Page 1

1

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3964 OF 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) NO.5326 OF 2016)

Medical Council of India     ...  Appellant(s)

                               Versus

V.N. Public Health & Educational    ... Respondent(s) Trust & Ors

J U D G M E N T

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted.

2. The first respondent, V.N. Public Health & Educational  

Trust  (for  short,  “the  Trust”),  vide  letter  dated  30.08.2015  

submitted an application for establishment of a new medical  

college  from  the  academic  year  2016-17  to  the  competent

Page 2

2

authority of the Central Government and the said application  

dated 30.08.2015 was forwarded by the Government of India  

to  the  appellant,  Medical  Council  of  India  (MCI)  vide  letter  

dated  23.09.2015.   After  initial  scrutiny  of  the  application,  

MCI  noticed  that  the  Essentiality  Certificate  issued  by  the  

Government of Kerala in favour of the Trust was not valid as  

the same was not in accordance with the format prescribed by  

the  Establishment  of  the  Medical  College Regulations,  1999  

(for short, “the Regulations”) of the MCI.  Regard being had to  

the nature of the Essentiality Certificate and the decision of  

this Court in Royal Medical Trust (Registered) and another  

v.  Union  of  India  &  another1,  the  MCI  decided  to  

recommend  to  the  Central  Government  to  disapprove  the  

application submitted by the Trust for establishment of a new  

medical college commencing from the academic year 2016-17.  

The  Government  of  India  vide  its  letter  dated  04.11.2015  

called  upon  the  Trust  to  appear  before  the  Committee  on  

16.11.2015 to explain its stand. As the said respondent failed  

1

(2015) 10 SCC 19

Page 3

3

to appear before the concerned Committee on the date fixed,  

the matter was decided ex parte.

3. As  the  factual  score  would  depict,  the  Trust  being  

aggrieved by the issuance of an invalid certificate by the State  

of Kerala and disapproval of its scheme for establishment of a  

new  medical  college  from  the  academic  year  2016-17  

approached the High Court of  Kerala at  Ernakulam in Writ  

Petition (C) No.  35705 of 2015.  The learned single Judge vide  

order dated 25.11.2015 issued the following directions:-

“In  the  light  of  Ext.P1 renewal  application and  the renewed Essentiality Certificate, this court is  of  the  view  that  petitioner’s  application  for  establishment of new Medical College shall not be  rejected on account of any deficiency existed in  the renewed certificate. In the meanwhile, there  shall  be  a  direction to  the  third  respondent  to  pass  appropriate  orders  on  Ext.P6  within  ten  days.  Post after two weeks.”

4. Thereafter the learned single Judge took note of the fresh  

Essentiality  Certificate  and  the  following  directions  were  

issued as per the order dated 16.12.2015:-

“The petitioner is an educational agency.  They  applied  for  establishment  of  a  medical  college.

Page 4

4

The original Essentiality Certificate issued by the  State Government suffered from defects as it was  not in the required format.  Based on the interim  order, the petitioner’s application for Essentiality  Certificate  kept  pending  before  the  Central  Government  and  the  State  Government  was  directed  to  consider  the  application  for  fresh  revised  Essentiality  certificate.  Now  it  is  submitted  that  the  petitioner  has  obtained  a  fresh  Essentiality  Certificate  and  it  has  been  submitted before the first respondent. Therefore  the first respondent shall consider the application  and take a decision after hearing the petitioner  and do the needful in accordance with the law.”

5. Dissatisfied  with  the  aforesaid  order,  the  appellant  

preferred Writ Appeal No. 96 of 2016. It was contended before  

the Division Bench that pursuant to the order passed by the  

learned single Judge, the Central Government on 23.12.2015  

had asked the MCI to review the recommendation but the said  

direction was not possible to be adhered to on account of the  

time schedule  fixed pertaining to such matters.  It  was also  

urged that the letter of intent had to be issued by the Central  

Government on or before 15.01.2016 and sufficient time was  

not  available  for  taking  further  steps  in  the  matter.  

