Holding

The Supreme Court quashed the impugned order barring admission as it was unsupported by any tangible reason and directed the college to admit up to 150 students for the 2017-18 session.

Summary

The Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences & Research applied to the Ministry of Health for permission to start a new medical college for the 2016-17 session. The Ministry, relying on a negative recommendation of the Medical Council of India (MCI), initially denied the permission, but an Oversight Committee later granted a conditional Letter of Permission for 2016-17. After the college began operations, the MCI again reported deficiencies and the Ministry barred the college from admitting students for the 2017-18 session and debarred it for two years. The petitioners challenged this order before the Supreme Court, arguing that the college had complied with all infrastructure and academic requirements and that no tangible reason was given for the debarment. The Court held that the order was arbitrary, quashed the prohibition, and directed that up to 150 students be admitted for 2017-18, extending the counselling deadline, while reserving the right of the MCI to inspect the college thereafter.

Issues considered

The legality of the Ministry's order barring admission of students to the college for the 2017-18 session without assigning a specific reason.
Whether the statutory authorities complied with the procedural requirements under Section 10(4) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
Whether the Supreme Court can, under Article 142 of the Constitution, direct the admission of students despite the Ministry's debarment order.

Legislation cited

Medical Council of India Act, 1956s. 10(4)

Subjects

medical college establishmentadmission debarmentMedical Council of IndiaLetter of PermissionArticle 142public intereststatutory duty

Judgment

[2017) 9 S.C.R. 697

APOLLO INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & A
RESEARCH AND ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
(Writ Petition (CIvii) No. 496 of2017)
B
AUGUST 31,2017
[DIPAK MISRA CJI, A.M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.I
Education/Educational Institutions - Medical College -
Petitioners made appHcationfor establishment of new medical C
college.for the academic session 2016-17-Application disapproved
by Ministry concerned - However, in view of the approval of
Oversight Committee constituted under the directions of Supreme
Court, Letter of Permission granted by respondent no. I in favour
of the petitioners' college for the academic session 2016-I 7 subject D
to certain conditions - Executive Committee of the Medical Council
of India (MCI), however, noticed de.flciencies and sent a negative
recommenJation to Ministry - Ministry debarred the petitioners'
college from admitting students .for two years - Challenge to -
Supreme Court directed respondent No. I to reconsider the case of
the petitioners' college a.fi·esh on the basis of material available on E
record - Ministry on the basis of favourable observations made by
Hearing Committee w.r.t. the de.ficiencies, though confirmed the
conditional permission granted to the College in 2016-I 7, but denied
permission to admit students for the academic session 2017-I8 -'
Held: The impugned order, though acknowledged the fact t~at the F
petitioners' college is a compliant college in respect of irifrastructure
and academic matters howeve1; prohibited it from admitting students
in the MBBS course for the academic session 20I7-I8 without
assigning any tangible reason - Admittedly, the petitioners' college
startedfunctioningfrom the academic session 2016-I7, on the basis
of a conditional Letter,of Permission - The conditions specified G
therein were substantially fulfilled in all respects - Impugned
decision set ·aside - Further, in the peculiar facts of the present
case, to do'" complete justice and in the larger public interest,
directions issued in exercise of plenary powers u/Art.142 -
H
697
698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A Constitution of India - Art. 142 - Medical Council Act, 1956 -
s.JOA(4).
Allowing the petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Hearing Committee, as well as the
Comp.etent Authority of the Central Government, had shown
B complete disregard to the fact situation and moreso when they
have found that the infrastructure and academic requirements
were ful:)' in place in so far as the petitioners' college is
concerned. In fact, the impugned order acknowledges the fact
that the petitioners' college is a compliant college in respect of
c infrastructure and academic matters. In such a situation, it cannot
be discerned as to what weighed with the Hearing Committee
and Competent Authority of the Central Government to prohibit
the petitioners' college from admitting students in the MBBS
course for the academic session 2017-18. No tangible reason
whatsoever was assigned by the said authorities in that regard,
D leave alone any reason. [Para 7] [704-C-DI
l.2 The approach of the statutory authorities is bordering
on abdication of their statutory duty and is against the letter and
spirit of the earlier direction given by this Court to reconsider
the case of the petitioners' college afresh on the basis of material
E available on record. Admittedly, the petitioners' college had
started functioning from the academic session 2016-17, on the
basis of a conditional Letter of Permission. The conditions
specified therein have been substantially fulfilled in all respects
including infrastructure and academic requirements. [Para 81
F [704-E-FJ
1.3 Considering the fact that the petitioners' college had
fulfilled the infrastructure and academic requirements and has
already operated the college for the academic session 2016-17
by admitting the first batch of students in the MBBS course and
G further, even the Competent Authority had noticed that there
were no major deficiencies, this petition and. the application filed
by the petitioners is allowed in the larger public interest. Further
directions are issued to the respondents as have been issued in
the judgment of Dr. Jagat Narai11 S11bliarti Charitable Trust and
Anr. V.v. Union of India and Ors., delivered on 30'h August, 2017.
H (Para 91. (704-G-H; 705-AI
...... -, ..,... """""·'

