REPORTABLE  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1001   of   2017

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan University  & Another        .... Petitioners    

Versus

Union of India & Others       …. Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 731   of   2018

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

1. Permission was granted for the establishment of Petitioner No.2-

R.K.D.F.  Medical  College  Hospital  and  Research  Centre  (hereinafter

referred  to  as  “the  College)  by  Respondent  No.1  on  the

recommendation of Respondent No.2-herein- Medical Council of India,

with an intake capacity of 150 MBBS seats annually for the academic

year  2014-15.  An  inspection  was  conducted  on  23rd and  24th of

February, 2015 for grant of renewal for admitting the 2nd Batch of 150

MBBS students for the academic year 2015-16.  The Medical Council of

1

India (MCI)  recommended   to    the    Central  Government              

to reject the permission for admission of the 2nd Batch of 150 MBBS

students for the academic year 2015-16 in view of the deficiencies

found in the Assessment Report.  A review/ reassessment was done

by the Executive Committee of Respondent No.2 at the request of

the Central Government.  The Executive Committee of Respondent

No.2  reconsidered  the  matter  and  recommended  to  the  Central

Government not to renew the permission for the 2nd Batch of MBBS

students for the academic session 2015-16.  There was a further

recommendation that the College should be debarred from making

admissions for the next two academic sessions.          The Central

Government accepted the recommendation made by Respondent

No.2 and rejected the request for renewal.    Yet another review/

reassessment was done by the Central Government pursuant to the

directions issued by this Court in SLP (C) No.19543 of 2015 vide

order dated 8th September, 2015.  A Committee was constituted to

afford an opportunity of hearing to the College.  The College was

denied permission to admit the 2nd Batch of the MBBS students for

the  year  2015-16  by  an  order  of  Respondent  No.1  dated  28th

September, 2015.  The High Court of Delhi quashed the said order

2

dated 28th September, 2015 and directed the Central Government

to examine the matter afresh vide its order dated 29th December,

2015  in  Writ  Petition  (C)  No.  9663  of  2015.    The  Central

Government reiterated its decision by an order dated 1st January,

2016 to not grant permission to the College to admit the 2nd Batch

of MBBS students.  One more inspection was ordered by the High

Court of Madhya Pradesh on            11th May, 2016 in Writ Petition

(C) No.21223 of 2015.  Respondent No.2 filed SLP (C) No.14729 of

2016 challenging the order  dated 11th May,  2016 passed by the

High  Court  of  Madhya  Pradesh.   On  15th July,  2016,  this  Court

directed that    a fresh inspection should be conducted.  The order

dated      15th July,  2016  was  modified  by  this  Court  on  9th

September, 2016 by which the Oversight Committee was requested

to consider the matter pertaining to the admission of students in

the College for the year 2016-17.   

2. By  an  order  dated  27th September,  2016,  the  Oversight

Committee accorded approval to the College for admission of students

for the year 2016-17.  The Oversight Committee directed the College

to  rectify  the  deficiencies  and  submit  a  compliance  report  to  the

Ministry of Health & Family Welfare by 27th September,  2016.  The

3

College was informed that          a bank guarantee of Rs. Two Crores in

favour  of Respondent No.2 has to be furnished by 27th September,

2016.  It was stated that  non-compliance of the conditions imposed

by  the  Oversight  Committee  would  result  in  the  College  getting

debarred from fresh intake for two years commencing          2017-18.

The 2nd Batch of 150 students for the academic year 2016-17 were

admitted pursuant to the conditional permission for renewal granted

by the Central Government.   

