Holding

Rule 12(8)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam, 2018 is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) and is therefore unconstitutional.

Summary

The private medical colleges Index Medical College and others challenged Rule 12(8)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam, 2018, which barred vacant seats arising from the mop‑up round from being included in college‑level counselling. The State argued the rule was needed to prevent manipulation and ensure merit‑based admissions, while the colleges contended it infringed their right to admit students under Article 19(1)(g) and violated the equality clause of Article 14. The Supreme Court applied the proportionality test, examining whether the restriction was rationally connected to the objective, whether it was the least restrictive means, and whether the social benefit outweighed the harm. It held that the rule’s effect of keeping seats vacant was excessive, had no rational nexus with the stated goal, and therefore constituted an unreasonable restriction. Consequently, the rule was declared unconstitutional, the High Court’s decision set aside, and the appeals were allowed.

Issues considered

The constitutionality of Rule 12(8)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam, 2018 under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The validity of the same rule under Article 19(1)(g) – the right to carry on any occupation, specifically the right of private medical colleges to admit students.
Whether the restriction imposed by the rule satisfies the test of proportionality and is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2).
Whether the rule exceeds the legislative competence conferred by the Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavasayik (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Evam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007.

Legislation cited

Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavasayik (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Evam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007s. 12

Subjects

medical college admissionsmop‑up roundprivate unaided institutionsArticle 14Article 19(1)(g)proportionality testconstitutional validityvacant seats

Judgment

[2021] 1 S.C.R. 647 647

INDEX MEDICAL COLLEGE, HOSPITAL AND A
RESEARCH CENTRE
v.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 867 of 2021)
B
FEBRUARY 03, 2021
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions:
Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam, 2018 – r. C
12(8)(a) – Allotment for admission in the last round of counselling
(Mop up round)– r.12(8)(a) providing that vacant seats which arise
due to candidates in mop-up round not taking admission or
submitting resignation after taking admission, not to be included in
college level counselling – Constitutional validity – Held: Object
of insertion of r.12(8)(a) was to ensure that admission to medical D
institutions are made strictly in accordance to merit as the
Government noticed that lesser meritorious candidates were getting
better colleges/subjects – According to r. 12(8)(b), those students
who do not join after being allotted a seat through mop-up round
would automatically be declared ineligible for the next round of E
counselling – They would not be entitled for admission to any other
medical/dental colleges – Measure taken by the Government of
proscribing the managements from filling up those seats that fell
vacant due to non-joining of the candidates in mop-up round is an
excessive and unreasonable restriction – Right to admit students
which is a part of the management’s right to occupation u/Art. F
19(1)(g) stands defeated by r.12(8)(a) as it prevents them from filling
up all the seats in medical courses – Moreover, seats being kept
vacant results in huge financial loss to the management of the
educational institutions apart from being a national waste of
resources – It is detrimental to public interest – Thus, the policy of G
not permitting the managements from filling up all the seats does
not have any nexus with the object sought to be achieved by
r.12(8)(a) – Classification of seats remaining vacant due tonon-
joining may be based on intelligible differentia but it does not have
any rational connection with the object sought to be achieved by
H
647
648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R.

A r.12(8)(a) – Applying the test of proportionality, the restriction
imposed by the Rule is unreasonable – Thus, r.12 (8)(a) is violative
of Arts. 14 and 19(1)(g) – Constitution of India – Arts. 14 and
19(1)(g).
Dar-us-Slam Educational Trust & Ors. v. Medical
B Council of India and Ors. (2017) 8 SCC 627; T.M.A.
Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
(2002) 8 SCC 481 : [2002] 3 Suppl. SCR 587; State
of T.N. & Anr. v. P. Krishnamurthy & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC
517 : [2006] 3 SCR 396; Kerala State Beverages
(M&M) Corpn. Ltd. v. P.P. Suresh (2019) 9 SCC 710;
C Om Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India (2001) 2 SCC
386 : [2000] 4 Suppl. SCR 693; District Central Co-
operative Bank V. Coimbatore District Central Co-
operative Bank Employees Association and another
(2007) 4 SCC 669; Modern Dental College and
D Research Centre & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh
(2016) 7 SCC 353 : [2016] 3 SCR 579; M.R.F. Ltd. v.
Inspector Kerala Govt. (1998) 8 SCC 227 : [1998] 2
Suppl. SCR 632 – referred to
R. v. Oakes (1986) 1 SCR 103 (Can.SC) – referred to
E Proportionality and Principled Balancing by Aharon
Barak, 4 Law & Ethics Human Rights, 1 – referred to
Case Law Reference
(2017) 8 SCC 627 Referred to Para 10
F [2002] 3 Suppl. SCR 587 Referred to Para 12
[2006] 3 SCR 396 Referred to Para 15
(2019) 9 SCC 710 Referred to Para 16
[2000] 4 Suppl. SCR 693 Referred to Para 17
G (2007) 4 SCC 669 Referred to Para 17
[2016] 3 SCR 579 Referred to Para 20
[1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 632 Referred to Para 20

