Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.4911     OF     2012   

(Arising out of SLP(C)No.28996 of 2011)

Medical Council of India    … Appellant   Vs.

Rama Medical College Hospital & Research Centre, Kanpur & Anr.    … Respondents

WITH CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.4909     OF     2012   

(Arising out of SLP(C)No.30332 of 2011) AND

CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.4910     OF     2012   (Arising out of SLP(C)No.30338 of 2011)

AND CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.4912     OF     2012   

(Arising out of SLP(C)No.3732 of 2012) AND

Page 2

WRIT     PETITION     (CIVIL)     NOS.457,     458     AND     489     OF     2011   

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T   

ALTAMAS     KABIR,     J.   

1. Leave granted.

2. The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956,  

hereinafter referred to as the “1956 Act”, was  

enacted, inter alia, to provide for the  

reconstitution of the Medical Council of India and  

the maintenance of a Medical Register for India and  

for matters connected therewith.  Section 3 of the  

Act empowered the Central Government to constitute  

a Council, which as per Section 4(1) means the  

Medical Council of India, hereinafter referred to  

as the “Medical Council”, constituted under the  

1956 Act.

2

Page 3

3. In these matters, we are mainly concerned with  

the interpretation of Sections 10A and 11 of the  

1956 Act. Section 10A of the 1956 Act, which  

provides for permission for establishment of new  

medical colleges and new courses of study, is  

extracted hereinbelow :

“10A. Permission for establishment of new  medical college, new course of study.-  (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in  this Act or any other law for the time  being in force:-  

a)no person shall establish a medical  college; or

b)no medical college shall –  

(i) open a new or higher course of  study or training (including a  post-graduate course of study or  training) which would enable a  student of such course or training  to qualify himself for the award  of any recognised medical  qualification; or  

(ii)increase its admission capacity in  any course of study or training  (including a post-graduate course  of study or training),  

3

Page 4

except with the previous permission of the  Central Government obtained in accordance  with the provisions of this Section.  

Explanation 1.-For the purposes of  this Section, "person" includes any  University or a trust but does not include  the Central Government.  

Explanation 2.- For the purposes of  this Section "admission capacity" in  relation to any course of study or  training (including post-graduate course  of study or training) in a medical  college, means the maximum number of  students that may be fixed by the Council  from time to time for being admitted to  such course or training.

(2) (a) Every person or medical  college shall, for the purpose of  obtaining permission under sub-Section  (1), submit to the Central Government a  scheme in accordance with the provisions  of clause (b) and the Central Government  shall refer the scheme to the Council for  its recommendations.  

(b) The scheme referred to in clause  (a) shall be in such form and contain such  particulars and be preferred in such  manner and be accompanied with such fee as  may be prescribed.

(3) On receipt of a scheme by the  Council under sub-Section (2) the Council  may obtain such other particulars as may  be considered necessary by it from the  person or the medical college concerned,  and thereafter, it may, -  

4

Page 5

a) if the scheme is defective and  does not contain any necessary  particulars, give a reasonable  opportunity to the person or  college concerned for making a  written representation and it  shall be open to such person or  medical college to rectify the  defects, if any, specified by the  Council;

b) consider the scheme, having regard  to the factors referred to in sub- Section (7), and submit the scheme  together with its recommendations  thereon to the Central Government.

 (4)  The Central Government may, after  

considering the scheme and the  recommendations of the Council under sub- Section (3) and after obtaining, where  necessary, such other particulars as may  be considered necessary by it from the  person or college concerned, and having  regard to the factors referred to in sub- Section (7), either approve (with such  conditions, if any, as it may consider  necessary) or disapprove the scheme and  any such approval shall be a permission  under sub-Section (1):

Provided that no scheme shall be  disapproved by the Central Government  except after giving the person or college  concerned a reasonable opportunity of  being heard:  

Provided further that nothing in this  sub Section shall prevent any person or  

5

Page 6

medical college whose scheme has not been  approved by the Central Government to  submit a fresh scheme and the provisions  of this Section shall apply to such  scheme, as if such scheme has been  submitted for the first time under sub- Section (2).  

(5)  Where, within a period of one  year from the date of submission of the  scheme to the Central Government under  sub-Section (2), no order passed by the  Central Government has been communicated  to the person or college submitting the  scheme, such scheme shall be deemed to  have been approved by the Central  Government in the form in which it had  been submitted, and accordingly, the  permission of the Central Government  required under sub-Section (1) shall also  be deemed to have been granted.

(6) In computing the time-limit  specified in sub-Section (5), the time  taken by the person or college concerned  submitting the scheme, in furnishing any  particulars called for by the Council, or  by the Central Government, shall be  excluded.  

(7) The Council, while making its  recommendations under clause (b) of sub- Section (3) and the Central Government,  while passing an order, either approving  or disapproving the scheme under sub- Section (4), shall have due regard to the  following factors, namely:-

6

Page 7

a) whether the proposed medical  college or the existing medical  college seeking to open a new or  higher course of study or  training, would be in a position  to offer the minimum standards of  medical education as prescribed by  the Council under Section 19A or,  as the case may be, under Section  20 in the case of post-graduate  medical education;

b) whether the person seeking to  establish a medical college or the  existing medical college seeking  to open a new or higher course of  study or training or to increase  its admission capacity has  adequate financial resources;  

c) whether necessary facilities in  respect of staff, equipment,  accommodation, training and other  facilities to ensure proper  functioning of the medical college  or conducting the new course or  study or training or accommodating  the increased admission capacity,  have been provided or would be  provided within the time-limit  specified in the scheme;

d) whether adequate hospital  facilities, having regard to the  number or students likely to  attend such medical college or  course of study or training or as  a result of the increased  admission capacity, have been  

7

Page 8

provided or would be provided  within the time-limit specified in  the scheme;  

e) whether any arrangement has been  made or programme drawn to impart  proper training to students likely  to attend such medical college or  course of study or training by  persons having the recognised  medical qualifications;

f) the requirement of manpower in the  field of practice of medicine; and

g) any other factors as may be  prescribed.  

(8) Where the Central Government  passes an order either approving or  disapproving a scheme under this Section,  a copy of the order shall be communicated  to the person or college concerned.”  

