Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4914 OF 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.9997 of 2016)

Medical Council of India  .…Appellant

versus

Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences        .…Respondents  (KIMS) & Ors.

J U D G M E N T

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is yet another chapter in the sordid saga  

of  admissions  to  medical  colleges.  Undoubtedly,  there  is  

something rotten in the state of medical colleges.  Unless  

the concerned Ministries in the Government of India take a  

far  more  proactive  role  in  ensuring  that  medical  colleges  

have all the necessary facilities, clinical materials, teaching  

faculty, staff, accommodation etc. the health of the people of  

our  country  will  take  a  hit  in  the  coming  years  due  to  

inadequately  educated  doctors.  Quality  in  medical  

C.A.No.4914/2016 (@ S.L.P. (C) No.9997/2016)                           Page 1 of 19

Page 2

education is equally important, if not more, than quantity.

3. The respondent Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences  

(for  short  KIMS)  is  a  recognized  medical  college.   It  is  

entitled  to  admit  100  students  every  year  to  the  MBBS  

course.

4. For  the  academic  year  2014-15,  it  was  granted  

permission  to  admit  an  additional  50  students  over  and  

above the 100 students that was already its entitlement.

5. KIMS was desirous of granting admission to 100 plus  

50 students for the academic year 2015-16. With a view to  

ensure  that  adequate  facilities  were  available  for  the  

increased number of students, an inspection was required  

to be carried out by the Medical Council of India (for short  

‘the MCI’) in accordance with the Medical Council of India  

Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999.  

6. Consequently, an inspection was carried out on 27th  

and 28th January, 2015 by an Inspection Team of the MCI  

which revealed quite a sorry state of affairs. A large number  

of  serious deficiencies were pointed out by the Inspection  

Team  and  communicated  to  the  MCI.  Thereafter,  in  a  

communication sent  by the MCI to the Dean Principal  of  

KIMS on 31st January, 2015 the deficiencies were indicated  

C.A.No.4914/2016 (@ S.L.P. (C) No.9997/2016)                           Page 2 of 19

Page 3

and  KIMS  was  informed  that  a  show  cause  notice  was  

proposed to be issued for withdrawal of recognition of the  

courses run by it. Be that as it may, the MCI took a decision  

recommending  to  the  Central  Government  through  the  

Ministry  of  Health  and  Family  Welfare  (Department  of  

Health and Family Welfare) to deny permission to KIMS to  

add 50 additional seats for the MBBS for the academic year  

2015-16.

7. We  enquired  from learned  counsel  for  the  MCI  the  

procedure for carrying out an inspection. Our attention was  

drawn by learned counsel to Page ‘J’ of the appeal paper-

book wherein it is stated (and not denied) that an inspection  

is conducted by a team of three neutral Professors. Of these,  

one is a coordinator and the other two are taken from an  

approved list  of  eminent  medical  Professors from reputed  

Government  institutions  only.   Some  of  the  institutions  

mentioned are the All  India Institute of  Medical  Sciences,  

Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh, Maulana Azad Medical  

College (Delhi),  Safdarjung College (Delhi),  Medical College  

(Kolkata),  Madras  Medical  College  (Chennai),  Osmania  

Medical  College  (Hyderabad),  Grant  Medical  College  

(Mumbai),  G.S.  Medical  College  (Mumbai),  Bangalore  

C.A.No.4914/2016 (@ S.L.P. (C) No.9997/2016)                           Page 3 of 19

Page 4

Medical College (Bengaluru) etc.  There is therefore no doubt  

that not only are the medical colleges highly reputed but it  

is  also  stated that  the Professors from these colleges are  

eminent medical Professors randomly selected by computer  

software from a list of coordinators and inspectors.

