MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA versus SILAS NELSON AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] 3 S.C.R. 787 · Decided: 14-05-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA 
v. 
SILAS NELSON AND ORS. 
l\'IA Y 14, 1993 
[M.N VEN KA TACHALIAH CJ. DR. T.K. THOMMEN ANDS .. 
MOHAN,JJ.] 
Indian Medical Council Ac/, 1956-Ss. 12, I4-Migra1ion Rules- Regula-
fion \/( e J-Mig,ration of Medical stud em of unrecognised college in Dar-es-Salam 
10 recognised medical college in India-Equivalence of the courses in the two 
colleges-Held, Medical Council the main a111hority 10 decide on these 
ques1io11s...,.Co11rse of swdy. and 1101 individual cases, relevam for gram of 
pennission for 111igrc11ion-On facis, held. 1i1igration rightly reji1sed. · 
A 
B 
c 
In 1989, respondent 1 and his sister applied for_migration from Mumbili 
Medical College in the Faculty ofMedicinc,atitliatcd to the University of Dar-
D 
cs-Salam to a recognised medical college in India. The Medical Council of 
India turned down this application. A ~Titpetition was filed in the M.P. High 
· Court at Jabalpur. The High Court directed that the appellant and other 
authorities consider the case of the petitioners. Thereafter the Executive 
Committee of the Medical Council reconsidered the case on 20th August, 
1991. It found that the grounds for migration were riot sufficient; that it was. E 
the course of study already undergone vis-a-vis that being taught in the 
medical college in which migration was sought, and notthe facts ofindividual 
. case, which '~·as relevant. Also the candidate had not furnished enough 
materials to make the comparison. The Council therefore rejected _the 
application. 
A re\•icw petition and contempt petition filed in the High Court were 
dismissed. 
F 
The1·cupon, in a miscellaneous petition filed on the same grounds 
seeking admission in the second year or the I year professional MBBS Course . G 
at \'vlcdical College, Jabalpur the High Court directed that the petitioners be 
given provisional admission. The petitioners however, did not prnducc the 
required document<; and the college did not provisionally admit them. In an 
interlocutor~· application, the High Court permitted one of the petiti~ners to 
withdraw herself' from the petition and directed that the ot.Jicr petitioner 
H 
787 
788 
SUPRHfE COURT REPORTS 
(1993] 3 ~.C.R. 
A 
(respondent I before this Court) he granted provisional admission on his 
,.,. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
·filing necessary fo1·ms · and depositing the fees ·without insisting on the 
production of an~' qther certificate or testimonials or syllabus of Dar-cs-
Salaln University . 
. On fear of contempt, the Dean had to compl~· with this order. On an 
application befor~.it, this Court stayed the interim order and requested the 
High Court to dispose of the main petition expeditiously. 
The High Com·t allowed the writ petition and quashed the resolution 
da~d 20th August, 1991. refusing migration, holding that there was no 
application of mind.by the Council. 
On appeal before tliis Court, it was contended that the High Court erred 
in directing admission of respondent in a recognised medical college from an 
unrecognised medical college by way of migration; that Regulation V had 
been misread and that not hal'ing under-gone stud~· in a recognised medical 
college no.r having passed the fir~t profcS5iorial examination, he could not be 
admitted to the second year; thathe had failed in anatomy and had not sat for 
his supp1cmentary examination and had therefore ceased to he a student of 
Dar-es-Salam Universit~·; and that the· first year course at Dar-cs-Salam 
University and in India were not cquh•alent. Equivalence in any case, it was 
urged, is to be decided .by an expert body and is notin the domain of the Court. 
For respondent 1, it \\•as argued that the self-contradictory stand of the 
. Council on equivalence had ied to the High Court deciding the issue; that 
cquit~· was in his favour; that he had in any event passed his pre-medical test 
in 1991; and that he belongs to a scheduled tribe. 
Allowing ihc a~pcal, this Court, 
HELD: 1. The Medical Council has come to the ~OITect conclusion that 
there C".ari~ot be· migration from unrecognised institution to a recognised · 
medic~I college. (799-G) 
Dar-cs-Sal.am University has not been recognised as provided in the 
: Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. (796-A) 
2. The High Court docs not ha,·c the necessary expertise to determine 
H 
1 cquivalcnl.'C. The Medical Council is the main authority in this respect. (799-C) 
' ) 
' 
--+ 
'\ -
-
\ff':DICAL COl_'.NCJL "·SILAS NELSON [\101/AN .. 1.) 
7~9 
3. \\'h:Jt
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.