MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 740 · Decided: 16-07-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC. 
JULY 16, 1998 
[M.M. PUNCHHI CJ., K.T. THOMAS AND D.P WADHWA, JJ.] 
Indian Medical Council Act I956 And The Amending Act 3I of I993-
Ss JOA. JOB & IOC- The Central Act Prevails over the Karnataka Educational 
Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act and the Karnataka State 
C Universities Act, and will override any provision in the said State 
enactments repugnant to the provisions of the Central Act-Any Medical 
college/University which wants to increase the admission capacity has to 
apply to the Central Govt. with the permission of both the State Govt. and 
the concerned University- Only the Medical Council can prescribe the 
D number of students to be admitted- Similarly, the Dental Council will 
exercises an authority similar to that of the Medical Council under the 
Dentists Act over the Dental Colleges. 
Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) 
Act 1984-S4(I) (b)- State Govt. cannot fix a maximum number of students 
E over and above that fixed by the Medical Council, 
Karnataka State Universities Act 1976-S 53 (10)-Ss JOA, Band C 
of the Central Act (Indian Medical Council Act, 1956) prevails in respect of 
the number of the students to be admitted 
F 
Constitution of India-Constitutional Amendment Act I976-- Indian 
Medical Council Act is relatable to Entry 66 of List. /. Regulations framed 
under S. 33 of the Central Act prevail over the repugnant provision of the 
State Acts, which are relatab/e to Entry 25 and 26 of the Concurrent List. 
Interpretation of Statutes-Where the language of the Statute is neither 
G plain nor unambiguous, reference to exposition from contemporary authority 
may be used for interpreting-Court not bound by the clarifications given 
by the Central Government or any other authority interpreting a provision 
of/aw. 
On a postal complaint about admissions to Medical Colleges, Single 
H Judge held that, the increase in the admission capacity is decided by the 
740 
·-
MEDICAL COUNCIL OFiNDIA v. STATE 
741 
Medical Council as approved by the Central government and the provisions A 
of the State Acts which are repugnant to Ss IO A,B and C of Central Act 
are void. On appeal, the Division Bench held that because of the amendment 
of the Medical Council Act in 1993, Ss IOA, Band C would override State 
enactments after June 1,1992, but it will not affect action tak'i!n prior to that 
date. The short question raided in the Civil Appeal before this Court is, 
whether the State government and the Universities, by virtue of powers B 
provided with under the relevants Statues, can increase the number of seats 
in Medical Colleges in the State overlooking the provisions of Sections IO 
A, B And C of the Medical Council Amendment Act 1993. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
c 
HELD : 1. It is the Medical Council which can prescribe the number 
of students admitted in medical courses in a medical college or institution. 
It is the Central government alone which can direct increase in the number 
of admissions but only on the recommendation of the Medical Council. The 
Single Judge was right in his view that no medical college can admit any D 
student in excess of its admission capacity fixed by the Medical Council 
subject to any increase thereof as approved by the Central Government and 
that Sections IO A, IO B, and 10 C will prevail over Section 53 (IO) of the 
State Universities Act and Section 41 (b) of the State Capitation Fee Act. To 
say that the number of students as permitted by the State Government and 
or University before June 1, 1992 could continue would be allowing an E 
illegality to perpetuate for all time to come. The Division Bench, in the 
impugned judgment was not correct in holding that admission capacity for 
the purpose of increase or decrease in each of the medical colleges/ 
institutions has got to be determined as on or before June 1, 1992 with 
reference to what has been fixed by the State Government or the admission 
capacity fixed by the medical colleges and not with reference to the minimum F 
standard of education prescribed under Section 19A of the Medical Council 
Act which the Division Bench said was only recommendatory. It is not that 
only future admission will have to be regulated on the basis of capacity fixed 
or determined by the Medical Council. Plea of the State Government that 
power to regulate admission to medical colleges is prerogative of the Sta

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