Additionally, it was argued that as per the time schedule, MCI  

was  required  to  give  the  recommendation  to  the  Central

Page 5

5

Government for issue of letter of intent by 15.12.2015.  The  

Division  Bench,  after  noting  the  submissions,  passed  the  

following order:-

“5. Though it is argued by the learned counsel for  the appellant that the time schedule could not be  changed,  still  the  Central  Government  has  sufficient power to extend the time schedule to a  certain extent and when the Central Government  had  requested  the  MCI  to  consider  the  application  in  terms  of  the  letter  dated  23.12.2015,  we  do  not  think  that  this  Court  should interfere in the matter at this stage of the  proceedings.

6.  As  far  as  the  judgment  is  concerned,  the  learned  Single  Judge  had  only  directed  the  Central  Government to consider the application  of the petitioner and take a decision after hearing  them.  That process has already been completed  and  Annexure  A2  dated  23.12.2015  has  been  issued by the Central Government.”

Being of this view, it declined to interfere with the order  

passed by the learned single Judge and dismissed the appeal.  

6. We have heard Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel  

along  with  Mr.  Gaurav  Sharma,  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellant,  Ms.  Pinky  Anand,  learned  Additional  Solicitor  

General along with Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, learned counsel for

Page 6

6

respondent  No.  2  and  Mr.  Huzefa  Ahmadi,  learned  senior  

counsel  along  with  Mr.  Ranjiv  Ranjan  Dwivedi,  learned  

counsel  for  respondent No.  1 and Mr.  M.T.  George,  learned  

counsel for respondent No. 3.

7. The focal issue that arises for consideration is whether  

the learned single Judge was justified in directing the MCI to  

take  into  consideration  the  revised  Essentiality  Certificate  

submitted  by  the  Trust  after  30th of  September,  2015,  and  

whether  the  Trust  had  submitted  a  proper  and  requisite  

Essentiality  Certificate along with the application on 30th of  

August, 2015.  As is demonstrable, the Trust had submitted  

an incomplete application on 30th of August, 2015 which was  

forwarded  by  the  Central  Government  to  the  MCI  vide  

communication dated 23.09.2015. Be it stated that the MCI  

had noticed that the Essentiality Certificate was on record by  

the  time  the  application was forwarded to  it.   The  MCI  on  

scrutiny  found  that  the  Essentiality  Certificate  was  not  in  

accordance with the format prescribed by the Regulations and  

accordingly did not recommend for the approval of the college.

Page 7

7

8. Mr. Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellant, has  

drawn  our  attention  to  the  renewed  Essentiality  Certificate  

granted  by  the  Government  of  Kerala  on  31.08.2015.   The  

relevant part of the said Certificate reads as follows:-

“The  Managing  Trustee-Secretary,  V.N.  Public  Health & Educational Trust, NRT Nagar, Theni,  Tamil Nadu State has applied for establishment  of  a  Medical  College  at  Walayar  in  Palakkad  District. On careful consideration of the proposal,  the Government of Kerala has decided to issue an  Essentiality  Certificate  to  the  applicant  for  the  establishment  of  a  Medical  College  with  150  seats.

It is certified that:

(a)  The  applicant  owns  and  manages  300  bedded hospital at Palakkad District.

(b)  It  is  desirable  to  establish  a  Medical  College in the public interest.

(c)  Establishment  of  a  Medical  College  at  Palakkad  District  by  V.N.  Public  Health  &  Educational Trust is feasible.

(d) The Essentiality Certificate  is issued on  condition  that  all  clinical  materials  as  per  Medical  Council  of  India  norms  will  be  made  available  in  the  hospital  within  the  stipulated  time as fixed by the Medical Council of India.

(e) The Management will  share 50% of the  total  MBBS  seats  with  Government  to  fill

Page 8

8

students  from  the  list  prepared  by  the  Commissioner  for  Entrance  Examinations,  Kerala.

It  is  further  certified  that  in  case  the  applicant  fails  to  create  infrastructure  for  the  Medical College as per Medical Council of India  norms and fresh admissions are stopped by the  Central Government, the State Government  shall  take  over  the  responsibility  of  the  students  already  admitted  in  the  College  with  the  permission of the Central Government.”

