Supreme Court of India
INDIAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCEMENT OF RESEARCH AND EDUCATION HALDIA (!CARE) & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.
- Citation
- 2017 INSC 969
- Decided
- 21 September 2017
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- DIPAK MISRA
Holding
A surprise inspection is within the scheme of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the order debaring the college is valid, subject to allowing existing students to continue and directing a fresh inspection for the next academic year.
Summary
The petitioners, ICARE Institute of Medical Sciences & Research, sought approval and recognition under Section 11(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 for MBBS courses. The Medical Council of India (MCI) conducted several inspections, including a surprise compliance‑verification inspection on 24‑April‑2017, and found numerous deficiencies, recommending that the college be debarred from admitting students for the 2017‑18 and 2018‑19 sessions. The college challenged the order, alleging that the surprise inspection was mala fide and legally untenable. The Supreme Court held that surprise inspections are expressly permissible under the Act, that mere allegations of mala fide without material do not vitiate the enquiry, and that the Central Government’s order was not flawed. However, the Court directed that students already admitted may continue their studies, that the bank guarantee remain alive, and that a fresh inspection be carried out for the 2018‑19 academic year, treating the 2017‑18 application as an application for 2018‑19.
Issues considered
- The legality of a surprise inspection by the MCI for compliance verification under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
- Whether allegations of mala fide conduct by the assessors can invalidate the MCI’s decision and the Central Government’s order.
- The validity of the debarment order preventing admission of students for the 2017‑18 and 2018‑19 sessions.
- The status of students admitted prior to the debarment order.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 32
- Indian Medical Council Act, 1956s. 10, s. 10-A, s. 11(2), s. 3, s. 8
Subjects
Medical educationApproval and recognitionSurprise inspectionIndian Medical Council ActCompliance verificationNatural justiceMala fide allegationDebarmentStudents' rightsBank guarantee
Judgment
[2017] I I S.C.R. 755
INDIAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCEMENT OF RESEARCH AND A
EDUCATION HALDIA (!CARE) & ANR.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 633Of2017) B
SEPTEMBER 21, 2017
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, AMITAVA ROY AND
A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.)
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956:
c
s. 11 (2) - Approval and recognition under - Denied -
Propriety of - Application by petitioner-College for grant of
approval and recognition u!s. 11 (2) - Assessors inspected the
institution on 3.2.2017 for evaluation of standard of examination
and recommended grant of approval- On 17.3.2017 and 18.3.2017 D
Assessors did surprise inspection of the College - Medical Council
of India (MCI). ajler pemsal of assessment report recommended
Central Government lo debar the petitioner-College ji-om admitting
students for academic sessions 2017-18 and 2018-19 - Thereafter.
on 13.4.2017 an opportunity of hearing was granted to the College
wherein it asserted that all the deficiencies had been removed by E
12.4.2017- On 24.4.2017 officers of MCI conducted Compliance
Verification Assessment of the College and noticed major
deficiencies - MCI in view of the report dated 24.4.2017 a/ongwilh
the reports dated 17.3.2017 and 18.3.2017. decided not to
recognize/approve the College - Central Government decided not
F
to permit admission in MBBS Course for the academic session 2017-
18 - Writ petition by College challenging the orders of MCI and
Central Government alleging inter alia that the inspection on
24.4.2017 was mala fide and was not legally acceptable - Held: A
surprise inspection is conceived of within the scheme of the Act - ,
An institution that imparts medical education has to remain ever G
compliant - Mere a/legation of mala fide does not vitiate an enquiry
or proceedings - Whether there is mala fide or not, depends on the
facts and circunivtances of each case - In the present case there is
no reason to attribute any kind of malice or mala fide to the Assessors
who are the experts in the field and further no material has been
H
755
756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017) 11 S.C.R.
A brought on record to substantiate the a/legation of mala fide - At
the time of consideration of recognition, the compliance is viewed
and scrutinized with great rigour and strictness - What may be
treated as minor (!/eftciency at the initial stage, may not remain so
when the institution proceeds from year to year - Since the surprise
inspection is permissible in law and the same is not tainted with
B
mala fide, order passed by the Central Government cannot be
flawed - Howeve1; the students who have been admitled in the
respective courses shall be permitted to continue -· MCI is directed
to see to it that the students who pass out ji·om the institwion. are
conferred degree - Educatio11/Educational Institutions.
c Disposing of the petition, the Court
HELD: t. A surprise inspection is conceived of within the
scheme of the Medical Council Act, 1956 and the institution/
college is required to remain compliant. In the instant case, after
the College submitted that it had complied with deficiencies
D pointed out by the team of assessors, the MCI thought it
necessary to have an inspection. It is not in dispute that the said
inspection was a surprise inspection and further it was, as the
MCI perceived, required to be done to verify whether the
institution was really compliant or not. In the verification report
E dated 24.04.2017, as the assessors have pointed out, there are
number of deficiencies. An institution that imparts medical
education has to remain ever compliant. Therefore, the grievance
agitated pertaining to surprise inspection with keen acumen docs
not commend acceptance. [Paras 21, 31 and 32] [776-D, 781-F-
G; 782-B, G]
F
Modern Dental College and Research Center and Ors.
v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (2016) 7 SCC
353; Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India
& Ors. (2013) 10 sec 60 : [2013] (9) SCR 325; IQ
City Foundation & Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
G (2017) 8 SCALE 369; Royal Medical Trust (Registered}
and Anr v. Union of India & Anr. (2015) 10 SCC 19 -
relied on.
2. The attack on the compliance report on asseverations
of ma/a fide, does not deserve acceptance. Whether there is ma/a
H fide or not, depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
INDIAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCEMENT OF RESEARCH AND 757
EDUCATION HALDIA (!CARE) v. U.0.1.
Mere allegation of ma/a fide does not vitiate an enquiry or A
proceeding. In. the instant case, the allegations have been made
against the assessors who are experts in the field and there i.s no
reason to attribute any kind of malice or ma/a fide to them. In
the absence of any kind of material brought on record, the mere
allegations that ther.e was a surprise inspection, within a fortnight, B
would not make the inspection a tainted one. [Para 33) [782-G;
783-A)
State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, !AS & Am: (1992) Suppl.
1 SCC 222 : [1991) 2 SCR 1 - relied on.
3. An institution has to remain compliant and necessity for c
remaining compliant becomes more important as the institution
enters the renewal year and thereafter for grant of approval and
recognition under Section 11(2) of the Act. At the time of
consideration of recognition, the compliance is viewed and
scrutinized with great rigour and strictness. What may be treated
as a minor deficiency at the initial stage may not remain so when D
the institution/college proceeds from year to year. In the instant
case, as the surprise inspection in law is permissible and the said
inspection is not tainted with ma/a fide, as alleged, the order
passed by the Central Government with the assistance of the
Hearing Committee cannot be flawed. [Para 39] [786-B-C] E
Medical Council ofIndia v. Kalinga institute of Medical
Sciences (2011) 11 SCC 530; Royal Medical Trust and
Am: v. Union of India and Anr. 2017 (11) SCALE 307;
Madha Medical College & Research Institute v. Union
of India 2017 (11) SCALE 330; Major S.D. Singh F
Medical College and Hospital & Anr. v. Union of India
& Anr. 2017 (11) SCALE 372 - relied on.
Karpagam Faculty of Medical Sciences & Research v.
Union of India and Ors. 2107 (11) SCALE 435;
Varunat:iun Trust and Am: v. Union of India and Ors.
G
2017 (11) SCALE 242; Annaii Medical College &
Hospital and Am: v. Union of India and Anr. 2017(11)
SCALE 418 - referred to.
4. Therefore, the students who have been admitted in the
respective courses shall be permitted to continue in the courses H
758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) ll S.C.R.