H
INDEX MEDICAL COLLEGE, HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH 649
CENTRE v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 867 A
of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.2020 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in WP No. 14274 of 2020.
With
B
Civil Appeal Nos. 868 And 869 of 2021
Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv, Siddharth R. Gupta, Nishit Agrawal,
Manu Maheshwari, Harsh Mishra, Ms. Namisha Chadha, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Saurabh Mishra, AAG, Sunny Choudhary, Amalpushp Shroti, Advs. C
for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
ORDER
Leave granted. D
1. We had heard the above set of Appeals and passed an order on
03.02.2021 as follows:
“After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we declare
Rule 12 (8) (a) of the Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha
Pravesh Niyam, 2018 as violative of Article 14 of the E
Constitution of India.
We direct the State of Madhya Pradesh to initiate the process
of filling up the 7 unfilled seats of 1st year MBBS course in
the mop-up round for the year 2020-21 by college level
counselling within a period of 7 days from today. F
Reasons to follow.”
2. Reasons for the order dated 03.02.2021 are given hereinunder:-
3. The Appellants-Private Medical Colleges filed Writ Petitions in
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore, challenging the G
Constitutional validity of Sub-Rule 8 (a) of Rule 12 of the Admission
Rules (Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam), 2018
(hereinafter, ‘the Rules’). Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Writ Petitions,
the Appellants are before this Court.
H
650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R.

A 4. The Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavasayik (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman
Evam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 (hereinafter, ‘the Act’)
was promulgated to provide for regulation of admission, fixation of fee
and for reservation of seats to persons belonging to Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes in private unaided
professional educational institutions and matters connected therewith.
B
Admission to private unaided professional educational institutions is dealt
with in Chapter III of the Act. Every admission to a private unaided
professional educational institution shall be made only in accordance
with the provisions of the Act or Rules made thereunder. The State
Government constituted the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee
C for supervision and management of the admission process and for fixing
the fee to be charged from the candidates seeking admission in these
institutions.
5. Rules were framed by the State Government in exercise of the
powers conferred under Section 12 of the Act. Rule 10 prescribes the
D process of admission to be on the basis of allotment of students who
participated in the first round of counselling. The procedure for admission
in second round of counselling is dealt with in Rule 11 and that of in last
round (mop-up round) is found in Rule 12. The allotment of admission
after completion of final round of counselling is governed by Rule 13.
Amendments to the Rules were notified on 19.06.2019. The relevant
E amendment which is subject matter of challenge in these Appeals is
Rule 12 (8) (a) which reads as follows: -
“(8) (a) The vacant seats as a result of allotted candidates from
MOP-UP round not taking admission or candidates resigning from
admitted seat shall not be included in the college level counseling
F (CLC) being conducted after MOP-UP round”.
6. Writ Petitions filed by Index Medical College, Hospital and
Research Centre and Arushi Mahant and Others challenging Rule 12
(8) (a) as being violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1)(g) were dismissed by
a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore
G by a judgment dated 15.12.2020. Index Medical College, Hospital and
Research Centre and others have filed the Appeal arising out of SLP
(C) No.179 of 2021, assailing the validity of the judgment dated 15.12.2020.
L.N. Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre has also challenged
the said judgment of the High Court by seeking permission to file SLP.
H People’s College of Medical Sciences and Research Centre filed a Writ
INDEX MEDICAL COLLEGE, HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH 651
CENTRE v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