[Emphasis added)

9. The  pertinent  part  of  the  communication  dated  

19.10.2015 made by the MCI to the competent authority of the  

Central Government is as follows:-

“It  is  to  inform  you  that  on  perusal  of  the  application/documents  submitted  by  the  applicant, it is noted that as per the Essentiality  Certificate  dated  31/08/2015  issued  by  the  Government of Kerala “The Essentiality Certificate  is issued on condition that all clinical materials as   per Medical Council of India norms will be made   available in the hospital within the stipulated time  as fixed by the Medical Council of India.” However,  prescribed  proforma  for  Essentiality  Certificate  states that “(d) Adequate clinical materials as per   the Medical Council of India norms is available.”

In view of the above, it is clear that at the time of  issuance of Essentiality Certificate, the applicant  does not fulfill the mandatory qualifying criteria  of  the  availability  of  the  “Adequate  clinical

Page 9

9

material  as  per  the  Medical  Council  of  India  norms.” Accordingly, the applicant does not meet  the  mandatory  criteria  prescribed  under  the  regulations.

In this regard, it is further to inform you that the  Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated  20/08/2015  in  W.P.  (C)  No.  705/2015-Royal  Medical Trust (Regd.) and Another Vs. Union of  India and Anrs. has passed the following Order:-

“… (A) Initial assessment of the application at   the  first  level  should  comprise  of  checking  necessary  requirements  such  as  essentiality   certificate, consent of affiliation and physical   features like land and hospital requirement.  If   an applicant fails to fulfill these requirements,   the  application  on  the  face  of  it,  would  be   incomplete and be rejected.  Those who fulfill   the basic requirements would be considered at   the next stage…”

 In  view  of  the  above,  the  Council  Office  has  decided  to  return  the  application  for  establishment of new medical college at Wayalar,  Kerala  (Palakkad  Institute  of  Medical  Sciences,  Palakkad,  Kerala)  by  V.N.  Public  Health  &  Education Trust, Tamilnadu to the Central Govt.  recommending  disapproval  of  the  scheme  u/s  10A of the IMC Act, 1956 for the academic year  2016-17, as the applicant fails to fulfill necessary  requirement  of  availability  of  the  adequate  clinical  material  as  per  the  Medical  Council  of  India norms.”

10. On  a  perusal  of  the  Essentiality  Certificate  dated  

31.08.2015,  it  is  obvious that  it  is  a conditional  certificate.

Page 10

10

The said fact has been reiterated by the appellant-MCI vide its  

communication  dated  19.10.2015.  A  conditional  certificate  

cannot be regarded as the requisite Certificate inasmuch as  

the  conditions  which  are  essential  to  the  certificate  are  

required to be fulfilled.  On the basis of such a certificate, the  

MCI was not expected to approve the application submitted by  

an educational institution. It had clearly communicated that  

the  prescribed  format  stipulates  that  adequate  clinical  

material  as  per  the  MCI  norms  “is  available”.  Thus,  the  

availability has to be in praesenti but not to be a condition to  

be satisfied at a later stage.  That is not the postulate in the  

Regulations.  In  Royal Medical Trust (supra), a three-Judge  

Bench referring to Section 10-A of the Indian Medical Council  

Act, 1956 (for brevity, “the Act’) has ruled that:-  

“Section  10-A  contemplates  submission  of  a  scheme  to  the  Central  Government  in  the  prescribed  form,  which  scheme  is  then  to  be  referred by the Central Government to MCI for its  appropriate recommendations. The scheme is to  be  considered  having  regard  to  the  features  referred to in sub-section (7) and is then placed  before  the  Central  Government  along  with  the  recommendations of  MCI.  In exercise of  powers  conferred by Section 10-A read with Section 33 of

Page 11

11

the  Act,  MCI with the  previous sanction of  the  Central Government has made “Establishment of  the  Medical  College  Regulations,  1999”  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  “the  Regulations”)  which were published in the Gazette of India on  28-8-1999. Para 3 of the Regulations lays down  that no person shall establish a medical college  except  after  obtaining  prior  permission  of  the  Central Government by submitting a scheme. The  Regulations  then  deal  with  the  scheme  in  extenso. Clauses 1 and 2 of the scheme deal with  “eligibility  criteria”  and  “qualifying  criteria”,  respectively.  Clause  3  then  sets  out  certain  requirement in parts (i),  (ii)  and (iii)  concerning  various details about the status of the applicant  in  terms  of  the  eligibility  criteria,  name  and  address of the medical college including various  facets of the infrastructure and planning and the  details  of  the  existing  hospital  including  availability of various facilities and capacities as  also upgradation and expansion programme.”

