Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.585 OF 2013

Rohilkhand Medical College &  Hospital, Bareilly          …. Petitioner

Versus

Medical Council of India & Another  … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. The  petitioners  have  invoked  the  extraordinary  

jurisdiction  of  this  Court  conferred  under  Article  32 of  the  

Constitution  of  India  to  quash  the  letter  dated 13.07.2013  

issued  by  the  Medical  Council  of  India  by  which  the  

permission granted for  renewal  of  admission for  additional

Page 2

2

intake of students for the academic session 2013-2014 was  

revoked.

2. Rohilkhand Medical College and Hospital was established  

by Rohilkhand Educational Charitable Trust in the year 2005.  

The Medical College started the first M.B.B.S. Course during  

the  year  2006-07  with  an  annual  intake  of  100  seats  for  

which  permission  was  granted  under  Section  10A  of  the  

Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short “the IMC Act) by  

the Central Government.    Later, the Medical Council of India  

(for  short  “the MCI”)  granted recognition to the College to  

award  M.B.B.S.  Degree  granted  by  M.J.P.  Rohilkhand  

University, Bareily, U.P.  The College is also conducting post-

graduate courses during the year 2011-12.

3. Permission was granted under Section 10A of the IMC  

Act  for  admitting the second batch of 100 students in  the  

year 2007-08.  The College later submitted an application for  

extension of renewal of permission for the admission of 3rd  

batch of 100 seats of M.B.B.S. for the academic year 2008-09  

to  the  MCI.   The  MCI  after  processing  the  application

Page 3

3

constituted a medical team for inspection of the College.  The  

team conducted the inspection on 1st and 2nd April, 2008.  The  

-

MCI  team then submitted its  report  to  the Secretary,  MCI,  

New Delhi  on 02.04.2008.   The MCI  team pointed out  the  

following  deficiencies  in  the  College  as  per  the  MCI  

Regulations:

“There was a shortage of teaching faculty by 21.05% (24  out of 114) and residents by 37.03% (30 out of 81) As  under:

(a) Professor – 4 (b) Associate Professor – 13 (c) Asstt. Professor – 3 (d) Tutor – 4 (e) Sr. Resident – 16 (f) Jr. Resident – 14”

4. The MCI team also noticed that OPD attendance on the  

date  of  inspection  was  only  421  as  against  the  minimum  

requirement of  850-900 and OPD bed occupancy was only  

55% as against the minimum requirement of 83-85%.  The  

MCI team inspection report, as per the Board Regulation, was

Page 4

4

placed before the Executive Committee in its meeting held on  

14.04.2008  and  it  intimated  its  decision  to  the  Central  

Government not to renew the permission for the admission of  

the 3rd batch of  students for  the academic session for  the  

year 2008-09, vide its letter dated 16.04.2008.  A copy of the  

letter  was also  sent  to  the Principal  of  the College with  a  

request  to  submit  the  compliance  in  respect  of  the  

deficiencies  pointed  out  by  the  MCI  team  on  or  before  

30.04.2008.   

5. The  College  later  submitted  its  “compliance  report”.  

The MCI again constituted a team to examine whether the  

College had rectified the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI  

team.   The  MCI  team  again  conducted  an  inspection  on  

20.05.2008 and submitted its report to the MCI.  The report  

pointed out the following deficiencies :

“(1) There was a shortage of teaching faculty by 18% (22  out of 110) and Residents by 5% (5 out of 82) as under:

(a) Professor – 6 (b) Associate Professor – 12 (c) Asstt. Professor – 4 (d) Tutor – NIL

Page 5

5

(e) Sr. Resident – 3 (f) Jr. Resident – 2 (ii) The  OPD  attendance   on  the  date  of  

inspection  was  only  691  against  the  minimum requirement of 850-900.

(iii) IPD  bed  occupancy  was  only  55(74%)  against  the  minimum  requirement  of  83- 95%.”

6. The MCI inspection report was later placed before the  

Executive Committee of MCI in its meeting held on 13/14-06-

2008 and it was decided by the Committee not to renew the  

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

academic year 2008-09.  The Executive Committee’s decision  

was communicated to the Central Government vide its letter  

dated  14.06.2008.   The  then  Under  Secretary,  Ministry  of  

Health  and  Family  Welfare,  New  Delhi  on  19.06.2008  

forwarded the  letter  received from the MCI  to  the  College  

requesting  to  submit  the  compliance  in  respect  of  the  

deficiencies pointed by the MCI inspection team.  The College  

then forwarded the compliance report to the Secretary, MCI  

vide  its  letter  dated  24.06.2008.   The  College  also  sent

Page 6

6

another letter dated 01.07.2008 to the Secretary, Ministry of  

Health  and  Family  Welfare,  New  Delhi  stating  that  the  

deficiencies  pointed  out  by  the  MCI  team  were  of  minor  

nature  and,  therefore,  requested  to  grant  necessary  

permission by the Central Government for admission of the  

3rd batch for the academic year 2008-09.

