality to play with the career and life of young peoples.  One may say,  “… life is a foreign language; all mispronounce it”, but it has to be borne in mind that artificial or contrived accident is not the goal of life. …….”

14 14. In the backdrop of the law laid down by this Court, the High Court

was not justified in passing interim directions and permitting the Respondent

College to go ahead with provisional admissions for the Academic Session

2018-19.   We,  therefore,  allow this  appeal  and  set  aside  the  order  dated

29.05.2018 passed by the High Court.

15. We have stated the facts  only by way of pure narration of  events.

Since the matter is pending in the High Court we make it clear that we have

not  and shall  not  be  taken  to  have  dealt  with  factual  controversy  in  any

manner and the matter shall be considered purely on merits in the pending

writ petition. The order under appeal  directed that the matter be listed on

11.07.2018.   If the case is made out, the High Court may expedite the matter

and hear it finally.  

16. With these observations the present appeal is allowed and the order

under appeal is set aside without any order as to costs.

…………………..……J. (Uday Umesh Lalit)

..………………………J. (Deepak Gupta)

New Delhi, July 04, 2018