Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL CONTEMPT JURISDICTION

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.390 OF 2011

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4060 OF 2009

State of M.P. & Anr. … Petitioners

Versus

Suresh Narayan Vijayvargiya & Ors. … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

K.S. Radhakrishnan

1. We are, in this contempt petition, concerned with the  

question  whether  the  contemnors  have  violated  the  

interim  orders  passed  by  this  Court  on  27.5.2009  and  

27.1.2011 in Civil Appeal No. 4060 of 2009 in the matter  

of sharing of MBBS seats between the respondent private  

medical college and the State Government.

Page 2

2

2. Civil Appeal No. 4060 of 2009 was preferred by the  

respondents/contemnors herein, challenging the judgment  

of  the  High Court  of  Madhya Pradesh dated 15.5.2009,  

which  upheld  the  validity  of  the  Madhya  Pradesh  

(Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee) Act, 2007 (for  

short “AFRC Act”), empowering the State Government to  

fill  all  the  seats  (including  the  NRI  seats)  in  all  the  

education  institutions  in  the  State  of  Madhya  Pradesh,  

including  private  medical  and  dental  collages.    Since  

serious disputes were raised with regard to seat sharing  

and fixation of quota of seats for MBBS/BDS, this Court felt  

that  some interim arrangement  should  be  made taking  

note of the interest of both the parties and also that of the  

students.  This Court, therefore, as an interim measure,  

passed an order on 27.5.2009 in C.A. No.4060 of 2009 and  

the connected appeals, which reads as follows:

“We, therefore, direct that the admissions  in the private unaided medical/dental colleges  in the State of Madhya Pradesh will be done by  first  excluding  15%  NRI  seats  (which  can  be  filled up by the private institutions as per para  131 of  Inamdar case), and allotting half of the

Page 3

3

85% seats for admission to the undergraduate  and post-graduate courses to be filled in by an  open  competitive  examination  by  the  State  Government,  and  the  remaining  half  by  the  Association of  the  Private  Medical  and Dental  Colleges. Both the State Government as well as  the  Association of  Private  Medical  and Dental  Colleges will hold their own separate entrance  examination for  this purpose.  As regards “the  NRI seats”, they will be filled as provided under  the Act and the Rules, in the manner they were  done earlier.

      We  make  it  clear  that  the  aforesaid  directions  will  for  the  time  being  only  be  applicable  for  this  Academic  Year  i.e.  2009- 2010. We also make it clear that if there are an  odd number of seats then it will be rounded off  in  favour  of  the  private  institutions.  For  example, if there are 25 seats, 12 will be filled  up  by  the  State  Government  and  13  will  be  filled  up  by  the  Association  of  Private  Medical/Dental  Colleges.  In  specialities  in  PG  courses also half the seats will  be filled in by  the  State  Government  and  half  by  the  Association  of  Private  Medical/Dental  Colleges  and any fraction will be rounded off in favour of  the  Association.  In  other  words  if  in  any  discipline there are, say, 9 seats, then 5 will be  filled in by the Association and the remaining 4  will by the State Government. Capitation fee is  prohibited,  both  to  the  State  Government  as  well as the private institutions, vide para 140 of  Inamdar case. Both the State Government and  the  Association  of  Private  Medical/Dental  Colleges  will  separately  hold  single  window  examinations for the whole State (vide para 136  of Inamdar case).

Page 4

4

      We make it clear that the solution we have  arrived at may not be perfect, but we have tried  to do our best to find out the best via media.  Although this order is  only for  Academic Year  2009-2010, we recommend that it may also be  considered for future sessions.

       Six  weeks’  time  is  allowed  for  filing  counter-affidavit and four weeks thereafter for  filing rejoinder.

      List  these appeals  for  final  hearing in  September  2009.  In  the  meantime,  pleadings  may be completed by the parties.”

3. The  interim  arrangement  made  continued  in  the  

subsequent years as well and in the year 2011-2012, this  

Court vide its order dated 27.1.2011 in I.A. No. 50 of 2011  

passed the following order:

“The order dated 27th May, 2009 made in Civil  Appeal  No.  4060  of  2009  etc.  shall  be  applicable for the academic year 2011-2012.

         There shall be an order accordingly.”

4. This  contempt  petition  has  been  preferred  by  the  

State Government and the Director of Medical Education  

Department alleging that the contemnors have filled up  

the  entire  150  seats  available  for  the  year  2011-2012,  

without  sharing  it  with  the  State Government,  violating

Page 5

5

the orders of this Court dated 27.5.2009 and 27.1.2011.  

