MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIAversusKALINGA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES (KIMS) & ORS.

                        [2016) 4 S.C.R. 403



                MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA                               A
                                   v.
  KALINGA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES (KIMS) &
                       ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 4914 of2016)                       B
                          MAY06,20l6
        [MADAN B. LOKUR AND N.V. RAMANA , JJ.]
     Education/Educational Institutions:                                   ..·
       Medical education - Admission to medical colleges -             c
Respondent a recognised medical college was entitled to admit I 00
students every year to MBBS course - For academic year 2014-15,
it was granted permission to admit an additional 50 students -
Respondent was desirous of granting admission to additional 50
students for academic year 2015-16 also - With a view to ensure
                                                                       D
that adequate facilities were available for increased number of
students, an inspection by team of MCI was carried out and serious
deficiencies were pointed out by Inspection team - Recommendation
given by MCI to deny permission to respondent to add 50 additional
seats for academic year 2015-16 - Central Government sent
communication to respondent college to l10t admit any students in      E
second batch of MBBS course against the increased intake from
IOO to 150 seats for academic year 2015-16 - Writ petition by
respondent - High Court directed Central Government to grant
provisional permission to respondent to conduct the course for
additional 50 students in the academic year 2015-16 subject to
                                                                       F
certain conditions including condition that respondent shall make
it clear to the students who were admitted that their admission was
subject to result of writ petition - Consequently 50 students were
given admission - Another interim order was passed wherein MCI
was directed to conduct ji·esh inspection of respondent college and
to check up purported compliance claimed by respondent college         G
of the deficiencies pointed out in the earlier inspection - Fresh
inspection was carried out and large number of deficiencies were
found in the facilities available in respondent college - High Court
invalidated the inspection report - Aggrieved with the invalidation
of inspection report and the provisional admission of the additional
                                                                       H
                             403
404            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2016] 4 S.C.R.


A     candidates. MCI approached Supreme Court - Held: High Court
      considered the latest report of the Inspection Team as if it was
      hearing an appeal against the report - This was not within the
      domain of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction u!Art.226 -
      High Court plainly exceeded its jurisdiction in this regard in
      venturing into seriously disputed factual issues - Inspection having
B
      been carried out by eminent Professors from reputed medical
      institutions who were experts in the field, courts are not equipped
      to take a different view except in case of allegation of malafides of
      inspection team or any perversity in impection report - High Court
      although noting that the inspection was with reference to academic
c     year 2015-16 and the report pertained lo year 2016-17 which year
      was not at all the subject matter but still exa111ined the report -
      Invalidation of the inspection report of acade111ic year 2016-17
      would not have automatically invalidated the inspection report for
      academic year 2015-16 - High Court's order set aside - Medical
      Council of India Establishment of Medical College Regulations,
D
      1999.
             Medical education - Admission to 111edical colleges -
      Respondent college was specifically told by the Central Government
      not to admit stude11ts - DeJpite this, the respondent college persisted
      in litigation to so111ehow or the other accommodate 50 additional
E     students - However, for the fault of the re5pondent college, the
      students should not suffer nor should the re5pondent college get
      away scot free - Therefore, admission granted to the 50 students
      shall not be disturbed - Costs of Rs. 5 crores imposed on the
      respondent college for playing with the future of its students - MCI
F     directed to prepare s Standard Operating Procedure in consultation
      with the Central Government for conducting a11 inspection as
      required by 1999 Regulations - Directions passed to put the report
      of the Inspection Team on website of the concerned college a11d of
      the MCI - Also the Central Govern111ent to put its decision on the
      report on the website of the concerned college and of the MCI -
G     Costs.
            Administrative law:· Judicial review - Expert body - Report of
      - Scope of interference - Inspection carried out by Medical Council
      of India - Report of inspection team - Held: Inspection having
      been carried out by eminent Professors from reputed medical
H
 MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. KAL!NGA INSTITUTE OF                405
               MEDICAL SCIENCES