3. A  joint  verification  inspection  was  conducted  on  5th and  6th

January,  2017 for  renewal  of  permission  to  the  3rd Batch  of  MBBS

students for the academic year 2017-18.  Finding gross deficiencies in

the  infrastructure,  clinical  material,  teaching  faculty  and  other

physical facilities in the College,                   the Executive Committee

of  Respondent  No.2  concluded  that  the  undertaking  given  by  the

College  on  28th September,  2016  was  breached.   The  Committee

decided  to  recommend  to  the  Central  Government to  debar  the

College from admitting students for the academic years 2017-18 and

2018-19.            The  Central  Government  accepted  the

recommendations  made  by  Respondent  No.2  and  by  an

order  dated  31st May,  2017  debarred  the  College  from  making

4

admissions for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19.  The High Court of

Madhya Pradesh allowed Writ Petition (C) No.8100 of 2017 filed by the

College questioning the legality of order of the Central Government

dated 31st May,  2017.   The College was  permitted  to  provisionally

admit 150 students.  Aggrieved by the judgment dated 21st July, 2017

of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Respondent No.2 filed SLP (C)

No.20400 of 2017 before this Court.  The re-inspection as directed by

the High Court of Madhya Pradesh was confirmed by this Court by an

order dated 14th August, 2017.  It was made clear in the said order

that the admission of students shall be completely provisional, being

dependent on the result of the inspection.   It was further mentioned

that the admission of students shall be liable to be cancelled if the

College fails in the inspection and the students will not be entitled to

claim any equity.               The students were directed to be informed

by the Counselling committee about the said condition.  An inspection

was scheduled to be conducted on 14th & 15th September, 2017 for

renewal of the 4th Batch of students in College for the MBBS course.

According to Respondent No.2, the said inspection had to be aborted

midway as the assessors were manhandled and physically forced to

leave  the  College.   At  the  request  made  by  the  College,  another

5

inspection was conducted on the 25th & 26th September, 2017.  The

Executive Committee of Respondent No.2 considered the Assessment

Report at its meeting held on 26th September, 2017 and decided that

admissions of the 4th Batch of 150 MBBS students for the year 2017-18

should be cancelled in view of the following deficiencies found in the

inspection conducted on 25th & 26th September, 2017:  

“I. Bed Occupancy at 10 a.m. on day of assessment was   

01.07% (i.e. 7 out of 410). II. There  were  no  Major  Surgical  operation  on  day  of   

assessment.   III. There  was  NIL  Normal  Delivery  or  LSCS  on  day  of   

assessment.   IV. Data  of  Clinical  material  like  Casualty  attendance,   

Discharges, Major & Minor Operations, Radiological   

Investigations as provided by the Institute are inflated.  V. ICUs:  There  was  NIL  patient  in  NICU/  PICU  &  only  1   

patient each in ICCU, MICU, SICU on day of assessment.  VI. Blood  Bank:  NIL  Unit  was  dispensed  on  day  of   

assessment.   VII. Deficiency of faculty is 15.65% as detailed in the report.  VIII. Shortage of residents is 40% as detailed in the report.  IX. Diet order was not recorded in the register on day of

assessment. X. MRD is partly manual.  XI. Facilities in Central Research Laboratory are not adequate.

6

There are NIL ongoing or completed research projects.  XII. RHTC: Cold Chain equipment are not available.  Survey  /

MCH / Immunization / Family Welfare registers  are  not

available.  No activities under National  Health  Programmes

are carried out.  XIII. UHCC: Cold Chain equipment are not available.  Survey  /

MCH / Immunization / Family Welfare Registers  are  not

available.”      

4. The  Executive  Committee  of  Respondent  No.2  further  decided

that  Regulation  8(3)(1)(b)1 of  the  Establishment  of  Medical  College

Regulations, 1999 (“the MCI Regulations”) should be invoked in view

of the deficiencies found in the bed occupancy and residents.  The

said  decision  of  Respondent  No.2  was  approved  by  the  Oversight

Committee.   1  Regulation 8 (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 [as per latest time schedule] 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.

(b)- Colleges in the stage of III & IV renewal (i.e. Admission of fourth & fifth batch):  [If  it  is  observed  during  any  inspection  of  the  Institute  that  the  deficiency  of

teaching faculty and / or Residents is more than 20% and / or bed occupancy is < 65%, compliance of rectification of deficiencies from such an institute will not be considered for renewal of permission in that Academic Year.]