  After  so  stating,  the  Court  referred  to  para  7  of  the  

Regulations which deals with the report of the MCI, and para 8  

that  deals  with  grant  of  permission  by  the  Central  

Government. Reference has also been made to the schedule for  

receipt  of  applications  for  establishment  of  new  medical  

colleges  and  increase  of  admission  capacity  in  an  existing  

medical  college  and  processing  of  the  applications  by  the

Page 12

12

Central  Government  and  the  Medical  Council  of  India.  

Thereafter, Court has proceeded to observe:-  

“MCI  and  the  Central  Government  have  been  vested with monitoring powers under Section 10- A  and  the  Regulations.  It  is  expected  of  these  authorities  to  discharge  their  functions  well  within  the  statutory  confines  as  well  as  in  conformity with the Schedule to the Regulations.  If  there  is  inaction  on  their  part  or  non- observance of the time schedule, it is bound to  have adverse effect on all concerned. …”  

11. After so stating, the three-Judge Bench has directed the  

schedule must ideally take care of:-

“(A)  Initial  assessment of  the application at the  first level should comprise of checking necessary  requirements  such  as  essentiality  certificate,  consent for affiliation and physical features like  land  and  hospital  requirement.  If  an  applicant  fails to fulfil these requirements, the application  on  the  face  of  it,  would  be  incomplete  and  be  rejected. Those who fulfil the basic requirements  would be considered at the next stage.

(B) Inspection should then be conducted by the  Inspectors  of  MCI.  By  very  nature  such  inspection  must  have  an  element  of  surprise.  Therefore  sufficient  time of  about  three  to  four  months  ought  to  be  given  to  MCI  to  cause  inspection  at  any  time  and  such  inspection  should  normally  be  undertaken  latest  by

Page 13

13

January. Surprise inspection would ensure that  the  required  facilities  and  infrastructure  are  always  in  place  and  not  borrowed  or  put  in  temporarily.

(C)  Intimation  of  the  result  or  outcome  of  the  inspection would then be communicated.  If  the  infrastructure  and  facilities  are  in  order,  the  medical  college  concerned  should  be  given  requisite  permission/renewal.  However,  if  there  are any deficiencies or shortcomings, MCI must,  after  pointing out the deficiencies,  grant to  the  college  concerned  sufficient  time  to  report  compliance.

(D)  If  compliance is  reported and the applicant  states that the deficiencies stand removed, MCI  must cause compliance verification. It is possible  that  such  compliance  could  be  accepted  even  without  actual  physical  verification  but  that  assessment  be  left  entirely  to  the  discretion  of  MCI and the Central Government. In cases where  actual physical verification is required, MCI and  the  Central  Government  must  cause  such  verification before the deadline.

(E)  The result  of  such verification if  positive  in  favour  of  the  medical  college  concerned,  the  applicant  ought  to  be  given  requisite  permission/renewal.  But  if  the  deficiencies  still  persist  or  had not been removed,  the applicant  will stand disentitled so far as that academic year  is concerned.”

12. Mr.  Singh,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  

appellant has drawn our attention to the order dated January

Page 14

14

18, 2016 passed in I.A. Nos. 7 & 8 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.  

76 of 2015 titled Ashish Ranjan & Ors. v. Union of India &  

Ors. wherein the Court had taken note of notification issued  

by  the  MCI  with  the  previous  sanction  of  the  Central  

Government.   The  notification  has  prescribed  the  time  

schedule for receipt of applications for establishment of new  

medical colleges/renewal of permission and processing of the  

applications  by  the  Central  Government  and  the  Medical  

Council of India. The schedule in this regard reads as follows:-

“S.  No.