Petition questioning the vires of Rule 12 (8) (a) as well. It was disposed A
of by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh giving liberty to the Petitioner
therein to file an appropriate representation before the Directorate of
Medical Education for redressal of its grievances. People’s College of
Medical Sciences and Research Centre and Another are questioning
the order dated 13.01.2021 in one of the Appeals. As the point that
B
arises in all these Appeals pertains to the validity of Rule 12 (8) (a), they
were heard together.
7. We have heard Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior Counsel,
Mr. Siddharth R. Gupta and Mr. Amalpushp Shroti, learned counsel for
the Appellants, Mr. Saurabh Mishra, learned Additional Advocate General
for the State of Madhya Pradesh assisted by Mr. Sunny Chaudhary, C
Advocate for the Respondents. It was contended on behalf of the
Appellants that Rule 12 (8) (a) is an affront to their right of occupation
which is protected under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.
Proscribing medical institutions from filling up seats which fall vacant
due to candidates in the mop-up round not taking admission or candidates D
submitting resignation after taking admission amounts to an unreasonable
restriction. It was asserted on behalf of the Appellants that admissions
made by them are on the basis of allotment of students from common
counselling pool. After two rounds of counselling, unfilled seats are taken
up in mop-up round. Such of those seats which are not filled up in mop-
up round are filled through college level counselling as provided in Rule E
13. It was further argued that the pronounced object with which Rule 12
(8) (a) has been introduced is to avoid manipulations in admission process
and to prevent non-meritorious students from getting seats in better
colleges. As the measures adopted have no nexus with the
object, according to the Appellants, Rule 12 (8) (a) is violative of Article F
14 of the Constitution of India. It was submitted on behalf of the
Appellants that Rule 12 (8) (a) results in some seats going vacant, which
is not only a national waste of resources but also a huge financial burden
to educational institutions.
8. On the other hand, the State of Madhya Pradesh defended the G
judgment of the High Court. The State contended that it has become
necessary to make amendment to Rule 12 and insert Sub-Rule 8 as it
was found that students with lesser merit were getting admission to
better colleges in stray vacancies which arose due to non-joining or
resignation of candidates after mop-up round. Further, Rule 12 (8) was
H
652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R.

A also brought to prevent manipulation by those candidates who were
blocking seats in collusion with less meritorious candidates. As the entire
exercise of admission to medical colleges has been laid to ensure
transparency, Rule 12 (8) was made with the objective that less meritorious
candidates do not steal a march over those who have higher merit. The
State relied upon a judgment passed by the High Court of Madhya
B
Pradesh in Writ Petition No.8097 of 2017 wherein the High Court had
directed the Government to prevent manipulation of admission process
and stop the filling up of prime postgraduate seats by non-meritorious
candidates in mop-up round. Seven seats were identified as those which
became vacant due to students participating in mop-up round of
C counselling but not joining. Therefore, those seats have not been allotted
for college level counselling.
9. Admission to private unaided medical institutions in the State of
Madhya Pradesh are made on the basis of allotment through common
counselling conducted by the State. There are two rounds of counselling
D conducted as per the procedure laid down in Rules 10 and 11. Students
who are eligible for admission in first round are given an option to seek
upgradation or change in second round along with those candidates who
did not get admission in first round. Those who have sought for better
option under Rule 10 are also considered in the second round of
counselling which is conducted in accordance with Rule 11. Rule 11 (7)
E provides that admission in second round of counselling is final and
candidates who are admitted shall not be given the facility of a better
choice. Rule 12 (2) makes it clear that candidates to whom allotment
orders were issued in the previous rounds of counselling shall not be
eligible for consideration in last round (mop-up round). The process of
F admission in last round shall be according to Rule 10. However, candidates
participating in last round shall not be given the benefit of choosing a
better option. In case, candidates do not take admission after the allotment
order in last round of counselling, the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs deposited
under Rule 12 (2) would automatically be forfeited.
G 10. Mr. Saket Bansal filed a Writ Petition No.8079 of 2017 before
the High Court complaining of injustice caused to him by a lesser
meritorious candidate getting a better subject/seat in the postgraduate
medical course. He alleged that he accepted his fourth choice of subject
in second round of counselling for admission to postgraduate course. In
view of the Rules, he was not allowed to participate in the mop-up round.
H
INDEX MEDICAL COLLEGE, HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH 653
CENTRE v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

