1  

Reportable     

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

 Civil Appeal No.5805 of 2018  

(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.11164 of 2018)  

Medical Council of India  

.... Appellant     

Versus     Vedantaa Institute of Academic Excellence Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.  

                             ….Respondents    

J U D G M E N T  

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.  

Leave granted.     

1.   Vedantaa Institute of Academic Excellence Pvt. Ltd. and  

Vedantaa Institute of Medical Sciences, Respondent Nos.1 and 2  

herein filed Writ Petition No.4319 of 2018 in the High Court of  

Judicature at Bombay seeking a direction to the Appellant to send  

its Experts’ team for the purpose of verifying the compliance of  

the deficiencies pointed out earlier.   They also prayed for a  

direction to the Appellant to forward its recommendation to the  

Central Government before 30th April, 2018.  They sought a  

further direction to Respondent No.3 herein, Union of India to

2  

consider the grant of renewal permission on the basis of the  

recommendations received from the Appellant.  The High Court  

allowed the Writ Petition and directed the Medical Council of  

India to inspect Respondent No.2, Medical College and submit a  

report to the Union of India before 30th April, 2018.  Aggrieved  

thereby, the Appellant Council has filed the above appeal.  

2. Respondent No.1 submitted an application under Section  

10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter  

referred to as the ‘Act’) for starting a Medical College.  A letter of  

intent was issued to Respondent No.1 after conducting an  

inspection.  The Union of India issued a letter of permission dated  

31.05.2017 to Respondent No.1 to admit the first batch of 150  

students for the academic year 2017-2018.  After issuance of a  

letter of permission, the Respondent No.2 College was included  

in the list of Colleges for centralised process of admission carried  

out by the State of Maharashtra.  Students were allotted for the  

year 2017-2018 in the centralised counselling.  The inspection for  

the purpose of granting first renewal for admission of students for  

the academic year 2018-2019 was conducted on 25.09.2017 and  

26.09.2017.  The Executive Committee of the Appellant Council

3  

considered the assessment report in its meeting held on  

25.10.2017 and it was decided as under:-  

“The Executive Committee of the Council considered the assessment  

report (25/26.09.2017) and noted the following:-  

1. Deficiency of faculty is 84.05% as detailed in the report.  

2. Shortfall of Residents is 87.23% as detailed in the report.  

3. Pathology, Microbiology, Pharmacology, Forensic  

Medicine, Community Medicine departments are under  

construction   

4. Bed Occupancy is 01% at 10 a.m. on day of assessment.   

5. Wards: Majority of the wards were locked or under  

renovation and non-functional.  

6. Data of OPD attendance, Radiological & laboratory  

investigations are inflated.  

7. There was NIL Major, NIL Minor & NIL Daycare Operation  

on day of assessment.  

8. There was NIL woman in Labour room.  

9. Nursing staff: 164 Nursing staff are available against  

requirement of 175.  

10. Paramedical & Non-teaching staff: 90 Paramedical & Non-

teaching staff are available against requirement of 100.  

11. MRD: There is no MRD Office.   

12. O.T.: Non of O.T. was functional on day of assessment  

13. ICU: There was NIL patient in ICCU & all ICUs on day of  

assessment.   

14. 1 Mobile X-ray machine is available against requirement  

of 2.  

15. Blood Bank is not functional.  

16. Kitchen is not functional.   

17. Examination hall: It is under construction.  

18. Central Library: Librarian is not available.   

19. Central Photography section: There is no staff.  

20. Students’ Hostels: Available accommodation is for 128  

students against requirement of 226.  

21. Residential quarters: 18 quarters are available for faculty  

against requirement of 20.  16 quarters are available for  

non-teaching staff against requirement of 32.  

22. RHTC: It is not yet allotted.   

23. UHC: It is not yet allotted.   

24. There is no CME activity during the year.  

4  

25. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment  

report.   

The Executive Committee noted that Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) of  

the Establishment of Medical College Regulation  

(Amendment), 2010 (Part II), dated 16th April, 2010 and  

amended on 18th March, 2016 provided as under:-  

“8(3)(1)…..  