7. The  Chairman  of  the  Roholhand  Medical  College  and  

Hospital on 03.07.2008 sent a letter to the Health Minister,  

Government  of  India  requesting  to  grant  necessary  

permission and the Central Government, for admission of the  

3rd batch, followed by yet another letter on 04.07.2008 to the  

Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi.

8. We notice, following the letter received by the Minister  

as well as the Secretary, the Central Government constituted  

a  team  of  two  doctors  to  carry  out  the  compliance  

verification/inspection  of  the  College.   The  central  team  

conducted  the  verification  inspection  on  11.07.2008  and  

submitted  its  report  to  the  Deputy  Secretary,  Ministry  of

Page 7

7

Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi on 10.07.2008.  The  

central team pointed out the following deficiencies:

“(i) The shortage of teaching staff was found more than  11% (13 out of  116) as under:

(a) Professor (b) Associate Professor – 7 (c) Asstt. Professor – 2 (d) Tutor – NIL (e) - (f) Sr. Resident – 1 (g) Jr. Resident – 1

(ii)  The faculty members holding same post were getting  different salaries.  Some of faculty members were getting  less  salary  than  resident  doctors.   Some  of  the  Junior  Residents  were  old  in  age.   Some  of  Sr.  Residents  presented  with  their  declaration  forms  seemed  to  be  specialists  doing  private  practice,  as  they  were  in  the  town much before the inception of the College/Institution.  Some of the area and buildings were under construction,  which was not advisable in working in working areas.”

9. The then Under Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family  

Welfare, New Delhi then sent a letter dated 27.07.2008 to the  

Chairman of  the  College requesting  him not  to  admit  any  

fresh batch of MBBS students for the academic year 2008-09.

Page 8

8

The College was also advised to rectify the deficiencies and  

send compliance report  for  consideration for  the academic  

year 2009-10 for further admission.

10. The Chairman of the College then filed a Writ Petition (C)  

No.294 of  2008 before  this  Court  which  was  clubbed with  

other  similar  writ  petitions filed by other  medical  colleges.  

This Court passed an order on 03.09.2008 directing the MCI  

to  submit  its  recommendations to the Central  Government  

within two days and Ministry of Health and Family Welfare  

was  directed  to  consider  the  issue  of  grant  of  permission  

within a week.  Further it was also directed that the College  

be given an opportunity of  being heard by the Ministry of  

Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi.

11. The  MCI,  in  the  meantime,  conducted  yet  another  

inspection of the College on 19.08.2008 and the MCI team  

submitted its report to the Secretary, MCI again pointing out  

the following deficiencies:

“(i)  The  shortage  of  teaching  staff  was  found  to  be  23.68% (27 out of 114):-

Page 9

9

Professor – 3 Associate Professor -13 Asstt. Professor - 5 Tutor – 5

(ii)  The shortage of resident was found to be 20.9% (17  out of 81):-

Sr. Resident – 5 Jr. Resident – 12”

 12. The MCI  report  was then placed before the Executive  

Committee and the MCI in its meeting held on 21.08.2008,  

decided to inform the Central Government not to renew the  

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

academic  year  2008-09.   The  decision  of  the  Executive  

Committee  was  communicated  to  the  Central  Government  

vide its letter dated 04.09.2008 with reference to the order  

passed  by  this  Court  on  03.09.2008  in  Writ  Petition  (C)  

No.294 of 2008, filed the College.

13. The  Under  Secretary,  Ministry  of  Health  and  Family  

Welfare, New Delhi then sent a letter dated 09.09.2008 to the  

Chairman  of  the  College  to  appear  before  the  Deputy  

Secretary, (Medical Education), Ministry of Health and Family

Page 10

10

Welfare, New Delhi on 10.09.2008 along with the compliance  

report and other documents mentioned in the order passed  

by this Court on 03.09.2008.  The Chairman of the College  

then  appeared,  as  directed,  on  10.09.2008.   The  Under  

Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi  

then issued a letter to the Chairman of the College intimating  

that after considering the facts submitted by the College at  

the time of personal hearing and the recommendations of the  

MCI, it was decided by the Ministry not to grant renewal of  

permission for admission of 3rd batch of MBBS students for  

the academic year 2008-09.

14. The Chairman of the College then vide his letter dated  

12.09.2008, addressed to the Secretary, Medical Education,  

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi requested  

him  to  grant  permission  for  50  students  of  MBBS  for  the  

academic session 2008-09.  The Ministry of Health and Family  

Welfare,  New  Delhi  again  constituted  a  central  team  and  

deputed the team to inspect the College and submit a report  

by 25.09.2009 positively.   The two doctors then conducted

Page 11

11

inspection of the College on 25.09.2008 and submitted the  

report  on 26.09.2008 to  the Ministry  of  Health  and Family  

Welfare on the same day.  On the basis of that report the  

Central  Government  issued  a  letter  dated  26.09.2008  

according sanction for renewal of permission for admission of  

3rd batch of 100 students for the academic year 2008-09.   