4.  It would be seen from the above that after the  

promulgation of the 1956 Act, no person would be  

entitled to establish a Medical College except in  

the manner provided in Section 10A, which, in  

addition provides that no medical college shall  

open a new or higher course of study or training,  

including a post-graduate course of training, which  

8

Page 9

would enable a student of such course or training  

to qualify himself for the award of recognised  

medical qualification, except with the previous  

permission of the Central Government.  The said  

prohibition also extends to the increase in  

admission capacity in any course of study or  

training, including post-graduate study or  

training, except with such previous permission of  

the Central Government. Sub-Section (2)  

categorically provides that every person or medical  

college shall, for the purpose of obtaining  

permission under Sub-Section (1), submit to the  

Central Government a scheme in accordance with the  

provisions of Clause (b) and the Central Government  

shall refer the scheme to the Medical Council for  

its recommendations.  The said Council has been  

authorized to scrutinize the scheme and make such  

suggestions, as may be necessary, to rectify any  

defect and, thereafter, to forward the same,  

together with its recommendations, to the Central  

9

Page 10

Government.  Sub-Section (7) provides that the  

Council while making its recommendations shall take  

into consideration the factors mentioned therein.   

5. In other words, although, the Central  

Government is the authority to grant sanction to  

the establishment of a medical college, it is the  

Medical Council of India which plays a major role  

in deciding whether such sanction could be given by  

the Central Government.

6. Section 11 of the 1956 Act deals with  

recognition of medical qualifications granted by  

universities or medical institutions in India.  The  

same also being relevant to the facts of this case,  

is reproduced hereinbelow :

“11. Recognition of medical qualifications  granted by Universities or medical  institutions in India.- (1) The medical  qualifications granted by any University  or medical institution in India which are  included in the First Schedule shall be  recognised medical qualifications for the  purposes of this Act.  

1

Page 11

(2) Any University or medical institution  in India which grants a medical  qualification not included in the First  Schedule may apply to the Central  Government to have such qualification  recognised, and the Central Government,  after consulting the Council, may, by  notification in the Official Gazette,  amend the First Schedule so as to include  such qualification therein, and any such  notification may also direct that an entry  shall be made in the last column of the  First Schedule against such medical  qualification declaring that it shall be a  recognised medical qualification only when  granted after a specified date.”  

7. In addition to the aforesaid provisions,  

Section 10-B of the 1956 Act is also of  

significance as it deals with non-recognition of  

medical qualifications in certain cases. For the  

sake of reference, the same is also extracted  

hereinbelow :-

“10-B. Non-recognition of medical  qualifications in certain cases.– (1) Where  any medical college is established except  with the previous permission of the Central  Government in accordance with the provision  of Section 10A, no medical qualification  granted to any student of such medical  

1

Page 12

college shall be a recognised medical  qualification for the purposes of this Act.

(2) Where any medical college opens a new  or higher course of study or training  (including a post-graduate course of study  or training) except with the previous  permission of the Central Government in  accordance with the provisions of Section  10A, no medical qualification granted to  any student of such medical college on the  basis of such study or training shall be a  recognised medical qualification for the  purposes of this Act.

(3) Where any medical college increases  its admission capacity in any course of  study or training except with the previous  permission of the Central Government in  accordance with the provision of Section  10A, no medical qualification granted to  any student of such medical college on the  basis of the increase in its admission  capacity shall be a recognised medical  qualification for the purposes of this Act. Explanation –  For the purposes of this  Section, the criteria for identifying a  student who has been granted a medical  qualification on the basis of such increase  in the admission capacity shall be such as  may be prescribed.”

8. It is amply clear from Section 10B that if a  

Medical College is established, except with the  

previous permission of the Central Government, as  

1

Page 13

provided under Section 10A, no medical  

qualification granted to any student of such  

medical college shall be recognized as a medical  

qualification for the purposes of the Act.  

9. At this juncture, reference may be made to the  

“Establishment of Medical College Regulations,  

1999”, framed by the Medical Council of India in  

exercise of powers conferred under Section 10A read  

with Section 33 of the 1956 Act, and notified on  

30th July, 1999.  The same came into force on their  

publication in the Official Gazette on 28th August,  

1999, and is hereinafter referred to as the “1999  

Regulations”.

10. Regulation 4 of the 1999 Regulations, inter  

alia, provides that applications for permission to  

set up Medical Colleges are to be submitted to the  

Secretary (Health), Ministry of Health and Family  

Welfare, Government of India, along with a non-

refundable application fee of Rs.3.5 lakhs in the  

1

Page 14

form of a demand draft/pay order in favour of the  

Medical Council of India for Central and State  

Government Colleges and Rs.7 lakhs for private  

sector medical colleges and institutions.  

Regulation 5 provides that applications received by  

the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare are to be  

referred to the Medical Council for registration  

and evaluation and recommendations.  Regulations 6  

and 7 provide that after evaluation, the Council  

shall send a factual report to the Central  

Government with its recommendations to issue or not  

to issue Letters of Intent.  Regulation 8 of the  

1999 Regulations is the provision for grant of  

permission and since it is of considerable  

significance to the issue involved in these  

proceedings, the same is reproduced hereinbelow :  

“8. GRANT OF PERMISSION:  (1) The Central Government on the  

recommendation of the Council may  issue a Letter of Intent to set up a  new medical college with such  

1

Page 15

conditions or modifications in the  original proposal as may be  considered necessary. This letter of  Intent will also include a clear cut  statement of preliminary  requirements to be met in respect of  buildings, infrastructural  facilities, medical and allied  equipments, faculty and staff before  admitting the first batch of  students. The formal permission may  be granted after the above  conditions and modifications are  accepted and the performance bank  guarantees for the required sums are  furnished by the person and after  consulting the Medical Council of  India.  

(2) The formal permission may include a  time bound programme for the  establishment of the medical college  and expansion of the hospital  facilities. The permission may also  define annual targets as may be  fixed by the Council to be achieved  by the person to commensurate with  the intake of students during the  following years.

(3) 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  

1

Page 16

India for purpose of renewal six  months 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.

(4) The council may obtain any other  information from the proposed  medical college as it deems fit and  necessary.”

11. The above Regulation makes it clear that  

irrespective of whether the applicant is the  

Central Government or a State Government or a  

private person, the Central Government may, on the  

recommendation of the Medical Council, issue a  

Letter of Intent to set up a new medical college  

and formal permission may be granted initially for  

a period of one year and may be renewed on yearly  

1

Page 17

basis subject to verification of the achievements  

of annual targets, once the conditions and  

modifications indicated in the Letter of Intent are  

accepted and after consulting the Medical Council  

of India.  Sub-regulation (3) is important for our  

purpose as it also related to certain other  

Regulations published by the Medical Council in  

2000.  It provides, without any ambiguity that the  

provision to establish a medical college and to  

admit students may be granted initially for a  

period of one year and may be renewed on yearly  

basis subject to verification of the achievement of  

annual targets.  It may be noted that Section 10A  

speaks of permission and not recognition on a year  

to year basis.  Recognition follows once the newly-

established medical colleges/institutions  

satisfactorily complete five years with the  

graduation of the first batch of students admitted  

to the institution when initial permission is  

granted. It also provides with complete clarity  

1

Page 18

that it shall be the responsibility of the  

applicant to apply to the Medical Council for  

renewal of permission six months before the expiry  

of the initial permission and that the process of  

renewal of permission will continue till all the  

required formalities are completed and a formal  

recognition of the medical college is granted.   