7

5. Respondent  No.2  directed  the  College  to  discharge  all  the

students admitted for the academic year 2017-18 by its letter dated

29th September,  2017.   The  Principal  Secretary  (Medical  Division

Department),  Government  of  Madhya  Pradesh-  Respondent  No.3-

herein was requested to cancel the admission of students made in the

College for the academic year 2017-18.   

6.    The  communications  dated  29th September,  2017  to  the

College and the Respondent No.3 are subject matter of challenge in

this Writ Petition.  The College sought a further direction that a fresh

inspection  should  be  conducted  strictly  in  accordance  with  the

Assessor’s  Guide.   While issuing notice on 23rd October,  2017,  this

Court  stayed  the  operation  of  the  communication  dated  29th

September,  2017.   On 24th October,  2017 it  was  clarified that  the

students admitted as per the order dated 14th August,  2017 in SLP

(Civil)  No.  20400 of 2017 shall  be permitted to continue with their

studies.  Thereafter, on        a consideration of the Assessment Report

pursuant to the inspection dated  25th & 26th September, 2017 and the

submissions made on behalf of both sides, this Court by          an order

dated 14th December, 2017  directed the admission of the students to

8

be cancelled.  This Court took note of the order dated 14 th August,

2017 which made the admission of students subject to the result of

the inspection.  As the students were found not to be complicit and

not  having  any  role  to  play  in  non-compliance  of  the  requisite

standards by the College,    this Court considered it expedient to direct

the students to be accommodated in other colleges.  By referring to

the Assessment Report pursuant to the inspection done on 25th & 26th

September, 2017, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2

submitted that the College was indulging in fraud by showing persons

who  were  not  sick  as  patients  only  for  the  purpose  of  showing

compliance  of  the  minimum  requirements.   The  learned  Senior

Counsel  appearing  for  the  College refuted  the said  contention and

argued that all the patients were genuine.  As this Court was in no

position to  determine the  truth  or  otherwise  of  the  allegations,  an

enquiry  was  directed  to  be  conducted  into  the  correctness  of  the

statistics, reports and material placed before this Court by the College

along with the Writ Petition.  For the said purpose, a committee was

constituted by this Court.  A senior officer deputed by the Director,

Central  Bureau  of  Investigation  (CBI),  was  directed  to  head  the

Committee which would have two doctors of the All India Institute of

9

Medical Sciences (AIIMS) as its members.       It is relevant to note that

in the said order                              dated 14th December, 2017 it was

made  clear  that  the  College  may  have  to  face prosecution  under

Section 193 of the Indian Penal  Code,  1860 (IPC) if  the allegations

made by Respondent No.2 were found to be correct.  The decision to

constitute                   a committee by this Court was arrived at after a

thorough examination of the voluminous material placed on record by

the College.   The material  was  constituted  of  several  photographs

showing patients occupying the beds and their case sheets.   A bare

perusal of the photographs did not convince us that the patients were

genuine.  After  a  close scrutiny of  the case sheets,  we had serious

doubts about the necessity for admission of persons suffering from

minor ailments as in-patients.   

7. The  students  who  were  admitted  in  the  College  for  the  year

2017-18 were directed to be adjusted in  the other  private medical

colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh for the academic year 2018-

19 by an order passed by this Court on 3rd July, 2018.  The students

were  directed  to  pay  the  fees  to  the  colleges  to  which  they  are

admitted.  It was mentioned in the said order dated 3rd July, 2018 that

the  entitlement  of  the  students  for  refund  of  the  fee  paid  for

10

admission to the College shall be adjudicated at the final hearing of

the Writ Petition.   