His first choice of subject came up for consideration in mop-up round A
and was filled up by a lesser meritorious candidate. He further alleged
that certain candidates are indulging in manipulation of blocking seats
and thereafter not joining which gives an opportunity to lesser meritorious
candidates to get better subject/college in later rounds of counselling.
The High Court by an order dated 24.04.2019 expressed its anguish
B
regarding the inaction of the State Government in the matter of
manipulations in admissions to medical courses. The High Court was
concerned that directions issued by this Court in Dar-us-Slam
Educational Trust & Ors. v. Medical Council of India and Ors.1,
are not being followed by the State of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court
recorded the statement made on behalf of the Government that such of C
those candidates who block seats and not join later shall be met with
penal consequence of being debarred from taking admission in any other
college for the current academic year. The High Court was also informed
that admissions after mop-up round are confined to only such seats that
remained vacant after the counselling, excluding those which are vacated
D
by candidates who were allotted admissions.
11. Rule 12 (8) (a) provides that vacant seats which arise due to
candidates in mop-up round not taking admission or submitting resignation
after taking admission shall not be included in college level counselling.
Rule 12 (8) (b) disqualifies these candidates who are allotted seats in the
mop-up round and do not take up admissions or resign. They will E
automictically be declared ineligible and a list of such candidates shall be
displayed on the portal and on the website of the Directorate. In addition,
the list shall be sent to the Directorate of Medical Education of other
States, Medical Council of India, Dental Council of India and D.G.H.S.,
Government of India, for not giving admission to such candidates in any F
other Medical or Dental colleges.
12. The right to establish and manage educational institutions as
an occupation is protected under Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of
India. It is recognized by this Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors.
v. State of Karnataka & Ors.2. The right includes: G
(a) The right to admit students.
(b) Right to set up of reasonable fee structure.
1
(2017) 8 SCC 627
2
(2002) 8 SCC 481 H
654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R.

A (c) Right to appoint staff.
(d) Right to take action, if there is a dereliction of duty on the
part of an employee.
13. However, to ensure that admissions in educational institutions
are made in a fair and transparent manner on the basis of merit, the
B Government is empowered to frame regulations. In T.M.A. Pai
Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (supra) it was held
as under:
67. We now come to the regulations that can be framed relating
to private unaided professional institutions.
C
68. It would be unfair to apply the same rules and regulations
regulating admission to both aided and unaided professional
institutions. It must be borne in mind that unaided professional
institutions are entitled to autonomy in their administration while,
at the same time, they do not forego or discard the principle of
D merit. It would, therefore, be permissible for the university or the
Government, at the time of granting recognition, to require a private
unaided institution to provide for merit-based selection while, at
the same time, giving the management sufficient discretion in
admitting students. This can be done through various methods.
E For instance, a certain percentage of the seats can be reserved
for admission by the management out of those students who have
passed the common entrance test held by itself or by the State/
university and have applied to the college concerned for admission,
while the rest of the seats may be filled up on the basis of
counselling by the State agency. This will incidentally take care of
F poorer and backward sections of the society. The prescription of
percentage for this purpose has to be done by the Government
according to the local needs and different percentages can be
fixed for minority unaided and non-minority unaided and
professional colleges. The same principles may be applied to other
G non-professional but unaided educational institutions viz. graduation
and postgraduation non-professional colleges or institutes.
14. There is no controversy relating to provisions of the Act and
Rules where procedure for admission to professional colleges is
prescribed. The only dispute that arises for our consideration is validity
H of Rule 12 (8) (a) which was introduced on 19.06.2019. The object of
INDEX MEDICAL COLLEGE, HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH 655
CENTRE v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