12. From the aforesaid provisions it is very clear  

that recognition to a degree awarded by a newly-

established medical college can be given only after  

all the requirements for the establishment of the  

medical college and expansion of the hospital  

facilities are completed.  It has also been  

stipulated that further admissions shall not be  

made at any stage unless the requirements of the  

Council are fulfilled.     

13. Reference may also be made to the Regulations  

framed by the Medical Council of India relating to  

opening of higher courses of study and increase of  

1

Page 19

admission capacity in medical colleges and  

published by the Medical Council of India under  

notification dated 14th August, 2000.  The same are  

known as “The Opening of a New or Higher Course of  

Study or Training (including Post-Graduate Course  

of Study or Training) and Increase of Admission  

Capacity in any Course of Study or Training  

(including a Post-Graduate Course of Study Or  

Training) Regulations, 2000”, hereinafter referred  

to as “the 2000 Regulations”, which came into force  

on 7th October, 2000.  Thereafter, Regulation 3,  

which provides for permission for establishment of  

a new or higher course of study, etc., reads as  

follows :-     

“(3) The permission for establishment of a  new or higher course of study, etc. -  

No medical college, shall –

(a) open a new or higher course of study  or training (including a post-graduate  course of study or training) which  would enable a student of such course  or training to qualify himself for the  

1

Page 20

award of any recognized medical  qualification; or

(b) increase admission capacity in any  course of study or training (including  a post-graduate course of study or  training); except after obtaining the  previous permission of the Central  Government by submitting Scheme  annexed to these regulations.”

14. Regulation 3 of Part I of the said Regulations  

sets out the “Qualifying Criteria”  which provides  

as follows :

“QUALIFYING CRITERIA : The medical college/institution shall  

qualify for opening a New or Higher Course  of Study or Training (including a Post- graduate Course of Study or Training) in  the medical colleges/institutions if the  following conditions are fulfilled :

1. (1) The medical college/institution  must be recognised by the Medical Council  of India for running Bachelor of Medicine  and Bachelor of Surgery/Post-graduate  Course; however, the medical  college/Institute which is not yet  recognised by the Medical Council of India  for the award of MBBS Degree may apply for  starting of a Post-Graduate Course in pre- clinical and para-clinical subjects of  Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry,  

2

Page 21

Pharmacology, Pathology, Microbiology,  Forensic Medicine and Community Medicine  at the time of third renewal – i.e. along  with the admission of fourth batch for the  MBBS Course”;   

                  [Emphasis Supplied]

15. Regulation 3 of Part II of the Regulations,  

dealing with Qualification Criteria initially  

provided that a medical college/institution would  

qualify to apply for increasing the number of  

admissions in MBBS/PG Diploma/Degree/Higher  

Speciality Course in the existing medical  

college/institution, if it fulfilled certain  

conditions, one of which was that the medical  

college/Institution had been recognized by the  

Medical Council of India as being capable of  

running such courses.  The aforesaid paragraph was,  

subsequently substituted by the following :

“The medical college/institution must be  recognized by the Medical Council of India  for running Bachelor of Medicine and  Bachelor of Surgery/Post-Graduate Course;  however, the Medial College/Institute  which is not yet recognized by the Medical  

2

Page 22

Council of India for the award of MBBS  Degree may apply for starting of a Post- Graduate Course in pre-clinical and para- clinical subjects of Anatomy, Physiology,  Biochemistry, Pharmacology, Pathology,  Microbiology, Forensic Medicine and  Community Medicine at the time of fourth  renewal – i.e. along with the admission of  fifth batch for the MBBS Course.”   

                  [Emphasis  Supplied]

16. It is in the aforesaid background that the  

Medical Council of India filed Special Leave  

Petition (Civil) No.28996 of 2011, and two other  

Special Leave Petitions, which are being heard  

along with three Writ Petitions filed by private  

institutions claiming the right to increase their  

admission capacity.  

17. Appearing on behalf of the Medical Council of  

India, Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned Senior Advocate,  

referred to the relevant provisions of the 1956  

Act, which have been referred to and reproduced  

hereinabove. Mr. Gupta relied heavily on the  

requirements to be fulfilled by the Applicant  

2

Page 23

colleges for obtaining Letter of Intent and Letter  

of Permission for establishment of new medical  

colleges and yearly renewals under Section 10A of  

the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, published by  

the Medical Council of India and approved by the  

Central Government in its Ministry of Health &  

Family Welfare vide letter dated 13th October, 2009.  

Laying stress on the requirements to be fulfilled  

for yearly renewals under Section 10A of the 1956  

Act, Mr. Gupta also referred to the 2000  

Regulations, with particular reference to  

Regulation 3 of Part I of the Regulations dealing  

with Qualification Criteria as set out hereinabove.  

Mr. Gupta submitted that it would be clear from the  

substituted Sub-Regulation (1) of Regulation 3 that  

it was always the intention of the Central  

Government and the Medical Council of India that  

for the purpose of increase in the number of  

admissions in the different courses, the medical  

college/institution had to be recognized by the  

2

Page 24

Medical Council of India of being capable of  

running Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of  

Surgery/Post-Graduate Courses.  Mr. Gupta urged  

that the said clause also provides that even in  

cases of medical colleges and institutes, which  

were not yet recognized by the Medical Council of  

India for the award of MBBS degree, they could also  

apply for increase of intake in the Post-Graduate  

Courses at the time of fourth renewal i.e. along  

with the admission of the fifth batch for the MBBS  

Course. Mr. Gupta submitted that the said provision  

makes it very clear that degrees awarded by medical  

colleges and institutions could not be recognized  

prior to the completion of the five year course and  

that only at the time of the fourth renewal,  

namely, for the final year course, could an  

application be made for such purpose along with the  

admission of the fifth batch for the MBBS Course,  

or in other words, with the admission of the final  

year students of the MBBS Course. Mr. Gupta  

2

Page 25

submitted that the said provisions unambiguously  

indicate that without completion of the five-year  

course and the graduation of the first batch of  

MBBS students, a medical college or institution  

could not be recognized for the purposes of Section  

10A or 11 of the 1956 Act.  

