Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  13957-13958 OF 2015   (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.26227-26228 of 2015)

Medical Council of India            .....Appellant

        VERSUS

Mediciti Institute of Medical Sciences  (MIMS) & Ors.      …..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Leave granted.  

2.    Heard  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  parties.  

Looking  at  the  facts  of  the  case  and at  the  request  of  the  

learned counsel appearing for the parties,  it  was decided to  

hear the appeals expeditiously.

Page 2

2

3.    A short issue that has come up for consideration in these  

appeals is whether it  was open to the High Court to give a  

direction to the Medical Council of India (for short, the MCI)-

the  appellant  herein,  by  its  order  dated  13.08.2015,  to  

conduct  a  re-inspection  of  Respondent  no.1  institute.   The  

said direction was given in relation to an application made by  

Respondent  no.1  for  renewal  of  permission  for  increase  in  

admission capacity of MBBS students from 100 to 150 for the  

academic year 2015-16.

4.  Respondent no.1 is a hospital-cum-medical college, which  

had  been  formerly  granted  permission  to  teach  100  MBBS  

students  per  academic  year.  From  2012-2013,  respondent  

no.3 had permitted increase in intake capacity from 100 to  

150  MBBS  students.   For  the  academic  year  2013-14,  

respondent  no.3  had  renewed  the  said  permission.  

Respondent no.1 wanted to get the said permission renewed  

for the academic year 2014-15 and therefore, it had submitted

Page 3

3

an  application,  as  prescribed  under  the  Establishment  of  

Medical College Regulations, 1999.  The said application had  

been rejected as the Executive Committee of  the MCI found  

certain  deficiencies  in  the  functioning  of  Respondent  no.1  

institute.  Some litigation had taken place with regard to the  

said rejection, but the said rejection is not much relevant for  

the present petition.  

5. For  renewal  of  the  said  permission  for  additional  50  

MBBS  students  for  the  academic  year  2015-16,  another  

application was made by respondent no.1 and in pursuance of  

the  said  application,  an  inspection  of  Respondent  No.1  

institute had taken place on 5th and 6th December, 2014 by the  

MCI and at the time of said inspection, following deficiencies  

had been noted by the representatives of the MCI:

“1. Deficiency  of  faculty  is  10%  as  detailed  in   report.  

2. Shortage of Residents is 16.5% as detailed in   report.

Page 4

4

3. Common  Room  for  Girls  is  in  corridor  and  requires improvement.  

4. O.T.: There are 15 tables in 11 O.T.s indicating  more than 1 table in several O.T.s which is not   as per norms.

5. Other  deficiencies  as  pointed  out  in  the   assessment report.”

6. Report  of  the  aforestated  inspection,  which  had  taken  

place on 5th and 6th December, 2014, was placed before the  

Executive Committee of the MCI on 13th January, 2015 for its  

consideration.  The aforestated deficiencies were found by the  

Executive  Committee  of  the  MCI  of  serious  nature  and  

therefore,  the  Committee  decided  “to  recommend  to  the  

Central  Government  not  to  renew  the  permission  for  

admission  of  4th batch  of  MMBS  students  against  the  

increased intake i.e. from 100 to 150” students of Respondent  

no.1 and the said decision was communicated to Respondent  

no.1 by the MCI under its letter dated 21st January, 2015.

Page 5

5

7. Though not much relevant, it is pertinent to note that in  

pursuance  of  some litigation which  had taken place  in  the  

meantime, Respondent no.1 gave admission to 50 additional  

students to MBBS course for the academic year 2014-15 on  

the basis of an undertaking given to this Court.  Thus, in fact,  

150 students were given admission to MBBS course for the  

academic year 2014-15.  The said undertaking was ultimately  

found to be incorrect by the MCI.

8. Respondent  no.1  institute  had  thereafter  addressed  a  

letter dated 14th February, 2015 to the MCI, wherein it was  

claimed that the deficiencies which had been found by the MCI  

at the time of inspection of Respondent no.1, which had taken  

place  on  5th and  6th December,  2014,  had  been  removed.  

Respondent  no.1  was  also  given  a  personal  hearing  by  

respondent no.3.

9. Respondent  no.3  had requested  the  MCI  to  reconsider  

the case of Respondent no.1 institute and in pursuance of the

Page 6

6

said request, the assessors of the MCI had carried out another  

inspection  on  8th May,  2015  and  submitted  the  report  of  

inspection to the Executive Committee of the MCI.   Even at  

the  time  of  inspection,  which  had  taken  place  on  8th May,  

2015,  several  deficiencies  had  been  found  and  therefore,  

ultimately on 13th May, 2015, the Executive Committee of the  

MCI decided to recommend to the Central Government not to  

renew the permission for admission of 4th batch of increased  

MBBS students from 100 to 150 under Section 10A of the IMC  

Act, 1956 for the academic year 2015-16.  The said decision  

had been communicated by Respondent no.3 to Respondent  

no.1 under letter dated 15th June, 2015.