Rule 12 (8) (a) is to ensure that all admissions to medical institutions are A
based on merit and to bar students of lesser merit from getting admission
to better colleges. The notice issued by the Director General of Health
Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India
dated 11.04.2018 has been referred to by the High Court in its order
dated 24.04.2019. The said letter highlights the active participation of a
group of students who were blocking all India quota seats in second B
round of counselling deliberately for financial gratification without intention
to join. During the said period in the letter nearly 1,000 identified students
did not join after first round. They were being monitored to find out
whether they were taking admission at least in second round. DGHS
proposed severe penal action against those indulging in such activities. C
Having been informed of this menace, this Court passed an order dated
09.05.2017 in Dar-us-Slam Educational Trust & Ors. v. Medical
Council of India and Ors. (supra), barring students who take admission
in all India quota seats from being allowed to vacate seats after second
round of counselling. All vacant seats after last round of counselling were
directed to be filled up from a list that is forwarded to the institutions in D
the ratio of ten times to the number of vacancies to ensure that all stray
vacancies are filled. The contention of the Appellants is that being asked
to keep seats unfilled amounts to an unreasonable restriction on their
right to carry on their occupation guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of
the Constitution of India. Even assuming the object of the Rule is to
E
ensure that lesser meritorious candidates do not get admission to better
colleges, the measure adopted by the Government in keeping seats vacant
is disproportionate.
15. This Court in State of T.N. & Anr. v. P. Krishnamurthy &
Ors.3 held that a subordinate legislation can be challenged on the following
grounds: F
a) Lack of legislative competence to make the sub-ordinate
legislation.
b) Violation of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the
Constitution of India.
G
c) Violation of any provision of the Constitution of India.
d) Failure to conform to the Statute under which it is made or
exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling
Act.
3
(2006) 4 SCC 517 H
656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R.

A e) Repugnancy to the laws of the land, that is, any enactment.
f) Manifest arbitrariness/unreasonableness (to an extent where
court might well say that Legislature never intended to give
authority to make such Rules).
16. It is relevant to examine whether a subordinate legislation can
B be declared as unconstitutional on the principle of proportionality. This
Court in Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corpn. Ltd. v. P.P. Suresh4
held as under: -
C. Judicial Review and Proportionality

C 26. The challenge to the Order dated 7-8-2004 by which the
respondents were deprived of an opportunity of being considered
for employment is on the ground of violation of Articles 14, 19 and
21 of the Constitution of India. Lord Diplock in Council of Civil
Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [Council of
Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service, 1985
D AC 374 : (1984) 3 WLR 1174 : (1984) 3 All ER 935 (HL)] held
that the interference with an administrative action could be on the
grounds of “illegality”, “irrationality” and “procedural impropriety”.
He was of the opinion that “proportionality” could be an additional
ground of review in the future. Interference with an administrative
E decision by applying the Wednesbury [Associated Provincial
Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223
(CA)] principles is restricted only to decisions which are outrageous
in their defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no
sensible person who applied his mind to the question to be decided
could have arrived at it.
F
17. In Om Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India 5, this Court
observed that the principle of proportionality was being applied to
legislative action in India since 1950. Any challenge to restrictions imposed
by the Government under Articles 19 (2) to 19 (6) are tested by Courts
on the principle of proportionality.Whether restrictions placed are
G reasonable or not is adjudicated on the basis of appropriate balance
between rights guaranteed and the control permissible under Article 19
(2) to 19 (6). When legislation is challenged on the ground that restrictions
placed on the fundamental right is disproportionate, the Court conducts
4
(2019) 9 SCC 710
5
H (2001) 2 SCC 386
INDEX MEDICAL COLLEGE, HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH 657
CENTRE v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

a primary review where the State has to justify the necessity of restricting A
the fundamental rights. Proportionality involves balancing test and
necessity test. The “balancing test” relates to scrutiny of excessive
onerous penalties or infringement of rights or interest and a manifest
imbalance of relevant considerations. Whereas, the “necessity test”
requires infringement of human rights in question to be by the least
B
restrictive alternative.6
18. According to Aharon Barak7 proportionality in the broad sense
is based on two principal components. The first is legality, which requires
that the limitation be “prescribed by law”; the second is legitimacy, which
is fulfilled by compliance with the requirements of proportionality in the
regular sense. Its concern is with the conditions that justify the limitation C
of a constitutional right by a law. There are two main justificatory
conditions: an appropriate goal and proportionate means. An appropriate
goal is a threshold requirement and in determining it no consideration is
given to the means utilized by the law for attaining the goal. A goal is
appropriate even if the means of attaining it is or not. The proportionate D
means must comply with three secondary criteria: (a) a rational connection
between the appropriate goal and the means utilized by the law to attain
it, (b) the goal cannot be achieved by means that are less restrictive of
the constitutional right; (c) there must be a proportionate balance between
the social benefit of realizing the appropriate goal, and the harm caused
to the right (proportionality stricto sensu or the proportionate effect). E