Petitioners pointed out  that  the contemnors had sent a  

letter dated 23.5.2011 stating that they would fill up the  

entire seats  during the academic  year  2011-2012 since  

their  colleges  would  be  functioning  under  the  Madhya  

Pradesh Niji Vishwavidyalaya (Sthapana Avam  Sanchalan)  

Adhiniyam,  2007  [for  short  “Adhiniyam  2007”],  

consequent  to  the  establishment  of  the  Peoples’  

University  under  M.P.  Act  No.18  of  2011  and  the  

admission process of those constituent institutions would  

be governed by the statutes and ordinances framed under  

the  above-mentioned  Act.    The  State  Government  

noticing the stand taken by the contemnors, wrote a letter  

dated 14.7.2011 to the Managing Director of the Medical  

College stating that the admissions have to be made only  

following the arrangement made by this Court vide order  

dated 27.1.2011 and, if any change has to be made, the  

same  could  be  done  only  with  the  permission  of  this  

Court.

Page 6

6

5. The  Directorate  of  Medical  Education  of  the  State  

Government also wrote a letter  dated 14.7.2011 to the  

Medical  Council  of  India,  informing  the  Council  of  the  

defiant  attitude taken by the contemnors by not  giving  

admission  to  any  of  the  students  included in  the  State  

quota for the academic year 2010-11.   

6. The Directorate of  Medical  Education then wrote a  

detailed  letter  dated  8.8.2011  to  the  Secretary,  

Association of Private Dental & Medical  Colleges,  in the  

State, specifically referring to the interim order passed by  

this Court on 27.1.2011 reminding them of the necessity  

of the compliance of the Court’s directions in the matter of  

seat  sharing.   The  contemnors,  ignoring  those  letters,  

published an advertisement in a local newspaper “People  

Samachar”  on  9.8.2011  informing  the  public  that  150  

seats would be available with them for admission to MBBS  

course under the management quota for the year 2011-

12.  

Page 7

7

7. The  Directorate  of  Medical  Education,  in  the  

meanwhile,  sent  a  list  of  66  students  under  the  State  

quota  to  the  Medical  College  for  admission  to  MBBS  

course.  The contemnors refused to admit those students  

under the State quota and the State Government received  

several complaints from the students who were included  

in the State quota, but not admitted by the contemnors.  

The  State  Government  then  sent  a  notice  dated  

17.8.2011,  to  the Dean of  the Medical  College to show  

cause why the following action be not initiated against the  

college:-

(a) withdraw  the  Desirability  and  Feasibility  Certificates issued in favour of the college;  

(b) report the matter to the Medical Council of India  to take suitable action against the college.

(c) report the matter to the concerned authorities  for  action  against  Madhya  Pradesh  Niji  Vyavsayik  Shikshan  Sanstha  (Pravesh  Ka  Viniyaman  Avam  Shulk  Ka  Nirdharan)  Adhiniyam, 2007.  

8. The  contemnors,  in  total  defiance  of  the  Court’s  

order  as  well  as  the  various  directions  issued  by  the  

Directorate of Medical Education, filled up the entire 150

Page 8

8

seats  in  the  management  quota for  the academic  year  

2011-12.  

9. The students, who figured in the State quota, then  

approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.   The High  

Court  directed  the  contemnors  to  admit  students  who  

were  included  in  the  State  quota.  Consequently,  they  

admitted  those  students  and  the  number  of  students  

admitted in  the College went up to 245 as against  the  

sanctioned  strength  of  150  seats.  The  Medical  College  

does not have the infrastructural  facilities to admit 245  

students,  which  has  adversely  affected  the  academic  

standards  of  the  students  admitted.   The  State  

Government, as also the Directorate of Medical Education,  

in  the above-mentioned circumstances,  approached this  

Court and filed the present Contempt Petition for taking  

appropriate  action  against  the  contemnors  for  violating  

the  orders  passed  by  this  Court  on  27.5.2009  and  

27.1.2011  and  also  by  not  complying  with  the  various  

directions issued by the State Government as well as the  

Directorate of Medical Education.