15. On receipt of the said letter dated 12.09.2008 from the  

Chairman  of  the  College,  the  Under  Secretary,  Ministry  of  

Health and Family Welfare, wrote a letter on 24.09.2008 to  

the  Secretary,  MCI  requesting  to  furnish  their  

recommendations regarding reduced intake.  The Secretary,  

MCI, in turn, intimated that on the basis of the deficiencies  

pointed out  by the MCI  team during the inspection of  the  

College  on  19.08.2008  the  College  was  grossly  lacking  

facilities even for admission of 50 students.   

16. MCI team, it is seen, constituted yet another Committee  

to conduct an inspection of the College on 01.10.2008 and a  

report was submitted to the MCI on the same day pointing  

out  various deficiencies.   The report  was submitted to the

Page 12

12

Executive  Committee  of  MCI  in  its  meeting  held  on  

06.10.2008 and the Committee took a decision to inform the  

Central  Government  not  to  renew  the  permission  for  the  

academic year 2008-09 and urge the Central Government to  

recall the letter of permission dated 26.09.2008 issued to the  

College.  The decision of the Executive Committee of the MCI  

was communicated to the Central Government vide its letter  

dated 06.10.2008.

17. We  have  noticed  that  the  Central  Government  had  

accorded  approval  for  3rd batch  of  100  students  for  the  

academic year 2008-09 on 26.09.2008, despite the repeated  

negative recommendations made by the MCI and before the  

grant  of  permission on 26.09.2008,  the  MCI  was not  even  

consulted.  We have indicated the facts to show the situation  

that prevailed in the year 2008-09 and the manner in which  

permission was accorded for intake of 100 students by the  

Central Government.

18. The MCI, following its decision taken on 04.06.2013, vide  

its letter dated 20.06.2013 decided to convey its approval for

Page 13

13

renewal of permission  for admission for the second batch of  

MBBS students against the increased intake i.e. from100 to  

150 seats to the College for the academic year 2013-14.  The  

approval  was  granted  taking  into  consideration  of  the  

assessment  report  dated  26/27-02-2013  submitted  to  the  

Board of Governors of MCI subject to certain conditions which  

are extracted herein below:

“I  am further  directed to inform that you and  your institution are fully responsible to fulfill and  maintain  norms  including  the  infrastructure  both  physical  and  human  resource,  teaching  faculty and clinical material, etc. throughout the  academic  year,  as  stipulated  in  Regulation  of  Medical  Council  of  India.   In  case  false/wrong  declaration or fabricated documents have been  used for  procuring permission of the Board of  Governors for the increased intake and the said  misconduct is brought to notice or comes to the  knowledge  of  MCI  at  any  stage  during  the  current  academic  year,  your  institution  is  not  liable to be considered for renewal of permission  against increased intake for the next academic  year and this renewal of permission against the  increased intake for the next academic year and  this renewal of permission against the increased  intake is  also  liable to  be revoked for  current  academic year.  Besides, MCI is entitled to take  all  such  measures  against  you  and  your  college/institution  as  permissible  under  the  law.”

Page 14

14

19. The MCI, in the meantime, received a confidential letter  

dated 11.07.2013 from the Central  Bureau of  Investigation  

(for short “the CBI”) informing that the CBI has registered a  

case against the Chairman of the College and officers of the  

Ministry  of  Health  and  Family  Welfare,  New  Delhi  under  

Section 120B IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)

(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the  

PC Act”).   Charge-sheet  was  also  enclosed along with  the  

letter, which was placed before the Board of Governors of the  

MCI  in  its  meeting  held  on  12.07.2013.   The  Board  then  

revoked its decision dated 04.06.2013 and communicated the  

same to the College vide its letter dated 20.06.2013.  The  

Board of Governors of the MCI informed the College that the  

letter of permission accorded for renewal of admission of the  

2nd batch of students against the increased intake i.e. from  

100  to  150  for  the  academic  year  2013-14  would  stand  

revoked with immediate effect.

20. The legality of that decision, as already indicated, is the  

main issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition.

Page 15

15

21. Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel appearing for  

the  petitioners  submitted  that  the letter  dated 13.07.2013  

revoking  the  permission  granted  for  admission  for  the  

increased  intake  was  mala  fide  and  in  violation  of  the  

principles  of  natural  justice.   Learned  senior  counsel  

submitted  that  a  right  has  already  been  accrued  to  the  

petitioners  by  virtue  of  the  decision  taken  by  the  MCI  on  

04.06.2013, which was communicated to the College vide its  

letter dated 20.06.2013.  Learned senior counsel submitted  

that  such  a  decision  was  validly  taken  on  the  inspection  

report  dated  26/27.02.2013.   Learned  senior  counsel  

submitted that since the College has complied with all  the  

conditions stipulated in the Regulations and that there is no  

deficiency, as reported by the inspection team, there is no  

justification in revoking the permission already granted, that  

too,  without  giving the petitioners  an opportunity  of  being  

heard.  Learned senior counsel also submitted that mere fact  

that the CBI has registered a case against few officers of the  

Ministry of  Health and Family  Welfare,  New Delhi  and also

Page 16

16

against the Chairman of the College is not a ground at all to  

revoke  the  permission  already  granted  for  the  additional  

intake of students for the academic year 2013-14 since the  

College  has  satisfied  all  the  requirements  under  the  

Regulations for Establishment of Medical College Regulations,  

1999.   Learned  senior  counsel  also  submitted  that  even  

though  the  Chairman  of  the  College  has  been  charge-

sheeted,  that itself  is  not  a ground to revoke the letter  of  

permission accorded by the Board of Governors,  unless he  

has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction in a  

criminal  investigation.   Learned  senior  counsel  made  a  

reference to Regulations 3(5) of the “Enhancement of Annual  

Intake Capacity in Under-graduate Courses in Medical College  

for the Academic Session 2013-14 Only Regulation, 2013 (for  

short “the Regulation 2013).