19. The three tests of proportionality propounded by Dickson, C.
J. of Canada in R. v. Oakes8 are:
(a) The measures adopted must be rationally connected to the
objective. F
(b) The means should impair “as little as possible” the right or
freedom in question.
(c) There must be a proportionality between the effects of the
measures which are responsible for limiting the right or
freedom, and the objective which has been identified as of G
“sufficient importance”.
6
District Central Co-operative Bank V. Coimbatore District Central Co-operative
Bank Employees Association and another’ – (2007) 4 SCC 669
7
Aharon Barak, Proportionality and Principled Balancing, 4 Law & Ethics Human
Rights, 1
8
R. v. Oakes, (1986) 1 SCR 103 (Can. SC)] H
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R.

A 20. A. K. Sikri, J. in Modern Dental College and Research
Centre & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh 9 remarked that the
doctrine of proportionality is enshrined in Article 19 itself. He explained
that the expression “reasonable restrictions’’ seeks to strike a balance
between the freedom guaranteed in Article 19 (1) and social control
permitted by Article 19 (2) to 19 (6). It was further held in Modern
B
Dental College and Research Centre & others v. State of Madhya
Pradesh (supra) that limitations imposed on the enjoyment of a right
guaranteed under the Constitution should not be arbitrary or excessive
to what is required in the interest of public. It is also relevant to refer to
the following factors which have to be kept in mind for examining the
C reasonableness of a statutory provision as laid down in M.R.F. Ltd. v.
Inspector Kerala Govt. 10:
13. On a conspectus of various decisions of this Court, the
following principles are clearly discernible:
(1) While considering the reasonableness of the restrictions, the
D court has to keep in mind the Directive Principles of State Policy.
(2) Restrictions must not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature
so as to go beyond the requirement of the interest of the general
public.

E (3) In order to judge the reasonableness of the restrictions, no
abstract or general pattern or a fixed principle can be laid down
so as to be of universal application and the same will vary from
case to case as also with regard to changing conditions, values of
human life, social philosophy of the Constitution, prevailing
conditions and the surrounding circumstances.
F
(4) A just balance has to be struck between the restrictions imposed
and the social control envisaged by clause (6) of Article 19.
(5) Prevailing social values as also social needs which are intended
to be satisfied by restrictions have to be borne in mind. (See: State
of U.P. v. Kaushailiya [AIR 1964 SC 416 : (1964) 4 SCR 1002].)
G
(6) There must be a direct and proximate nexus or a reasonable
connection between the restrictions imposed and the object sought
to be achieved. If there is a direct nexus between the restrictions
9
(2016) 7 SCC 353
10
H (1998) 8 SCC 227
INDEX MEDICAL COLLEGE, HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH 659
CENTRE v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