8. The Committee appointed by this Court on                      14 th

December,  2017 submitted its  Report on 12th July,  2018.     It  was

mentioned in  the Report  inter  alia,  that  the  Committee visited the

College on 29th January, 2018 around 11.30 a.m. and found that the

patient  waiting area for  OPD Registration was totally  empty.   After

visiting several wards in the hospital, the Committee found that the

attendance of patients was abysmally low and the patients shown to

be admitted in OPDs/ wards were not in conformity with the actual

number of patients.  It was further stated in the Report that a scrutiny

of the medical case files of the in-patients showed that their admission

was not necessary.  The case duty rosters for duty doctors as well as

nurses were not available in the wards and the junior doctors on duty

were not able to identify and confirm who had written the case notes/

progress notes on the case files.   

9. The Committee collected the medical sheets of 435 patients who

were shown to have been admitted in the hospital on the date of the

inspection conducted on 25th & 26th September, 2017.  The hard disk

that was obtained from the hospital for verification of the details of

11

patients who were admitted prior to 7th January, 2018 was edamined

by the CBI.    It was found that the hard disk was empty and did not

contain any data.  The conclusion of the Committee after a detailed

enquiry revealed the following:  

“i. The petitioner college has claimed that                6

doctors namely, Dr. Ritesh Kumawat, Dr. MR Gaikwad,  SB

Petkar, Dr. Deepak Kaladagi,                  Dr.  Jeetendra  Gupta

and Dr. Ram Ballabh Thakur couldn’t  attend  the  MCI

inspection on 25.09.2017 as they  were  summoned  by

Court/Police in connection  with  a  motor  accident  case.    

However,  such claim was found to be incorrect.   

ii. All of the six doctors namely, Dr. Ritesh Kumawat,  Dr.

MR Gaikwad, SB Petkar,              Dr.  Deepak  Kaladagi,  Dr.

Jeetendra Gupta,      Dr.  Ram  Ballabh  Thakur,  when

examined, denied having received any notice from   

police regarding the motor accident.  

iii. Out of the 10 doctors (Sr. Residents/                     Jr.   

Residents) who were not counted by the assessors   

on the strength of the petitioner college  as

faculty on the ground that they were not  residing  in

12

the college hostel, 9 doctors could  be  contacted,

Examination of those 9 doctors revealed :  

• 07 doctors confirmed during enquiry that they were

not staying in the hostel in the college campus and

they themselves had conveyed the MCI assessors in

this regard. It is mandatory to stay in hostel as per

Assessor’s  Guide  issued  by  MCI  for  academic  year

2018-19.  

• The other two resident doctors, i.e.               Dr.

Meenal Parmar and Dr. Arpita Mishra, stated that they

were staying in the hostel but were not considered on

the strength of the college by the MCI assessors.   

iv. Out  of  the  8  resident  doctors  which  petitioner   

college  had  claimed  to  be  on  night  duty  and  so   

couldn’t appear before MCI assessors by       11

AM, enquiry revealed that:  

• Out  of  the  above  mentioned  8  resident  doctors,  6

doctors stated that they were not on payroll  of the

petitioner  college  on  the  day  of  inspection  i.e.

25.09.2017.  Even 4 of those doctors had stated that

13

they never joined the hospital.   

• 1 doctor (Dr. Ritesh Kumawat) stated that he was not

present on the day of the inspection, i.e. 25.09.2017.

• And another doctor Dr. Devyani Patel was present on

25.09.2017 but she was rightly excluded by the MCI

assessors as she couldn’t make her presence by 12

noon (which was mandated as per Assessor’s Guide).  

v. The 3 doctors namely Dr. Priyank Jain, Dr. Manoj

Sahu and Dr. Amit Jain, who were not treated as  Sr.