Page 9

9

10. When  the  matter  came up  for  hearing,  this  Court  

issued notice to the contemnors. Learned senior counsel  

appearing for the contemnors, submitted before this Court  

on  3.2.2014  that  they  would  be  tendering  their  

unconditional  and  unqualified  apology  for  their  actions  

and  made  a  proposal  to  set  right  the  illegalities  

committed, which reads as under :-

(a) None of the 245 students admitted in the  Institution  –  Peoples  College  of  Medical  Sciences (PCMS) during the academic year  2011-12 shall be disturbed and they all will  continue  to  pursue  their  course  without  any  interruption.  This  would  include  the  students  allotted  by  the  State  who  had  been  given  provisional  admissions  pursuant to the orders of the Hon’ble High  Court.

(b) In  the  academic  session  2011-12  on  the  basis of the 50-50 admissions between the  College and State after 15% NRI quota is  deducted as per the orders of this Hon’ble  Court, the State entitlement filled in by the  institution  was  63  seats.   The  institution  shall  accordingly  surrender  21  seats  in  each of the following three academic years  i.e. 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 to the  State government  to  be filled in  through  the procedure laid down in the order dated  27.5.2009.

Page 10

10

11. The contemnors  on  13.2.2014,  filed  a  written  note  

wherein,  after  reiterating  the  proposals  submitted  on  

3.2.2014, they stated as follows :

“13. Though  admissions  have  already  been  made by the State against the said 63 seats for  the year 2011-12 in the said year itself still  in  deference to the orders of this Hon’ble Court the  Respondent  is  willing  to  give  up  the  said  63  seats. It is however requested that if these 63  seats are adjusted only in one year, the college  would  suffer  adversely.   Therefore,  the  Respondent  again  humbly  submits  that  it  be  permitted to surrender 21 seats in each of the  following  three  academic  years  i.e.  2014-15,  2015-16 and 2016-17 as submitted before this  Hon’ble  Court  on  3.2.2014  to  the  State  Government  to  be  filled  in  through  the  procedure  laid  down  in  the  order  dated  27.5.2009.

14. It  is  respectfully  submitted  that  in  the  captioned  contempt  petition  of  the  Petitioner  State only relates to its 50% quota of admissions  i.e. 63 seats in the academic year 2011-12.

15. The  respondents  reiterate  the  proposal  submitted  on  3.2.2014  and  again  tender  an  unconditional  and unqualified apology for  their  actions.”

12. In  the  written  note  filed  by  the  State  of  Madhya  

Pradesh  on  13.2.2014,  in  response  to  the  submissions  

made  by  the  contemnors  on  3.2.2014,  the  State  of  

Madhya Pradesh stated as follows :-

Page 11

11

“20. For  the  academic  session  2011-12,  the  State  Government  had  a  quota  of  107  students :-

• 63 seats as per the 50:50 order of this  Hon’ble Court.

• 42  seats  as  per  letter  dated  19.9.2011  of  MCI  since  Peoples  College  made  excess  admissions  in  2010-11.

• 2 seats which were not  filled in  the  NRI quota.

21. The aforesaid position of State quota seats  for 2011-12 is explained in detail in the letter of  MCI  dated  5.3.2012  (annexed  herewith  as  Annexure A-1).

22. For the academic session 2011-12

Total sanctioned strength 150

Total seats filled by College 245

College authorized to fill   43

State quota seats filled by College   95

Excess seats filled by College 107

23. The issue of  excess admissions made by  the  College  is  to  be  considered  as  per  the  Regulations framed by the MCI under the Indian  Medical Council Act, 1956 and the submissions  made by the MCI in that regard.

Page 12

12

24. However, if the scheme formulated by the  Peoples  College is  considered  by  this  Hon’ble  Court, then the excess 107 admissions made by  the  College  in  2011-12  be  adjusted  in  the  session of 2014-15 in full and remaining seats  be adjusted in 2015-16.

25. On account of illegal and unlawful acts of  Respondents/Contemnors,  not  only  the  State  Government,  but  the  students  of  the  State  quota,  who  were  illegally  denied  admissions  were severely harassed and were drawn on a  long drawn legal battle with uncertainty of their  respective careers.”