22. Shri Amrendra Sharan, learned senior counsel appearing  

for the students submitted that on the basis of the decision of  

the MCI dated 20.06.2013, 21 students have already secured  

admission in the College by 10th July, 2013, since they were

Page 17

17

allotted  the  College  after  successfully  competing  the  U.P.  

Combined Medical Entrance Test (for short “the UPCMET) and  

the  decision  taken  by  the  MCI  on  13.07.2013  would  have  

serious consequences so far as the students are concerned  

since they would not be able to get admission in any other  

private  institution  for  this  academic  year.   Learned  senior  

counsel also submitted that the College has facilitated as per  

the  University  Grants  Commission  (UGC)  Regulations  and  

there  is  no  justification  in  not  permitting  the  students  to  

continue with their  study in  the College even if  there was  

some  infirmity  in  the  grant  of  permission  granted  by  the  

Central Government for the additional intake during the year  

2008-09.

23. Shri  Amit  Kumar,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

Medical  Council  of  India,  on  the  other  hand,  justified  the  

decision taken by the MCI on 13.07.2013.  Learned counsel  

submitted that the MCI has the power to revoke its earlier  

decision  taken  on  04.06.2013  if  sufficient  materials  have  

been brought to its knowledge which have got a vital bearing

Page 18

18

in the matter of conduct of courses in the College.  Learned  

counsel  also  submitted  and  referred  to  the  letter  dated  

20.06.2013 and pointed  out  that  permission  was  accorded  

subject to certain conditions and those conditions have been  

violated by the College.  Learned counsel submitted that as  

per  clause  8(3)(1)(d)  of  the  Establishment  of  Medical  

Regulations (Amendment 2010 Part II), the MCI has got the  

power  not  to  renew  the  permission/recognition,  if  it  is  

observed later that any institute is found to have acted on  

fake/forged  documents,  such  an  institute  could  not  be  

considered for renewal of permission/recognition for the post-

graduate courses for two years i.e for the academic year and  

the next academic year also.  Hence, the decision taken by  

the  MCI  revoking  the  letter  of  permission  for  renewal  of  

admission of the 2nd batch of students against the increased  

intake from 100 to 150 students for the academic year 2013-

14 was justified.

24. We may notice with concern the unprecedented growth  

of the Technical and Medical Institutions in this country which

Page 19

19

has resulted in widespread prevalence of various unethical  

practices.   Collection of large amount by way of capitation  

fee running into crores of rupees for MBBS and Post-Graduate  

seats,  exorbitant  fee,  donation  etc,  by  many  of  such  self  

financing  institutions,  has  kept  the  meritorious  financially  

poor students away from those institutions.   Pressure, it  is  

also seen, is being extended by various institutions, for the  

additional intake of students, not always for the benefit of the  

student community and thereby serve the community, but for  

their own betterment.

25. We  are  not  commenting  upon  the  acceptability,  or  

otherwise,  of  the  charges  leveled  against  the  Minister,  

bureaucrats  or  the Chairman of  the College.   But  the  fact  

remains,  the  CBI  after  conducting  an  investigation  had  to  

charge-sheet  them under  Section  120B,  468,  471 IPC  and  

Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.  CBI’s  

investigation prima facie  establishes the criminal conspiracy  

between the  Chairman of  the  College and the  then Union  

Minister of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India,

Page 20

20

New Delhi along with the then Deputy Secretary, Ministry of  

Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, two doctors, one is the  

head of Nephrology VMMV and  Safdarjung Hospital and the  

other  is  Professor  of  Department  of  Community  Medicine,  

VMMC and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi which lead to the  

issuance of the order passed for the additional intake of 50  

students for the academic year 2008-09 on 26.09.2008.  For  

the prosecution of both the doctors necessary prior sanction  

was obtained from the competent authority by the CBI.   

-

26. The  CBI,  in  its  charge-sheet,  points  out  serious  

infirmities in the report submitted by the central team, which  

conducted the inspection of the College on 25.09.2008, which  

are as follow:

“The above chart  clearly  proves that  accused Dr.  Vindu  Amitabh  and  accused  Dr.  S.K.Rasania  were  party to the larger conspiracy  and they deliberately  by way of limiting the shortage of faculty to 2% in  their  report;  had  glossed  over  the  glaring  deficiencies in the strength of the faculty members  (15% i.e. 17 out of 115) and thereby, facilitated the  private College in getting permission of the Central  Govt.