institutions who were experts in the field. courts are not equipped A
to take a different view except in case of allegation of malajides of
inspection team or any perversity in inspection report - Constitution
of India - Art. 226.
       Disposing of the appeals, the Court
       HELD: 1.1 The High Court went into great details on issues B
relating to the number of teaching beds in the hospital, the
limitations in the OPD Department, the number of units available
in the subjects of General Medicine, Pediatrics etc., bed
occupancy, number of Caesarean sections, discrepancy in data of
major and minor operations, computerization in the institution,
number of patients in the ICU, number of static X-ray machines, c
deficiency of examination halls, lecture theatres, library, students
hostel, interns hostel, playground etc. etc. Surely, this was not
within the domain of the High Court in ·exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court did not
appreciate that the inspection was carried out by eminent D
Professors from reputed medical institutions who were experts
in the field and the best persons to give an unbiased report on .
the facilities in the respondent college. The High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution was certainly not tasked to
minutely examine the contents of the inspection report and weigh
them against the objections of the responden't college in respect E
of each of its 18 items. Medical education must be taken very
seriously and when an expert body certifies that the facilities in a
 medical college are inadequate, the Courts are not equipped to
take a different view in the matter except for very cogent
 jurisdictional reasons such as ma/a fi<les of the Inspection Team, F
ex facie perversity in the inspection report, jurisdictional error
on the part of the MCI etc. Under no circumstance should the
High Court examine the report as an appellate body - this is
simply not the function of the High Court. In the present case
 there was no ground made out at law for setting aside the report
of the Inspection Team. [Paras 23, 24, 26] [412-G-H; 413-A-B, G
D-E]
       1.2 The High Court was of opinion that the Inspection Team
 was required to conduct the inspection with reference to the
 academic year 2015-16 but the report pertains to the academic
 year 2016-2017. If that was so, the High Court could have passed H
406            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2016] 4 S.C.R.


A     an appropriate order in this regard rather than examine and
      scrutinize the inspection report prepared for the academic year
      2016-17wh~ch academic year was not at all the subject matter of
      consideration or discussion before it. Moreover, invalidation of
      the inspection report for the academic year 2016-17 would not
      automatically invalidate the inspection report for the academic
B
      year 2015-16. Unfortunately, the High Court spent its energy on
      adjudicating a non-issue. Both the MCI and the Central
      Government each having twice considered the inspection report
      submitted by neutral medical Professors, with the Central
      Government having given a personal hearing to the respondent
c     on the second occasion (and perhaps on the first occasion as well)
      the matter ought to have been given a quietus by the High Court
      at least for the academic year 2015-16. Granting admission to
      students in an educational institution when there is a serious doubt
      whether admission should at all be, granted is not a matter to be
      taken lightly. [Paras 27, 28, 29) [413-F-H; 414-A-B]
D
             2. The respondent college was specifically told not to admit
      students by the Central Government. Despite this, the respondent
      college persisted in litigation to somehow or the other
      accommodate 50 additional students. The respondent must pay
      for its inability to introspect and venture into adventurist litigation.
E     Accordingly, the admission granted to the 50 students shall not
      be disturbed. Cost of Rs. 5 crores is imposed on the respondent
      college for playing with the future of its students and the mess
      that it has created for them. [Paras 31 to 33] [414-G-H; 415-B-
      D]
 F          Manohar Lal Shar111a v. Medical Council of India
            (2013) 10 SCC 60 : 2013 (9) SCR 325 - relied on.
            Rajiv Me111orial Acade111ic Welfare Society v. Union of
            India 2016 (3) SCALE 184 - referred to.
                               Case Law Reference
G             2013 (9) SCR 325                 relied on        Para8
              2016 (3) SCALE 184               referred to      Para 13
           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4914
      of2016.
H           From the Judgment and Order dated 04.03.2016 in Writ Petition
  MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. KALINGA INSTITUTE OF                              407
                 MEDICAL SCIENCES