8. Our attention was also drawn to the decision of this  

Court  in  Manohar  Lal  Sharma v.  Medical  Council  of   

India1 wherein it was held that since the inspection is taken  

by “doctors of unquestionable integrity and reputation, who  

are experts in the field, there is no reason to discard the  

report of such an inspection.” In the present appeal, there is  

no  allegation  made  by  KIMS  of  any  mala  fides of  the  

Inspection Team or any perversity in the inspection report  

and  hence  there  is  no  question  of  challenging  the  

conclusions of a neutral, randomly selected Inspection Team  

in its assessment.

9. As  mentioned  above,  the  inspection  report  and  the  

decision  of  the  MCI  were  communicated  to  the  Central  

Government.   On  a  consideration  of  the  material  made  

available,  the  Central  Government  sent  a  communication  

dated  15th June,  2015  to  the  Dean  Principal  of  KIMS  

1 (2013) 10 SCC 60

C.A.No.4914/2016 (@ S.L.P. (C) No.9997/2016)                           Page 4 of 19

Page 5

directing  the  institute  NOT to  admit  any students  in  the  

second batch of MBBS course against the increased intake  

from 100 to 150 seats for the academic year 2015-16.  The  

text  of  the  letter  sent  by  the  Central  Government  to  the  

Dean Principal of KIMS on 15th June, 2015 reads as follows:

“I  am  directed  to  refer  to  MCI  letter  (s)  dated  01.04.2015  thereby  recommending  to  the  Central  Government not to renew the permission for admission of  2nd batch of  MBBS course  against  increased intake  i.e.  from 100-150 seats Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences,  Bhubaneswar for the academic year 2015-16 and to say  that the Central  Government has decided to accept  the  recommendations of MCI.

2. You  are  therefore  directed  NOT  to  admit  any  student in 2nd batch of  MBBS course against  increased  intake  i.e.  from  100-150  seats  for  the  academic  year  2015-16.   Admission in next  batch of  students  against  increased intake for the year 2016-17 will be made only  after obtaining the Central Government Permission.

3. Any admission made in this regard will be treated  as  irregular  and  action  will  be  initiated  as  per  the  provisions  of  IMC,  Act,  1956  and  Regulations  made  thereunder.

4. Further, the MCI has also informed to apply Clause  8(3)(1)  (c)  &  (d)  of  Establishment  of  Medical  College  Regulation (amendment), 2010.”

10. Feeling  aggrieved  by  the  adverse  decision,  KIMS  

preferred a writ petition in the High Court of Orissa being  

W.P. (C) No.15685 of 2015.  The writ petition was taken up  

C.A.No.4914/2016 (@ S.L.P. (C) No.9997/2016)                           Page 5 of 19

Page 6

for  consideration  on  14th September,  2015  when  the  

direction  dated  15th June,  2015  passed  by  the  Central  

Government was set aside on the ground that no hearing  

was given to KIMS before that order was passed. The High  

Court then directed KIMS to appear before the Secretary to  

the Government of India in the Department of Health and  

Family  Welfare  or  any  other  authorized  officer  on  18th  

September, 2015 with all documentary evidence. The said  

officer was directed to hear KIMS, consider the compliance  

reports of KIMS and the views of the MCI and then pass  

necessary orders.

11. In obedience to the order passed by the High Court a  

hearing  was  given  to  KIMS  by  a  Hearing  Committee.  

Thereafter, the Central Government passed an order on 24th  

September, 2015 which observed as follows:

“The  college  was  earlier  given  hearing  on   12.03.2015.  The compliance submitted by the college is   same as the last time. Though the college claims to have   rectified the deficiencies,  it  can only  be verified through   physical assessment by MCI.

The deficiencies are non-condonable. The documents   alone submitted by the college do not  sufficiently inspire   confidence as to rectification of the deficiencies.  Therefore,   this Committee has considered the assessment report of the   MCI assessors dated 27th and 28th January, 2015 and the  compliance report submitted by the representatives of the   college  and  decided  that  the  Ministry  may  accept   

C.A.No.4914/2016 (@ S.L.P. (C) No.9997/2016)                           Page 6 of 19

Page 7

recommendation of MCI.”