and the object of the Act, then a strong presumption in favour of A
the constitutionality of the Act will naturally arise.
(See: Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni v. States of Madras
and Kerala [AIR 1960 SC 1080 : (1960) 3 SCR 887] ; O.K.
Ghosh v. E.X. Joseph [AIR 1963 SC 812 : 1963 Supp (1) SCR
789 : (1962) 2 LLJ 615] .)
B
21. It is pertinent to refer to the observations made by Justice M.
Jagannadha Rao in Om Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India
(supra)regarding proportionality in connection with Article 14 of the
Constitution of India which are as under: -
“32. So far as Article 14 is concerned, the courts in India examined C
whether the classification was based on intelligible differentia and
whether the differentia had a reasonable nexus with the object of
the legislation. Obviously, when the courts considered the question
whether the classification was based on intelligible differentia,
the courts were examining the validity of the differences and the
adequacy of the differences. This is again nothing but the principle D
of proportionality. There are also cases where legislation or rules
have been struck down as being arbitrary in the sense of being
unreasonable [see Air India v. Nergesh Meerza [(1981) 4 SCC
335: 1981 SCC (L&S) 599] (SCC at pp. 372-373)]”.
22. The Rules govern admission to both undergraduate and E
postgraduate medical courses. The practice of students vacating allotted
seats in All India Quota to help lesser meritorious candidates was
identified and suitable steps were directed to be taken to prevent it.
Large number of seats in All India Quota were being sent for counselling
to State Quota. It was found that certain unscrupulous elements were F
making meritorious students vacate their seats so that the said seats
would be filled up by candidates having lower merit in the next rounds of
counselling. In the counter affidavit filed in these Appeals, the State
Government referred to the observations made by the High Court in the
Writ Petition filed by Mr. Saket Bansal relating to postgraduate
admissions. The complaint of the Writ Petitioner therein was that a lesser G
meritorious candidate got a better subject due to the filling of the seat in
mop-up round and the student who was allotted the seat in the earlier
round not joining. In the background of the said facts, the High Court
directed the State Government to find a solution to put an end to the
H
660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R.

A pernicious practice of students who were allotted to a medical seat not
joining to favour lesser meritorious candidates.
23. The professed object of the amendment to the Rules by
insertion of Rule 12 (8) (a) is to ensure that admission to medical
institutions are made strictly in accordance to merit as the Government
B noticed that lesser meritorious candidates were getting better colleges/
subjects. Therefore, seats that fall vacant due to non-joining or resignation
of students who were allotted seats in mop-up round of counselling will
not be included in the college level counselling. The result is such seats
will remain unfilled.
C 24. There is no doubt that the object with which Rule 12 (8) (a) is
made is appropriate as malpractice by students in the admission process
should be curtailed. Rule 12 (7) (c) provides that students who do not
take admission after issuance of an allotment letter will not be entitled to
seek refund of the advance admission fee of Rs. 2 lakhs which would
stand forfeited automatically. According to Rule 12 (8) (b), those students
D who do not join after being allotted a seat through mop-up round will
automatically be declared ineligible for the next round of counselling.
They will not be entitled for admission to any other medical/dental
colleges. Suitable steps are taken to prevent such students from
participating in the next round of counselling, forfeiting the advance
E admission fee and making them ineligible for admission in any medical
college. However, the medical colleges who have no part to play in the
manipulation as detailed above are penalised by not being permitted to
fill up all the seats. The measure taken by the Government of proscribing
the managements from filling up those seats that fall vacant due to non-
joining of the candidates in mop-up round is an excessive and
F unreasonable restriction.
25. The right to admit students which is a part of the management’s
right to occupation under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India
stands defeated by Rule 12 (8) (a) as it prevents them from filling up all
the seats in medical courses. Upgradation and selection of subject of
G study is pertinent only to postgraduate medical course. In so far as
undergraduate medical course is concerned, the upgradation is restricted
only to a better college. Not filling up all the medical seats is not a solution
to the problem. Moreover, seats being kept vacant results in huge financial
loss to the management of the educational institutions apart from being a
H national waste of resources. Interest of the general public is not subserved
INDEX MEDICAL COLLEGE, HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH 661
CENTRE v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

by seats being kept vacant. On the other hand, seats in recognised medical A
colleges not being filled up is detrimental to public interest. We are
constrained to observe that the policy of not permitting the managements
from filling up all the seats does not have any nexus with the object
sought to be achieved by Rule 12 (8) (a). The classification of seats
remaining vacant due to non-joining may be based on intelligible differentia
B
but it does not have any rational connection with the object sought to be
achieved by Rule 12 (8) (a). Applying the test of proportionality, we are
of the opinion that the restriction imposed by the Rule is unreasonable.
Ergo, Rule 12 (8)(a) is violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the
Constitution.
26. For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment of the High C
Court is set aside and the Appeals are allowed accordingly.

Nidhi Jain Appeals allowed.

D

E

F

G

H