 No. 15685 of 2015 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack.               A
     Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Sharma, Prateek Bhatia, Ms.
 Amandeep Kaur, Ms, Vara Gaur, Advs. for the Appellant.
        Mrs. Pinky Aanand, ASG, Kapil Sibbal, Nageshwar Rao, A.K.
  Parija, Ashok Desai, P.H. Parekh, Sr. Advs., D.P. Mohanty, Sumit Goel,
  Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer, K.K. Venugopal Maohapatra, Dhananjaya Mishra,             B
  (For Mis. Parekh & Co.), Arjun Garg, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Mrs. Rekha
  Pandey, Akash Jindal, R.K. Rathore, R.S. Nagar, Prabal Bagchi,
. Shantanu Sagar, Rajesh Kumar, Advs. for the Respondents.
       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                                 c
       MADAN B. LOKUR, J. I. Leave granted.
         2. This appeal is yet another chapter in the sordid saga of
  admissions to medical colleges. Undoubtedly, there is something rotten
  in the state of medical colleges. Unless the concerned Ministries in the
. Government of India take a far more proactive role in ensuring that
                                                                                 D
  medical colleges have all the necessary facilities, clinical materials,
  teaching faculty, staff, accommodation etc. the health of the people of
  our country will take a hit in the coming years due to inadequately
  educated doctors. Quality in medical education is equally important, _if
  not more, than quantity.
                                                                                 E
       3. The respondent Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (for short
 KIMS) is a recognized medical college. It is entitled to admit I 00 students
 every year to the MBBS course.
       4. For the academic year 20 I 4- I 5, it was granted permission to
 admit an additional 50 students over and above the 100 students that
                                                                                 F
 was already its entitlement.
         5. KIMS was desirous of granting admission to I 00 plus 50 students
 for the academic year 2015-16. With a view to ensure that adequate
 facilities were available forthe increased number of students, an inspection
 was required to be carried out by the Medical Council oflndia(for short
 'the MCI') in accordance with the Medical Council oflndia Establishment         G
 of Medical College Regulations, I999.
        6. Consequently, an inspection was carried out on 27•h and 28 1h
 January, 2015 by an Inspection Team of the MCI which revealed quite a
 sorry state of affairs. A large number of serious deficiencies were pointed
                                                                                 H
408               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2016] 4 S.C.R.



A     out by the Inspection Team and communicated to the MCI. Thereafter,
      in a communication sent by the MCI to the Dean Principal of KIMS on
      31st January, 2015 the deficiencies were indicated and KIMS was
      informed that a show cause notice was proposed to be issued for
      withdrawal ofrecognition of the courses run by it. Be that as it may, the
      MCI took a decision recommending to the Central Government through
B
      the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Department of Health and
      Family Welfare) to deny permission to KIMS to add 50 additional seats
      for the MBBS for the academic year 2015-16.
             7. We enquired from learned counsel for the MCI the procedure
      for carrying out an inspection. Our attention was drawn by learned c9unsel
c     to Page' J' of the appeal paper-book wherein it is stated (and not denied)
      that an inspection is conducted by a team of three n_eutral Professors.
      Of these, one is a coordinator and the other two are taken from an
      approved list of eminent medical Professors from reputed Government
      institutions only. Some of the institutions mentioned are the All India
D     Institute of Medical Sciences, Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh,
      Maulana Azad Medical College (Delhi), Safdarjung College (Delhi),
      Medical College (Kolkata), Madras Medical College (Chennai), Osmania
      Medical College (Hyderabad), Grant Medical College (Mumbai), G.S.
      Medical College (Mumbai), Bangalore Medical College (Bengaluru) etc.
      There is therefore no doubt that not only are the medical colleges highly
 E    reputed but it is also stated that the Professors from these colleges are
      eminent medical Professors randomly selected by computer software
      from a list of coordinators and inspectors.
             8. Our attention was also drawn to the decision of this Court in
      Mano/tar Lal Sltarma v. Medical Council of India 1 wherein it was
 F    held that since the inspection is taken by "doctors of unquestionable
      integrity and reputation, who are 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 KlMS of any ma/a fides of the Inspection
      Team or any perversity in the inspection report and hence there is no
G     question of challenging the conclusions of a neutral, randomly selected
      Inspection Team in its assessment.
            9. As mentioned above, the inspection report and the decision of
      the MCI were communicated to the Central Government. On a
      consideration of the material made available, the Central Government
H     1
          (201 3l 1osec 60
 MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. KALINGA INSTITUTE OF                             409
      MEDICAL SCIENCES [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