12. On a consideration of the order passed by the High  

Court  and  the  recommendations  of  the  MCI,  the  Central  

Government  decided  not  to  renew  the  permission  for  

admitting the second batch of MBBS students against the  

increased intake that is from 100 to 150 for the academic  

year 2015-16 at KIMS.

13. The writ petition was then taken up for consideration  

by the High Court on 25th September, 2015.  The High Court  

considered  the  facts  of  the  case  and  placed  reliance  on  

Rajiv Memorial Academic Welfare Society v. Union of   

India2 (which appeal was decided in the circumstances of  

the case and was not a general direction) and a decision of  

the  Kerala  High  Court  and  directed,  inter  alia,  that  the  

Central  Government shall  grant provisional  permission to  

KIMS to conduct the course for the additional 50 students  

in the academic year 2015-16. While giving this direction,  

the High Court noted that admission to the MBBS course  

was required to be completed by 30th September, 2015. The  

High Court made it clear that this interim order would be  

subject to further orders passed in the writ petition and it  

2 2016 (3) SCALE 184

C.A.No.4914/2016 (@ S.L.P. (C) No.9997/2016)                           Page 7 of 19

Page 8

was  also  made  clear  that  neither  KIMS  nor  any  of  the  

students  would  claim  any  equity  on  the  basis  of  the  

approval permission granted by virtue of the orders of the  

High Court.

14. Pursuant  to  the  mandatory  direction  given  by  the  

High  Court,  the  Ministry  of  Health  and  Family  Welfare  

passed  an  order  on  28th September,  2015  granting  

provisional permission to KIMS to conduct the MBBS course  

for the second batch against the increased intake from 100  

to 150 MBBS seats for the academic year 2015-16 subject  

to certain conditions. One of the conditions was to the effect  

that  KIMS would  make  it  clear  to  the  students  who  are  

admitted that their admission is subject to the result of the  

writ  petition.  Consequent  upon  this  decision,  KIMS  

admitted 50 students to the MBBS course for the academic  

year 2015-16. These students are represented before us in  

this appeal and have been heard.

15. At this stage, it may be mentioned that against the  

interim order  dated  25th September,  2015  passed  by  the  

High Court, the MCI preferred a petition in this Court which  

came up for consideration on 13th October,  2015. In that  

petition being SLP (C) No. 28312 of 2015, special leave to  

C.A.No.4914/2016 (@ S.L.P. (C) No.9997/2016)                           Page 8 of 19

Page 9

appeal was granted and the order passed by the High Court  

on 25th September, 2015 was stayed and status quo as on  

the  date  on  which  the  impugned  order  was  passed  (25th  

September, 2015) was directed to be maintained.   

16. Be that as it may, when the appeal filed by MCI came  

up for consideration on 4th November, 2015 it was directed  

that the High Court should endeavour to hear the pending  

writ  petition  expeditiously.   It  was  also  directed  that  the  

interim order earlier  passed on 13th October,  2015 would  

continue till the High Court decided the writ petition.

17. When the  writ  petition  was  again  taken up by  the  

High Court, an amendment application was filed by KIMS  

and the amendment allowed. It is not necessary to go into  

the details of the amendment since that has no bearing in  

this appeal.  

18. In any event, when the writ petition was taken up for  

expedited consideration by the High Court on 3rd December,  

2015  it  was  noted  that  50  students  had  already  been  

admitted by KIMS pursuant to the directions given by High  

Court  on  25th September,  2015  and  the  provisional  

permission  granted  by  the  Central  Government  on  28th  

September, 2015. The admission was of course subject to  

C.A.No.4914/2016 (@ S.L.P. (C) No.9997/2016)                           Page 9 of 19

Page 10

the  outcome  of  the  writ  petition.   The  High  Court  then  

directed  that  necessary  affidavits  be  filed  and  in  the  

meanwhile MCI was directed to constitute a fresh Inspection  

Team  to  inspect  KIMS  and  to  check  up  the  purported  

compliance claimed by KIMS of the deficiencies pointed out  

in  the  earlier  inspection.  It  was further  directed that  the  

Directorate of Medical Education and Training, Government  

of Odisha would also participate in the inspection and the  

report be submitted on or before 23rd December, 2015.