A and the students who pass out from the institution, the MCI shall
sec to it that th~y are conferred degrees. The .'VICI is directed to
conduct an inspection for recognition keeping in view the
academic year 2018-19 and if during the inspection any deficiency
is noticed, the same shall be intimated to petitioner No. 2
institution and thereafter, process shall be carried out keeping
8
in view the principles of natural justice in mind and the principles
stated in *IQ City Fou11dation case. The inspection shall be
carried out as per the schedule by the MCI for grant of
recognition for the academic year 2018-2019 and to avoid any
kind of uncalled for situation, the application submitted for the
C academic year 2017-2018 shall be treated as application for the
academic year 2018-2019. The bank guarantee furnished by the
institution shall not be encashcd by the MCI and the petitioners
shal.l kee11 it alive. [Para 40) [786-D-G]
*IQ City Fou11dario11 and Anr. v. Union uf India and
D Anr. (2015) 10 SCC 19 - relied on.
Case Law Reference
c2016) 1 sec 353 relied on Para 5
2017 (8) SCALE 369 relied on Para 14
E c2015> 10 sec 19 relied on Para 21
[2013) 9 SCR 325 relied 011 Para 22
)1991] 2 SCR l relied on Para 33
c2011 > 11 sec 530 relied on Para 33
F . 2017 (11) SCALE 307 relied on Para 34
2017 (11) SCALE 330 relied on Para 35
2017 (11) SCALE 372 relied on Para 36
2107 (ll) SCALE 435 referred to Para 37
G
2017(11) SCALE 418 referred to Para 38
2017 (ll) SCALE 242 referred to Para 38
CIVIL ORIGINALJURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
633 of2017
H
INDIAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCEMENT OF RESEARCH AND 759
EDUCATION HALDIA (!CARE) v. U.0.1.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia. A
Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, R.S. Suri, Sr. Advs. Rohit K. Agarwal,
Ms.Rekha Dwivedi, Mrs.Pallavi Tayal Chadda, Ms. Nabila Hasan,
Avinash Kumar, Advs. for the Petitioners.
Maninder Singh, ASG, Anmol Chandan. P. Mullick, G.S. Makk.er,
Gaurav Sharma, Pratcck Bhatia, Ms. Amandccp Kaur, Dhawal Mohan, B
Advs for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DIPAK MISRA, CJI 1. In this Writ Petition preferred under
Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia, the petitioner No. I-Indian Centre c
for Advancement of Research and Education, Haldia (!CARE), a society
registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1961 through its Secretaiy,
and the petitioner No. 2-ICARE Institute of Medical Sciences and
Research and Dr. Bidhan Chandra Roy Hospital, Haldia situated in West
Bengal through its Principal have prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari
for quashmcnt of the order dated 31.05.2017 passed by the competent D
authority of the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare and further to issue writ of mandamus or directing the
respondents to grant recognition under Section 11 (2) oflhc Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956 (for brevity, 'the Act') approval to the petitioner No.
2 College and recognition to the MBBS degree to be awarded by the E
West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Kolkata in respect of the
students who have completed their courses at petitioner No. 2. College.
2. The facts which are essential for the purpose of adjudication
of the controversy arc that the petitioner No. 2 College was established
in 2011 and it has been imparting education in MBBS courses since the
F
academic year 2011-2012 and has been granted renewal permission for
all subsequent years up to 2016-2017. For the purpose of grant of renewal
of permission under Section I 0-A of the Act, a surprise assessment was
carried out by the assessors on 05.11.2015 and 06. l l.2015. The
assessment report dated 06.1 l.2015 showed certain deficiencies and
thereafter the same being not removed by the institution, the Executive G
Committee of the Medical Council oflndia (MCI) recommended to the
Central Government not to renew permission for the admission of 6'"
batch (100 seats) of the MBBS for the academic year 2016-2017. The
petitioners came to know about the recommendation and the deficiencies
and through communication dated 02.01.2016 informed the respondent
H
'
760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (20 I 7] I I S.C.R.
A No. I that the deficiencies pointed out in the assessment report dated
06. I 1.20 I 5 had been duly rectified and accordingly submitted for
compliance report. A request was made for issuance of Letter of
Permission forndmission of 6'" batch ofMBBS course for the academic
year 2016-20 I 7 on the basis of the compliance report.
B 3. After receipt of the compliance report from the petitioner No.
2, the second respondent carried out a surprise inspection for clarification
of the compliance on I 9.02.2016. On the date ofinspection, the assessors
found ce11ain deficiencies and eventually on 14.05.2016 recommended
to the respondent No. I not to renew the permission for admission of the
6'" batch (100 seats) in MBBS course for the academic year 2016-
c 2017.
4. The decision of the Executive Committee of the MCI taken on
meeting held on 13.05.2016 is note worthy. It is as follows:
"The Executive Committee of the Council considered the
D compliance verification assessment, report (I 9'h February 2016)
alongwith previous assessment report (5'h & 61hNovember, 2015)
as well as letter dated 19/02/2016 and 14.03.2016 received from
the Principal of the college and noted the following:-
!. Defiqiency of faculty is 67% as detailed in the report
E 2. Shortage of Residents is 85% as detailed in the report
3. Bed occupancy was only 08% on day of assessment which is
grossly inadequate. Many wards were closed.
4. OPD attendance was only 250 on day of assessment which is
grossly inadequate.
F
5. Casualty attendance was only 09 on day of assessment. No
Casualty Medical Otlicer was present on day of assessment
6. There was NIL Major & NIL Minor operation on day of
assessment
G 7. There was NIL Normal Delivery & NIL Caesarean Section
on day of assessment
8. Radiological & Laboratory investigation workload is
inadequate. Separate register for Laboratory investigation is not
available.
H
INDIAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCEMENT OF RESEARCH AND 761
EDUCATION HALDIA (!CARE) v. U.0.1. [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
9. Histopathology & Cytopathology workload is NIL on day of A
assessment.
I 0. ICUs: ICCU beds are not available. MICU & !CCU are
common.
11. Otho. Deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment report.
B
In view of the above, the Executive Committee of the Council
decided to recommend to the Central Govt. not to renew the
permission for admission of 6 inbatch of 100 MBBS students at
ICARE Institute of Medical Sciences & Research, Haldia, West
Bengal under West Bengal University of Health Sciences,
Kolkata u/s l OA of the IMC Act, J956 for the academic year c
2016-2017."
5. After receipt of the recommendation of the Executive
Committee of the MCI, the first respondent vidc communication dated
10.06.2016 directed the petitioner institution not to admit any students in
6'' batch (JOO seats) in MBBS course for the academic year 2016- D
2017. It is necessary to state here that by that time the Oversight
Committee had come into existence by virtue of the Constitution Bench
judgment in Modem Dental College and Research Center and others
v. Stale of Madhya Pradesh and others'. The Oversight Committee
informed the MCI that it had decided in its meeting held on l 3.06.2016 E
to permit all colleges which had not been afforded an opportunity of
hearing to present their compliance deficiencies communicated by MCI
in the inspection/verification reports for 2016-2017 be given an opportunity
to furnish their compliance reports to respondent No. I. The petitioner
College submitted its fresh application for renewal permission for 6'"
batch (JOO scat) forthe academic ycar2016-2017 on 20.06.2016 along F
with the compliance report. The petitioners also submitted a letter dated
30.07.2016 to the Oversight Committee clarifying the factual position in
respect of alleged deficiencies pointed out by the assessors and thereatier,
the first respondent vidc communication dated 20.08.2016 on the basis
of the report of the Oversight Committee granted permission for the 6''
G
batch (JOO scats) in MBBS course for the academic year 2016-2017
under Section I 0-A of the Act and further stipulated that the next batch
of students in various courses be admitted in the College only after the
permission of the Central Government for renewal and fulfilling of the
stipulated conditions. Be it stated, the conditions that were imposed by
•(20t6) 1sec353 H
762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] l l S.C.R.
A the Oversight Committee were incorporated in the letter of respondent
No. 1. The conditions imposed by the Oversight Committee read:
"(i) An affidavit from the Dean/Principal and Chairman of the
Trust I Society/ University/ Company etc concerned, aftirming
folfillmcnt ofall deficiencies and statements made in the respective
B compliance report submitted to MHFW by 22 June 2016.