APOLLO INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & 699
RESEARCH v. UOI AND ANR.

Dr. Jagat Narain Subliarti Charitable Trust and Am:
l,
A
vs. Union of India and Ors. 2017 (10) SCALE 308 -
relied on.
1.4 The impugned decision is quashed and set aside to the
extent it bars the petitioners to admit upto 150 students for the
academic session 2017-18. Instead, the respondents are directed B
to permit the petitioners' college to take partin the current-year
counselling process which is still in progress. The cut-off date .
for completing the admissions in respect of the petitioners'.
college, however, will stand extended till 5th September, 2017.
The respondents shall make available students willing to take
admission in the petitioners' ~ollege through central counselling, c
in order of their mer!t. This direction is being issued in exercise
of plenary powers of this Court under Article 142 of the
Constitution of !ndia, in the peculiar facts of the present case,. to
do complete justice and in the larger public interest, so that
aspiring students who have not been admitted to the _lot year D
MBBS course for the academic session 2017-18, in order of t~eir
.merit in NEET examination, will get an opportunity to be admitted
in the· petitioner college, At the same time, it is made clear that
the MCI or the Competent Authority of the Central Governmen.t
is free to inspect the petitioners' college as and when deemed fit
~nd, if any deficiency is found after giving opportunity to the E
petitioners' college, it may suitably proceed against the said
college in accordance with law. This arrangement will subserve
the ends of justice. [Para 10} [705-B-E)
Case Law Reference
F
2017 (10) SCALE 308 relied on Para 9
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
496of2017.
Under Article 32 of the Constiti.ltion oflndia.
- ..• - ' G.
Amitesli Kumar, Ms.Priti Kumari, Mritunjay Kumar Sinha, Advs.
for the Petitioners.
Gaurav Sharma, Pfateek Bhatia,. Dhawal Moh!ln, Advs. for the
Respondents.
-_-..
700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 9 S.C.R..