sent a communication dated I 5'h June, 2015 to the Dean Principal of          A
KIMS directing the institute NOT to admit any students in the second
batch of MBBS course against the increased intake from I 00 to 150
seats for the academic year 2015-16. The text of the letter sent by the
Central Government to the Dean Principal of KIMS on I 5'h June, 2015
reads as follows:
                                                                               B
       "I am directed to refer to MCI letter (s) dated 01.04.2015 thereby
       recommending to the Central Government not to renew the
       permission for admission of 2"d batch of MBBS course against
       increased intake i.e. from 100-150 seats Kalinga Institute of
       Medical Sciences, Blrnbaneswar for the academic year 2015-16
       and to say that the Central Government has decided to accept the
                                                                               c
       recommendations of MCI.
       2. You are therefore directed NOT to admit any student in 2"d
       batch of MBBS course against increased intake i.e. from I 00-
       150 seats for the academic year 2015-16. Admission in next batch
       of students against increased intake for the year 2016-17 will be       D
       made only after obtaining the Central Government Permission.
       3. Any admission made in this regard will be treated as irregular
       and action will be initiated as per the provisions of!MC, Act, 1956
       and Regulations made thereunder.
                                                                               E
       4. Further, the MCI has also informed to apply Clause 8(3)( 1) ( c)
       & (d) of Establishment o( Medical College Regulation
       (amendment), 201 O."
         10. Feeling aggrieved by the adverse decision, KIMS preferred a
  writ petition in the High Court of Orissa being W.P. (C) No.15685 of
                                                                               F
  2015. The writ petition was taken up for consideration on l 41hSeptember,
  2015 when the direction dated l 51h June, 2015 passed by the Central
. Government was set aside on the ground that no hearing was given to
  KIMS before that order was passed. The High Court then directed KIMS
  to appear before the Secretary to the Government of India. in the
  Department of Health and Family Welfare or any other authorized officer      G
  on l 81hSeptember, 2015 with all documentary evidence. The said officer
  was directed to hear KIMS, consider the compliance reports ofKIMS
  and the views of the MCI and then pass necessary orders.
      11. In obedience to the order passed by the High Court a hearing
was given to KIMS by a Hearing Committee. Thereafter, the Central              H
410            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016] 4 S.C.R.


A     Government passed an order on 24'" September, 2015 which observed
      as follows:
            "The college was earlier given hearing on 12.03.2015. The
            compliance submitted by the college is same as the last time.
            Though the college claims to have rectified the deficiencies,
B           it can only be verified through physical assessment hy MCI.
            The deficiencies are non-condonable. The documents alone
            submitted by the college do not sufficiently inspire confidence
            as to rectification of the deficiencies. Therefore, this
            Committee has considered the· assessment report of the MCI
c           assessors dated 27'" and 28'1' January, 2015 and the
            compliance report submitted by the representatives of the
            college and decided that the Ministry may accept
            recomme1Jdation of MCI. "
             12. On a consideration of the order passed by the High Court and
D     the recommendations of the MCI, the Central Government decided not
      to renew the permission for admitting the second batch of MB BS students
      against the increased intake that is from 100 to 150 for the academic
      year 2015-16 at KIMS.
            13. The writ petition was then taken up for consideration by the
 E    High Court on 25 1h September, 2015. The High Court considered the
      facts of the case and placed reliance on Raiiv Memorial Academic
      Welfare Society v. Union of India' (which appeal was decided in the
      circumstances of the case and was not a general direction) and a decision
      of the Kerala High Court and directed, inter alia, that the Central
      Government shall grant provisional permission to KIMS to conduct the
 F    course for the additional 50 students in the academic year 2015-16. While
      giving this direction, the High Court noted that admission to the MBBS
      course was required to be completed by 301h September, 2015. The High
      Court made it clear that this interim--or<ler would be subject to further
      orders passed in the writ petition and it was also made clear that neither
G     KIMS nor any of the students would claim any equity on the basis of the
      approval permission granted by virtue of the orders of the High Court.
           14. Pursuant to the mandatory direction given by the High Court,
      the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare passed an order on 281h
      September, 2015 granting provisional permission to KIMS to conduct
H     ' 2016 (3) SCALE 184
 MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. KALINGA INSTITUTE OF                               411
      MEDICAL SCIENCES [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