 18. In addition to what has been mentioned  

hereinabove, Mr. Gupta laid special stress on  

Regulation 8 of the 1999 Regulations relating to  

grant of permission for setting up of a new medical  

college.  He laid special stress on Sub-Regulation  

3, extracted hereinbefore, which provides that 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.  The said Regulation further  

provides that, for the purpose of renewal, an  

application would have to be made to the Medical  

2

Page 26

Council of India at least six months prior to the  

expiry of the initial permission and that the  

process of renewal of permission would continue  

till such time as the establishment of the medical  

college and expansion of the hospital facilities  

are not completed and a formal recognition of the  

medical college is not granted.  Mr. Gupta also  

laid stress on the further provision contained in  

the said Regulation to the effect that further  

admissions would not be made at any stage, unless  

the requirements of the Council are fulfilled.  The  

said submissions were made in the light of  

Regulation 3 of Part II dealing with the question  

of “qualification criteria”, whereunder it has been  

provided that the medical college/institution must  

be recognised by the Medical Council of India for  

running Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of  

Surgery/Post-Graduate Courses.  The said Regulation  

further provides for fourth renewal, along with the  

admission of the fifth batch for the MBBS Course.  

2

Page 27

Mr. Gupta submitted that the aforesaid provisions  

were sufficient to prove his case that recognition  

of the degree awarded by the newly-established  

medical college could only be given by the Central  

Government after the first batch of students of the  

MBBS Course had completed the said Course and  

recommendations had been made by the Medical  

Council to grant such recognition.   

19. In support of his submissions, Mr. Gupta  

referred to and relied upon several decisions of  

this Court.  Referring to the three-Judge Bench  

decision of this Court in the case of Medical  

Council     of     India   Vs. State     of     Karnataka     &     Ors.    

[(1998) 6 SCC 131], Mr. Gupta submitted that one of  

the questions which fell for decision in the said  

case was the extent of the powers of the Medical  

Council of India to fix the admission capacity in  

the medical colleges/institutions and its role in  

regard to the increase in number of admissions in  

2

Page 28

such institutions.  One other question which also  

fell for consideration was with regard to the  

status of the regulations framed by the Medical  

Council under the 1956 Act.   

20. On the first issue, one question which was  

raised was whether the directions given by the  

Medical Council under the Regulations framed by it  

were mandatory or directory in character.  In this  

connection, this Court had occasion to consider its  

decision in State     of     M.P.   Vs. Nivedita     Jain   [(1981)  

4 SCC 296], in which it had, inter alia, been held  

that all the Regulations framed by the Medical  

Council of India under the 1956 Act, were directory  

in nature.  While considering the matter, this  

Court held that the Indian Medical Council Act is  

relatable to Entry 66 of List I and prevails over  

any State enactment to the extent the State  

enactment is repugnant to the provisions of the  

said Act, even though the State Act may be  

2

Page 29

relatable to Entry 25 or 26 of the Concurrent List.  

This Court further held that Regulations framed  

under Section 33 of the 1956 Act, with the previous  

sanction of the Central Government, are statutory  

and had been framed to carry out the purposes of  

the Act and for various other purposes mentioned in  

Section 33.  This Court further held that if a  

Regulation falls within the purposes referred to  

under Section 33 of the Act, it would have  

statutory force.  It was ultimately held that the  

State Acts, and in the said case, the Karnataka  

Universities Act and the Karnataka Capitation Fee  

Act, would have to give way to the Indian Medical  

Council of India Act, 1956, which was a Central  

Act.   

21. The next case referred to by Mr. Gupta is a  

decision of the Constitution Bench in several writ  

petitions in which the lead writ petition, being  

No.290 of 1997, was filed by Dr.     Preeti     Srivastava    

2

Page 30

&     Anr.   against the State     of     M.P.     &     Ors.   [(1999) 7  

SCC 120].  Some of the questions which fell for the  

determination of the Constitution Bench were  

similar to those which had been taken up and  

decided in Nivedita     Jain  ’s case (supra).  While 4  

out of 5 Judges were unanimous on the issue that by  

virtue of Entry 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List  

III, the State’s competence to control or regulate  

higher education is subject to the standards so  

laid down by the Union of India, the dissenting  

view taken by one of the Hon’ble Judges was that  

while the Parliament was competent to authorize the  

Medical Council of India to prescribe basic  

standards of eligibility and qualification for  

admission to the Post-Graduate Courses under the  

Medical Council Act, the States were fully  

competent to control admission to Post-Graduate  

Medical Courses in the absence of any central  

legislation on these aspects.  The majority view  

was similar to the view expressed in the decision  

3

Page 31

in the Medical     Council     of     India   case (supra).  It  

was further held that in view of Entry 66 of List  

I, a State has the right to control education,  

including medical education, so long as the field  

is not occupied by any Union List entry.  Secondly,  

the State, cannot, by controlling education in the  

State, encroach upon the standards in institutions  

for higher education, because the same was  

exclusively within the purview of the Union  

Government. Distinguishing various earlier  

decisions of this Court in the cases of Minor     P.    

Rajendran Vs. State     of     Madras   [AIR 1968 SC 1012];  

Chitra     Ghosh   Vs. Union     of     India   [(1969) 2 SCC 228];  

State     of     A.P.   Vs. Lavu     Narendranath   [(1971) 1 SCC  

607]; and Ambesh     Kumar     (Dr.)   Vs. Principal,  

L.L.R.M.     Medical     College   [(1986) Supp. SCC 543],  

the Constitution Bench criticized the decision  

rendered in Nivedita     Jain  ’s case (supra). Apart  

from the above, the majority view was that the  

power vested in the Medical Council under Section  

3

Page 32

20 of the 1956 Act, to prescribe the minimum  

standards for Post-Graduate education, was not  

merely advisory in nature, but that the  

universities were bound to abide by the standards  

prescribed.  It was also the majority view that the  

norms had to be laid down by the Medical Council  

for determining reservation of seats for  

SCs/STs/OBCs and minimum qualifying marks for the  

candidates had also to be prescribed.  

22. In his dissenting judgment, Justice S.B.  

Majmudar held that the provisions of Section 20  

read with Section 33 empowers the Medical Council  

to lay down basic requirements of quantifications  

and eligibility conditions and once the same was  

done, it was for the States under Entry 25 of List  

III to control admission and to lay down the  

criteria for shortlisting the eligible candidates,  

since Parliament had not legislated on this aspect.  