13. We  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  the  above  

situation has been created by the contemnors themselves  

by filling up of the entire 150 seats in total defiance of the  

interim  orders  passed  by  this  Court  on  27.5.2009  and  

27.1.2011  making  an  interim  arrangement  for  seat  

sharing between the State Government and the private  

educational institutions from the year 2009-10 onwards in  

the State of Madhya Pradesh, which are binding on the  

contemnors.   The contemnors attempted to justify their  

action  on  the  ground  that  they  are  regulated  by  the  

Private Universities Act and that AFRC Act has ceased to  

apply and, after the notification dated 4.5.2011, the State

Page 13

13

Government  has  no  right  even  to  share  seats  in  their  

institution,  de  hors the  interim  orders  passed  by  this  

Court.   This stand taken by the contemnors is also not  

correct, since Section 7(m) of the Private University Act,  

2007 provides that admission shall not be started till the  

concerned statutes and ordinances are approved as per  

Section 35 of the Act, which states that the statutes and  

ordinances shall come into force only upon publication in  

the  official  Gazette.   Even  otherwise,  once  there  is  an  

order in force binding on the parties, they cannot violate  

or  ignore  that  order,  taking  shelter  under  a  statutory  

provision  and  if  any  modification  of  the  orders  is  

warranted, parties should have approached this Court and  

sought  for  clarification  or  modification  of  those  orders.  

However, without doing so, in total defiance of the orders  

passed  by  this  Court,  they  filled  up  the  entire  seats,  

leaving the students who figured in the State list in the  

lurch.  Later, though they were admitted in the College  

having  the  infrastructure  for  accommodating  only  150  

students,  it  has  affected  the  quality  and  standard  of

Page 14

14

medical education.  After having convinced that they had  

violated the orders of this Court, they have come up with  

an  unconditional  and  unqualified  apology  and  making  

some  suggestions  to  undo  the  illegality  committed  by  

them after eating away the seats from the State quota.   

14. We have, on facts, found that there has been a willful  

disobedience by the contemnors of the orders passed by  

this  Court,  which  is  nothing  but  interference  with  the  

administration of justice.  Disobedience of an order of a  

Court, which is willful, shakes the very foundation of the  

judicial  system and can erode the faith  and confidence  

reposed by the people in  the Judiciary and undermines  

rule of law.   The Contemnors have shown scant respect to  

the orders passed by the highest Court of the land and  

depicted undue haste to fill up the entire seats evidently  

not  to  attract  better  students  or  recognize  merit,  but  

possibly  to  make  unlawful  gain,  adopting  unhealthy  

practices,  as  noticed  by  this  Court  in  TMA  Pai  

Foundation  &  Ors.  v.  State  of  Karnataka  &  Ors.  

(2002) 8 SCC 481 and various other  cases.    Once the

Page 15

15

Court  passes  an  order,  the  parties  to  the  proceedings  

before  the  Court  cannot  avoid  implementation  of  that  

order by seeking refuge under any statutory rule and it is  

not  open  to  the  parties  to  go  behind  the  orders  and  

truncate the effect  of those orders.   This Court in  T.R.  

Dhananjaya v. J.  Vasudevan (1995) 5 SCC 619,  held  

that once the Court directed that appeal be disposed of  

after giving him opportunity of hearing and such direction  

was not appealed from, it is not open to the concerned  

authority  to  deny  the  hearing  on  the  ground  that  the  

Police Manual does not provide for the same.  This Court  

in  Mohd. Aslam alias Bhure, Acchan Rizvi v. Union  

of India (1994) 6 SCC 442 held that circumvention of an  

order can be by ‘positive acts of violation’ or ‘surreptitious  

and indirect aids to circumvention and violation of orders.  

In  the  instant  case,  the  violation  is  a  positive  act  of  

violation, which is apparent on the face of the record.    

15. We have already  pointed out  that  the  contemnors  

earlier  took  up  the  stand  that,  after  notifying  their  

institution as a University on 4.5.2011 under the Private

Page 16

16

University  Act,  2007,  the  AFRC  Act  ceased  to  apply,  

hence, they are not bound by the orders passed by this  

Court.    Contemnors  cannot  take  refuse  under  a  

notification issued under a Statute to defeat the interim  

orders  passed  by  this  Court  which  are  binding  on  the  

parties,  unless varied or modified by this Court.   In the  

instant case, all the appeals in which interim orders have  

been  passed,  are  pending  before  this  Court  and  if  the  

contemnors had any doubt on the applicability of those  

orders,  they  could  have  sought  clarification  or  

modification  of  the  order.    Now,  by  tendering  

unconditional  and  unqualified  apology,  the  contemnors  

are  trying  to  wriggle  out  of  the  possible  action  for  

Contempt  of  Court,  after  violating  the  orders  causing  

considerable  inconvenience  to  the  students  and  after  

enjoying the fruits for the illegality committed by them.   It  

is trite law that apology is neither a weapon of defence to  

purge  the  guilty  of  their  offence;  nor  is  it  intended  to  

operate  as  universal  panacea,  it  is  intended  to  be  

evidence of real contriteness. (See M.Y. Shareef & Anr.