19. Feeling  aggrieved  by  the  order  passed  by  the  High  

Court on 3rd December,  2015 requiring the Directorate of  

Medical Education and Training, Odisha to be a part of the  

Inspection Team, the MCI preferred a petition in this Court  

being SLP (C) No.34856 of 2015.  Special leave was granted  

and by an order dated 16th December, 2015 it  was made  

clear  by  this  Court  that  the  Directorate  of  Medical  

Education and Training, Odisha shall not participate in the  

inspection.

20. There  appears  to  have  been  some  dispute  in  this  

Court (which was not resolved) with regard to the academic  

year  for  which  the  fresh  inspection  was  required  to  be  

carried out.  According to learned counsel for the MCI the  

C.A.No.4914/2016 (@ S.L.P. (C) No.9997/2016)                           Page 10 of 19

Page 11

inspection was to be carried out for 2016-17 while this was  

opposed by learned counsel appearing for KIMS.  This Court  

however did not record anything in this regard one way or  

the other.

21. A fresh inspection was in fact carried out by MCI on  

7th  and 8th January,  2016 and the  Inspection Team once  

again  found  a  very  large  number  of  deficiencies  in  the  

facilities  available  at  KIMS.   The report  of  the Inspection  

Team  and  the  consequent  resolution  of  the  MCI  were  

communicated to the Central Government to the effect that  

the Central  Government should not  renew permission for  

admission of  the 3rd batch of MBBS students against the  

increased intake from 100 to 150 seats  for  the academic  

year 2016-17.

22. Thereafter, the pending writ petition was taken up for  

hearing by the High Court on 17th February, 2016 and the  

impugned judgment and order delivered on 4th March, 2016.

23. A perusal  of  the decision of  the High Court  clearly  

indicates  that  it  considered  the  latest  report  of  the  

Inspection Team as if it was hearing an appeal against the  

report. In doing so, the High Court went into great details  

on issues relating to the number of  teaching beds in the  

C.A.No.4914/2016 (@ S.L.P. (C) No.9997/2016)                           Page 11 of 19

Page 12

hospital,  the  limitations  in  the  OPD  Department,  the  

number  of  units  available  in  the  subjects  of  General  

Medicine,  Pediatrics  etc.,  bed  occupancy,  number  of  

Caesarean sections, discrepancy in data of major and minor  

operations,  computerization  in  the  institution,  number  of  

patients  in  the  ICU,  number  of  static  X-ray  machines,  

deficiency  of  examination  halls,  lecture  theatres,  library,  

students hostel, interns hostel, playground etc. etc. Surely,  

this was not within the domain of the High Court in exercise  

of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.  

24. The High Court did not appreciate that the inspection  

was carried out by eminent Professors from reputed medical  

institutions  who  were  experts  in  the  field  and  the  best  

persons to give an unbiased report on the facilities in KIMS.  

The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution was  

certainly not tasked to minutely examine the contents of the  

inspection report and weigh them against the objections of  

KIMS in respect of each of its 18 items. In our opinion, the  

High Court plainly exceeded its jurisdiction in this regard in  

venturing into seriously disputed factual issues.  

25. Learned  counsels  for  KIMS  and  the  students  

submitted that the High Court was left with no option but to  

C.A.No.4914/2016 (@ S.L.P. (C) No.9997/2016)                           Page 12 of 19

Page 13

critically examine the report of the Inspection Team since it  

was factually erroneous and did not deserve to be relied on  

either for the increase in intake of seats for the academic  

year  2015-16  or  the  academic  year  2016-17.  We  see  no  

reason to accept the submission of learned counsels.