10. In  the  aforestated  circumstances,  the  application  for  

increase in intake of 50 MBBS students had been rejected.

11. Aggrieved thereby, Respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition (C)  

No.7101 of 2015 before the High Court of Delhi challenging  

the communication dated 15.6.2015 made to Respondent No.1

Page 7

7

by  Respondent  No.3,  whereby  the  application  made  by  

Respondent No.1 for  increasing intake i.e.  from 100 to  150  

seats for academic session 2015-16 had been finally rejected.  

In the said petition, the impugned order dated 13.08.2015 has  

been passed, whereby the present Appellant-the MCI has been  

directed to carry out another inspection to find out whether  

the deficiencies found at an earlier point of  time have been  

removed.

12. Being aggrieved by the aforestated order passed by the  

High Court, the Appellant has approached this Court with a  

prayer  that  the  said  interim  direction  be  quashed,  as  

according  to  the  Appellant,  Respondent  no.1  cannot  be  

permitted to have 50 more students for academic year 2015-

16.  

13. In the aforestated circumstances, present appeals have  

been  filed  before  this  Court  and  upon  hearing  the  learned  

counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the view that the

Page 8

8

High Court has committed an error by directing the Appellant  

to carry out another inspection.

14. Looking  at  the  fact  that  the  norms  set  up  by  the  

Appellant had not been fulfilled by Respondent No.1, in our  

opinion,  it  would  not  be  just  and  proper  to  constrain  the  

Appellant  to  carry  out  one  more  inspection  which  is  not  

warranted under any legal provision.  It is a well-known fact  

that if infrastructure of any training institute is not sufficient  

to  train and groom its  students,  the  students,  even if  they  

pass out at the final  examination,   may not turn out to be  

good professionals.   At  this  juncture,  we think it  proper  to  

quote what this Court has said in Manohar Lal Sharma vs.  

Medical Council of India (2013) 10 SCC 60:  

“26. We  have  already  dealt  with,  in  extenso,  the  deficiencies  pointed  out  by  the  MCI  team  in  its  report dated 6-7-2013. In our view, the deficiencies  pointed  out  are  fundamental  and  very  crucial,  which cannot be ignored in the interest of medical  education  and  in  the  interest  of  the  student  community. MCI and the College authorities have to  bear in mind, what is prescribed is the minimum, if

Page 9

9

MCI dilutes the minimum standards,  they will  be  doing violence to the statutory requirements. MCI is  duty-bound  to  cancel  the  request  if  fundamental  and minimum requirements are not satisfied or else  the College will  be producing half-baked and poor  quality doctors and they would do more harm to the  society  than  service.  In  our  view,  the  infirmities  pointed  out  by  the  inspection  team  are  serious  deficiencies  and  the  Board  of  Governors  of  MCI  rightly  not  granted  approval  for  renewal  of  permission  for  the  third  batch  of  150  MBBS  students for the academic year 2013-2014.”

15. Looking  at  the  aforestated  observations  made  by  this  

Court and in view of the fact that all the norms had not been  

fulfilled,  which  were  necessary  for  the  purpose  of  grant  of  

permission to have 50 additional students, in our opinion, it  

was not just and proper on the part of the High Court to direct  

the Appellant to have additional inspection.    

16. Once the apex body supervising education in the field of  

medicine has set-up a particular set of standards, it would not  

proper  on  the  part  of  the  judiciary  to  direct  that  body  to  

digress from the standards so fixed.  In the circumstances, we

Page 10

10

are of the view that the direction given by the High Court is  

not proper.   

17. We have further noted the fact that the law with regard to  

grant  of  permission  to  a  medical  college  or  with  regard  to  

permission for having additional students is regulated by the  

Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999.  We have  

duly  considered  the  said  Regulations  in  the  case  of  Royal  

Medical Trust (Regd.) and Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.  

(2015)  9  SCALE  68.   This  Court  has  prescribed  a  time  

schedule which is to be followed by all authorities concerned  

either for giving permission for establishment of a new medical  

college  or  for  the  purpose  of  increasing  the  strength  of  

students.  The direction given by the High Court is also not in  

consonance with the said schedule of dates fixed by this Court  

and therefore also, in our opinion,  the said direction is  not  

justifiable.   

Page 11

11

18. For the aforestated reasons,  we set aside the direction  

given  by  the  High  Court  dated  13.8.2015,  whereby  the  

Appellant  has  been  asked  to  carry  out  inspection  of  

Respondent no.1 institute and therefore, allow these appeals  

with no order as to costs.

         ………..……………………J.                    (ANIL R. DAVE)

                   ………..…………………….J.     (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)

NEW DELHI DECEMBER 1, 2015.