(ii) A bank guarantee in the amount of Rs. 2 crore in favour of
MCI, which will be valid for 1 year or until the first renewal
assessment. whichever is later. Such bank guarantee will be in
addition to the prescribed fee submitted alongwith the application.
c 2. The OC has also stipulated as follows:-
(i) OC may direct inspection to verify the compliance submitted
by the College and considered by OC, anytime after 30 September
2016.
(ii) In default of the conditions (i) and (ii) in para l above and if
D·
the compliances are found incomplete in the inspection to be
conducted after 30 September 2016, such college will be debarred
from fresh intake of students for 2 years commencing 2017-
18."
6. It is the stand of the petitioner No. 2 that it had complied with
E
the conditions imposed by the Oversight Committee and also furnished
the bank guarantee in favour of the second respondent. In the meantime,
students admitted in the first batch had completed the course and were
ready to appear for their final protessional MBBS University examination
in February, 2017 and in this factual background, it applied for grant of
F approval and recognition under Section 11(2) of the Act.
7. It is contended by the petitioner No. 2 that after receiving the
application of the college/institute, the MCI is required tu carry out
assessment for compliance verification in the light of assessment report
dated 19.02.2016 and to evaluate the standard of MBBS University
G Examination and to assess the infrastructural facilities available therein
and thereafter confer approval and recognition to MBBS degree with
permission to admit students during the academic session 2017-2018. It
is averred that MCI inspected the institution on 03.02.2017, 17.03.2017
and 18.03.2017 for the purposes mentioned above. After evaluation of
standard of examination on 03.02.2017, the assessors submitted a report
H
INDIAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCEMENT OF RESEARCH AND 763
EDUCATION HALDIA (!CARE) v. U.0.I. [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
in Form 'C' and recommended for grant ofapproval of the institute. On A
1"7.03.2017 and 18.03.2017 in the compliance verification report. the
assessors did not notice any major deficiency whatsoever but the MCI
after perusal of the said assessment report decided to recommend to the
Central Government to debar the petitioner institute from taking admission
of students in MBBS course for the next two sessions, that is, 2017-
B
2018 and 2018-2019. The Executive Committee of the MCI took note
of the assessors report which has noted the following:
"l. There were only 08 Major Operations for the whole hospital
on day of assessment.
2. ICUs: There were only 2 patients each in SICU, NICU, PICU C
on day of assessment.
3. Radio diagnosis department: 4 Static X-ray machines arc
available against requirement of5. 2 USG machines arc available
against requirement of3.
4. Students Hostels: Available accommodation is less than D
required as detailed in the. report Study room docs not have
Computer with Internet & is not air-conditioned.
5. Intcrns' Hostel: Available accommodation is less than required.
Hostels are not furnished. Toilet facilities are inadequate.
Visitors' room, AC. Study room with Computer & Internet and E
Recreation room are not available.
6. Nurses' Hostel: Available accommodation is for 44 against
requirement of 48.
7. MEU: Infrastructure facility in MEU is not adequate. There
is no computer internet facility. F
8. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment report."
8. Thercatlcr the Executive Committee opined thus:
"In view of the above, the college has failed to abide by the
undertaking it had given to the Central Govt. that there are no G
deficiencies as per clause 3.2(i) of the directions passed by the
Supreme Court mandated Oversight Committee vide
communication dated 12/08/2016. The Executive Committee,
after due deliberation and discussion, has decided that the college
has failed to comply with the stipulation laid down by the Oversight H
764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I l S.C.R.
A Committee. Accordingly, the Executive Committee recommend>
that as per the directions passed by Oversight Committee in para
3.2(b) vide comm um cation dated 12/08/2016 the college should
be debarred from admitting students in the above course for a
period of two academic years i.e. 2017-18 and 2018-19 as even
after giving an undertaking that they have fulfilled the entire
B
infrastru~ture for recognition/approval of IC ARE Institute of
Medical Sciences and Research, Haldia, West Bengal for the
award ofMBBS degree ( 100 scats) granted by The West Bengal
University of Health Sciences, Kolkata u/s II (2) of the IMC
Act, 1956 and Compliance Verification Assessment for renewal
c of permission for admission of6'' batch (JOO MBBS scats) u/s
I O(A) of the IMC Act, 1956 for the Academic year 2016-17
with reference to the conditional approval accorded by Oversight
Committee, the college was found to be grossly deficient. It has
also been decided by the Executive Committee that the Bank
Guarantee fw·nished by the college in pursuance of the directives
D
passed by the Oversight Committee as well as GO! letter dated
20/08/2016 is liable to be encashed."
A copy of the recommendation was sent to the Principal of the
petitioner institute.
E 9. After receiving the communication from the MCI, petitioner
No. 2 vide letter dated 04.04.2017 submitted a detailed representation to
the Oversight Committee highlighting the unjustified decision of the
Executive Committee of MCI with regard to compliance verification. A
communication was also sent to respondent No. 1. In the meantime, the
petitioner received a communication dated 07.04.2017 issued by the first
F respondent granting an opportunity of personal hearing on 13 .04.20 I 7.
The petitioners appeared before the respondent No. I on the date fixed
and furnished the requisite information and reiterated the stand that the
petitioner No. 2 institute is fully compliant with the MCI rules and
regulations and clarified the position relating to deficiencies which were
G noted as per the assessment report on 03.02.2017. It also highlighted
that the assessment reports of! 7.03.2017 and I 8.03.2017 did not justify
denial of grant of permission and in any case. the institution had taken
measures to remove the said deficiencies. It was asserted that the
compliance report dated 12.04.2017 of the institute clearly established
that all the deficiencies have been removed by 12.04.2017.
H
INDIAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCEMENT OF RESEARCH AND 765
EDUCATION HALDIA (!CARE) v. U.0.1. [DIPAK MISRA, CJ!]
10.According to the petitioners, on 24.04.2017 officers of A
respondent No. 2 without prior intimation conducted an assessment
flouting all norms. The report dated 24.04.2017 which is named as
C.ompliance Verification Assessment of the petitioner-College by the
MCI noted certain major deficiencies which are as follows:
"I. Deficiency of faculty is 61.32% as detailed in the rcpo11. B
2.· Shortage of Residents is 36.06% as detailed in the report.
3. Bed Occupancy is 45.95% at 10 a.m. on the day of
assessment.
4. Most of the wards are not as per MSR. c
5. In Obst. & Gynae wards, pediatric wards and orthopedic wards
patients have minor complaints did not required admission, in
obstetrics wards elderly lay admitted in the wards (college
authority not provide a case sheet about this). Hospital internal
condition is non-hygienic.
D
6. There were only 05 Major Operations on day of assessment.
7. Data of Laboratory & Radiological investigations provided by
the Institute arc inflated.
8. IPD attendance data provided by Institute are inflated."
E
11. The Executive Committee in its meeting held on 30.04.2017
considered the compliance verification report dated 24.04.20 l 7 along.
with previous assessment report ( 17'" & 18'" March, 2017) and noted :
"In view of the above, the Executive Committee of the Council
decided to recommended to the Central Government not to F
recognize/approve !CARE Institute of Medical Sciences &
Research, Haldia, West Bengal for the award of MBBS degree
(I 00 seats) granted by The.West Bengal University of Health
SciCrlccs, Kolkata Uls ll(Z) efthe IMC Act, 1959 and further
decided that the Institute be asked to submit the co~plillru;.e for
rectification of the above deficiencies within 0 I month for furtbe~G
consideration of the matter. '------
H.owever in view of above, the Executive Committee to reiterate its
earlier decision to recommend to the Central Govt, that the college should
be debarred from admitting students in the above course for a period of
H
766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 11 S.C.R.
A two academic years i.e. 2017- 18 & 2018-19 as per directions passed by
Oversight Committee in Para 3.2(b) vide communication dated
12.08.2016."
12. Inspection carried out by the MCI on 24.04.2017 was brought
to the notice of the Oversight Committee highlighting that the assessment
B carried out on the said date was factually incorrect and not in good faith.