The Hon’ble Judges representing the majority view  

3

Page 33

made it clear that under the 1956 Act, the Medical  

Council had been set up as an expert body to  

control the minimum standards of medical education,  

including Post-Graduate medical education, and to  

regulate their observance.  Their Lordships also  

held that the Council had implicit power to  

supervise the qualifications or eligibility  

standards for admission into medical institutions  

and that the Act provided for an overall vigilance  

by the Medical Council to prevent sub-standard  

entrance qualifications for medical courses.  It  

was further held that the scheme of the 1956 Act  

did not give an option to the universities to  

follow or not to follow the standards laid down by  

the Medical Council.   

23. Reference was also made to the decision  

rendered by a Bench of two Judges in K.S.     Bhoir   Vs.  

State     of     Maharashtra     &     Ors.   [(2001) 10 SCC 264],  

which was heard along with some other Civil  

3

Page 34

Appeals, where the issues were common.  The first  

issue raised and deliberated upon was the proposed  

one-time increase in admission capacity in medical  

colleges.  Striking out the State provision, this  

Court held that the non-obstante clause contained  

in Section 10A(1) means that an increase in  

admission capacity in a medical college is  

prohibited, unless previous permission is obtained  

from the Central Government in accordance with the  

recommendation of the Medical Council of India.  

Their Lordships also observed that the entire  

scheme of Section 10A of the Act had to be read in  

consonance with the other Sub-Sections to further  

the object behind the amending Act which was to  

achieve the highest standard of medical education.  

Their Lordships observed that the objective could  

be achieved only by ensuring that a medical college  

had the requisite infrastructure to impart medical  

education.  In the facts of the said case and in  

view of Section 10A(1), Their Lordships ultimately  

3

Page 35

held that the one-time increase proposed by the  

State Government in the admission capacity in the  

various medical colleges, should have been  

accompanied by a scheme prepared in accordance with  

the Act and the Regulations and submitted to the  

Central Government.  Their Lordships also held that  

in the absence of any scheme submitted to the  

Central Government in regard to the one-time  

increase in the admission capacity in the medical  

colleges, the Central Government was justified in  

refusing permission for the same.     

24. The next decision referred to by Mr. Gupta was  

that rendered in the case of Govt.     of     A.P.     &     Anr.    

Vs. Medwin     Educational     Society     &     Ors.   [(2004) 1 SCC  

86], wherein the same view, as was expressed in the  

decision in K.S.     Bhoir  ’s case, was reiterated.  It  

was reiterated that the decision of the State  

Government in the matter was not final, as the  

final decision had to be taken by the Central  

3

Page 36

Government on the basis of the recommendations of  

the Medical Council under the relevant provisions  

of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

25. Mr. Gupta lastly submitted that it is settled  

law that an individual State is entitled to  

legislate on any of the Entries contained in the  

Concurrent List even if there was in existence a  

central law on the said subject, but in case of  

repugnancy, the law enacted by the State would have  

to give way to the central law.  Mr. Gupta urged  

that the Division Bench of the High Court had erred  

in interpreting the use of the expression “formal  

recognition” in Sub-Regulation (3) of Regulation 8  

of the 1999 Regulations, and had erroneously held  

that the same could be preceded by grant of adhoc  

recognition, which could subsequently be converted  

into a formal recognition, as contemplated by  

Section 11 of the 1956 Act.  Mr. Gupta also urged  

that the decision of the Division Bench of the High  

3

Page 37

Court concurring with the reasoning of the learned  

Single Judge that the Regulation does not  

contemplate that a college must be recognised to  

award degrees, i.e., it does not contemplate  

recognition under Section 11 of the 1956 Act and  

that it is permissible in a college to effect  

increase in the admission capacity, even at the  

stage when it has permission/recognition under  

Section 10A of the 1956 Act, was wholly erroneous  

and was liable to be struck down.

26. Mr. Gupta pointed out from a number of  

decisions of this Court that in an extraordinary  

case the Court may itself pass an order to give  

directions which the Government or public authority  

should have passed or issued.  Mr. Gupta submitted  

that having held as much, the learned Single Judge  

had quite wrongly issued a mandamus to increase the  

capacity pertaining to the MBBS course from 100 to  

150 seats in each of the three colleges, thus  

3

Page 38

wandering into the territory of the Medical Council  

of India which had the necessary expertise and the  

authority under the Regulations to evaluate as to  

whether the medical institution was capable of  

catering to more students than initially envisaged.  

Mr. Gupta submitted that while increasing the  

number of students from 100 to 150, the Court not  

only acted beyond its jurisdiction in giving such  

direction, but it failed to take into consideration  

the fact that under the relevant regulations it was  

only the Medical Council which could have allowed  

such increase, once it was satisfied that the  

concerned institution had proper facilities to  

support such an increase.   

27. Mr. Gupta, therefore, urged that since the  

process adopted by the learned Single Judge, which  

was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High  

Court, being contrary to the Rules and Regulations  

in respect of the issues raised in the appeals, the  

3

Page 39

same could not be sustained and were liable to be  

set aside.   

28. Mr. T.S. Doabia, learned Senior Advocate, who  

appeared for the Union of India, adopted the  

submissions made by Mr. Nidhesh Gupta and added  

that the scheme for granting permission to  

establish new medical colleges/institutions and  

also for granting permission to increase the number  

of seats in the institution, made it quite clear  

that it was only the Central Government, acting on  

the recommendation of the Medical Council of India,  

which could either grant permission for the  

establishment of a new medical institution or grant  

recognition to the institution itself, once the  

first batch of students admitted had completed  

their fifth year and had graduated.  Mr. Doabia  

submitted that this was a scheme which had been  

framed both under the Act and the Rules and  

Regulations framed thereunder and the Medical  

3

Page 40

Council of India and the Union of India had  

complete say in the matter.  The inclusion of a  

third party was not contemplated under the  

provisions of Sections 10A or 10B of the 1956 Act.  

Accordingly, the mandamus issued by the learned  

Single Judge of the High Court, which was affirmed  

by the Division Bench, was liable to be set aside.  

 29. Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned Senior Advocate  

appearing for the School of Medical Sciences and  

Research, Sharda Education Trust, the Respondent  

No.1 in SLP(C)No.30338 of 2011, raised the question  

as to whether it could have been the intention of  

the legislature to grant year to year recognition  

when a medical college was newly-established, till  

the first batch of students graduated therefrom  

after five years.  Questioning the reasonability of  

such a view, Mr. Dave submitted that once  

permission was granted to a medical  

college/institution to commence classes, it would  

4

Page 41

be quite absurd to accept the reasoning that such  

permission would have to be renewed annually, since  

after being satisfied that the institution was  

capable of running a medical course, permission had  

been granted to commence the classes for the first  

year.  

