LexDENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANR. versus HARI PRAKASH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B DENT AL COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANR. v. HAR! PRAKASH AND ORS. AUGUST 29, 2001 [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] Dentists Act, 1948-Section 3(d)-Representation to Dental Council from Universities established by law in the States-Nomination of member by All C India lnstitu.e of Medical Sciences (A/IMS) situated in Union Territory, Delhi to the Council-Validity of-Held, State includes Union Territory-However, Al/MS set up under an Act of Parliament is not an University established by law in the State-All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956-University Grants Commission Act, 1956-General Clauses Act, 1897. D Interpretation of Statutes : Principle of Purposive interpretation-What has not been included by Legislature cannot be included by the Court by adopting the principle of purposive interpretation. E Literal Interpretation-When words used in a statute no~ ambiguous, literal meaning has to be applied. Dr. S, a Professor and Head of the Department of Dental Surgery in All India Institute of Medical Science (AllMS), was elected as a member by AllMS to appellant-Dental Council from 23.2.1991 to 22.3.1996 under the F provisions of the Dentists Act, 1948. He retired from service in the AllMS in the middle of his tenure in 1993. Thereafter AllMS nominated Respondent l in place of Dr.Sas a member of the Dental Council for the unexpired period. The Dental Council terminated the membership of Respondent l on the ground that AIIMS was not an University established by law as per Section G 3(d) of the Act and thus it was not entitled to nominate persons to the Dental Council. Respondent l filed a Writ Petition before High Court challenging the termination. High Court allowed the Writ Petition by giving a liberal construction to section 3( d) of the Act by treating AllMS as a deemed University under the. provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, H 1956. 310 DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. HARi PRAKASH 311 In appeal to this Court, the Dental Council contended that AIIMS was A not an University established by law in the State; that the expression 'State' in section 3(d) of the DentistsAct does not cover Union Territory Delhi where the AIIMS is situated; that AIIMS, being situated in an Union Territory, can secure representation in the Dental Council only through nomination by Central Government under section 3(1) of the Dentists Act; and that AIIMS B was not even a deemed University under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. The Respondent l contended that Section 3(d) of the Dentists Act must be liberally construed to treat AIIMS as University and its Academic Committee and Governing Body as the Senate and the Court of the University C respectively since the medical degree granted by AIIMS are recognised by the Dentists Act; and that ;he word 'State' under section 3(d) also includes Union Territory in terms of section 3(58) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. AllMS contended that Section 3(d) of the Dentists Act is intended to have a representation of all the teaching institutions in. the country, which D includes AIIMS being an institution of national importance. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: I.I. The Dentists Act, 1948 is 1'.pre-constitutional enactment and·has its ~pplication iri the post-constitutional era also. The General Clauses E Ad, 1897 read witl: the scheme of the Dentists Act will make it clear that the expression 'State' used in Section 3(d) of the Act would include a Union territory also. [319-B, DJ 1.2. The scheme of Section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1948 is to provide for wide representation for different constituencies to the Dental Council. The F Act covers various institutions and Universities over which it has control under its various provisions in relation to qualification and discipline as well as those who practice after obtaining the necessary qualification in dentistry. There are various institutions in India besides Universities established by law which are empowered to confer or grant degrees and diplomas and AllMS is one G such institution. AIIMS cannot be said to be an 'University established by law' under Section 3 (d) of the Dentists Act on the mere fact that it is empowered under the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956 to confer degrees or diplomas. [319-D, F; 320-H; 321-AJ - i.I. The expression used in Section 3(d) of the Dentists Act is not just H 312 SUPREME COURT RE
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.