Resident doctors by the MCI assessors  doesn’t  seem to  be

justifiable considering the fact that all three  of  them

were treated as Sr. Resident Doctors on earlier   

inspection on 05.01.2017. vi. Two tutors who have been shown as present in the   

assessment by the college had not attended  the

assessment proceedings on 25.09.2017. vii. Due to vague and incomplete type of the addresses   

mentioned in the record of the petitioner   

college, most of the patients could not  be  located

as merely the names of the colonies  and  sub  areas  have

been found to be mentioned on the patient case sheets.  In

14

the identified 21 patients, 8 are the  employees/   

students of various RKDF institutions.  

xiv. On  the  basis  of  the  medical  analysis  of  the  case   

sheets of the patients most doctors from AIIMS are  of

the similar view that it is doubtful that all these  patients

were actually admitted and that too  for  such  a  long

duration.      xv. Most of the doctors are also of the opinion that the   

range of cases shown to be admitted was grossly

inadequate for training of students.  xvi. The doctors were also of the opinion that in most  of

the case sheets prescriptions, operative notes,  etc.   

appears to have been written by the same person  in

a very unprofessional manner.  Also histopathological

reports are very sketchy and incomplete.   xvii. Dr.  S.C.  Sharma,  Professor  and  HoD,  ENT   

Department,  AIIMS  has  examined  14  medical   

sheets  of  the  patients  shown  on  bed  in  ENT   

Department of petitioner’s  college  on   

25/25.09.2017.  As per his  opinion  most  of  the   

patients appear to be fictitious.  

15

xviii. Dr. H.L. Nag, Professor, Orthopedics, AIIMS has

examined 52 medical sheets of the patients shown on bed in

Orthopedics Department of petitioner’s  college  on

25/26.09.2017. He held that  majority  of  those  cases  could

have been managed without hospital admissions.   xix. Dr. Naval Kishore Vikram, Professor General Medicine

AIIMS has examined 97 medical patients of General

Medicine and 12 patients of TB & & Chest Department who

were shown to be on bed on 25/26.09.2017.   He  has

concluded that it appears doubtful  that  those

patients were actually admitted in the hospital.   Most   

of the patients appear to be over  treated  by   

various medications, particularly antibiotics.  He

also held that most of the cases had limited number  of

diagnosis which is grossly inadequate  for  training  of

medical students.  

xx. Dr. Pankaj Hari, Professor Paediatrics Department,

AIIMS has examined 62 medical sheets of the  patients

shown on bed in Paediatrics Department of petitioner’s

college on 25/26.09.2017.  He concluded that  the   

16

admitted cases have limited diagnosis which is quite

inadequate for training of students in a medical college.  He

also raised doubt over the authenticity of those

medical files.     xxi. Dr.  Vinod  K.  Khetan,  Professor,  Department  of   

Dermatology and Venerelogy, AIIMS, examined           

10 medical sheets of the patients shown on bed in

Dermatology department of petitioner’s college  on   

25/2609.2017. He raised serious doubts  over  the   

authenticity of patient being actually  admitted.     He

also opined that the range of cases admitted and their

work- up is grossly inadequate for the training  of   

students.  xxii. Dr. Namrata Sharma, Professor, Deptt. of Opthalmic   

Sciences, AIIMS has concluded that in out of total 17  

cases, admission of the 02 patients  was  required

whereas in all other cases patient  could  have  been

managed under day care OPD.         xxiii. Dr. Mamta Sood, Professor, Deptt. of Psychiatry,

AIIMS examined 08 medical sheets of the patients shown   

on bed in Psychiatry Department of petitioner’s

17

college on 25th / 26.09.2017.  Though she mostly agreed

that the treatment shown to be given to the patients

was appropriate, but she opined that they didn’t

require to be admitted.       xxiv. Dr.  Ongikla  Bhutia,  Professor,  Division  of  Oral   

Maxillofacil Surgery, AIIMS examined 11 medical

sheets  of the patients shown on bed in Oral Maxillofacial

Surgery Department of petitioner’s college  on   

25/26.09.2017. The doctor opined that the  

diagnosis    appeared repetitive.    Neither  pre-

operative radiography nor post operative radiography

were found on record.  Consent from for the surgery was

also found to be absent in some cases.  xxv. Dr.  Deepika  Deka,  Professor,  Deptt.  of  Obstetrics  and

Gynaecology, AIIMS had examined 56  medical

sheets of the patients shown on bed in Obstetrics and  

Gynaecology Department of petitioner’s college on

25/26.09.2017.  She raised doubt  whether  actual

surgery was performed or not.  She  also  raised

doubt over the genuineness of the admissions  shown

for those patients.  