26. Medical education must be taken very seriously and  

when an expert body certifies that the facilities in a medical  

college are inadequate, the Courts are not equipped to take  

a  different  view  in  the  matter  except  for  very  cogent  

jurisdictional reasons such as  mala fides  of the Inspection  

Team,  ex  facie perversity  in  the  inspection  report,  

jurisdictional error on the part of the MCI etc.  Under no  

circumstance should the High Court examine the report as  

an appellate body – this is simply not the function of the  

High Court. In the present case there was no ground made  

out  at  law  for  setting  aside  the  report  of  the  Inspection  

Team.   

27. The  High Court  was  of  opinion that  the  Inspection  

Team was required to conduct the inspection with reference  

to the academic year 2015-16 but the report pertains to the  

academic year 2016-2017. If that was so, the High Court  

could  have  passed  an  appropriate  order  in  this  regard  

C.A.No.4914/2016 (@ S.L.P. (C) No.9997/2016)                           Page 13 of 19

Page 14

rather  than examine and scrutinize  the  inspection report  

prepared  for  the  academic  year  2016-17 which academic  

year was not at all  the subject matter of consideration or  

discussion before it. Moreover, invalidation of the inspection  

report  for  the  academic  year  2016-17  would  not  

automatically  invalidate  the  inspection  report  for  the  

academic  year  2015-16.  Unfortunately,  the  High  Court  

spent its energy on adjudicating a non-issue.   

28. It appears to us that both the MCI and the Central  

Government  each  having  twice  considered  the  inspection  

report  submitted  by  neutral  medical  Professors,  with  the  

Central  Government  having  given  a  personal  hearing  to  

KIMS  on  the  second  occasion  (and  perhaps  on  the  first  

occasion as  well)  the  matter  ought  to  have  been given a  

quietus by the High Court at least for the academic year  

2015-16.  

29. That  apart,  we  are  of  opinion  that  the  High  Court  

ought  to  have  been  more  circumspect  in  directing  the  

admission of  students by its  order  dated 25th September,  

2015. There was no need for the High Court to rush into an  

area that the MCI feared to tread.  Granting admission to  

students  in  an  educational  institution  when  there  is  a  

C.A.No.4914/2016 (@ S.L.P. (C) No.9997/2016)                           Page 14 of 19

Page 15

serious doubt whether admission should at all be granted is  

not a matter to be taken lightly. First of all the career of a  

student  is  involved  –  what  would  a  student  do  if  his  

admission is found to be illegal or is quashed? Is it not a  

huge waste of time for him or her? Is it enough to say that  

the student will not claim any equity in his or her favour? Is  

it enough for student to be told that his or her admission is  

subject to the outcome of a pending litigation? These are all  

questions that arise and for which there is no easy answer.  

Generally speaking, it is better to err on the side of caution  

and  deny  admission  to  a  student  rather  than  have  the  

sword of Damocles hanging over him or her. There would at  

least be some certainty.

30. Whichever  way the  matter  is  looked at,  we find no  

justification  for  the  orders  passed  by  the  High  Court  

particularly the order dated 25th September, 2015 and the  

order dated 4th March, 2016.   

31. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the KIMS  

that  the  Central  Government  has  decided  to  accept  the  

decision of the High Court and it has in fact issued an order  

dated 26th April, 2016 virtually to this effect.  We have gone  

through the order dated 26th April, 2016 and find that the  

C.A.No.4914/2016 (@ S.L.P. (C) No.9997/2016)                           Page 15 of 19

Page 16

permission  granted  to  continue  with  the  studies  of  the  

students for the academic year 2015-16 is subject to the  

orders passed by this Court in this appeal.  Since we are  

allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by  

the High Court, the order dated 26th April, 2016 passed by  

the Central Government is of no consequence and does not  

come to the aid of KIMS or the students.      