30. Referring to Sections 10A(1)(b) and (4), Mr.  

Dave pointed out that the said provisions  

contemplated a one-time recognition and a citizen’s  

inherent right to establish medical colleges cannot  

be curtailed by the provisions for grant of year to  

year recognition.  Mr. Dave also urged that under  

the garb of exercising its powers under Section 19  

of the 1956 Act, the Council could not assert that  

it could also regulate the manner in which the  

recognition was to be granted.

31. Mr. Dave submitted that the provisions of  

Section 19A could not be read into the provisions  

of Section 10A for permission to establish a new  

4

Page 42

medical college or new course of study, as  

otherwise the grant of recognition from year to  

year would deter students from taking admissions in  

the medical college on account of the uncertainty  

of being able to continue the MBBS course in the  

event recognition was not granted for the  

subsequent year.

32. Mr. Dave, however, confined his submissions  

only to the question of increase in the number of  

students, in respect whereof he submitted that  

there could not be any fetters.  Mr. Dave contended  

that the curtailment of the right of an institution  

to increase its admission capacity in any course of  

study or training, including a Post-Graduate Course  

of study or training, except with the previous  

permission of the Central Government, was in  

violation of the provisions of Article 19(1)(g) of  

the Constitution, as such prohibition was not only  

illogical, but was unreasonable also.  Mr. Dave  

4

Page 43

submitted that if permission could be granted to  

admit 100 students, there could be no logical  

reason as to why, in order to increase the number  

of students/seats, an institution would have to  

wait for five years before recognition was granted  

to the institution by the Central Government on the  

recommendation of the Medical Council.   

33. Drawing an analogy with the provisions of Order  

XXXIX Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Code of Civil  

Procedure, 1908, Mr. Dave submitted that it would  

always be prudent to look into the matter at length  

before granting ad-interim orders.  According to  

Mr. Dave, before imposing conditions regarding  

grant of recognition from year to year, it would be  

more pragmatic to think over the matter with  

greater intensity before uniformly contending that  

a newly-established medical college/institution  

would have to seek fresh permission/recognition  

each year, before being finally granted recognition  

4

Page 44

after the fifth year, when the first batch of  

students would graduate from the institution.   

34. In support of his submission, Mr. Dave firstly  

referred to the decision of this Court in Shiv  

Kumar     Chadha   Vs. Municipal     Corporation     of     Delhi    

[(1993) 3 SCC 161], in which a three-Judge Bench of  

this Court, while considering the provisions of  

Order XXXIX Rule 3 C.P.C. and the proviso thereto  

held that the proviso had been introduced in order  

to compel the Court to give reasons as to why the  

provisions relating to notice was being dispensed  

with.  Mr. Dave contended that instead of  

prohibiting the creation of new seats in the  

medical college/institution, the concerned  

authorities should sit and ponder over the matter  

to come to a conclusion as to whether such a bar  

was necessary when the institution was already  

running a medical course with a sizable number of  

students.

4

Page 45

35. Mr. Dave urged that the doctrine of  

proportionality has been introduced by the Courts  

to ensure that the action taken against any  

individual did not transgress the constitutional  

provisions relating to the right of an individual  

to establish medical colleges/institutions as a  

concomitant of the right contained in Article 19(1)

(g) of the Constitution.  Mr. Dave concluded his  

submissions by urging that the attempt to impose  

extra-constitutional obstructions to a person’s  

right to establish a medical college/ institution,  

could not have been the intention of the framers of  

the Constitution, who all were in favour of the  

right to practise any profession or trade and  

included the same as a fundamental right under Part  

III of the Constitution.   

36. While endorsing the submissions advanced by Mr.  

Dave, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior  

Advocate, who appeared for the Respondent No.1,  

4

Page 46

Rama Medical College, in SLP(C)No.28996 of 2011,  

submitted that there was a waste of human resources  

by denying admission to deserving students who  

wanted to pursue a medical course, although, the  

required facilities were available, only on the  

ground that such increase had not been sanctioned  

by the concerned authorities. Referring to the  

provisions of Sections 10A and 11(2) of the 1956  

Act, Dr. Singhvi submitted that an interpretation  

of Section 10 of the aforesaid Act, as was being  

sought to be given, was entirely illogical,  

particularly when there was no specific legislation  

to the contrary. Dr. Singhvi urged that when  

facilities had been found to be sufficient for 100  

students, facilities providing for 150 students,  

would have to be presumed to be sufficient as well.  

37. Dr. Singhvi submitted that it is Section 10A of  

the 1956 Act which deals with setting up of new  

medical colleges/institutions or enhancement of  

4

Page 47

numbers.  According to learned counsel, Section 11  

of the 1956 Act had been wrongly pressed into  

service, since it concerns the Centre’s power to  

recognize degrees. Expressing himself  

idiomatically, Dr. Singhvi urged that trying to  

read Section 11 with Section 10A was like trying to  

mix chalk and cheese and an attempt to do so would  

lead to absurdity. In this connection, Dr. Singhvi  

referred to a three-Judge Bench decision in Mridhul  

Dhar Vs. Union     of     India   [(2005) 2 SCC 65], in which  

among several issues, one issue which fell for  

consideration was about not taking into  

consideration, for determining All-India quota,  

those seats which were created under Section 10A of  

the Act.  The Hon’ble Judge recorded that according  

to the Medical Council of India, only seats  

recognised under Section 11 are taken into  

consideration and not the seats which are permitted  

under Section 10A of the Act.  The provisions of  

4

Page 48

Regulation 8(3) of the 1999 Regulations were also  

noted.   

38. Having considered the said Regulation and the  

effect of Section 10A and Section 11 of the 1956  

Act, Their Lordships gave various directions,  

including a direction that the States, through the  

Chief Secretaries/Health Secretaries, should file a  

report in regard to admissions with the Director  

General of Health Services, by 31st October, 2004,  

with the DGHS giving details about adhering to the  

time schedule and the number of admissions granted  

as per the prescribed quota. Dr. Singhvi urged that  

the non-utilization of available resources was not  

intended by the legislature and the same also  

amounted to violation of the provisions of Article  

21 of the Constitution.   

39. Mr. Pradip K. Ghosh, learned Senior Advocate,  

who appeared for the Respondent No.1 in  

SLP(C)No.30332 of 2011, briefly reiterated the  

4

Page 49

submissions already made. Referring to the writ  

petition filed by the Teerthankar Mahaveer  

Institute of Management and Technology, Moradabad,  

which was the petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No.  

