DM WAYANAD INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2015] 9 S.C.R. 81 · Decided: 23-07-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 9 S.C.R. 81 
DM WAYANAD INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIAANDANOTHER 
(Writ Petition (C) No. 441 of 2015) 
B 
JULY 23, 2015 
[M.Y. EQBALANDARUN MISHRA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 -Art. 32 - Jurisdiction under 
- Invoked by Medical Institute challenging refusal of Medical c 
Council of India-MC/ to recommend the renewal of 
permission for admitting students for academic year in the 
MBBS Course of the petitioner institutes and consequent 
refusal of Union Government to renew such permission -
Held: Supreme Court u!Art 32 would not interfere with an D 
administrative order where the constitutionality of the statute 
or the order made thereunder is not challenged on the ground 
of contravention of Fundamental Rights - If the validity of 
the provisions of statute is challenged on the ground other 
than the contravention of fundamental rights, this Court would E 
not entertain that challenge in a proceeding u!Art. 32 - On 
facts, decision to grant permission of renewal was based on 
the inspection reports submitted by the teams of MCI -
Jurisdiction of MCI or Central Government to grant or refuse 
F 
to grant permission has not been challenged - Under Art. 
32, the Court is not supposed to go into findings of facts 
recorded by the Authorities - Moreover, Medical Institute 
though have right to establish institutions for imparting 
medical and technical education, but the rights so claimed G 
by them are not fundamental rights, hence, cannot be 
agitated directly before this Court u!Art. 32. 
Dismissing the Writ Petitions, the Court 
H 
-
81 
82 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1 The sole object of Article 32 is the 
enforcement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the 
Constitution. It follows that no question other than 
relating to the Fundamental Right will be determined in 
a proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution. The 
B difference between Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution 
is that while an application under Article 32 lies only for 
the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, the High Court 
under Article 226 has a wider power to exercise its 
jurisdiction not only for the enforcement of Fundamental 
C Rights but also ordinary legal right. [Para 17] (89-H; 90-
A-C] 
1.2 This Court under Article 32 would not interfere 
with an administrative order where the constitutionality 
D of the statute or the order made thereunder is not 
challenged on the ground of contravention of 
Fundamental Rights. At the same time if the validity of 
the provisions of statute is challenged on the ground 
other than the contravention of Fundamental Rights, this 
E Court would not entertain that challenge in a proceeding 
under Article ~2 of the Constitution. [Para 18] (90-D-E] 
1.3 The petitioners have challenged the decision of 
MCI and the Central Government refusing to grant 
F permission or renewal to carry on their courses for the 
Academic Session 2015-16. The decisions are based on 
the inspection reports submitted by the teams of MCI. 
The jurisdiction of MCI or the Central Government to grant 
or refuse to grant permission has not been challenged. 
G Hence, it is well within the jurisdiction of MCI which is 
statutory body to take a decision based on the 
inspection of the college to satisfy itself the compliance 
of various provisions of the acts, rules and regulations. 
H [Para 26)(97-G-H; 98-A] 
· 
-
DM WAYANAD INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES v. 
83 
UNION OF INDIA 
1.4 Under Article 32 of the Constitution, this Court is A 
not supposed to go into finding of facts recorded by the 
authorities and to come to a different conclusion. The 
petitioners, even though have a right to establish 
institutions for imparting medical and technical 
education, such right is not a fundamental right, hence, B 
the same cannot be agitated directly before th_is Court 
under Article 32 of the Constitution. The writ petitions 
are dismissed. However, this would not prevent the 
petitioners from agitating their grievances before the c 
appropriate forum including the High Court having 
jurisdiction to deal with the matter. [Paras 27 and 28) (98-
8-D] 
Priyadarshini Dental College and Hospital vs. Union 
of India & Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 623: 2011 (2) SCR 945; 
D 
Northern Corporation VS. Union of India (1990) 4 sec 
239: 1990 (3) SCR 621; Kanubhai Brahmbhatt vs. State 
of Gujarat AIR 1987SC1159: 1987 (2) SCR 314; Ram 
Jawaya Kapur vs. State of Punjab AIR 1955 SC 
549:(1955) 2 SCR 225; Hindi Hit

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.