18

viii. Dr.  Subodh  Kumar,  Professor,  Deptt.  of  Surgical

Disciplines,  AIIMS  examined  96  medical  sheets  of  the

patients  on bed on 25/26.09.2017.   He raised serious

doubt  over  the  genuineness  of  patients  actually

admitted.  He also held that spectrum of cases shown to  

be admitted was grossly inadequate for training of

students.”           10. When the matter was listed on 5th December, 2018,      Shri Vivek

Tankha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the College, submitted

that the College intends to submit an apology for the lapses on their

part.  He requested us to give a quietus to this matter.  He submitted

that there are students presently studying in the institution who would

be affected by any adverse order passed against the College.   

11. It has been brought to our notice by the Respondent No.2- MCI

that during the inspection conducted on                 23 rd & 24th

February,  2015  for  the  purpose  of  granting  admission  for  the

academic year 2014-15, it  was found that there were patients who

were fake and others who had been admitted without any significant

illness.  The MCI was constrained to invoke Regulation 8(3)(1)(a)2 and 2  Regulation 8 (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

19

Regulation 8(3)(1)(d)3 of the MCI Regulations in view of the College

submitting  forged/  fake  documents  for  the  purpose  of  showing

compliance with the minimum requirements. A complaint was made

by Dr. A.K. Banerjee, Ex-Associate Professor of Surgery of the College

on 25th March, 2015 alleging that more than 50% of the doctors who

were  shown  as  full-time  Faculty  Members  were  full-time  private

practitioners.  Dr. Paresh Ruparel who was shown as a Professor of

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 [as per latest time schedule] 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.

  (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 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.]

3  Regulation 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  2  days  before  and  2  days  after  important  religious  and  festival holidays declared by the Central/State Govt.]  

Bracketed portions substituted/ modified/ aletered in terms of Gazette  Notification dated 18.03.2016.

20

Surgery  in  the  College  was  working  as  a  surgeon  at  V.S.  Hospital

affiliated to MHL Medial College, Ahmedabad and was also running a

private  hospital.                 Dr  Ruparel  was referred to  Ethics

Committee and he was suitably dealt with for misdemeanor.  Without

delving  deep  into  the  details  of  the  Report  submitted  by  the

Committee, it is clear that the College is guilty of practicing fraud on

this Court.   The conduct of the College administration in indulging in

manipulations and hoodwinking the authorities to project compliance

of the requisite minimum standards for admission of students does not

deserve to be condoned.                             The impunity with which

the College has manufactured records to convince us that they were

being unnecessarily hounded by the MCI in spite of their compliance

with the required standards is deprecated.  The brazen attempt by the

College  in  taking  this  Court  for  a  ride  by  placing  on  record

maneuvered documents to obtain a favourable order                 is a

clear-cut act of deceit.  The justification given by the College regarding

the absence of certain residents has turned out to be a concocted

story.  Had we not initiated an enquiry by the Committee of Experts,

the fraud played by the College on this Court would not have come to

light.  It is trite that every litigant has to approach the Court with clean

21

hands.   A  litigant  who  indulges  in  suppression  of  facts  and

misrepresentation is not entitled for any relief.   The conduct of the

College in this case to mislead this Court for the purpose of getting

a favourable order is reprehensible and the College deserves to be

dealt with suitably.       