Page 17

17

v.  Hon’ble Judges of the High Court of  Nagpur &  

Ors.  (1955) 1 SCR 757 and  M.B. Sanghi, Advocate v.  

High Court of Punjab & Haryana & Ors. (1991) 3 SCC  

600.    

16. Contemnors  have  now  tendered  unconditional  and  

unqualified  apology  and  volunteered  to  set  right  the  

illegality committed by them, but the purpose for flouting  

the  orders  has  been  achieved,  that  is  the  contemnors  

wanted  to  fill  up  the  entire  seats  by  themselves.  

Therefore, to maintain the sanctity of the orders of this  

Court and to give a message that the parties cannot get  

away  by  merely  tendering  an  unconditional  and  

unqualified  apology  after  enjoying  the  fruits  of  their  

illegality,  we  are  inclined  to  impose  a  fine,  which  we  

quantify at Rs.50 lakhs.

17. We may now examine how the illegality committed  

by the contemnors  can be rectified.   For  the academic  

year  2011-12,  the  State  Government’s  quota  was  107  

seats, details of which is given below :-

Page 18

18

• 63  seats  as  per  the  50:50  order  of  this  Hon’ble Court.

• 42 seats as per letter dated 19.9.2011 of  MCI  since  Peoples  College  made  excess  admissions in 2010-11.

• 2 seats  which  were  not  filled  in  the  NRI  quota.

18. The total sanctioned strength for the academic year  

2011-12 was 150 students, but the contemnors had filled  

up 245 seats, though the college was authorized to fill up  

only 43 seats.  The contemnors filled up 95 seats, which  

would have gone to the State quota.  Consequently, 107  

excess  seats  were  filled  up  by  the  college.   The  

contemnors, however, took up the stand that if 63 seats  

are to be adjusted for  the academic  year  2014-15 that  

may seriously affect the functioning of the College, hence  

their  suggestion  is  that  they  will  compensate  the  lost  

seats in a phased manner,  that is  21 seats in the year  

2014-15  and  the  rest  in  equal  proportion  in  the  years  

2015-16 and 2016-17,  which we find difficult  to accept.  

We are  of  the  view that  the excess  of  107 admissions  

made  in  the  year  2011-12  have  to  be  adjusted  by

Page 19

19

adjusting the same for the academic session 2014-15 in  

full and remaining seats be adjusted in the year 2015-16,  

because the illegality committed must be set right at the  

earliest.  This Court in  Mridul Dhar (Minor) & Anr. v.   

Union of India & Ors. (2005) 2 SCC 65, held (Direction  

No.11) as follows :

“11.  If  any private medical  college in  a given  academic year for any reason grants admission  in  its  management  quota  in  excess  of  its  prescribed  quota,  the  management  quota  for  the next academic year shall stand reduced so  as to set off the effect of excess admission in  the  management  quota  in  the  previous  academic year.”

19. We may reiterate that the above-mentioned situation  

has been created by the contemnors themselves and due  

to their illegal and unlawful acts,  by admitting students  

over and above the sanctioned strength, the students who  

were later admitted from the list of State quota, could not  

get the quality medical education, which otherwise they  

would  have  got.  Further,  they  were  also  driven  to  

unnecessary  litigation  before  the  High  Court  creating  

uncertainty to their future.  

Page 20

20

20. We, therefore, order that the admission of students  

under the State quota for the academic year 2011-12 in  

Medical College is valid and legal and appropriate steps  

should be taken by the State Government and the Medical  

Council of India to regularize the admission.   The excess  

107 admissions made by the Medical College for the MBBS  

during  the  year  2011-12  and  the  previous  year,  be  

adjusted in the session 2014-15 in full taking note of the  

full sanctioned strength and the balance seats be adjusted  

in the year 2015-16.  The unconditional and unqualified  

apology tendered by the contemnors is accepted, but the  

contemnors are directed to pay a fine of Rs.50 lakhs in  

two  months  from  today,  to  the  State  Government.  

Ordered accordingly.    

21. The Contempt Petition is disposed of accordingly.   

……..……………………J. (Dr. B.S. Chauhan)

……..……………………J. (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

Page 21

21

……..……………………J. (S.A. Bobde)

New Delhi, February 27, 2014.