Page 21

21

Their involvement in the criminal conspiracy is  further  established  by  the  fact  that  during  the  inspection they did not ask the faculty members as  to whether they (faculty members) were full timers  or  part-timers/merely  called  to  make  up  the  members  for  the  purpose  of  inspection.   The  investigation has established that at least 5 doctors,  namely, Dr. Harbeer Singh Sodhi, Dr. Anil Madan, Dr.  Birendra Kumar Sinha,  Dr.  Jamaludin and Dr.  Shiv  Nath Banerjee, who have been shown as full time  faculty  members  and  residents  in  the  records  of  Rohilkhand  Medical  College,  Bareily  during  2008,  have confirmed that they had never worked as full- timers  in  the said  College during 2008,  but  were  rather, visiting faculty.  These facts prove that the  inspection report of accused Dr. Vindu Amitabh and  accused  Dr.  S.K.  Rasania  was  perfunctory  and  biased in favour to the private Medical College.

The  investigation  further  disclosed  that  accused  Dr.  Vindu  Amitabh  and  accused  Dr.  S.K.  Rasania  have  claimed  to  have  done  personal  inspection of the -

wards  and  the  departments.   In  their  inspection report, they mentioned that the presence  (of  patients  in  the  OPDs  of  all  Departments  was  good, the bed occupancy was about 90% and that  the ICU was full to its capacity.  However, during the  investigation , physical verification of 14 patients,  who were shown present in  the OPD registers  on  the  date  of  inspection,  i.e.  25.09.2003,  was  got  conducted through the Postal Deptt. on the random  basis.  It was revealed that 09 of them were fake or  non-existent.  The claim of the accused doctors of  the  Central  Team  of  having  done  personal  inspection of the wards and the departments, which  was one of the important criteria, on the basis of  which they gave a green signal to the College, thus  turns out to be devoid of merit and a falsehood.

Page 22

22

The  investigation  further  revealed  that  the  Central  Team  comprising  of  accused  Dr.  Vindu  Amitabh and accused Dr. S.K. Rasania has stated in  its  report that  it  accepted the photocopies of the  declaration forms, submitted to MCI, for verification.  During the investigation, it has been revealed that  declaration  forms  are  provided  by  the  College  concerned,  include details  of  all  faculty members,  their  educational  qualification,  appointment letter,  identification  documents  (like  PAN  card,  etc.)  documents  in  support  of  their  residence  in  the  Medical College (like ration card, in order to certify  their being permanent faculty members there).

During  the  investigation,  5  so  called  faculty  members (Dr. Harbeer Singh Sodhi, Dr. Anil Madan,  Dr. Birendra Kumar Sinha, Dr. Jamaludin and Dr. Shiv  Nath Banerjee)  have stated that  they used to be  called only for the inspections of the said College.  They  were  at  best,  visiting  faculty  members.  Incidentally,  the  MCI  rules  have  not  provision  for  part-timers or visiting faculty members.  Though the  -

said 5 doctors have owned their signatures on  their Declaration Forms, they have denied receiving  the appointment letters shown to be annexed with  their respective declaration forms.  They have also  stated that the ration cards, residential certificates,  Form-16 (Income Tax)  etc.  shown as  having been  issued in their names, were never given to them.  Besides,  it  has  been  found  that  they  are  all  bogus/fake and forged, as they (the doctors) were  neither  resident  on  the  addresses  shown  in  the  records  nor  had they  ever  applied  for  any  ration  card.   The  District  Supply  Officer,  Bareilly  has  denied their issuance and confirmed that the said  ration cards are fake and forged.  It is pertinent to  mention that the fake ration cards have been used

Page 23

23

by the College authorities to falsely establish before  the MCI Inspectors that th said doctors were their  permanent faculty members.  Similarly no Form-16  was ever issued to them by the College.

The investigation further disclosed that in case  of  the  aforesaid  doctors,  the  appointment  letters  were issued in their name by the College authorities  without  their  knowledge  and  the  details  of  appointments do not  even bear  the signatures of  their  doctors/employees  of  the  College  in  the  acceptable column.  This proves the fabrication and  use  of  (forged)  documents  by  the  College  authorities,  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  the  approval of Govt. of India on the recommendations  of MCI/Central Team deputed by GOI.  However, the  accused doctors i.e. Dr. Vindu Amitabh and Dr. S.K.  Rasania  of  the  Central  Team in  pursuance  of  the  criminal conspiracy did not confirm the genuineness  of the documents put up by the College authorities  and  without  verifying  the  documents  accepted  photocopies of the Declaration Forms and furnished  a positive report in favour of the College on the very  next  day.   It  is  pertinent  to  mention that  despite  mentioning about the presence -

of such doctors, who were even practicing in  Bareilly  and  the  non-production  of  the  original  appointment letters, even when asked for, the said  Central Team still went ahead to give a clean chit to  the College. ”

27. We can also take judicial notice of the fact that many a  

times  the  medical  colleges  and  engineering  colleges  and  

others are being established after availing large amounts by  

way  of  loans  from  the  financial  institutions  and  other

Page 24

24

borrowings, with no funds of their own, and once the college  

gets approval and students are admitted, loan availed of is  

being  repaid  from  the  capitation  fee  charged  from  the  

students and ultimately that amount constitute their capital.  