5763 of 2011, Mr. Ghosh urged that the society was  

running a large number of educational institutions  

in which about 8,500 students were pursuing their  

respective courses. Mr. Ghosh submitted that in  

2008, the said society was granted the status of a  

private university and since it had all the  

required facilities, it moved the said writ  

petition for a mandamus on the respondents to grant  

permission to the writ petitioner college to admit  

150 MBBS students, instead of 100, for the academic  

year 2011-12.

40. Mr. Kunal Cheema, learned Advocate, who  

appeared for the petitioner in Writ Petition (C)  

No.489 of 2011, Dashmesh Educational Charitable  

Trust, introduced a new dimension in the  

4

Page 50

submissions by indicating that the expression  

“recognition” had not been used by the legislature  

in Section 10A of the Act.  It talks of permission  

to establish a medical college/institution but the  

said expression finds place in the Regulations  

framed by the Medical Council under Section 10A(7)

(g) read with Sections 33(fa) and 66 of the Act.  

According to Mr. Cheema, the permission granted to  

establish a medical college must be held to be  

sufficient for allowing the medical  

college/institution to deal with the problems  

relating to increase in the number of students in a  

given year for the medical course.   

41. Mr. Mukesh Giri, learned Advocate, adopted the  

submissions made by the learned counsel before him  

and also questioned the stand taken on behalf of  

the appellants that the Regulations contemplated a  

situation where before the Section 11 stage is  

reached, an institution could not apply for  

5

Page 51

increase in the number of students, even when the  

other conditions relating to infrastructure were  

fulfilled.     

42. As indicated at the beginning of this judgment,  

in these matters we are mainly concerned with the  

interpretation of Sections 10A and 11, together  

with Sections 10 and 33 of the Indian Medical  

Council Act, 1956.  The Division Bench of the High  

Court, while considering the decision of the  

learned Single Judge, has laid undue stress on the  

expression “recognition by the Medical Council of  

India”, used in the 2000 Regulations, since such  

expression has been used in a completely different  

sense other than granting recognition to a medical  

college/institution for the purposes of Sections  

10B and 11 of the 1956 Act.  The said expression  

has to be read and understood as meaning that the  

concerned medical college/institution was  

recognised by the Medical Council of India as  

5

Page 52

having the capacity to run such an institution.  It  

is amply clear from Section 10A that what is  

contemplated thereunder is permission for  

establishing a new medical college, which is to be  

granted by the Central Government upon the  

recommendation of the Council. The use of the  

expression “recognition” in the Regulation does not  

affect or alter the intention of the legislature  

expressed in unambiguous terms in Section 10A as  

well as in Sections 10B and 11 of the 1956 Act.  

Both the 1956 Act and the Regulations framed by the  

Medical Council make it very clear that while the  

Central Government has the authority to recognize  

the degree awarded by a newly-established medical  

college/institution, it does so on the evaluation  

made by the Medical Council and its subsequent  

recommendation.      

43. By pursuing the line of reasoning adopted by  

the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench  

5

Page 53

allowed itself to be led into the error of coming  

to a finding that once permission/recognition was  

granted under Section 10A of the 1956 Act, it gave  

the grantee permission to run a complete course.  

The Division Bench led itself further into the  

quagmire created by it by dividing Regulation 3(1)  

into two parts in the following manner :

a) The medical college/institution must be  recognised by the Medical Council of India  for running Bachelor of Medicine and  Bachelor of Surgery/Post Graduate Course;

however

b) The medical college/institute which is not  yet recognised by the Medical Council of India  for the award of MBBS degree may apply for  increase of intake in Post Graduate courses in  pre-clinical and para-clinical subjects of  Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry,  Pharmacology, Pathology, Microbiology, Forensic  Medicine & Community Medicine at the time of  4th renewal i.e. along with the admission of 5th  Batch for the MBBS Course.   

44. The interpretation sought to be given to  

Regulation 3(1) in the manner aforesaid portrays a  

totally wrong understanding of the scheme of the  

5

Page 54

Act itself and the all-pervading presence of the  

Medical Council of India in the process of grant of  

recognition for running of medical colleges/  

institutions.  The said reasoning has also led the  

Division Bench to misconstrue the provisions of  

Sections 10B and 11 of the 1956 Act as to the right  

given to a medical college/institution, which has  

been established without the permission of the  

Central Government as provided in Section 10A of  

the Act, to increase its admission capacity.  

Following the reasoning of the Single Judge, the  

Division Bench failed to see that Regulation 3(1)  

of the 2000 Regulations made it amply clear that  

those institutions which were yet to be recognised  

could apply for a Post-Graduate Course in subjects  

which were not part of the regular Post-Graduate  

Courses which were available to those who were in  

possession of a recognised MBBS degree.  Both the  

Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High  

Court seem to have ignored the provisions of the  

5

Page 55

1999 and 2000 Regulations, framed by the Medical  

Council of India under the provisions of Sections  

10A and 33, of the 1956 Act.  It may be of interest  

to note that Section 33, which empowers the Medical  

Council to frame Regulations, provides in Sub-

Sections (fa) and (fb), the right to the Medical  

Council to frame a scheme in terms of Sub-Section  

(2) of Section 10A and also in regard to any other  

factors under Clause (g) of Sub-Section (7) of  

Section 10A. It is quite clear that the legislature  

has given the Medical Council of India wide  

authority to take all steps which are necessary to  

ensure that a medical institution, either at the  

time of establishment, or later at the time of  

applying for increase in the number of seats, has  

the capacity and the necessary infrastructure, not  

only to run the college, but also to sustain the  

increase in the number of seats applied for. To  

that extent, since the Act is silent, the  

Regulations which have statutory force will be  

5

Page 56

applicable to the scheme as contemplated under the  

Act.  We repeat that by allowing itself to get  

confused with the use of the expression  

“recognition”  in Regulation 3(1) of the 2000  

Regulations, both the learned Single Judge and the  

Division Bench of the High Court came to the  

erroneous conclusion that once permission had been  

granted under Section 10A to establish a new  

medical college/institution, the question of having  

to take fresh permission each year for any  

subsequent steps to be taken after grant of such  

permission till the fifth year of the course was  

completed, did not arise.     

45. The aforesaid position would be doubly clear  

from the provisions of Sub-Section (3) of Section  

10B, which, in no uncertain terms, provide that  

where any medical college increases its admission  

capacity in any course of study or training, except  

with the previous permission of the Central  

5

Page 57

Government in accordance with the provisions of  

Section 10A, no medical qualification granted to  

any student of such medical college on the basis of  

the increase in its admission capacity, shall be a  

recognised medical qualification for the purposes  

of the Act.  In other words, without the previous  

permission of the Central Government within the  

scheme, as prescribed under Section 10A, i.e.,  

without the recommendation of the Medical Council,  

any degree granted would not be recognised as a  

medical degree which would entitle such degree  

holder to function as a medical practitioner.   