Criticism was advanced about the inspection of 24.04.2017 on the
foun,httion that (jespite assessments carried out on 03.02.2017, 17.03.2017
and 18.03.2017, a surprise and perfunctory verification was carried out.
As the factual narration would uncurtain, the respondent No. I vidc
letter dated 31.05.2017 intimated the petitioner No. 2 College that the
c Central Government decided not to permit admission of students in the
MBBS course (100 course) for the academic year 2017-2018 with the
further stipulation that the admission made against the decision of the
Central Government will be treated as irregular and action will be initiated
under the Act and Regulations made thereunder. Examples have been
D cited in the Writ Petition, how the other institutions who had suffered
from significant deficiencies have been granted the Letter of Permission
and action of the respondents have been characterized as ma/a fide.
13. It is necessary to state here that after the matter was sent for
reconsideration, the Central Government granted hearing to the college
E on 22.08.2017 and took the assistance of the newly constituted Oversight
Committee as per the order of the Constitution Bench. The Hearing
Committee after considering the repo1t and submissions of the College
submitted its report by stating that there was no merit for reconsideration
of the case for renewal and it concurred with the decision taken by the
Ministry on earlier occasion. The decision of the Hearing Committee
F has been enclosed with the order dated 29.08.2017. The report of the
Hearing Committee also mentioned the tabular. We think it appropriate
to reproduce the same:
Deficiencies Deficiencies in Deficiencies Comments Hearing
2016-17 cornpliance in of OOHS Comrrittee
G verification compliance Hearing fmding-;
assessment on verification Co111n1ittt.>e (22.8.2017)
3rd Feb. 2017 for
& 17th-18th Recognition
March, 2017 on 24.4.2017
after OC
H annroval
INDIAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCEMENT OF RESEARCH AND 767
EDUCATION HALDIA (!CARE) v. U.0.1. [DIPAK MISRA, CJ!]
A
I- I.There were I. Deficiency 1,2,3. The
Deficiency only 08 Major of faculty is I. college
of fa cul ly is Operations for 61.32% as Complied authorities
67"/o as the whole detailed in with submitted the
detailed in hospital on day the report. 2. Need to explanation
the report of assessment. 2. Shortage tlJC re- as per the
2. Shortage 2. ICUs: There of Residents verified deficiency B
of Residents wereonly2 is 36.06% as 3. Agreed pointed out
is 85~'0 as patients each in detailed in to the by MCI for
detailed in SICU, NICU, the report. deficiency points I, 2 &
the report PICU on day 3. Bed in the 3. College
3.Bcd of assessment Occupancy is assessn1ei.1t authorities
occupancy 3. Radio- 45.95% al IO report. No failed to
was only diagnosis a.m. on day satisfactory produce any
c
08% on day department: of assessment reply. concrete
of 4 Static X-ray 4. Most of Deficiency documentary
asscss1ncnt machines arc the wards arc persists. proofofthcir
\vhich is available not as per contention
grossly against MSR. 4. The
inadequate. requircn1ent of 5. In Obst & college D
Many v.'3rds 5. 2USG Gynae wards, authorities
\Vere closed. n1achincs are pediatric could not
4.0PD available wards and provide any
attendance against orthopedic satisfactory
\vas only rcquircn1cnt of ward11 evidence.
250 on day 3. patients 5 ·n1c
of 4: Students' have minor I-I caring E
asscssrncnt Hostels: con1plaints Committee
\Vhich is Available did not cannot give
grossly accommcxiatio required comn1ents
inadequate. n is less than adn1ission, in regarding
5. Casualty required as obstetrics the
attendance dctai led in the ward> elderly genuineness F
was only09 repo1t. Study lady admitted of the
on day of roo1n docs not in the wards patients as
asscssn1cnt. have Computer (college pointed out
No Casualty with lnlcmct & authority not
Medical is not air- provide a
Oflicerwas conditioned. case sheet
present on 5. Interns' about this). G
day of Hostel: Hospital
asscssn1ent inten1al
H
768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 11 S.C.R.
A
6. Therewas Available condi tion is by MCiin
NIL Major& uccorrunodatio non- pumt No.
NIL Minor p 1s less than hygienic. 5. Also the
operation on required. 6. There were college
day of Hostels are not only. 05 authoritie:i
B assessn1ent fumished. Major failed to
7. There was Toilet facilities Qperations provide
NIL Normal are inadequate. on day any furt[l,r
O.:livery & NIL Visitocs' room, of proof
Caesarean A.C. Study assessment. regarding
Sl'Ction on day room with 7. Data of the san1e.
c of asscssn1ent
8. Radio!ogic;tl
Computer& Laboratoiy & 6. College
Internet and Radiological authoritie;
& Laborato1y Recreation investigµtiom could not
invcstigatim room are not provided by provide
workload is available. Institute m-e any
inadequate. 6. Nurses' inflated. evidence
Separate Hostel: 8.0PD for more
D
register for Available attendance than 5
L1bomtory accomrnodati o data provided 111RJOr
investigatiu1 is n is for 44 by Inst itutc op erat ions
not tm1ilable. against are inflnted. on the date
9.Histopatl1olog i:equirement of 9. Otl1er of
y& 48. deficiencies assessment.
E Cytopathology 7.MEU: as pointed 7&8. The
workload is Infrastructure out in tl1e Data
NIL on day of facility in MEU assessment Laboratory
assessn1ent. is not adequate. report. &
10. ICUs: There is no minor Radiologic
!CCU !:eds are computer al
F not available. internet facility. investigatio
MICU&ICCU ns provided
are ccmmon by the
Institute in
front of
hearing
G committee
was not
satisfactory
H
INDIAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCEMENT OF RESEARCH AND 769
EDUCATION HALD!A (!CARE) v. U.O.I. [D!PAK MISRA, CJI]
14. Assailing the decisions of the MCI and the Central Government, A
it is submitted by Dr. Rajcev Dhawan, learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioner No.! and Mr. R.S. Suri, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner No. 2 submit that the institution was found fully compliant as
per the inspection made on 03.02.2017 and surprise inspections carried
out on 17.03.2017 and 18.03.2017 and the said inspections have to be
B
understood in law as assessment for grant of recognition under Section
11(2) of the Act and compliance verification assessment for rcnewalof
permission for admission of 6'" batch (JOO seats) of MBBS course
under Section I 0-A of the Act and hence, further inspection on 24.04.2017
has no legal acceptation. That apa11, submits Dr. Dhawan, the initial
communication of the MCI though made within 11 days of the inspection, c
it, despite its obligation to obtain the approval of the Oversight Committee,
had debarred the institution from admitting students and encashing the
bank guarantee which exhibits absolute arbitrariness and makes the
decision wholly vulnerable. It is contended that the recommendation
made was contrary to the fact situation and, therefore, to justify its stand,
D
the assessors of the MCI being so directed carried out routine assessment
which is neither supportable in law nor does it stand to reason. Learned
senior counsel is extremely critical of such kind of inspection because it
does not follow any procedure and reveals the pre-determined mind of
the assessors and, in any case, the object of the MCI, as is evident, was
to prove its point and not to objectively perceive things so that the medical E
education in this country can achieve real stability. He has reforred to
the compliance report of 12.04.2017 as it would be indicative of the fact
that the deficiencies have been rectified. It is pnt forth by Dr. Dhawan
that the Central Government despite the order passed by this Court in
IQ City Fo1111dation & Anr. v. Union ofIndia a11d Ors.' has not really
F
kept itselfalive to the principles stated by this Coui1 and acted not only
unreasonably but in a high-handed manner. Learned senior counsel would
submit that the order dated 29.08.2017 deserves to be axed because it is
cryptic and unreasonable as it has not taken into account the materials
submitted before the Hearing Committee in the form of attendance record,
salary statements, Forms l 6A (TDS), clinical records and certain other G
documents which speak eloquently about the compliance of initial
deficiencies pointed out by the assessors. It is urged by him that the
whole action of the MCI is malafide and is incapable of withstanding
scrutiny.
'(2017) 8 SCALE 369 H
770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] l l S.C.R.