Many a times, even without any sufficient facilities they put  

pressure  on  the  various  agencies  and  the  Central  

Government  and  get  approval  overlooking  the  regulatory  

authority,  like  MCI,  which  adversely  affects  the  quality  of  

medical education in this country.  For instance, the MCI has  

taken in the instant case a consistent view and sent negative  

reports to the Central  Government,  but overlooking all  the  

reports submitted by the MCI, the Central Government got a  

report of its own and granted permission vide its letter dated  

26.09.2008.   CBI  in  its  charge-sheet  has categorically  and  

clearly reported that this was done on the basis of bogus,  

fake  and  forged  records.   CBI  noticed  that  the  college  

authorities had produced fabricated and forged documents  

before the inspection team and the team failed to verify the  

correctness  or  otherwise  of  those  documents.   CBI  

investigation has revealed that fraud has been practiced by

Page 25

25

the Central team as well as the college to get the sanction for  

the 3rd batch of MBBS students for the academic year 2008-

09.

DUTY OF INSPECTION TEAM:

28. The Medical Council Act, 1956, especially Section 10A,  

mandates  that  when  a  new  medical  college  is  to  be  

established  or  the  number  of  seats  to  be  increased,  the  

permission  of  the  Central  Government  is  a  pre-requisite.  

Section 19A obliges the MCI to prescribe minimum required  

standards  for  medical  education  and  the  recommendation  

made by MCI to the Central Government carry considerable  

weight,  it  being  an  Expert  Body.   MCI  had  prescribed  the  

regulation  –  “Minimum  Standard  Requirements  for  the  

Medical  College  for  100  Admissions  Annually  Regulations,  

1999” which is germane for our case, was published in the  

Gazette  of  India  dated  29.1.2000.   In  order  to  verify  the  

minimum requirements,  MCI  gets the inspection conducted  

by Inspectors, who are experts, submit their reports on the

Page 26

26

availability of the staff - teaching and residents - and other  

infrastructural  facilities,  clinical  availability,  etc.  as  per  the  

regulations.    

29. We notice, in this case, constantly on all the occasions,  

the  MCI  Team  decided  to  recommend  to  the  Central  

Government  not  to  renew permission  for  admission  of  the  

third batch for the academic year 2008-09.   Consistent stand  

of the MCI was communicated to the Central Government on  

various occasions, but without even ascertaining their view, a  

Central  Team was  appointed,  got  a  favourable  report  and  

permission was accorded by the Central Government for the  

year  2008-09,  which  was  the  subject  matter  of  CBI  

investigation.  

30. We have now to examine the legality of decision of the  

MCI taken on 13.07.2013 in the light of the above factual and  

legal scenario.  We have already indicated that when sanction  

was accorded on 20.06.2013 it was categorically stated by  

the  MCI  that  the  same  was  accorded  subject  to  certain  

conditions.   It  was  stated  therein  that  in  case  false/wrong

Page 27

27

declaration  or  fabricated  documents  have  been  used  for  

procuring  permission  of  the  Board  of  Governors  of  the  

increased intake and if said misconduct was brought to the  

notice or comes to the knowledge of the MCI, at any stage  

during  the  current  academic  year  (2013-14)  

institution/college would not  be liable  to  be considered for  

renewal  of  the permission against  increased intake for  the  

next academic year and that renewal of permission against  

the increased intake for the academic year 2013-14 and for  

the next academic year and the same would be liable to be  

revoked.

31. Having  received  the  letter  of  the  CBI  as  well  as  the  

charge-sheet  the  impugned  order  dated  13.07.2013  was  

issued by the MCI revoking the letter of permission granted  

for the academic year 2013-14.

32. We are of the view that the above decision taken by the  

MCI  is  in  accordance  with  the  Establishment  of  Medical  

Colleges Regulation (Amendment 2010 Part II).  The above-

mentioned Regulation was issued by the MCI in exercise of its

Page 28

28

powers  under  Section  33  of  the  IMC  Act,  1956  with  the  

previous sanction of the Central Government.  Clause 8.3 of  

the Regulation deals with the Grant of Permission, sub-clause  

8(3)(1)(d) deals with the colleges which are found to have  

employed  teachers  with  faked/forged  documents.   Those  

provisions are extracted herein below:

“8(3)(1)(d)   Colleges  which  are  found  to  have  employed teachers with faked/forged documents:

If it is observed that any institute is found to have  employed a teacher with faked/forged documents  and have submitted the Declaration Form of such  a teacher, such an institute will not be considered  for renewal of permission/recognition for award of  M.B.B.S.  degree/processing  the  applications  for  postgraduate courses for two Academic Years – i.e.  that  Academic Year  and the next  Academic Year  also.    