46. There is no getting away from the fact that  

Section 10A lays down the criteria for grant of  

permission for establishment of a new medical  

college and that Section 10B supplements the same  

by making it clear that even while increasing the  

number of seats in a medical college/institution,  

the procedure indicated in Section 10A, and in  

5

Page 58

particular Section 10A(2), would have to be  

followed.  At every stage, it is the Council which  

plays a very important role in either the grant of  

permission to establish a new medical college or to  

increase the number of seats.  Furthermore, on  

account of the Regulations of 1999 and 2000, the  

norms relating to eligibility criteria, as set out  

in the 1999 Regulations, as also in the 2000  

Regulations, have to be complied with, either for  

the purpose of grant of permission for establishing  

a new medical college or for introducing a new  

course of study along with the intention of  

increasing the number of students in the medical  

institution.   

47. In Part II of the 2000 Regulations, which deals  

with the scheme for obtaining the permission of the  

Central Government to increase the admission  

capacity in any course of study or training,  

including Post Graduate course of study or  

5

Page 59

training, in the existing medical colleges/  

institutions, another set of “qualification  

criteria” has been set out in Regulation 3(1) which  

has created some confusion in the minds of the  

learned Judges in the High Court by use of the  

expression “recognised by the Medical Council of  

India”.  As indicated hereinbefore, what it seeks  

to indicate is that for the purpose of applying for  

increase in the number of seats, the medical  

college must be one which, in the opinion of the  

Medical Council, was capable of running the  

Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery/Post-

graduate Course.  It also provides that the medical  

college/institute which is not yet recognised by  

the Medical Council for the award of MBBS degree,  

may also apply for increase of intake in Post  

Graduate Course in pre-clinical and para-clinical  

subjects such as Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry,  

Pharmacology, Pathology, Microbiology, Forensic  

Medicine and Community Medicine, at the time of  

5

Page 60

fourth renewal, i.e, along with the admission of  

the fifth batch for the MBBS Course, which are  

courses not connected with the regular course of  

study.  In fact, the controversy which surfaced in  

Nivedita     Jain  ’s case (supra) that the Regulations  

framed by the Medical Council of India under  

Section 10A read with Section 33 of the 1956 Act,  

were directory in nature, was subsequently set at  

rest by the Constitution Bench decision in Dr.  

Preeti     Srivastava  ’s case (supra), wherein the view  

expressed in Nivedita     Jain  ’s case was overruled.   

48. In view of the decision of the Constitution  

Bench, it is not necessary for us to refer to the  

other decisions cited both on behalf of the Medical  

Council of India and the respondents, since, in our  

view, the position is quite clear that in terms of  

the scheme of the Act and the Regulations framed by  

the Medical Council of India, it is the Central  

Government which is empowered to grant recognition  

6

Page 61

to a medical college or institution on the  

recommendation made by the Medical Council of  

India.  The role of the Medical Council of India in  

the grant of recognition to a medical  

college/institution is recommendatory and the  

Council has no power to grant recognition to a  

medical institution.  Such power lies with the  

Central government.  As pointed out by Mr. Cheema,  

no provision is available under the Act relating to  

grant of recognition of a medical  

college/institution, since Section 10A speaks only  

of permission and not recognition.  The same has  

been supplemented by the provisions of the 1999 and  

2000 Regulations for the purpose of Section 10A(7)

(g) of the Act.   

49. For the reasons aforesaid, we are unable to  

agree with the reasoning of either the learned  

Single Judge or the Division Bench of the High  

Court in arriving at the finding that once  

6

Page 62

permission had been granted under Section 10A of  

the Act, it would amount to grant of recognition  

and, thereafter, the medical college/institution,  

was free to enhance the number of seats without the  

permission either of the Council or the Central  

Government.   

50. We, therefore, have no hesitation in setting  

aside the judgments, both of the learned Single  

Judge as also that of the Division Bench of the  

High Court, and the directions given to increase  

the number of seats from 100 to 150 in the MBBS  

course run by the writ petitioners.  Since the 2000  

Regulations provide for a newly-established medical  

college/institution to seek permission each year to  

continue with the MBBS course till the first batch  

of the students graduated, in our view, the  

position is quite clear that the recognition  

referred to in Sections 10B and 11 of the 1956 Act  

would have to relate to the grant of recognition to  

6

Page 63

a medical institution under Section 11 for the  

purpose of recognition of its qualifications as a  

medical degree, which would entitle the holder  

thereof to practise medicine.   

51. Consequently, upon setting aside the judgments  

of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench  

and the directions contained therein, we also make  

it clear that this will not prevent the medical  

colleges/institutions from applying for increase in  

the number of students, provided such application  

fulfils the conditions and criteria of Section 10A  

and the Regulations framed thereunder by the  

Medical Council of India.

52. The appeals arising out of SLP(C)Nos.28996 and  

30332 of 2011, preferred by the Medical Council of  

India and the appeal arising out of SLP(C)No.30338  

of 2011, preferred by the Board of Governors,  

against the judgment and order dated 13th October,  

2011, passed by the Delhi High Court in Letters  

6

Page 64

Patent Appeal Nos. 820, 819 and 816 of 2011  

respectively, along with the appeal arising out of  

SLP(C)No.3732 of 2012, preferred by the Medical  

Council of India against the judgment and order  

dated 14th November, 2011, passed by the Punjab and  

Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.16235  

of 2011, are allowed.  The impugned judgments and  

orders passed by the Delhi High Court, as also the  

Punjab and Haryana High Court, are set aside.  

53. Consequently, Writ Petition (C) No.457 of 2011,  

filed by the School of Medical Sciences & Research,  

Sharda University; Writ Petition (C) No.458 of  

2011, filed by Teerthanker Mahaveer Institute of  

Management & Technology Society, Moradabad; and  

Writ Petition (C) No.489 of 2011, filed by Dashmesh  

Educational Charitable Trust, are dismissed, as the  

reliefs prayed for therein are in direct conflict  

with the provisions of Section 10A of the 1956 Act  

and Regulation 8(3) of the 1999 Regulations.   

6

Page 65

54. Having regard to the facts involved, all the  

parties in each of the matters will bear their own  

costs.

………………………………………………………J.    (ALTAMAS KABIR)

………………………………………………………J.    (J. CHELAMESWAR)

New Delhi Dated : 4.7.2012

6