A 15. Refllting the submissions of Dr. Dhawan, it is contended by
Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Gaurav Sharma,
learned counsel appearing for the MCI contended that the aspersions
made by the petitioners on the inspection held on 24.04.2017 do not
deserve consideration since it is the duty of the MCI to sec that the
institutions remain ever compliant. Attribution of malaflde is absolutely
B
unwarranted, f<l>r the assessors of MCI had gone on surprise verification
as the College submitted the compliance report which stated that the
deficiencies had been removed. Learned senior counsel would submit
that the experts enJOY great reputation in their field and the bald allegations
should not be allowed to destroy the basic purpose for which the inspection
c is meant for and il is the statutory responsibility of the MCI to scrutinize
at the spot about the due compliance report. Placing reliance on certain
authorities which we shall refer to in due course, contends Mr. Singh,
that a minute inspection of the contents of the report is not permissible in
law unlcssprimafacie it is reflective of total unacceptability or perversity.
The learned counsel has drawn the distinction between Letter of
D
Permission at the commencement of the college and at a renewal stage
and further at tile final recognition stage. He has pressed into service
the language employed in the provisions of the Act and the Establishment
of Medical College Regulations, 1999 (for short. "the Regulations")
framed under the said Act lo strengthen the stand that an institution
E having deficiencies which arc unacceptable cannot be extended the
benefit ofrccoglfition. It is his further contention that an institution which
is granted LOP for the initial establishment, certain deficiencies to some
extent be ignored but as it moves from initial stage to another the
yardsticks that apply are more rigorous.
F 16. Mr. Manindcr Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General
defending the order passed by the Central Government canvassed lhat
the order in present incarnation cannot be characterized as an unreasoned
one because it has chronologically referred to the background and taken
note of the Oversight Committee which consists of eminent doctors as
per the decision of this Court passed by the Constitution Bench in Writ
G Petition (Civil) No. 408 of2017 titlcdA111111a Chandravati Ed11catio11al
a11d Charitable Trust and others v. Union of India and another. It is
argued by him that when the eminent doctors have evaluated all the
verification inspection reports and arrived at the conclusion and the Central
Government concurred with it by taking note of every facet to call it an
H . unreasoned order is not only unfair but, in a way uncharitable.According
INDIAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCEMENT OF RESEARCH AND 771
EDUCATION HALDIA (!CARE) v. U.O.l. [DIPAK MISRA, CJ!)
to Mr. Singh, the recommendations made by the MCI being well A
considered and based on materials have been accepted by the respondent
No. land in such circumstances the order passed by it should be treated
as impeccable, warranting no interference.
17. We have already narrated the facts in a chronological manner.
What grieves the petitioners is the inspection caused on 24.04.2017. B
The gmvamen of the proponement is that the said inspection in the name
of verification is an outcome of ma/ajides and hence, legally illegitimate.
The stance taken to pyramid the point is that it is not permissible und.cr
the Act or the Regulations, and the assessors nominated by the MCI
have carried out inspection not only in total violation of principles of C
natural justice but also totally abandoning their sense of objectivity. As
ihe chronicle of the factual score would depict, the institution had filed a
"compliance report" on 12.04.2017. The said compliance report referred
to communication of MCI dated 28.03.2017 in respect of grant ofrenewal/
approval to the petitioner College. The said report after mentioning about
the minor deficiencies pointed out by the assessors stated: D
"So far as the deficiencies pointed out by the assessors after
their assessment of infrastructures on l 7I l 8 March, 2017 vi de
their report in Format A-II is concerned, they arc not in major
natures which may justify denial of grnnt of recognition. They
arc not in respect of staff: space, equipment, college/hospital E
and clinical material. It is not pmctical to insist for a fnll proof or
absolute adherence to all requirements without regard to their
importance for the purpose of imparting education, in a practical
way. However, since we have already removed the deficiencies
a compliance report in tabular form is being submitted herewith.
It is important to mention here that the Assessors have not found F
any deficiency in teaching staff. They have pointed out in their
report sh01iagc of 3.8% teaching faculty and l.5% of resident
doctors which are permissible as per MCI rules.
Under the facts and circumstances mentioned above, you are
requested to kindly accept the compliance report and if deemed G
necessary grant personal hearing to us in the matter for the ends
of natural justice."
Be it noted, the compliance report contained annexures and the
soft copy in word format and in CD. At this juncture, as the MCI would
contend. it felt the necessity to conduct a surprise inspection to satisfy H
772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] l l S.C.R
A itself as regards the compliance on 24.04.2017. We already have
reproduced the same.
18. To appreciate the controversy in apposite perspective, it is
extremely crucial to understand the scheme of the Act and how the
same has been understood and appreciated by this Court. Section 3 of
B the MCI Act deals with constitution and composition of the MCI. Section
10 provides the constitution of the Executive Committee and further
stipulates that in addition to the powers and duties conferred and imposed
upon it by the Act, the Committee shall exercise and discharge such
powers and duties as the Council may confer or impose upon it by
Regulations which may be made in that behalf. Section l 0-A( I) provides
c for pc1mission for establishment of new medical college and new course
of study. It stipulates that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act
or any other law for the time being in force, no person shall establish a
medical college or no medical college shall open a new or higher course
of study or training including post-graduate course of study or training or
D increase its admission capacity in any course of study or training except
with the previous permission of the Central Government obtained in
accordance with the provisions of the said section. Section I 0-A(2) lays
the postulate that every person or medical college shall, for the purpose
of obtaining permission under sub-section (I), submit to the Central
Government a scheme in accordance with the provisions of clause (b)
E of Section 3 and the Central Government shall refer the scheme to the
MCI for its recommendations.
19. Sub-section (3) and sub-section (7) of Section I 0-A deal with
the role of the MCI on receipt ofa scheme. Sub-section (3), (4) and
sub-section (7) of Section I 0-A read as follows:
F
"(3) On receipt of a scheme by the Council under sub-section
(2) the Council may obtain such other particulars as may be
considered necessary by it from the person or the medical college
concerned, and thereafter, it may-
G (a) if the scheme is defective and does not contain any necessary
particulars, give a reasonable opportunity to the person or college
concerned for making a written representation and it shall be
open to such person or medical college to rectify the defects, if
any, specified by the Council.
H
INDIAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCEMENT OF RESEARCH AND 773
EDUCATION HALDIA (ICARE) v. U.0.1. [DIPAK MISRA, CJ!]
(b) consider the scheme, having regard to the factors referred A
to in sub-section (7) and submit the scheme together with its
recommendations thereon to the Central Government.
x x x x x
(7) The Council, while making its recommendations under clause
(b) of sub-section (3) and the Central Government, while passing B
an order, either approving or disapproving the scheme under sub-
section (4), shall have due regard to the following factors,
namely:-
( a) whether the proposed medical college or the existing medical
college seeking to open a new or higher course of study or training, c
would be in a position to offer the minimtim standards of medical
education as prescribed by the Council under section l 9A or, as
the case may be under section 20 in the case of postgraduate
medical education.
(b) whether the person seeking to establish a medical college or D
the existing medical college seeking to open a new or higher
course of study or training or to increase it admission capacity
has adequate financial resources;
( c) whether necessary facilities in respect of staff, equipment,
accommodation, training and other facilities to ensure proper E
functioning of the medical college or conducting the new course
or study or training or accommodating the increased admission
capacity, have been provided or would be provided within the
time-limit specified in the scheme.
(d) whether adequate hospital facilities, having regard to the F
number or students likely to attend such medical college or course
of study or training or as a result of the increased admission
capacity, have been provided or would be provided within the
time-limit specified in the scheme;
( e) whether any arrangement has been made or programme G
drawn to impart proper training to students likely to attend such
medical college or course of study or training by persons having
the recognised medical qualifications;
H
774 SUPRIEME COURT REPORTS [20!7] I l S.C.R.
A (f) the requirement of manpower in the field of practice of
medicine; and
(g) any other factors as may be prescribed."
