Holding

Interim orders directing admission to medical colleges without the requisite Section 10‑A permission under the Medical Council Act must not be granted as a matter of course; High Courts must be cautious and defer to the statutory process.

Summary

The Medical Council of India (MCI) challenged interim orders issued by the Karnataka High Court that directed the Central Government to include seats of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences' medical college in the seat matrix despite the college not having its Section 10‑A permission renewed for the 2002‑03 academic year. The High Court had also imposed conditions on students and the college, but the MCI argued that such orders contravened the Medical Council Act, 1956. The Supreme Court held that interim orders directing admission to institutions lacking statutory permission should not be granted as a matter of course and that High Courts must exercise caution, directing the MCI to act promptly instead. It reiterated the principle from Union of India v. Era Educational Trust that standards of institutions cannot be compromised by provisional orders. Consequently, the Court disposed of the Special Leave Petitions without granting relief, emphasizing that pending matters should be decided by the appropriate authorities.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court can issue an interim order directing inclusion of medical college seats in the seat matrix when the college lacks renewal of permission under Section 10‑A of the Medical Council Act, 1956.
Whether such interim orders violate the provisions of the Medical Council Act, 1956 concerning standards and permission for medical colleges.
Whether students admitted under such interim orders can claim equities or rights to continue their studies.
Whether the precedent set in Union of India v. Era Educational Trust applies to the present situation.

Legislation cited

Indian Medical Council Act, 1956s. 10-A

Subjects

Medical educationInterim ordersSection 10‑AMedical Council ActSeat matrixHigher educationJudicial restraintStandards of institutions

Judgment

MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA A
v.
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND ORS.

APRIL 12, 2004

[S. RAJENDRA BABU, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND B
G.P. MATHUR, JJ.]

Higher Education:

Medical college-Permission to start-Delay in granting of-MBB.S seats C
ofmedical college were riot included in the seat matrix due to delay in granting
ofpermission-High Court, by an interim order, directed Central Government
·to include the seats of the medical college in the seat matrix subject to the
condition that the students should not claim equities in the event of the
Government declining to grant permission-Correctness of-Held: Interim D
orders should not be granted as a matter of course-High Courts should b.e
very cautious in the matter of issuing interim orders especially when such
permission is subject to the Medical Council Act-When for the earlier academic
year itself permission was not granted High Court should not have issued
interim order directing admission of students-High Court should not grant
permission to the college year after year and instead direct Medical Council E
to take prompt action in the matter of grant of permission-Medical Council
Act, 1956, S. JO-A.

Respondent No. 1 had established a Medical college and hospital. The
college was granted permission as provided under Section 10-A of the
• ) Medical Council Act, 1956 and also renewed from time to time. However, F
the permission was not renewed in time for the academic year 2002-03 as
a result of which MBBS seats of the college were not included in the seat
matrix.

Being aggrieved the respondents filed a writ petition before the High G
Court. The High Court, by an interim order, directed the Central
Government to include the seats of the respondent's institution in the seat
matrix and to allocate the same to the deserving students in accordance
with the rules subject to the condition that the students should not claim
equities in the event the Central Government declined to grant permission.
1119 H
1120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004) 3 S.C.R.

A Hence the appeal by Special Leave.

Disposing of the SLPs, the Court

HELD: I. Interim order should not be granted as a matter of course,
particularly in relation to matters where standards of institutions are
B involved and the permission to be granted to such institutions is subject
to certain provisions of law and regulations applicable to the same, unless
the same are complied with. Even ifthe High Court gives certain directions
in relation to consideration of the applications filed by the concerned
educational institutions for grant of permission or manner in which the
C same should be processed should not form a basis to direct the admission
of students in these institutions which are yet to get approval from the
concerned authorities or permission has not been granted by the Council.
11125-C-DI