the MBBS course for the second batch against the increased intake                A
from 100 to 150 MBBS seats for the academic year 2015-16 subject to
certain conditions. One of the conditions was to the effect that KIMS
would make it clear to the students who are admitted that their admission
is subject to the result of the writ petition. Consequent upon this decision,
KIMS admitted 50 students to the MBBS course for the academic year
                                                                                 B
2015-16. These students are represented before us in this appeal and
have been heard.
       15. At this stage, it may be mentioned that against the interim
order dated 25th September, 2015 passed by the High Court, the MCI
preferred a petition in this Court which came up for consideration on
J3th October, 2015. In that petition being SLP (C) No. 28312 of 2015,            c
special leave to appeal was granted and the order passed by the High
Court on 25th September, 2015 was stayed and status quo as on the date
on which the impugned order was passed (25th September, 2015) was
directed to be maintained.
      16. Be that as it may, when the appeal filed by MCI came up for            D
consideration on 4th November, 2015 it was directed that the High Court
should endeavour to hear the pending writ petition expeditiously. It was
also directed that the interim order earlier passed on J )th October, 2015
would continue till the High Court decided the writ petition.
       17. When the writ petition was again taken up by the High Court,          E
an amendment application was filed by KIMS and the amendment
allowed. It is not necessary to go into the details of the amendment since
that has no bearing in this appeal.
       18. In any event, when the writ petition was taken up for expedited
consideration by the High Court on 3'd December, 2015 it was noted that          F
50 students had already been admitted by KIMS pursuant to the directions
given by High Court on 25th September, 2015 and the provisional
permission granted by the Central Government on 28th September, 2015.
The admission was of course subject to the outcome of the writ petition.
The High Court then directed that necessary affidavits be filed and in           G
the meanwhile MCI was directed to constitute a fresh Inspection Team
to inspect KIMS and to check up the purported compliance claimed by
KIMS of the deficiencies pointed out in the earlier inspection. It was
further directed that the Directorate of Medical Education and Training,
Government of Odisha would also participate in the inspection and the
                                                                                 H
412            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2016] 4 S.C.R.



A     report be submitted on or before 23rd December, 2015.
             19. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court on
      3rd December, 2015 requiring the Directorate of Medical Education and
      Training, Odisha to be a part of the Inspection Team, the MCI preferred
      a petition in this Court being SLP (C) No.34856 of2015. Special leave
8     was granted and by an order dated l 6'h December, 2015 it was made
      clear by this Court that the Directorate of Medical Education and Training,
      Odisha shall not participate in the inspection.
             20. There appears to have been some dispute in this Court (which
      was not resolved) with regard to the academic year for which the fresh
c     inspection was required to be carried out. According to learned counsel
      for the MCI the inspection was to be carried out for 2016-17 while this
      was opposed by learned counsel appearing for KIMS. This Court
      however did not record anything in this regard one way or the other.
             21. A fresh inspection was in fact carried out by MCI on 7'" and
D     8'" January, 2016 and the Inspection Team once again found a very
      large number of deficiencies in the facilities available at KIMS. The
      report of the Inspection Team and the consequent resolution of the MCI
      were communicated to the Central Government to the effect that the
      Central Government should not renew permission for admission of the
      3rd batch of MBBS students against the increased intake from 100 to
 E    150 seats for the academic year 2016-17.
            22. Thereafter, the pending writ petition was taken up for hearing
      by the High Court on 17'" February, 2016 and the impugned judgment
      and order de] ivered on 4'" March, 2016.
             23. A perusal of the decision of the High Court clearly indicates
 F
      that it considered the latest repo1t of the Inspection Team as if it was
      hearing an appeal against the report. In doing so, the High Court went
      into great details on issues relating to the number of teaching beds in the
      hospital, the limitations in the OPD Department, the number of units
      available in the subjects of General Medicine, Pediatrics etc., bed
 G    occupancy, number of Caesarean sections, discrepancy in data of major
      and minor operations, computerization in the institution, number of patients
      in the ICU, number of static X-ray machines, deficiency of examination
      halls, lecture theatres, library, students hostel, interns hostel, playground
      etc. etc. Surely, this was not within the domain of the High Court in
      exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
 H
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. KALINGA INSTITUTE OF                                413
     MEDICAL SCIENCES [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

