MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA versus VEDANTAA INSTITUTE OF ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2018] 5 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 01-06-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
1
[2018] 5 S.C.R. 1
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
v.
VEDANTAA INSTITUTE OF ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE PVT.
LTD. AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5805 of 2018)
JUNE 01, 2018
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions:
Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 – Regn.
8(3)(1)(a) – Medical education – Inspection conducted for granting
first renewal for admission of students for academic year 2018-19
– Several deficiencies pointed out – Writ petition by Medical Institute
seeking direction to Medical Council of India-MCI to send its Expert
team for verifying the compliance of deficiencies pointed out and
to forward its recommendation to Central Government; and Union
of India to consider grant of renewal permission – High Court issued
direction to MCI to inspect the Medical College and submit a report
to Union of India – On appeal, held: Medical education must be
taken very seriously and when an expert body certifies that the
facilities in a medical College are inadequate, it is not for the Courts
to interfere with the assessment, except for very cogent jurisdictional
reasons such as mala fides of the inspection team, ex facie perversity
in the inspection, jurisdictional error on the part of the MCI – On
facts, High Court erred in holding that Regn. 8(3)(1)(a) would be
applicable only to Colleges seeking second renewal – Admissions
upto second renewal would fall u/Regn. 8(3)(1)(a) – Proviso not
restricted only to second renewal cases – Even the first renewal is
covered by proviso (a) to Regn. 8(3)(1) as the language used is
“upto second renewal” – Further, the Regn. 8(3)(1) provides that
an opportunity shall be given to the medical College to rectify the
defects but, the proviso contemplates that certain minimum standards
are to be satisfied – This prescription of standards for availing an
opportunity to seek re-inspection not ultra vires either the Regulation
or s. 10-A – Thus, in view of the large scale deficiencies found in
the inspection reports and in view of Regn. 8(3)(1)(a), medical
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
college not entitled to claim another inspection – Medical Council
Act, 1956.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Though Regulation 8 (3)(1)(a) of the
Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 was
challenged in the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 and 2,
they did not press the relief. They restricted their challenge to
the manner in which the inspection was done and for a direction
to the appellant-Council to carry out a fresh inspection. The
interpretation of Regulation 8 (3) (1) (a) by the High Court is
patently erroneous in as much as the High Court did not take
note of the proviso to Regulation 8(3)(1). Without a proper
examination of the provision, the High Court fell in error in holding
that Regulation 8 (3) (1) (a) would be applicable only to the
Colleges seeking second renewal i.e. admissions of the third
batch. Admissions upto the second renewal i.e. admissions to
third batch would fall under Regulation 8 (3) (1) (a). In other words,
the proviso is not restricted only to second renewal cases. Even
the first renewal is covered by proviso (a) to Regulation 8 (3) (1)
as the language used is “upto second renewal”. There is no
conflict between Section 10-A (3) and (4) of the Act on one hand
and Regulation 8 (3) (1) (a) on the other. Regulation 8 (3) (1) (a)
is complementary to Section 10-A of the Act. Fixing minimum
standards which have to be fulfilled for the purpose of enabling a
medical College to seek fresh inspection would not be contrary
to the scheme of Section 10-A. In fact, Regulation 8 (3) (1)
provides that an opportunity shall be given to the medical College
to rectify the defects. But, the proviso contemplates that certain
minimum standards are to be satisfied i.e. there should not be
deficiency of teaching faculty and/or residents more than 30 per
cent and/or bed occupancy should not be less than 50 per cent.
This prescription of standards for availing an opportunity to seek
re-inspection is not ultra vires either the Regulation or Section
10-A of the Act. [Para 9][10-B-F]
1.2 On perusal of the material on record, the conclusion
reached by the High Court regarding the manner in which
inspection was conducted is also not correct. Bed occupancy at
45.30 per cent on random verification was the claim of respondent
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
No.1 and 2. However, the inspection report shows that out of
requir

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