12. In  Re.  Suo  Motu  Proceedings  against R.  Karuppan,

Advocate4, this Court observed as under:  

“13. Courts are entrusted with the powers of dispensation and

adjudication of justice of the rival claims of the parties besides

determining the criminal liability of the offenders for offences

committed against the society. The courts are further expected

to do justice quickly and impartially not being biased by any

extraneous considerations.  Justice dispensation system would

be wrecked if statutory restrictions are not imposed upon the

litigants, who attempt to mislead the court by filing and relying

upon false evidence particularly in cases,  the adjudication of

which is dependent upon the statement of facts. If the result of

the proceedings are to be respected, these issues before the

courts must be resolved to the extent possible in accordance 4  (2001) 5 SCC 289

22

with the truth. The purity of proceedings of the court cannot be

permitted to be sullied by a party  on frivolous,  vexatious  or

insufficient grounds or relying upon false evidence inspired by

extraneous  considerations  or  revengeful  desire  to  harass  or

spite  his  opponent.  Sanctity  of  the  affidavits  has  to  be

preserved and protected discouraging the filing of irresponsible

statements, without any regard to accuracy.”

In  Mohan Singh v. Amar Singh5 case, it was observed by this

Court : “36.  …Tampering  with  the  record  of  judicial  proceedings  and

filing of  false affidavit  in  a court  of  law has the tendency of

causing obstruction in the due course of justice. It undermines

and obstructs  free flow of  the unsoiled stream of  justice and

aims at striking a blow at the rule of law. The stream of justice

has to be kept clear and pure and no one can be permitted to

take liberties with it by soiling its purity.” 13. In the affidavit filed along with the Writ Petition,                Mr. S.S.

Kushwaha, Dean of the R.K.D.F. Medical College Hospital and Research

Centre  stated  that  the  contents  in  the  Writ  Petition  are  true  and

correct  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge and belief.   According to  the 5  (1998) 6 SCC 686  

23

College, the Assessment Report pursuant to the inspection conducted

on 25th and                     26 th September, 2017 was unfair as the

justification for the absence of six members of the faculty was not

accepted. The averment in the Writ Petition is to the effect that the

said six doctors who had received summons from the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Bairagarh were at the police station at 11 a.m. on        25 th

September, 2017 in connection with the complaint relating to  a motor

accident case.  The Committee enquired into the correctness of the

claim made by the College regarding the absence of the six faculty

members.   Mr.  Mohan Sharma,  Assistant  Sub-Inspector  of  Police of

Bairagarh Police Station stated that there was no such notice issued

for  summoning  the  six  doctors  to  the  police  station.   On  further

enquiry, the six doctors namely Dr. Ritesh Kumawat, Dr. MR Gaikwad,

SB Petkar, Dr. Deepak Kaladagi, Dr. Jeetendra Gupta and       Dr. Ram

Ballabh  Thakur  denied  having  received  any  notice  from the  police

station. Dr. Ritesh Kumawat further denied having filed any complaint

regarding the motor accident.       On the basis of the above findings

of the Committee, it is clear that a false statement has been made by

the College on the basis of a fabricated document. It was averred in

the            Writ Petition by the College that there were 365 patients in

24

the hospital at the time of inspection on 25th September, 2017      but

the  inspection  team recorded  that  there  were  only  seven  patients

available.  In support of the submission, reliance was placed on the

computerized data of the Medical Records Department.  The hard disk

that  was  collected  by  the  Committee  to  study  the  details  of  the

patients  who were  admitted  in  the  hospital  prior  to  January,  2018

turned out to be empty and no data could be retrieved.  The assertion

made by the College regarding the genuineness of the patients in the

hospital  turned out to be false in the enquiry conducted by    the

Committee.  The Committee had serious doubts whether the patients

were  actually  admitted.   Most  of  the  case  sheets,  prescriptions,

operative notes, etc. appeared to be written by the same person in a

very unprofessional manner.                   The histopathological reports

were found to be sketchy and incomplete.  On a thorough examination

of the case sheets,   the experts from AIIMS opined that admission of

the patients was unnecessary in a number of cases.  In view of the

fake  and  incomplete  addresses  mentioned  in  the  records  of  the

hospital, most of the patients could not be located. Only          21

patients  were  identified  and  8  out  of  these  turned  out  to  be

employees/ students of the College.  All this goes to show that the

25

College  has  indulged  in  large  scale  malpractices  in  showing

compliance of the minimum required standards to obtain permission

for admission of students.  The College further tried to mislead this

Court that it  is  compliant  in  all  respects,  to  get permission for  the

admission of students.   

