LexMEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA versus Q.C.R.G. MEMORIAL TRUST & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H (2017] ll S.C.R. 92 MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. Q.C.R.G. MEMORIAL TRUST & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 19662 of 2017) NOVEMBER 23, 2017 (DIPAI<i MISRA, C.JI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.) Judicial Propriety/Judicial Discipline: Medical institution debarred from admitting students for academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19 by order dared 31.05.2017 - Writ petition by respondent-instillllion - High Court directed Central Government to reconsider the issue of letter of permission granted to the institutir,m - Cemral Government by its order dated 19.08.2017 confirmed its order dated 31.05.2017 - Writ petition 11/Art. 32 by the inslitutiof/ - Petition withdrawn with permission to approach High Court 11/Art. 226 - Supreme Court by its order dated 28.08.2017. 1~hi/e permitting to withdraw the petition, made it clear that the High Court, while entertaining the writ petition shall not pass any interim order pertaining to the academic year 2UI 7-18 - Writ petition .filed u!Art. 226 - High Court quashing the orders dated 19.08.:!017 and 31.05.201 7, granted permission to the respundent- institution to admit students for academic session 2017-18 - On appeal, held: Despite the order of Supreme Court dated 28.08.2017, the High Court permitted the institution to admit students for academic year 2017-18 that too without giving any opportunity to Central Government and Medical Council of India lo rep(v - The impugned judgment shows unnecessary and uncalled for hun:v. unjustified haste and unreasonable sense of pron1ptitude ~ Judicial propriel)' requires judicial discipline - A Judge is expected tu abandon his personal notion or i111pression gathered from su~jective experience - The process of ac(judicalion lays emphasis on the wise scrutiny of materials sans emotions - The High Omrt had no reason to abandon the concept of judicial propriety and transgress the nil es - If the instit11tion has admitted students, they are debarred from continuing in the course - However, the institution is directed to compensate such students by paying Rs. 10,00,00VI- to each student apart from 92 MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. G.C.R.G. MEMORIAL TRUST & ORS. rejimding their fees - The prayer in respect of academic session 2018-19, is also rejected - Ed11cation!Ed11cational Institutions. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The contmt of the order of Supreme Court dated 28.08.2017 is graphically clear. The High Court was not allowed to pass any interim order pertaining to the Academic Session 2017-2018, but the Division Bench of the High Court, for some unfathomable and inscrutable reason, allowed the prayer. Before the High Court, time was sought on behalf of the Central Government and the MCI to file counter affidavits. The same was denied and the contesting parties were deprived of the opportunity to contest. The judgment was delivered without waiting for the reply from the Central Government or MCI. The judgment of the High Court shows unnecessary and uncalled for hurry, unjustified haste and an unreasonable sense of promptitude possibly being oblivious of the fact that the stand of the Medical Council of India and the Central Government could not be given indecent burial when they were parties on record. Such a procedure cannot be countenanced in law. [Para 8][99-H; 100-A- D] 2. The judicial propriety requires judicial discipline. In the absence of a reply tiled by the Medical Council of India and the Central Government, it could not have been possible to answer the factual matrix of the case. What is not possible, is not possible. In respect of the cases where renewal was granted. In any case, granting renewal for 2017-2018 and confirmation of letter of permission for 2016-2017 was totally unwarranted. [Para 91(100- E-F] 3. The adjudication by the Division Bench tantamounts to a state as if they dragged themselves to the realm of "willing suspension of disbelieP'. Possibly, they assumed that they could do what they intended to do. A Judge cannot think in terms of "what pleases the Prince has the force of law". The law docs not allow so, for law has to be observed by requisite respect for law. [Para 9][100-G-H] Shiv Moha11 Singh ~: The State (Delhi Administration) (1977) 2 SCC 238 : [1977] 3 SCR 172; Om Prakash Chautala v. Kanwar Bhan (2014) 5 SCC 417 : [201<1] 93 A B c D E F G H ·. 94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I l S.C.R. A l S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.