       24. The High Court did not appreciate that the inspection was            A
carried out by eminent Professors from reputed medical institutions who
were experts in the field and the best persons to give an unbiased report
on the facilities in KIMS. The High Court under f'.rticle 226 of the
Constitution was certainly not tasked to minutely examine the contents
of the inspection report and weigh them against the objections ofKIMS
                                                                                 B
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.
      25. Learned counsels for KIMS and the students submitted that
the High Court was left with no option but to critically examine the
report of the Inspection Team since it was factually erroneous and did           c
not deserve to be relied on either for the increase in intake of seats for
the acade!'.llic year 2015-16 or the academic year 2016-17. We see no
reason to accept the submission of learned counsels.
                                                                                      •
       26. Medical education must be taken very seriously and when an
expert body certifies thatthe facilities in a medical college are inadequate,    D
the Courts are not equipped to take a different view in the matter except
for very cogent jurisdictional reasons such as ma/a tides of the Inspection
Team, exfacie perversity in the inspection report, jurisdictional error on
the part of the MCI etc. Under no circumstance should the High Court
examine the report. as an appellate body -this is simply not the function        E
of the High Court. In the present case there was no ground made out at
law for setting aside the report of the Inspection Team.
      27. The High Court was of opinio11 that the Inspection Team was
required to conduct the inspection with reference 'to the academic year
2015-16 but the report pertains to the academic year 2016-2017. If that          F
was so, the High Court could have passed an appropriate order in this
regard rather than examine and scrutinize the inspection report prepared
for the academic year 2016-17 which academic year was not at all the
subject matter of consideration or discussion before it. Moreover,
invalidation of the inspection report for the academic year 2016-1 7 would
not automatically invalidate the inspection report for the academic year         G
2015-16. Unfortunately, the High Court spent its energy on adjudicating
a non-issue.
      28. It appears to us that both the MCI and the Central Government
each having twice considered the inspection report submitted by neutral
medical Professors, with the Central Government having given a personal          H
414             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2016] 4 S.C.R.



A     hearing to KIMS on the second occasion (and perhap;, on the first occasion
      as well) the matter ought to ha1·c bt:en give11 a quietus by the High Court
      at least for the academic year :2015-IG.
               29. That apart, we are CJf OJ inic 1 t.:at th" High Court ought to
      have been more circumspect in dirtctir, , th·~ admission of students by its
B     order dated 25'" Septembe1~ 2015. The1 ~ w :s 1:0 r:eed for the High Court
      to rush into an area that the MCJ feared tc tread. Granting admission to
      students in an educational institution when there is a serious doubt whether
      admission should at all be granted is not a matter to be taken lightly. First
      of al I the career of a student is involved - what w@ld a student do if his
      admission is found to be illegal or is quashed? Is it not a huge waste of
c     time for him or her? h; it ei10ugh to sayth::t the stuJe11t will.not claim any
      equity in his or her favour? Is it enough for :;iudcrit ~o.be told that his or
      her admission is subject LO the 0atc0me of a pending litigation? These
      are all questions that ;\rise and for which there is no t-asy answer.
      Generally speaking, it is bettl :· to .err on the sid; of caution and deny
D     admission to a student rather tlw1 h.1ve;.the. sword of Damocles hanging
      over him or her. There would at least be some certainty.
            30. Whichever way the matter is looked at, wc find nojustitic<.Hion
      forthe orders passed by the High Court particularly the order dated 2S'h
      September, 2015 and the order dated 4•h l\larch, 20 IS.
 E           31. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the KIMS that the
      Central Government has decided to ac.cept the decision of the High
      Court and it has in fact iss~ed an order dated 26 1hApril, 2016 virtually to
      this effect. We have gonc through the order dated 26'" April, 2016 and
      find that the permission granted to continue with the studies of the students
 F    for the academic year 2015-1 !) is subject to the orders passed by this
      Court in this appeal. Sinct: we are allowing the appeal and setting aside
      the order passed by the High Court, the order dated 26'" April, 2016
      passed by the Central Government is of no consequence and does not
      come to the aid of KIMS or the students.