(a) Colleges in the stage of Letter of Permission upto II renewal  

(i.e. Admission of third batch)  

It is observed during any inspection/assessment of the  

institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or  

Residents is more than 30% and/or bed occupancy is <50%  

(45% in North East, Hilly terrain etc.), compliance of  

rectification of deficiencies from such an institute will not be  

considered for issue of Letter of Permission (LOP)/ renewal  

of permission in that Academic Year.”  

In view of the deficiencies as noted above, the Executive  

Committee of the Council decided to recommend to the  

Central Govt. to invoke Regulation 8 (3)(1)(a) of the  

Establishment of Medical College Regulation, 1999 and  

disapprove the application of the Vedantaa Institute of  

Medical Sciences, Palghar, Maharashtra under Maharashtra  

University of Health Sciences Nashik u/s 10A of the IMC Act,  

1956 for renewal of permission of MBBS course 2nd batch  

(150 seats) for the academic year 2018-2019.”  

3. The said decision of the Executive Committee was  

approved by the Oversight Committee on 16.11.2017.  The  

Appellant by a letter dated 21.11.2017 communicated the  

decision of the Executive Committee as approved by the  

Oversight Committee to the Union of India.  By a letter dated  

07.12.2017, the Respondent No. 3, Union of India directed the  

Respondent College to respond to the recommendation of the

5  

Appellant.  A detailed reply was submitted by the College and  

even a personal hearing was given.   

4. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by  

Respondent No.1 and 2 mainly on two grounds.  According to the  

High Court, Regulation 8 (3) (1) proviso (a) of the Establishment  

of Medical College Regulations, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as  

the Regulations) is not applicable to the case of Respondent No.1  

and 2. The relevant portion of Clause 8 (3) (1) is extracted as  

under:-  

“8 GRANT OF PERMISSION:  

(3)(1). The  permission  to  establish  a  medical  College  and   

admit  students  may  be granted  initially  for  a  period  of   

one  year  and  may  be  renewed  on  yearly basis  subject   

to  verification  of  the  achievements  of  annual  targets.  It   

shall be  the  responsibility  of  the  person  to  apply  to  the   

Medical  Council  of  India for  purpose  of  renewal  six   

months  prior  to  the  expiry  of  the  initial permission.  This   

process  of  renewal  of  permission  will  continue  till  such  

time  the  establishment  of  the  medical  College  and   

expansion  of  the  hospital facilities  are  completed  and  a   

formal  recognition  of  the  medical  College  is granted.   

Further  admissions  shall  not  be  made  at  any  stage   

unless  the requirements  of  the  Council  are  fulfilled.  The   

Central  Government  may  at any  stage  convey  the   

deficiencies  to  the  applicant  and  provide  him  an  

opportunity  and  time  to  rectify  the  deficiencies.    

Note:  In  above  clause,  “six  months”  shall  be  substituted   

by  “as  per  latest  time schedule”      

PROVIDED that in respect of  a)  Colleges  in  the  stage   

of  Letter  of  Permission  upto  II  renewal  (i.e.   

admission of third  batch)    

If  it  is  observed  during  any  inspection/assessment  of  the  

institute  that  the  deficiency of  teaching  faculty  and/or  

Residents  is  more  than  30%  and/or  bed  occupancy  is  

<50% (45%  in  North  East,  Hilly  terrain,  etc.),  compliance

6  

of  rectification  of  deficiencies from  such  an  institute  will  

not  be  considered  for  issue  of  Letter  of Permission  

(LOP)/renewal  of  permission  in  that  Academic  Year.”  

5. The other point which found favour with the High Court is  

the manner in which the inspection was conducted.  The High  

Court held that the inspection conducted by the Assessors was  

not fair.    

6. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the  

Appellant submitted that findings recorded by the High Court  

that Regulation 8 (3) (1) is not applicable to the Respondent  

College as it had sought for first renewal is clearly erroneous.  He  

submitted that the High Court lost sight of the first proviso to  

Regulation 8 (3) (1).   He contended that there is no ambiguity in  

the language of the first proviso to Regulation 8 (3) (1) which  

covers Colleges upto the second renewal.  According to the said  

Regulation, Institutions having deficiency of teaching faculty  

and/or residents more than 30 per cent and/or bed occupancy  

less than 50 per cent will not be considered for renewal of  

permission for that academic year.   In view of the large scale  

deficiencies found in the inspection conducted on 25.09.2017 and  

26.09.2017, Mr. Singh submits that there is no question of an  

opportunity being given to Respondent No.1 to rectify the

7  

deficiencies.  He also urged that the inspection was done strictly  

in accordance with the Assessors’ Guide issued by the Medical  

Council of India.  He pointed out that the general instructions  

issued to the Assessors clearly shows that it was mandatory to  

verify the attendance sheet of every department (completed  

before 11.00 am), signed by the faculty present on the day of  

assessment and duly counter-signed by the Head of Department.    

According to the Assessors’ Guide the institutions should be  

asked to submit daily average clinical data for the last 12 months  

and clinical data of the first day of assessment.   Bed occupancy  

was to be verified at 10.00 am, whereas OPD, Laboratory and  

Radiological Investigation data etc. are to be verified at 2.00 pm  

on the first day of assessment.   In respect of verification of  

teaching faculty and resident doctors, the Assessors’ Guide  

provides for checking of faculty attendance before 11.00 am on  

the first day of assessment. Only faculty/residents who signed the  

attendance sheet before 11.00 am are to be verified.   No  

verification should be done for the faculty/residents coming after  

11.00 am.   Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel took us  

through the inspection notes to submit that the inspection done  

by the assessment team cannot be found fault with.   He also

8  

relies upon the judgment of this Court in Medical Council of  

India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) &  

Ors.1, to state that the report of the Experts should not be  

interfered with by this Court.   

7. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General,  

appearing for the Union of India submitted that the provisos to  

Regulation 8 (3) (1) was inserted with a view to ensure that  

Institutions which do not satisfy the minimum infrastructure and  

faculty cannot to be given an opportunity to rectify their defects.    

According to him, the standards fixed by the Medical Council of  

India are the bare minimum and have to be strictly complied with  

to ensure the maintenance of basic minimum standards of  

medical education.   Any lenience shown by this Court in  

providing an opportunity to such Institutions to rectify the defects  

will have a cascading effect in the succeeding years and would  

result in Colleges continuing to function with deficiencies as well  

as producing half baked and poor quality doctors.    He showed  

us the predictions made by the Meteorological Department from  

20th September, 2017 to 26th September, 2017.  He submitted that  

thunderstorm and heavy rain is common in coastal areas and the  

                                                        1  (2016) 11 SCC 530- Para 24

9  

situation was not as dangerous as projected by Respondent No.1  

and 2.   He further submitted that the minimum requirement of  

faculty and residents is 70 per cent.  He stated that if 70 per cent  

of the strength of residence had to be present in the hospital on  

24.09.2017 (i.e. the previous day of inspection), it is  

inconceivable that there could be shortage of 84 per cent  

teachers and 87 per cent of residents on the date of inspection.   

He also stated that a natural calamity like cyclone would result in  

increase in the number of patients.    

8. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the  

Respondent No.1 and 2 supported the judgment of the High  

Court.  He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Royal  

Medical Trust (Registered) v. Union of India2 to support his  

submission that an opportunity has to be given to a Medical  

Institute to rectify the deficiencies.  He countered the submission  

of learned Senior Counsel for the Medical Council of India by  

submitting that the Regulations cannot over-ride the statute.   

According to him, Section 10-A as interpreted by this Court  

entitles the Respondent College to be provided with an  

opportunity to cure the defects pointed out during the inspection.  

