MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA versus THE CHAIRMAN, S. R. EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 10 S.C.R. 1039 · Decided: 29-10-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1039
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
v.
THE CHAIRMAN, S. R. EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE
TRUST & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 10372 of 2018)
OCTOBER 29, 2018
[ARUN MISHRA AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions:
Medical Colleges – Denial of renewal  permission/
recognition – Propriety of – On inspection of colleges by Medical
Council of India (MCI) deficiencies found – Government of India/
Hearing Committee directed MCI to review the recommendation and
consider the compliance reported – MCI declined to review its
recommendation – Thereafter Government of India denied renewal/
recognition – Writ petition challenging the denial – High Court
quashed the orders whereby permission was declined – Directed to
admit students to the Colleges for academic year 2018-19 – Also
directed MCI to carry out inspection to verify rectification of the
deficiencies found at the time of earlier inspection – On appeal,
held: For effective implementation of provision of s. 10A of Medical
Council Act, 1999 Regulations have been made – The Regulations
are binding with respect to availability of teaching faculty,
infrastructural and other facilities – With the advancement of the
batches, this requirement becomes more rigorous – Therefore,
recommendations made by Hearing Committee to review and consider
the compliance is not binding – Provisions of 8(3)(1)(a) and (b) are
binding upon the Hearing Committee/Government of India and
MCI – In case there are gross deficiencies, more than prescribed in
the Regulation, for the concerned batch, then the compliance
verification would not be considered in the same year – A decision
taken by Union of India on the basis of recommendation of an expert
body regarding the inadequacy of facilities cannot be interfered
with lightly – Interference is permissible only when there are
jurisdictional errors, ex facie perversity or mala fide – High Court
has gravely erred in law in quashing Government’s order, allowing
the admissions for academic session 2018-19 without there being
1039
[2018] 10 S.C.R. 1039
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1040
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
permission by Government of India and recommendation of MCI –
Such general directions without considering the provisions of the
Regulations are illegal and unwarranted and on inspection decision
has to be taken in accordance with law as per regulations – However,
it would be appropriate that MCI and Government of India take
decision at an early date i.e. by the end of February or latest by
March and not by the end of the Scheduled date i.e. May –
Establishment of Medical Colleges Regulations, 1999 – Regulation
8(3)(1)(a) and (b) – Judicial Review.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The Medical Council of India (MCI) has been
established in order to streamline the standard of medical
education. It has the power to supervise qualification and eligibility
standards for admissions into medical institutions. [Para 22]
[1061-E]
State of Kerala v. T. P. Roshna (1979) SCC 580; Medical
Council of India v. State of Karnataka (1998) 6 SCC
131 : [1998] 3 SCR  740 – relied on.
2. For effective implementation of provisions of Section 10A
of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 requiring prior
permission from the Central Government for the establishment
of medical colleges, regulations have been made in exercise of
powers under Section 10A read with Section 33 of the Act.
Consequently, the Establishment of Medical Colleges
Regulations 1999 are binding with respect to availability of
teaching faculty, infrastructural and other facilities and with the
advancement of the batches this requirement becomes more
rigorous as there is more requirement in the faculty than the
college is recognized after fulfillment of all the conditions as
apparent from the provisions contained in the Regulations.  With
the aforesaid objective, the provisions contained in Regulation
8(3) have been carved out and amended in 2016. In case there
are gross deficiencies, more than prescribed in regulation for
the concerned batch then the compliance verification would not
be considered in the same academic year. [Paras 24-25] [1062-
D-G]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1041
Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
(1999) 7 SCC 120 : [1999] 1 Suppl. SCR 249 – relied
on.
3. It is apparent from regulation 8(3)(1)(a) of Regulations
of 1999 that in the case of the third batch, if deficiencies of
teaching faculty and/or residents are found to be more than 30%
and bed occupancy less th

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