20. Sub-section (4) of Section 8 deals with the power of the Central
Government. It reads :
B
'"(4) The Central Govt. may after considering the scheme and
the recommendations of the Council under sub-section (3) and
after obtaining, where necessary, such other particulars as may
be considered necessary by it from the person or college
concerned, and having regard to the factors referred to in sub-
c section (7), either approve 4 (with such conditions, if any, as it
may consider necessary ) or disapprove the scheme, and any
such approval shall be a permission under sub-section ( l ):
Provided that no scheme shall be disapproved by the Central
Government except after giving the person or college concerned
D a reasonable opportunity of being heard;
Provided further that nothing in this sub section shall prevent
any person or medical college whose scheme has not been
approved by the Central Government to submit a fresh scheme
and the prpvisions of this section shall appl) to such scheme, as
E if such scheme has been submitted for the first time under sub-
section (2)."
21. Section, 10-A has been interpreted in Royal Medical Trust
(Registered) and A11r v. Union of India & A11r'. The said decision
also reflects on the Regulations framed by the MCI. The Court has
F ruled that the MCI and the Central Government, having vested with the
monitoring powers under Section I 0-A of the Act, they arc required to
show due diligence right from the day when the applications arc received
and the schedule giving various stages and the time limit must
accommodate every possible eventuality and at the same time must
comply with the requirement of observance of principles ofnaturaljustice
G
at various levels. The Conrt, in this regard, has expressed thus:
"31. MCI and the Central Government have been vested with
monitoring powers under Section 1OA and the Regulations. It is
expected of these authorities to discharge their functions well
------
H '(2UJ5)10SCC:l9
INDIAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCEMENT OF RESEARCH AND 775
EDUCATION HALDIA (!CARE) v. 0.0.I. [DIPAK MISRA, CJ!]
within the statutory confines as well as in conformity with the A
Schedule to the Regulations. If there is inaction on their part or
non-observance of the time schedule, it is bound to have adverse
effect on all concerned. The affidavit filed on behalf of the Union
of India shows that though the number of scats had risen,
obviously because of permissions granted for establishment of B
new colleges, because of disapproval of renewal cases the
resultant effect was net loss in terms. of number of seats available
for the academic year. It thus not only caused loss of oppo11unity
to the students community but at the same time caused loss to
the society in terms of less number of doctors being available.
MCI and the Central Government must therefore show due C
diligence right from the day when the applications arc received.
The Schedule giving various stages and time-limits must
accommodate every possible eventuality and at the same time
must comply with the requirements of observance of natural
justice at various levels. In our view the Schedule must ideally
D
take care of:
(A) Initial assessment of the application at the first level should
comprise of checking necessary requirements such as esscntiality
certificate, consent for affiliation and physical features like land
and hospital requirement. If an applicant fails to fulfil these
requirements, the application on the face of it, would be E
incomplete and be rejected. Those .vho fulfil the basic
requirements would be considered at the next stage.
(B) Inspection should then be conducted by !he Inspectors of
MCI. By very nature such inspection must have an clement of
surprise. Therefore sufficient time of about three to four months F
ought to be given to MCI to cause inspection at any time and
such inspection should normally be undertaken latest by January.
Surprise inspection would ensure that the required facilities and
infrastructure arc always in place and not borrowed or put in
temporarily. G
(C) Intimation of the result or outcome of the inspection would
then be communicated. If the infrastructure and facilities arc in
order. the medical college concerned should be given requisite
permission/renewal. However, if there arc any deficiencies or
H
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ~2017] ll S.C.R.
A shortcomings. MCI must, after pointing out the deficicnc1cs, grant
to the college concerned sufficient time to report compliance.
(0) If compliance is reported and the applicant states that the
deficiel)cies stand removed, MCI must cause compliance
verification. It is possible that such compliance could be accepted
B even without actual physical verification but that assessment be
left entirely to the discretion of MCI and the Central Government.
In cases where actual physical verification is required, MCI and
the Centpl Government must cause such verification before the
deadline,.
c (E) The result of such verification if positive in favour of the
medical college concerned, the applicant ought to be given
requisite permission/renewal. But if the deficiencies still persist
or had npt been removed, the applicant will stand discntitled so
far as tl~at academic year is concerned."
D The aforesaid authority makes it clear as day that the surprise
inspection is conceived ofwithin the scheme of the Act and the institution/
college is required to remain compliant.
22. In Mai11oliar Lal S/iarmt1 v. Medical Council of llldiu &
Ors.'. it has been ruled that the MCI on the basis of the reports regular
E compliance is legally obliged to form an opinion with regard to the capacity
of the College to provide necessary facilities in respect of staff,
equipments, accommodation, training and other facilities to ensure proper
functioning of the medical college or for increase of admission capacity.
In the said case, the Court while dealing with the surprise inspection, has
expressed thus:-
F
"24. Surprise inspection, in this case. was conducted to ascertain
whether compliance report could be accepted and to ascertain
whether the deficiencies pointed out in the regular inspection
were rectified or not. By pointing out the deficiencies, MC! is
giving an opportunity to the College to rectify the deficiencies, if
G any noticed by the inspection team. It is the duty of the College
to submit the compliance report. after rectifying the deficiencies.
MCI can conduct a surprise inspection to ascertain whether the
deficicnCies had been rectified and the compliance repo11 be
accepted or not."
------
H ' <201 JJ 10 sec 60
INDIAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCEMENT OF RESEARCH AND 777
EDUCATION HALDIA (!CARE) v. U.0.1. [DIPAK MISRA, CJ!]
Eventually, the Court held: A
"27. We are also of the view that such an order is not vitiated by
violation of principles of natural justice, especially, when no
allegation of bias or mala fide has been attributed against the
two doctors who constituted the inspection team, which conducted
the surprise inspection on 6-7-2013. When the inspection team B
consists of two doctors of unquestionable integrity and reputation.
who are experts in the field. there is no reason to discard the
report of such inspection. In such circumstances, we are of the
view that MCI has rightly passed the order rejecting the approval
for renewal of permission for the third batch of 150 MBBS
students granted for the academic year 2013-2014." c
[Emphasis added]
23. In this context, Mr. Vikas Singh. learned senior counsel for
the MCI, bas drawn our attention to Regulation 7 which deals with the
report of the MCI. .He has also drawn our attention to Regulation 8 that D
pertains to grant of permission by the Central Government. Regulation
8, has been amended on 8.2.2016 and 8.3.2016. We think it appropriate
to extract the relevant clauses:
"( l) The Central Government, on the recommendation of the
Council for Letter of Permission, may issue a letter to set up a E
new medical college with such 18 conditions or modifications in
the original proposal as may be considered necessary. This letter
can also include a clear cut statement of preliminary requirements
to be met in respect of buildings, infrastructural facilities, medical
and allied equipments, faculty and staffbefore admitting the first
batch of students. The formal permission may be granted after F
the above conditions and modifications are accepted and the
performance bank guarantee for the required sums arc furnished
by the person and after consulting the Medical Council oflndia.
(2) The formal permission may include a time bound programme
for the establishment of the medical college and expansion of G
the hospital facilities. The permission may also define annual
targets as may be fixed by the Council to be achieved by the
person to commensurate with the intake of students during the
following years."
H
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] l l S.C.R.
A 24.Sub-clause (3)(1) provides that:
"( 3)( l) The permission to establish a medical college and admit
students may be granted initially for a period of one year and
may be ¢newed on yearly basis subject to verification of the
achievements of annual targets. lt shall be the responsibility of
B the pcrsgn to apply to the Medical Council of India for pumosc
of renewal six months nriorto the expity of the initial permission.
This process ofrenewal of permission will continue till such time
the esta~lishment of the medical college and expansion of the
hospital facilities arc completed and a formal recognition of the
medical college is granted. Further admissions shall not be made
c at any stage unless the requirements of the Council arc fulfilled.
The Central Government may at any stage convey the
deficiencies to the applicant and provide him an opportunity and
time to r~ctify the deficiencies."