Stage of processing Last date

1 Receipt  of  applications  by  the  Central Government

Between 15th June  to 7th July (both  days inclusive) of  

any year 2 Forwarding  application  by  the  

Central Government to Medical  Council of India

By 15th July

3 Technical Scrutiny, assessment  and  Recommendations  for  Letter  of  Permission  by  the  Medical Council of India

By 15th December

4 Receipt  of  reply/compliance  from  the  applicant  by  the  Central  Government  and  for  personal hearing thereto, if any,  and  forwarding  of  compliance  by  the  Central  Government  to  the Medical Council of India

Two months from  receipt of  

recommendation  from MCI but not  

beyond 31st  January.

Page 15

15

5 Final  recommendations for  the  Letter  of  Permission  by  the  Medical Council of India

By 30th April

6 Issue of Letter of Permission by  the Central Government

By 31st May

Note  1.  In  case  of  renewal  of  permission,  the  applicants  shall  submit  the  application  to  the  Medical Council of India by 15th July.

xxx xxx xxx

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 33  of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956(102) of  1956,  the  Medical  Council  of  India  with  the  previous  sanction  of  the  Central  Government,  hereby makes the following Regulations to further  amend the “Opening of a New or Higher Course of  Study or Training (including Postgraduate Course  of Study or Training) and increase of Admission  Capacity  in  any  Course  of  Study  or  Training  (Including  a  Postgraduate  Course  of  Study  or  Training) Regulations 2000”, namely:-

(i) These Regulations may be called the “Opening  of a New or Higher Course of Study or Training  (Including  Postgraduate  Course  of  Study  or  Training) and increase of Admission Capacity in  any  Course  of  Study  or  Training  (including  Postgraduate  Course  of  Study  or  Training  (Amendment) Regulations 2015.

(ii)  They shall  come into force from the date of  their publication in the Official Gazette.”

Page 16

16

13. The  two-Judge  Bench,  after  reproducing  the  entire  

notification which deals with various situations, has given the  

stamp of approval to the said Schedule.

14. In this context, we may profitably refer to the decision in  

D.Y. Patil Medical College v. Medical Council of India &  

Anr.2 wherein the controversy had arisen due to rejection of  

the  application  of  the  institution  on  the  ground  that  

Essentiality Certificate was not filed along with the application  

form.  The  Court  dwelled  upon  the  principles  stated  in  

Educare Charitable Trust v. Union of India & Anr.3, Royal  

Medical Trust (supra) and various other decisions and, after  

anaylsing the scheme of the Act, has held:-

“It  is  apparent  from the  aforesaid decision and  the regulations that  the application at  the first  instance  is  required  to  be  complete  and  incomplete applications are liable to be rejected.  Thereafter,  there  has  to  be  an  inspection  and  other stages of decision-making process.”  

15. The impugned order passed by the High Court is to be  

tested and adjudged on the anvil of the aforesaid authorities.  

2

2015 (10) SCC 51 3

AIR 2014 SC 902 : (2013) 16 SCC 474

Page 17

17

The  application  for  grant  of  approval  was  filed  with  the  

Essentiality  Certificate  which  was  a  conditional  one  and,  

therefore, a defective one. It was not an Essentiality Certificate  

in law.  In such a situation, the High Court could not have  

directed for consideration of the application for the purpose of  

the  inspection.  Such a  direction,  we are  disposed to  think,  

runs counter  to  the  law laid  down in  Educare Charitable  

Trust  (supra)  and  Royal  Medical  Trust (supra).  We  may  

further proceed to state that on the date of the application, the  

Essentiality  Certificate  was  not  in  order.  The  Schedule  

prescribed  by  the  MCI,  which  had  been  approved  by  this  

Court, is binding on all concerned.  MCI cannot transgress it.  

The High Court could not  have gone beyond the same and  

issued  any  direction  for  conducting  an  inspection  for  the  

academic year 2016-17.  Therefore, the directions issued by  

the learned single Judge and the affirmation thereof  by the  

Division Bench are wholly unsustainable.  

16. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the judgments  

and orders passed by the High Court are set aside. It will be  

open to the Trust to submit a fresh application for the next

Page 18

18

academic  year  in  consonance  with  the  provisions  of  the  

Regulations of the MCI and as per the time Schedule; and in  

that event, it will be considered appropriately.  In the facts and  

circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

...............................J.            [Dipak Misra]

...............................J.        [Shiva Kirti Singh]

New Delhi April 18, 2016