However,  the  office  of  the  Council  shall  ensure  that such inspections are not carried out at least 3  days before upto 3 days after important religious  and festival holidays declared by the Central/State  Government.”

33. Learned  senior  counsel  for  the  petitioner,  as  already  

indicated, submitted that only if the Chairman of the College  

is convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction in a criminal

Page 29

29

investigation  then  only  the  sanction  accorded  could  be  

revoked.  Such an argument was raised relying upon 2013  

Regulations, which in our view, would not apply to the facts  

of  this  case.   Regulation  3  of  Regulations  2013  reads  as  

follow:

“3.   Eligibility  to  make  application  :  (1)  the  application for enhance of annual intake capacity in  the existing Medical Colleges may be made by the  recognizations  that  have  established  the  Medical  College to the Board of Governors in supersession of  the  Medical  Council  of  India.   The  format  of  application  for  Government  and  non-governmental  owned Medical  College is  prescribed in  Schedule I  appended to these Regulations.

(2)   Only  such  existing  Medical  Colleges  shall  be  eligible to apply under these Regulations that enjoy  minimum ten  years  of  standing  from the  date  of  grant  of  initial  letter  of  permission by the Central  Government and the MBBS qualification awarded by  them stands included in  the First  Schedule of  the  Indian  Medical  Council  Act,  1956  (Act  No.102  of  1956).

(3)  The Medical Colleges with an annual intake of 50  or more but below 100 MBBS seats shall be eligible  to apply for enhance for annual intake capacity to  100, as one-time measure.

- (4)  The Medical Colleges with an annual intake of  100  or  more  but  below  150  MBBS seats  shall  be  eligible to apply for enhancement for annual intake  capacity to 150, as one-time measure.

Page 30

30

(5)   Such  Medical  Colleges  that  have  not  been  granted  letter  of  permission  by  the  Board  of  Governors in Super-session of the Medical Council of  India  in  accordance  with  clause  8(1)(3)(d)  of  the  Establishment of Medical Colleges Regulations, 1999  (notified  in  the  Official  Gazette  on  16.04.2010)  and/or the person who has established the Medical  College has been convicted by a Court of Competent  jurisdiction  in  a  criminal  investigation  initiated  by  the Central Bureau of Investigation or Police.”

34. Clause (2) of Regulation 3 clearly states that only such  

medical  colleges  shall  be  eligible  under  these  Regulations  

that enjoy minimum 10 years of standing from the date of  

grant  of  initial  letter  of  permission  by  the  Central  

Government.  So far as the petitioner is concerned, they have  

completed only eight years, consequently, Regulations 2013  

would not apply to them.   

35. The  petitioners  are  governed  by  Establishment  of  

Medical  Colleges Regulations,  (Amendment),  2010 (Part  II),  

especially clause 8(3)(1)(d), in the event of which, when MIC  

finds that the college has employed fake/forged documents  

for renewal of -

Page 31

31

permission/recognition for processing applications etc.,  that  

institute  will  not  be  able  to  be  considered  for  renewal  of  

permission/  recognition   for  award  of  MBBS  Degree/  

processing the application for post-graduate courses for two  

academic  years  i.e.  that  academic  year  and  the  next  

academic  year.   In  this  case,  CBI  letter  was  received  on  

11.07.2013 by the MCI and it was placed before the Board of  

Governors  on  12.07.2013  and  the  revocation  order  was  

passed on 13.07.2013 revoking the renewal of permission for  

the 2nd batch of students against the increased intake from  

100 to 150 students for the academic year 2013-14.   

36. We are of the considered view that the MCI need not  

wait till the culmination of the trial initiated on the basis of  

the charge-sheet  filed by the CBI.   The investigation by a  

premier agency like the CBI has prima facie revealed that the  

college has used fake and forged materials to get sanction for  

the intake for the year 2008-09, in our view, that is sufficient  

for the MCI to take action in accordance with the Regulations  

8(1)(3)(d) of Regulations 2013.

Page 32

32

37. We are also not impressed by the argument raised by  

Mr. Amrendra Sharan, learned senior counsel appearing for  

the  students  that  they  have  already  joined  the  course  on  

10.07.2013.  The information brochure issued by the UPCMET  

refers to two important dates.  The important dates are the  

date  of  results  declaration  as  15.06.2013  and  counseling  

would start after 15.07.2013.  If that be so, we fail to see how  

students  could  be  admitted  on  10.07.2013.   Counsel,  

however,  made reference to the newspaper ‘Dainik Jagran’  

where it is indicated that the first counseling would be on July  

5,  2013.   We  cannot  give  sanctity  to  that  news  items  

compared to the information brochure published by the U.P.  

Unaided Medical Colleges Welfare Association for the conduct  

of UPCMET.  Even otherwise, in our view, once the medical  

council  finds  that  the  sanction  had  been  obtained  on  the  

basis of fake and forge documents, clause 8(3)(1)(d) kicks in  

and the fraud unravels everything.   We make it clear that the  

criminal  case  charge-sheeted by the CBI  will,  however,  be

Page 33

33

disposed of uninfluenced by observations, if any, made by us  

in this judgment.   