[Underlining is by us]
D
25. Yidc Gazette Notification dated 18.3.2016, clause 8(3)(( I )(a)
was substituted thus:
"(a) Colleges in the stage ofLetterof Permission upto II renewal
(i.e. Adnjlission of third batch)
E !fit is observed during any inspection/assessment of the institute
that the meficiency of teaching faculty and/or Residents is more
than 30% and/or bed occupancy is< 50% (45% in North East,
Hilly terrain, etc.). compliance of rectification of deficiencies
from such an institute will not be considered for issue of Letter
of Permission (LOP)/rcncwal of permission in that Academic
F
Year."
26.Clausc 8(3)(l)(b) was also substituted which reads thus:
"(b) Colleges in the stage of III & JV renewal (i.e. Admission
of fourth & fifth batch)
G If it is observed during any inspection of the Institute that the
deficiency of teaching faculty and I or Residents is more than
20% and I or bed occupancy is< 65% compliance of rectification
of deficiencies from such an institute will not be considered for
renewal of permission in that Academic Year."
H
INDIAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCEMENT OF RESEARCH AND 779
EDUCATION HALDIA (!CARE) v. U.0.1. [DIPAK MISRA, CJ!)
27.Clause 8(3)(l)(c), after the amendment, reads as follows: A
"(c) Colleges which are already recognized for award of
M.B.B.S. degree and I or running Postgraduate courses.
lfit is observed during any inspection I assessment of the institute
that the deficiency of teaching faculty and I or Residents is more
than I 0% and I or bed occupancy is < 70% compliance of B
rectification of deficiency from such an institute will not be
considered for issue of renewal of permission in that Academic
Year and fu1thcr such an institute will not be considered for
processing applications for Postgraduate courses in that Academic
Year and will be issued show cause notices as to why the c
recommendations for withdrawal ofrecognition ofthc courses
run by that institute should not be made for w1dergraduate and
postgraduate courses which arc recognized u/s 11(2) of the IMC
Act, 1956 along with direction of stoppage of admissions in
permitted postgraduate courses."
D
"However, the office of the Council shall ensure that such
inspections are not carried out at least 2 days before and 2 days
after important religious and festival holidays declared by the
Central/State Govt."
28. Clause (4) is as follows: E
"(4) The Council may obtain any other information from the
proposed medical college as it deems fit and necessary.
RECONSIDERATION ,,.
Wherever the CoW1cil in its report has not recommended the
F
issue of Letter of Intent to the person, it may upon being so
required by the Central Government reconsider the application
and fake into account new or additional information as may be
forwarded by the Central Government. The Council shall,
thereafter, submit its report in the same manner as prescribed
for the initial report." G
29. Regulation 8(3)(1) has been added by Gazette Notification
dated 08.02.2016 which stipulates that permission to establish a medical
college and admit students may be granted initially for a period of one
year and may be renewed on an yearly basis subject to verification of
H
780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] l I S.C.R.
A the achievement of targets. It also provides that the process of renewal
of permission to continue till such time the establishment of the medical
college and expansion of the hospital facilities are completed, and
thereafter a formal recognition of the medical college is granted. It
clearly lays dowo that further admission shall not be made at any stage
unless the requirements of the Council am fulfilled and the Central
[l
Government may at any stage convey the deficiencies to the college
and provide an opportunity and time to rectify the deficiencies.
30. Sub-section (3 )(I) contains certain provisos. They read as
follows:-
c .. PROVIDED that in respect of
(a) Colleges in the stage upto II renewal (i.e. Admission
of third batch):
If it is observed during any regular inspection of the institute that
the deficiency of teaching faculty anU/or Residents is more than
D 30% anU/or bed occupancy is 60 %, such an institute will not be
considered for renewal of permission in that Academic Year.
(b) Colleges in the stage from III renewal (i.e. Admission
of four! 1 batch till rceo0 nition of the institute for award of
M.B;B. '. degree:
E
If it is observed during any regular inspection of the institute that
the deficiency of teaching faculty an<Vor Residents is more than
20% anU/or bed occupancy is< 70 %, such an institute will not
be considered for renewal of permission in that Academic Year.
19
F
( c) Colleges which arc already recognized for award of
M.H.B.S. degree and/or running Postgraduate Courses:
!fit is observed during any regular inspection of the institute that
the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or Residents is more than
I 0% and/or bed occupancy is< 80%, such an institute will not
G
be considered for processing applications for postgraduate
courses in that Academic Year and will be issued show cause
notices as to why the recommendation for withdrawal of
recognition of the courses run by that institute should not be
made for Undergraduate and Postgraduate courses which are
H
INDIAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCEMENT OF RESEARCH AND 781
EDUCATION HALDIA (!CARE) v. U.O.l. (DIPAK MISRA. CJI]
recognized u/s l 1(2) of the IMC Act, 1956 along with direction A
of stoppage of admissions in permitted Postgraduate courses.
(d) Colleges which arc found to have employed
teachers with faked/forged documents: .
If it is observed that any institute is found to have employed a
teacher with faked/forged documents and have submitted the B
Declaration Form of such a teacher, such an institute will not be
considered for renewal of permission/recognition for award of
M.B.B.S. degree/processing the applications for postgraduate
courses for two Academic Years - i.e. that Academic Year and
the next Academic Year also. c
However, the office of the Council shall ensure that such
inspections are not carried out at least 3 days before upto 3 days
after important religious and festival holidays declared by the
Central/State Govt.
(2) The recognition so granted to an Undergraduate Course for D
award of MBBS degree shall be for a maximum period of 5
years, upon which it shall have to be renewed.
(3) The procedure for 'Renewal' of recognition shall be
same as applicable for the award of recognition. (4) Failure to
seek timely renewal of recognition as required in subclause (a) E
supra sha II invariably result in stoppage of admissions to the
concerned Undergraduate Course of MB BS at the said institute."
As is evincible, the aforesaid Regulations deal with various stages
and the requirements under Section 10-A and Section 11 (2) of the Act.
F
31. The aforesaid Regulations, as we perceive, deal with !he
compliance verification. In the instant case, after the College submitted
that it had complied with deficiencies pointed out by the team ofasscssors,
the MCI thought it necessary to have an inspection. It is not in dispute
that the said inspection was a surprise inspection and further it was, as
the MCI perceived, required to be done to verify whether the institution G
was really compliant or not. In the verification report dated 24.04.2017,
as the assessors have pointed out, there are number of deficiencies.
32. The stand of the petitioners is that such verification is
impermissible and grossly malajide. In IQ City Fo1111dutlon (supra),
H
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 11 S.C.R.
A the three-Judge Bench, after referring to the authonty in Royal J'.fedical
Trust (supra) has held that the emphasis on the compliant institutions
that can really educate doctors by imparting quality education so that
they will have inherent as well as the cultivated attributes of excellence.
There can be no scintilla of doubt that an institut10n that imparts medical
education has to remain ever compliant. It is necessary to mention here
B
that in IQ City Foundation (supra). a contention was advanced that
when the Centdl Government sends back the matter to the MCI for
compliance verification, the power of the MCI is restricted and it is only
required to inspect the aspects for which the matter has been referred
back by the Central Government. Negativining the said contention, the
c Court has held :
"On a r~ading of Section I 0-A of the Act, Rules and the
Regulations, as has been referred to in Mano/lar Lal Sharma
(supra), and the view expressed in Royal Medical Trust (supra),
it would be inappositc to restrict the power of the MCI by laying
D down as an absolute principle that once the Central Government
sends back the matter to MCI for compliance verification and
the Assessors visit the College they shall only verify the mentioned
items and turn a Nelson's eye even if they perceive certain other
deficiencies. It would be playing possum. The direction of the
Central Qovcrnment for compliance verification report should
E not be construed as a limited remand as is understood within the
framework of Code of Civil Procedure or any other law. The
distinetiqn between the principles of open remand and limited
remand, we arc disposed to think, is not attracted."