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
, A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. The petitioners made an
application to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government
of India for establishment of a new medical college at Murukambattu
Village, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, in the name and style of 'Apollo
B Institute of Medical Sciences & Research' for the academic session
2016-17. The Ministry forwarded the application to the Medical Council
of India (for short "MCI") for evaluation and for making recommendations
to the Ministry under Section lOA of the Indian Medical Council Act.
1956, (for short "1956 Act") for the academic session 2016-17. MCI
submitted an assessment report after which the respondent No. I Central
c Government declined to issue a letter of permission to the petitioners'
college. An opportunity of hearing was accorded to the petitioners' college
under Section lOA (4) of the 1956 Act on 24.02.2016 and the case was
referred back to MCI for review. MCI, in tum, returned the application
with a negative recommendation. Consequent thereto, the Ministry, upon
D. accepting the recommendation of MCI, disapproved the application
submitted by the petitioners for establishment of a new medical college
for the academic session 2016-17 vide its letter dated 15.06.20 l 6.
2. The Oversight Committee (for short "OC") constituted under
the directions of this Court, however, issued directives, as a res111t of
E which the Ministry asked for and obtained a fresh compliance from :ue
college and forwarded the same to MCI vide letter dated 22.06.2017.
MCI then submitted its rep011, citing various reasons and that report, in
tum, was forwarded to the OC for its guidance. The OC approved of
the scheme submitted by the petitioner college for the academic session
2016-17 vi de letter dated 29.08.2016, subject to certain conditions. On
F the basis of the approval of the OC, the respondent No. I Central
Government issued a Letter of Pennission on 12.09.2016 in favour of
the petitioners' college for the academic session 2016-17, with conditions
imposed by the OC. Assessment and verification of compliance was
undertaken by MCI which submitted its report on the basis of the
o inspection. The Executive Committee of the MCI, in its meeting held on
22.12.2016, noticed the deficiencies and decided to send a negative
recommendation to the Ministry. The Ministry/Director General of Health
Services (for short "DGHS") then afforded personal hearing to the college
on 17.0 l.2017. The Hearing Committee did not accept the explanation
offered by the petitioner college and submitted its negative finding. The
H
APOLLO INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & 701
RESEARCH v. UOI AND ANR. (A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

said report was forwarded to the OC for guidance, The OC, in tW'n, vide A
letter dated 14.05.2017 conveyed its opinion to the Ministry in which it
observed thus:
"1. Faculty:- Once 7 membe'rs faculty are considered, the
dejlciency becomes 1.53%, which is within· the acceptable
~~ B
fl. Resident:- Once 3 residents are considered, the dejlciency
becomes 2.17%, which is within the acceptable limits.
Ill. OTs:- EC pointed out that OT in General Surgery, ENT,'
Ophthalmf!logy and OG iwve 2 tables which is not, as per
norms. There is no such mention in the SAF Jn SAF 2.10 ii C
has been marked a.; 9 Major OTs against required 4 and 2
Minor OTs as required, which is more than the MSR. Hence
there is no deficiency. ·
JV.1CUs:- This deficiency is subjective: No MSR.
D
..V. Mobile X-ray machines:- This deficiency is subjecti~;e. No
MSR. . - . , .

Vi. USG machine:- PNDT approval for 1 USG macl1ine is
available and applied/or the other.
Vil. MRD:- This deficiency is subjective. No MSR: E
LOP Confirmed"
3. The Ministry, however, acting upon the negative
recommendation of MCI vide.lettcr dated 31.05.Z017, debarred the
' . petitioner college from admitting students for two years and authorised
MCI to encash the Bank Guarantee offered by the petitioners. That F
decision was assailed by the petitioners before this Court in the present
writ petition.
•
4. On 01.08.2017, this Court called upon the respondent No.I
· Central Government to reconsider the materials on record pertaining to ·
the issue of confirmation, including the _letter 9f permission granted to G
the petitioners' college, as was the case of other colleges whose matters
were heard together by this Court. Pt\rsuant to the said directions.• the_
Ministry afforded a personal hearing to the petitioner college on
04.08.2017. The Hearing Committee made favourable observations with
regard to the deficiencies and while recommending to the Ministry to , H
702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A confirm the conditional permission granted to the college in 2016- l 7,
however recommended not to permit the petitioners' college to admit
students in the MBBS course for the academic session 2017-18 and to
apply afresh for renewal of permission for the academic session 2018-
19, as per MCI Regulations. On the basis of the said recommendation,
the Ministry passed an order on 10.08.2017. The relevant portion of the
B
said order reads thus: .
·· 11. Now, in compliance with the above direction of Hon 'ble
Supreme Court dated 01.08.2017, the Ministry granted
hearing to the college on 04.08.2017. 711e Hearing Committee
after considering the record and oral & written submission
c of the college submitted its report to the Ministry. The findings
of the Hearing Committee are as under:
The college does not seem to have any infi·astructurul
deficiency. MCI has pointed out faculty and resident
deficiency at 12.3% and 8. 69%.
D
The deficiency is not of high orde1: The contention of college
that 7 of the 8 faculty shown as deficient were assigned/or
medical cainp organized on the day of inspection is ·
.supported by the note written by Principc..1 of the college
on the last page of the SAF form which is also signed by all
E the four assessors. The Principal has mentioned that :.'·:! 7
faculty and 3 residents had already left for the camp be.fan
the surprise inspection. The Committee has also noted the
medical camp order dated 19.11.2016 and that the
deficiencies offaculty correspond to those sentfor the camp
F duty. Howeve1; the assessors have not noted the 10 names
in the SAF form as 'faculty/residents present but not
counted' if they had come late. Further the column on RHTC
in the SAF form is devoid of' any details and no reference
to camp could be seen.