G             32. Learned counsel for KIMS and the stude11ts contended that
      unless this appeal is dismissed it will result in the students suffering a
      loss of two years of their studies. This may be so- but if such a situation
      has come to pass, KIMS is entirely to be blam;:d. KIMS was specifically
      told not to admit students by the Central Govemm~nt in its letter dated
      J 5•h June, 2015. Despite this KIMS persisted in litigation to somehow or
 H    the other accommodate 50 additional students. This was certainly not
 MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. KALINGA INSTITUTE OF                             415
      MEDICAL SCIENCES [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

with a charitable motive. As an institution that should have some              A
responsibility towards the welfare of the students, it would have been
far more appropriate for KIMS to have refrained from giving admission
to 50 additional students rather than being instrumental in jeopardizing
their career.
       33. However, for the fault ofKIMS, the students should not suffer       B
nor should KIMS get away scot free. KIMS must pay for its inability to
introspect and venture into adventurist litigation. Accordingly, we direct
as follows:
       I. The admission granted to the 50 students pursuant to the order
           of the High Court dated 25th September, 2015 and the                C
           provisional permission granted by the Central Government only
           on 28'h September, 2015 shall not be disturbed. How the
           students will complete their course of studies without putting
           undue pressure on them is entirely for the MCI and KIMS
           and other concerned authorities to decide.
                                                                               D
      2. Costs of Rs. 5 crores are imposed on KIMS for playing with
         the future of its students and the mess that it has created for
         them. The amount will be deposited by KIMS in the Registry
         of this Court within six weeks from today. The amount of Rs.
         5 crores so deposited towards costs shall not be recovered in
         any manner from any student or adjusted against the fees or           E
          provision of facilities for students of any present or subsequent
          batches.
       3. KIMS is restrained from increasing the intake of students
          from I 00 students to 150 students for the MBBS course for
          the academic year2Ql6-l 7 and 2017-2018. The MCI and the             F
          Central Government shall enforce strict compliance of this
          direction.
       4. The MCI or the Central Government will proceed -to take
          action against KIMS (if deemed advisable) under Clause 8(3)
          of the Medical Council oflndia Establishment of Medical              G
          College Regulations, 1999 (as amended) as mentioned in the
          communication of J 5th June, 2015 of the Central Government.
       5. During the hearing of the appeal, we were informed that there
          is no fixed, set or laid down procedure prepared by the MCI
          for conducting an inspection or assessment as postulated by          H
416             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2016] 4 S.C.R.


A                the Medical Council of India Establishment of Medical College
                 Regulations, I 999. Rather than every Inspection Team
                 following its own procedure for conducting an assessment,
                 the MCI should in consultation with the Central Government
                 prepare a Standard Operating Procedure for conducting an
                 inspection as required by the Medical Council of India
B
                 Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999. The
                 Standard Operating Procedure should be finalized within a
                 period of six weeks from today and should be accessible on
                 the website of the MCI.
            6. To introduce transparency and accountability in the medical
c              colleges, the report or assessment of the Inspection Team
               should be put up on the website of the concerned medical
               college as also on the website of the MCI so that potential
                students are aware of what is likely to be in store for them.
                Similarly, the decision of the Central Government on the report
D               should be put up on the website of the concerned medical
               college as also on the website of the MCI.
            34. To ensure compliance of Directions 2 and 5 and for an update
      on Directions 4 and 6 list the appeal in the first week of July 2016.
            35. The appeal is disposed of on the above terms.
E
      Devika Gujral                                          Appeal dispose,! of.