14. The brazen manner in which the College has indulged in relying

upon manipulated records to mislead this  Court  for  the purpose of

getting  favourable  order  deserves  to  be  dealt  with  in  a  serious

manner.  We find that this is a fit case where        Mr. S.S. Kushwaha,

Dean of the College must be held liable for prosecution under Section

193 IPC.   

15. There  have been instances  of  errant  medical  colleges  making

admissions  to  the  medical  courses  without  obtaining  the  requisite

permission.  This Court came down heavily on such deviant colleges

by imposing penalties for the illegalities committed by them in the

matter of admission and for putting the students’ future in jeopardy.6

We have noticed                     a disturbing trend of some medical

colleges  in  projecting  fake  faculty  and  patients  for  obtaining

6  (2015) 4 SCC 580 ¶ 45.6 -Medical  Council  of India v. M.G.R. Educational & Research Institute University and (2016) 11 SCC 530 ¶31, 31.2 & 31.4 – Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS)

26

permission for  admission of students.   The Committee exposes the

evil design of the College in resorting to deceitful methods to cheat

the  authorities  concerned  and  this  Court  to  secure  permission  for

admission of students. Apart from the prosecution of the Dean, the

College is liable to be suitably punished for committing perjury.      

16. We  are  unable  to  persuade  ourselves  to  accept  the  apology

offered  on  behalf  of  the  College.  The  College  has  been  habitually

indulging in foul play which is clear from       the course of events in

2015  when  faculty  members  were  found  to  have  been  working

elsewhere and running hospitals.            The bravado shown by the

College in  an  attempt  to  cheat  the  MCI,  the  Government  and this

Court has to be condemned.  The Committee constituted by this Court

is due to the vehemence with which the Counsels appearing for the

College were trying to convince us that they are fully compliant with

all the requirements.  “Apology is an act of contrition. Unless apology

is offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace, the apology is

shorn of penitence and hence it is liable to be rejected. If the apology

is offered at the time when the contemnor finds that the court is going

to impose punishment it ceases to be an apology and becomes an act

27

of a cringing coward.7”  

17. The students who were admitted in the 1st Year MBBS Course in

the College for the academic year 2017-18 were duly cautioned and

informed that their admission was purely provisional and they cannot

claim any equity if  the College was later on found to be deficient.

They have been directed to be admitted in other colleges for the years

2018-19.                    In the process, students have lost a precious

academic year.  However, they are entitled for the refund of the fee

collected from them for admission to the College.   

18. For the aforementioned reasons, we pass the following order:

(i) Mr.  S.S.  Kushwaha,  Dean  of  the  R.K.D.F.  Medical  College

Hospital and Research Centre i.e.                        Petitioner No.2-

herein  is  liable  for  prosecution  under  Section  193  IPC.    The

Secretary General of this Court is directed to depute an Officer to

initiate the prosecution in a competent Court having jurisdiction at

Delhi.   

(ii) The College is  barred from making admissions for  the 1st

Year MBBS course for the next two years  i.e. 2018-19 and 2019-

2020.   

7  T N Godavarman Thirumalpad (102) v. Ashok Khot and Anr. (2006) 5 SCC 1 at Para 31

28

(iii) A penalty of Rs. Five Crores is imposed on the College for

playing  fraud  on  this  Court.   The  amount  may  be  paid  to  the

account of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.

(iv) The students are entitled to receive the refund of fee paid

by them for admission to the College for the academic year 2017-

19.  In addition, the College is directed to pay a compensation of

Rs. One Lakh to the said students.    

19. The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly.  

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 731 OF  2018:

The  Writ  Petition  is  hereby  dismissed  in  terms  of  the  above

judgment.   

                ...................................J.                                                                    [ S.A. BOBDE]

...................................J.                                                     [ L. NAGESWARA RAO ]    

               ..................................J.               [ R. SUBHASH  REDDY ]

New Delhi, January 17, 2019.

29