G The college has submitted a cert(ficate fi'om MCI vendor
which states that 158 faculty have been enrolled on
26.07.2017/or biometric attendance system.
The other deficiencies regarding 2 tables in OTs, AERB and
PNDT approval have been rectified post assessment as per
documentary evidence furnished.
H
APOLLO INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & 703
RESEARCH v. UOI AND ANR. [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

In view o(the above, the Committee is of the opinion that A
the deficiencv of facultv and residents is marginal. The
submission of the college regarding medical camp on the
dav of assessment as a result of which i 0 doctors could
not be available tor head count seems bonafide but cannot
be confirmed. In such case debarring the college fo~ two
vears seems excessive even though the recom111endatiofi is B
as per the conditions o(OC approval.
The committee recommend1· that conditi'ona!'LoP/01; 2oi6-
17 may be COf!firmed. No,fi-esh batchfor20/7-18 may be
allowed. The college may apply for renewal per111is.vio11 to C
MCI.fa~ the session 2018-19. ., · . '
18. Accepting the recommendations of the Hearing Coti1mittee,
the Ministry con.firms the conditional permission granted to
the College in 2016-17. Further, it has been decided not to
, permit admissiOn of students in MBBS courses for the
academic session 2017-18 at the Colleg_e. TheCollege may . D
apply afresh for renewal of permission for the academic \ i .• ,,

session 2018-19 as per MCI Reg~lation. - · ,, ·
19. Admission made in violation of above conditions will be
·treated as irregular and action will" be taken as· per provision
of IMC Act, 1956 and the Regulatioi:s made thereunder." E.
. . ..
· (emphasis supplied)
5. The petitioners would contend that in view of the favourable ·
. observations by the Hearing Committee, it is incomprehensible as to
· why the petitioners' college should be deprived from admitting students F
for the academic session 2017-18 and especially when no significant
deficiency has been noticed by either the Hearing Committee or the
Competent Authority of the Central Government which would justify
the drastic order passed against the petitioners' college. The petitioner.
enjoys high reputation. The petitioners' college aims to·impart•quality
education. It is submitted that the coriclusion reached by the Hearing G
Committee or, for that matter, by the Competent Author.i.ty, against the
. petitioners' college, cannot stand the test o:f'judi~ial~cruti!Jy. No tangible .
reason has been assigned to deprive:the petitioners' college from admitting
students in the MBBS course for the academic sessiqh 2017-18. This .