                                                        2 (2015) 10 SCC 19   paras 26 - 31

10  

Such provision cannot be over ridden by a Regulation.  He relied  

upon the prediction of cyclone whereby the people of the locality  

were asked to stay indoors.  He contended that a request was  

made to the team of Assessors to have another assessment on the  

same day.   He further submitted that the inspection was not  

conducted in a fair manner and the report does not represent the  

correct picture.  If another inspection is done by the Medical  

Council of India to verify the facilities available in the hospital  

and the College, the College would be able to satisfy the  

requirements.   He relied upon the decision taken by the Medical  

Council of India in directing fresh inspection to be conducted in  

respect of a few Colleges where the deficiencies were more than  

the minimum prescribed in Regulation 8 (3) (1) (a).   In reply to  

the submissions of Mr. Ranjit Kumar on this point Mr. Vikas Singh  

stated that a second inspection was permitted to be done only in  

respect of Government Medical Colleges.      

9. Though Regulation 8 (3) (1) (a) was challenged in the Writ  

Petition filed by Respondent No.1 and 2, they did not press the  

relief.   They restricted their challenge to the manner in which the  

inspection was done and for a direction to the Appellant-Council  

to carry out a fresh inspection.  The interpretation of Regulation 8

11  

(3) (1) (a) by the High Court is patently erroneous in as much as  

the High Court did not take note of the proviso to Regulation  

8(3)(1).    Without a proper examination of the provision, the High  

Court fell in error in holding that Regulation 8 (3) (1) (a) would be  

applicable only to the Colleges seeking second renewal i.e.  

admissions of the third batch.  Admissions upto the second  

renewal i.e. admissions to third batch would fall under Regulation  

8 (3) (1) (a).  In other words, the proviso is not restricted only to  

second renewal cases.  Even the first renewal is covered by  

proviso (a) to Regulation 8 (3) (1) as the language used is “upto  

second renewal”.   We do not see any conflict between Section  

10-A (3) and (4) of the Act on one hand and Regulation 8 (3) (1)  

(a) on the other.    Regulation 8 (3) (1) (a) is complementary to  

Section 10-A of the Act.  Fixing minimum standards which have to  

be fulfilled for the purpose of enabling a medical College to seek  

fresh inspection would not be contrary to the scheme of Section  

10-A.  In fact, Regulation 8 (3) (1) provides that an opportunity  

shall be given to the medical College to rectify the defects.  But,  

the proviso contemplates that certain minimum standards are to  

be satisfied i.e. there should not be deficiency of teaching faculty  

and/or residents more than 30 per cent and/or bed occupancy

12  

should not be less than 50 per cent.  This prescription of  

standards for availing an opportunity to seek      re-inspection is  

not ultra vires either the Regulation or Section 10-A of the Act.      

10. On perusal of the material on record, we are of the opinion  

that the conclusion reached by the High Court regarding the  

manner in which inspection was conducted is also not correct.  

Bed occupancy at 45.30 per cent on random verification was the  

claim of Respondent No.1 and 2.  However, the inspection report  

shows that out of required minimum of 300 patients only 3 were  

available at 10.00 am on 25th September, 2017. This Court in  

Kalinga (supra) has held that medical education must be taken  

very seriously and when an expert body certifies that the  

facilities in a medical College are inadequate, it is not for the  

Courts to interfere with the assessment, except for very cogent  

jurisdictional reasons such as mala fides of the inspection team,  

ex facie perversity in the inspection, jurisdictional error on the  

part of the M.C.I., etc.   The submission relating to the cyclone  

being a reason for the number of patients being less is not  

acceptable.   We are in agreement with the submission made on  

behalf of the Appellant that the Resident Doctors are required to  

be in the hospital  at all points of time.   

13  

11. In view of the large scale deficiencies found in the  

inspection report dated 25.09.2017 and 26.09.2017 and in view of  

Regulation 8 (3) (1) (a), the Respondent No.1 and 2 are not  

entitled to claim another inspection.  

12. For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment of the High  

Court is set aside and the Appeal is allowed.      

             ..............................................J  

                                       [L. NAGESWARA RAO]  

...............................................J  

[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR]  

NEW DELHI;   

JUNE 01, 2018