COURT’S CONCERN

38. We think, this is an apt occasion to ponder over whether  

we have achieved the desired goals, eloquently highlighted  

by the Constitution Bench judgments of this Court in T.M.A.  

Pai Foundation and others v.  State of Karnataka and  

others  (2002) 8 SCC 481 and P.A. Inamdar and others  v.  

State of Maharashtra and others (2005) 6 SCC 537. TMA  

Pai Foundation case (supra) has stated that there is nothing  

wrong  if  the  entrance  test  being  held  by  self  financial  

institutions or by a group of institutions but the entrance test  

they  conduct  should  satisfy  the  triple  test  of  being  fair,  

transparent  and  not  exploitative.   TMA  Pai  Foundation  

(supra)  and  Inamdar (supra)  repeatedly  stated  that  the  

object  of  establishing  an  educational  institution  is  not  to  

make profit and imparting education is charitable in nature.  

Court  has  repeatedly  said  that  the  common entrance  test  

conducted by private educational  institutions  must  be one

Page 34

34

enjoined  to  ensure  the  fulfillment  of  twin  object  of  

transparency and merits and no capitation fee be charged  

and there should not be profiteering.  Facts, however, give  

contrary  picture.   In  Inamdar,  this  Court,  in  categorical  

terms, has declared that no capitation fee be permitted to be  

charged and no seat can be permitted to be appropriated by  

payment of capitation fee.   

39. The CBI’s investigation, however, reveals a sorry state of  

affairs,  which  is  an  eye-opener  for  taking  appropriate  

remedial measures in future so that medical education may  

attain  the  goals  envisaged  by  the  IMC  Act  and  the  

Regulations and serve the community.   CBI had to charge-

sheet none other than the then Union Minister of Health and  

Family  Welfare,  itself  which  depict  how  the  educational  

system in this  country is  deteriorating.  Many of  regulatory  

bodies like MCI, AICTE, UGC etc. were also under serious clout  

in the recent years.  CBI, in the year 2010, had to arrest the  

President of the MCI for accepting bribe to grant recognition  

to one Medical College in Punjab.  Later, it is reported that

Page 35

35

the CBI  found that the President of the MCI and its family  

members  possessed  disproportionate  assets  worth  of  24  

crores.    We have referred to these instances only to indicate  

the falling standards of our educational system at the highest  

level, sometime even at the level of the Central Government  

making a serious inroad to the right to life guaranteed to the  

citizens of the country under Article 21 of the Constitution of  

India.   

40. Mushrooming of large number of medical, engineering,  

nursing  and  pharmaceutical  colleges,  which  has  definitely  

affected the quality of education in this country, especially in  

the medical field which call for serious introspection. Private  

medical educational institutions are always demanding more  

number of seats in their colleges even though many of them  

have no sufficient infrastructural facilities, clinical materials,  

faculty members, etc.  Reports appear in every now and then  

that  many of  the private institutions  which are conducting  

medical colleges are demanding lakhs and sometimes crores  

of rupees for MBBS and for post-graduate admission in their

Page 36

36

respective colleges.  Recently, it is reported that few MBBS  

seats were sold in private colleges of Chennai.  We cannot  

lose sight of the fact that these things are happening in our  

country irrespective of the constitutional pronouncements by  

this Court in  TMA Pai Foundation  that there shall  not be  

any profiteering or acceptance of capitation fee etc.  Central  

Government, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Central  

Bureau of Investigation or the Intelligence Wing have to take  

effective steps to undo such unethical practices or else self-

financing  institutions will  turn  to  be  students  financing  

institutions.

41. We  notice  that  the  current  policy  of  the  Central  

Government in the higher education is to provide autonomy  

of institutions, but adoption of unfair  practices is a serious  

violation of the law. Few States, like Karnataka, Tamil Nadu,  

Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Kerala, Delhi etc. have passed  

some legislation to prohibit  demand/collection of capitation  

fee which have no teeth, the institutions who indulges in such  

practices can get away by paying some fine, which is meager.

Page 37

37

42. We,  therefore,  emphasise  the  extreme necessity  of  a  

Parliamentary Legislation for curbing these unfair practices,  

which is the demand of our society. “The Prohibition of Unfair  

Practices  in  Technical  Educational  Institutions,  Medical  

Educational Institutions and University Bill, 2010” has already  

been  presented  to  both  the  Houses  of  Parliament.   It  is  

reported that the States have welcomed such a legislation,  

but  no  further  follow  up  action  has  been  taken.   We  are  

confident, earnest efforts would be made to bring in proper  

legislation, so that unethical and unfair practices prevalent in  

higher technical and medical institutions can be effectively  

curbed in the larger public interest.   

43. We, therefore, find no good reason to invoke Article 32  

of  the  Constitution  of  India  and  none  of  the  fundamental  

rights  guaranteed  to  the  petitioners  stand  violated.  The  

Petition, therefore, lacks merits and is dismissed.     

……………………….…J. (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

………………………….J.       (A.K. Sikri)

Page 38

38

New Delhi, September 06, 2013