' .,.
') . ' '
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A Court ought to intervene and issue appropriate directions against the
respondents.
6. The respondents, on the other hand, have supported the
conclusion arrived at by the Hearing Committee and the Competent
' Authority. According to the respondents, it may not be permissible to sit
B over the subjective satisfaction of the. expert body and to issue directions
to the contrary. The respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ
petition and the interlocutory application.
7. Having considered the rival submissions, we have no hesitation
in taking the view that the Hearing Committee, as well as the Competent
c Authority of the Central Government, have shown complete disregard
· to the faCt situation and moreso when they have found that the
infrastructure and academic requirements were fully in place in so far
as the petitioners' college is concerned. lnfact, we find that the impugned
· order acknowledges the fact that the petitioners' college is a compliant
college in respect of infrastructure and academic matters. In such a
D situation, we are at a loss to discern as to what weighed with the Hearing
Committee and Competent Authority of the Central Government to prohibit
the petitioners' college from admitting students in the MBBS course for
the academic session 2017-18. No tangible reason whatsoever has been
assigned by the said authorities in that regard, leave alone any reason.
E 8. We have no hesitation in observing that the approach of the
statutory authorities is bordering on abdication of their statutory duty
and is against the letter and spirit of the direction given by this Court on
the earlier occasion to reconsider the case of the petitioners' college
afresh on the basis of material available on record. Admittedly, the
p. petitioners' college has started functioning from the academic session
2016-17, on the basis ofa conditional Letter of Permission. The conditions
specified therein have been substantially fulfilled in all respects including
infrastructure and academic requirements. Therefore. we allow this
petition and the application filed by the petitioner§ in the larger public
interest.
G
9. Considering the fact that the petitioners' college has fulfilled
the infrastructure and academic requirements and has already operated
the college for the academic session 2016-17 by admitting the first batch
of students in the MBBS course and further, even the Competent
Authority has noticed that there are no major deficiencies, we allow this
H
; '

. · RES~~~~~o;,N~~~T~~; ~~E[~~~~~T~~rfiA1'. r) .. 705 .
.' ".-l·.·· . ·: . ' . .: ; .: ! • • • , •

. . I . , ·~ ·~

petition. an'd the application filed by the petitioners iii the.larger public A
.· interest.We are itlSo indined't9 issue further directions. to. theresponclei;its'
.as ha:ve been issued Jn the judgment of Dr. Jagat Narain Subharti.
Charitahle Trust and Am: Vs. UniOn of India and Ors:, ·defrv~red Oil
· 301h August, 2017. . . . . ; .:; : .
. . .10. We, accordingly, quash and set aside the impugned d~cisiorito .. B· ;
. the extent it bars the petitioners to adrrih upto }50 student$ for the ·. .
academic se.ssion 2017~ 18. lnsteacl, we direct the respondents to permit
the petitioners' college to.take part in the current-yearcourisellingprocess ·
which is still in progress .. The cut-off date for compieting theadrriissions
in respect of the petitioners' college, however, will starid exten·d~dtilJSth ·
September, 2017. The respondents shall make available students willing C
. to take admission. in the petitioners' college through central counsel)ing, . ·.
. ip order of their merit. This direction is being issued\n exercise of plenary·
.· powers of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution oflndta; in.the
pecu1iarfacts of the present case, to do complete justite and 'in the
. . . larger publidnterest, so that aspiring stlide'nts wllo have .not'been a~rhitted;··. D ·
·. to-the.1" ye;1r MBBS course forthe academic sessic)n 2017~·1.8_, fo orclei
NEET
of the if merit in examination, will get an opportunity" to be admitted
in the petitioner college, At the l)arile time, we make it clear that the .
MCI or the Competent Authority of the Central Government is free to
inspect the petitioners' college as and w.hen deemed fit and, if ant
deficiency is found after giving opport~nity to the petitioners' college: it .E ..
in
• rrtay,suitably proceed against the said college aceordance with l~v;. : .·.
Tfiis arrangement will subserve the ends of j1fs!ice: '.":: · . . ..
11. No order as to costs. · ':. · ·· · .. ·

Divya Pandey Petition allowed.

-~. ' .. "