32. Learned counsel for KIMS and the students contended  

that  unless  this  appeal  is  dismissed  it  will  result  in  the  

students suffering a loss of two years of their studies.  This  

may be so – but if such a situation has come to pass, KIMS  

is entirely to be blamed. KIMS was specifically told not to  

admit  students  by  the  Central  Government  in  its  letter  

dated  15th June,  2015.  Despite  this  KIMS  persisted  in  

litigation  to  somehow  or  the  other  accommodate  50  

additional students. This was certainly not with a charitable  

motive.  As  an  institution  that  should  have  some  

responsibility towards the welfare of the students, it would  

have been far more appropriate for KIMS to have refrained  

from giving admission to 50 additional students rather than  

being instrumental in jeopardizing their career.  

33. However, for the fault of KIMS, the students should  

C.A.No.4914/2016 (@ S.L.P. (C) No.9997/2016)                           Page 16 of 19

Page 17

not suffer nor should KIMS get away scot free. KIMS must  

pay  for  its  inability  to  introspect  and  venture  into  

adventurist litigation. Accordingly, we direct as follows:

1. The admission granted to the 50 students pursuant to  

the  order  of  the  High  Court  dated  25th September,  

2015 and the  provisional  permission granted by  the  

Central  Government  only  on  28th September,  2015  

shall not be disturbed. How the students will complete  

their course of studies without putting undue pressure  

on them is entirely for the MCI and KIMS and other  

concerned authorities to decide.

2. Costs of Rs. 5 crores are imposed on KIMS for playing  

with the future of its students and the mess that it has  

created  for  them.  The  amount  will  be  deposited  by  

KIMS in the Registry  of  this  Court  within six weeks  

from today. The amount of Rs. 5 crores so deposited  

towards costs shall  not be recovered in any manner  

from  any  student  or  adjusted  against  the  fees  or  

provision  of  facilities  for  students  of  any  present  or  

subsequent batches.  

3. KIMS  is  restrained  from  increasing  the  intake  of  

students from 100 students to 150 students for  the  

C.A.No.4914/2016 (@ S.L.P. (C) No.9997/2016)                           Page 17 of 19

Page 18

MBBS  course  for  the  academic  year  2016-17  and  

2017-2018.  The  MCI  and  the  Central  Government  

shall enforce strict compliance of this direction.

4. The  MCI  or  the  Central  Government  will  proceed  to  

take action against KIMS (if deemed advisable) under  

Clause  8(3)  of  the  Medical  Council  of  India  

Establishment  of  Medical  College  Regulations,  1999  

(as amended) as mentioned in the communication of  

15th June, 2015 of the Central Government.    

5. During the hearing of  the appeal,  we were informed  

that  there  is  no  fixed,  set  or  laid  down  procedure  

prepared by the MCI for conducting an inspection or  

assessment  as  postulated by the  Medical  Council  of  

India  Establishment  of  Medical  College  Regulations,  

1999. Rather than every Inspection Team following its  

own procedure for conducting an assessment, the MCI  

should in consultation with the  Central  Government  

prepare  a  Standard  Operating  Procedure  for  

conducting an inspection as required by the Medical  

Council  of  India  Establishment  of  Medical  College  

Regulations, 1999.  The Standard Operating Procedure  

should be finalized within a period of six weeks from  

C.A.No.4914/2016 (@ S.L.P. (C) No.9997/2016)                           Page 18 of 19

Page 19

today and should be accessible on the website of the  

MCI.   

6. To  introduce  transparency  and accountability  in  the  

medical  colleges,  the  report  or  assessment  of  the  

Inspection Team should be put up on the website of  

the concerned medical college as also on the website of  

the MCI so that potential students are aware of what is  

likely to be in store for them. Similarly, the decision of  

the Central Government on the report should be put  

up on the website of the concerned medical college as  

also on the website of the MCI.

34. To ensure compliance of Directions 2 and 5 and for an  

update on Directions 4 and 6 list  the appeal  in the first  

week of July 2016.

35. The appeal is disposed of on the above terms.

..……………………..J  (Madan B. Lokur)

New Delhi;      ………………………J May 6, 2016         (N.V. Ramana)

C.A.No.4914/2016 (@ S.L.P. (C) No.9997/2016)                           Page 19 of 19