33. The aforesaid passage lays stress how the educational
F institutions are to be compliant to have the requirements as per the Act
and the Regulations and not to take shelter under a subterfuge or lean
upon a contrived situation to exhibit justification. Thus analysed, the
grievance agitated pertaining to surprise inspection with keen acumen
does not commend acceptance. The attack on the compliance report on
G asseverations of ma/a fide, if we allow ourselves to say so, does not
deserve acceptance. Whether there is ma/a fide or not, depends upon
the facts and circumstances of the case as has been held in State of
Bilwr v. P.P. Sharma, /AS & A11r.' Mere allegation of malafide docs
not vitiate an enquiry or proceeding. As we sec, in the instant case. the
H ' 1992 Supp.(!) sec 222
INDIAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCEMENT OF RESEARCH AND 783
EDUCATION HALDIA (!CARE) v. U.0.1. [DIPAK MISRA, CJ!]
allegations have been made against the assessors who are experts in the A
field and we find no reason to attribute any kind of malice or malajide
to them. In the absence of any kind of material brought on record, the
mere allegations that there was a surprise inspection, within a fortnight,
would not make the inspection a tainted one. In this regard, we may
usefully refer to a passage from Medical Cou11cil of India v. Kaliuga
B
Institute of Medical Sciences' :
"Our attention was also drawn to the decision of this Court in
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council oflndia wherein it was
held (SCC p. 72, para 27) that since the inspection is taken by
"doctors of unquestionable integrity and reputation, who are C
experts in the field, there is no reason to discard the report of
such an inspection". In the present appeal, there is no allegation
made by KIMS of any ma la tides of the inspection team or any
perversity in the inspection report and hence, there is no question
of challenging the conclusions of a neutral, randomly selected
inspection team in its assessment." D
And again:
"The High Court did not appreciate that the inspection was carried
out by eminent Professors from reputed medical institutions who
were experts in the field and the best persons to give an unbiased
repmt on the facilities in KIMS. The High Court under Article E
226 of the Constitution was certainly not tasked to minutely
examine the contents of the inspection report and weigh them
against the objections ofKIMS in respect of each of its 18. items.
In our opinion, the High Court plainly exceeded its jurisdiction in
this regard in venturing into seriously disputed factual issues." F
[Emphasis supplied]
34. In Royal Medical Tr11st a11d a11other v. U11io11 of India and
another' this Court held:
"Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we
G
sum up our conclusions and directions, thus:-
( a) The petitioners are not entitled to Letter Of Permission
(LOP) for the academic session 2017-2018. We direct that
'c2011i 11 sec 530
'2017 (I I) SCALE 307 H
784 SUPR.lgME COURT REPORTS (2017] 11 S.C.R.
A the order passed in the present writ petition shall be
applicable hercatler for the academic session 2018-2019
sin~e the cut off date for admissions to MBBS course for
academic session 2017-2018 is over and the academic
session has commenced. No petition shall be entertained
from any institution/collcgc/socicty/trust or any party for
B
graµt of LOP for 2017-2018. We say so as the controversy
foq,;rant of LOP for the academic year 20l7-2018 should
come to an end and cannot become an event that defeats
time. The students who arc continuing their studies on the
basis of LOP granted for the academic year 2016-2017
c should be allowed to continue their studies in the college
and they shall be permitted to continue till completion of the
course.
(b) The applications submitted for 2017-2018 shall be treated
as the application for 2018-2019 and the petitioners shall
D keep the bank guarantee deposited with the Medical Council
of 1)1dia alive and the MCI shall not encash the same.
(c) The Medical Council oflndia shall conduct a fresh inspection
as per the Regulations within a period of two months. It
shall apprise the petitioner-institution with regard to the
E deflcicncics and afford an opportunity to comply with the
same and, thereafter, proceed to act as contemplated under
the Act.
(d) The inspection slmll be carried out for the purpose of grant
of LOP for the academic session 2018-2019.
F (c) Aller the Medical Council of India sends its recommendation
to the Central Government, it shall take the final decision
as per law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners. Needless to say, it shall take the assistance of
the Hearing Committee as constituted by the Constitution
G
Bench decision in A111111a Chandravati Educational and
Charitable Trust (supra) or other directions given in the
said decision."
The aforesaid directions were issued keeping in view the
deficiencies in the college therein and the interest of the students.
H
INDIAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCEMENT OF RESEARCH AND 785
EDUCATION HALDJA (!CARE) v. U.0.1. [DIPAK MISRA, CJ!)
35. Jn Modha Medical College & Research l11stit11te v. U11io11 A
of India' the Court held:
"At the same time. we are of the view that having regard to the
facts which have transpired, the petitioner should be permitted
to establish before MCI that it possesses the requisite
infrastructure and has taken all necessary steps to remove the B
deficiencies which have been noted to exist. Such an exercise
cannot be carried out in time for academic year 2017-18 since
the last date for admissions has elapsed and the academic session
commenced. Hence the petitioner cannot be permitted to
participate in the counseling process for the ensuing academic
year. Any such exercise would necessarily have to be for the ac
c
academic year 2018-19."
36. In Major S.D. Si11glt Medical College a11d Hospital &
A11otlrer "· U11io11 of J111lia & another' it has been said:
"Having regard to the interest of medical education and the D
observations contained in the judgment delivered today by this
Comt in W.P. (c) 674 of 2017 in Madha Medical College and
Research Institute through its Managing Director v. Union of
India, we decline to grant any relief in respect of academic year
2017-18 to the petitioner ... "
E
37. In Karpagam Faculty of Medical Sciences & Research v.
Unio11 of India 1111d others 10 , it has been stated:
"The benchmark and the minimum standards for these proposals
arc bound to be different and we must presume that the expert
body, such as MCI and the Hearing Committee in which one
F
member of the OC also participated, were fully aware of the
csscntialities and pre-conditions for grant ofrecognition/approval.
Since the decision of the Competent Authority of the Central
Government is based on such inputs, it is not open for us to sit
over that decision as a Court of appeal."
G
38. In A1111aii Medical College & Ho.\pital a11d A11r. v. U11io11
of btdia a11d a11otlrer, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 525 of2017, the Comt
8
2017 (11) SCALE 330
'2017 (11) SCALE 372
'" 2107 (11) SCALE 435
H
786 SUPREME' COURT REPORTS [2017] l l S.C.R.
A referred to the decision in Varunarj11n Trust and Anr. v. Union of
India and Ors. 11 and directions have been issued as in Royal Medical
Trust' (supra).
39. As nolted earlier, an institution has to remain compliant and
necessity for r~maining compliant becomes more important as the
B institution enters the renewal year and thereafter for grant of approval
and recognition under Section l l (2) of the Act. At the time of
consideration of recognition, the compliance is viewed and scrutinized
with great ngour and strictness. What may be treated as a minor
deficiency at the initial stage may not remain so when the institution/
college proceeds from year to year. In the instant case, we have already
c held that surprise inspection in law is permissible and the said inspection
is not tainted with ma/a fide, as alleged. Once we arrive at snch
irresistible conc1L1sion, the order passed by the Central Government with
the assistance of the Hearing Committee cannot be flawed.
40. Though we have so held, we think it appropriate to direct that
D the students who have been admitted in the respective courses shall be
permitted 10 continue in the courses and the students who pass out from
the institution, t~e MCI shall see to it that they arc conferred degrees.
The MCI is dircotcd to conduct an inspection for recognition keeping in
view the acade11JJic year 2018-19 and if during the inspection any
E deficiency is noticed, the same shall be intimated to the petitioner No. 2
institution and thereafter, process shall be carried out keeping in view
the principles of natural justice in mind and the principles stated in IQ
City Foundation (supra). The inspection shall be carried out as per the
schedule by the MCI for grant of recognition for the academic year
2018-2019 and to avoid any kind ofuncallcd for situation, the application
F submitted for the academic year 2017-2018 shall be treated as application
for the academic year 2018-2019. The bank guarantee furnished by the
institution shall not be cncashcd by the MCI and the petitioners shall
keep it alive.
4 l. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be
G no order as to costs.
Kalpana K. Tripathy Pi:tition dispost.'<l of.
"W.P. (C) No. 787 of2017, decided on 12.09.2017
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Medical education"Sign in to search