Union of India v. Era Educational Trust, 120001 5 SCC 57, relied on.
D 2. Section IO-A of the Medical Council Act, 1956 which provides for
terms and conditions to be fulfilled before starting or establishing a
medical college or starting higher courses making it clear that what is
postulated thereunder is evaluation of application made by the institution
concerned, by the Central Government in the first instance and then
E forwarding the same to the Medical Council of India for its further
examination. There are various steps envisaged under the Scheme such
as (a) issuance of letter of recommendation of the Council; (b) issuance
of letter of permission by the Central Government on the recommendation
of the Council for starting admissions; (c) issuance of annual renewal to
be granted by the Central Government on the recommendation of the
F Council; (d) at the stage of lst batch of students admitted in MBBS course
go for final year examination, grant of formal recognition by the Central
Government on the recommendation of the Council; (e) if at any stage
after the grant of initial permission entitling permission of 1st batch of
students any college fails to fulfill the minimum norms in any successive
G year, as per the statutory regulations, further admissions are liable to be
stopped at any stage. 11128-C-FI

3. In the normal circumstances, the High Court ought not to issue ,
an interim order when for the earlier year itself permission had not been
granted by the Council. Indeed, by grant of such interim orders students
H who have been admitted in Stich institutions would be put to serious
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF !NOIA"· RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEAL TH SCIENCES [RAJENDRA BABU. J J 1121

jeopardy, apart from the fact that whether such institutions could run the A
medical college without following the law. Therefore, the High Court ought
not to grant such interim orders in any of the cases where the Council
has not granted permission in terms of Section 10-A of the Act. If interim
orders are granted to those institutions, which have been established
without fulfilling the prescribed conditions to admit students, it will lead B
to serious jeopardy to the students admitted in these institutions.
(l 128-G-H; 1129-A)

4. High Courts should be very cal!tious in the matter of issuing
interim orders in such matters. If for one year students are not admitted
and writ petitions seeking for grant of permission or renewal are C
considered by the High Courts quickly and appropriate directions are
issued to the Council by the High Courts to process such applications and
decision to give or refuse permission to continue such institutions should
be taken finally and it is only thereafter if further difficulties arise, the
same could be sorted out and not to grant permission to the colleges year
after year when only initial permission has been granted to such D
educational institutions. [ll29-D-E)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petitions (C)
Nos. 21390-21442 of 2003.

From the Judgment and Order• dated 22.9.2003 of the Karnataka High E
Court in W.A. Nos. 6568-6619 and 6791 of2003.

WITH

S.L.P. Nos. 21464-21552 and 20385 of2003.
F
Maninder Singh, Mrs. Pratibha M. Singh, Kirtiman Singh and Angad
Mirdha for the Petitioner.

Ravi Verma Kumar, P.P. Rao, Rajeev Dhavan, G.L. Sanghi, S.N. Bhat,
E.C. Vidya Sagar, K. Lingaraja, Sanjay R. Hegde, Siby Sebastian, M.T.
George and P.P. Singh for the Respondents. G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RJAENDRA BABU, J. SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS (C) NOS.
21390-21442 OF 2003, SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS Nos. 21464-21552/
H
1122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) 3 S.C.R.

A 2003.
A writ petition bearing No. 39772/2002 is filed before the High Court
of Karnataka for a direction that the Union of India should be directed to
grant renewal of pennission to the institution run by the first and second
respondents. They also sought for direction to make selection for admissions
B into the institution for the academic session 2002-03 and to allocate students
to enable continuation of imparting education in the said institution.

A permission has been granted to the first and second respondent' s
institution in tenns of Section 10-A of the Medical Council Act and also
renewed for the subsequent year. As it was not renewed in time for the
C academic year 2002-03, they filed writ petition No. 39772/2002. The High
Court by an interim order dated 4.11.2002 directed the Medical Council of
India (for short 'Council') to complete the inspection by 11.11.2002 and send
a report/recommendation immediately to the Central Government for passing
appropriate orders. In pursuance of the above said order, the Council had sent
D its report to the Central Government on 11.11.2002. However, till 15.11.2002,
no order had been made by the Central Government. As the renewal for
permission was not granted to the institution concerned, MBBS seats of the
institution were not included in the seat matrix which had to end on 15.11.2002
and, therefore, in the absence of the institution not being notified no admission
had been done. Having regard to the fact that the pennission had been granted
E earlier and renewed for the previous years, the Council had also sent a report
regarding renewal for the current year, but unfortunately, the Central
Government did not act with necessary expedition as was needed in the said
case. As the counselling of Common Entrance Test is coming to end on
15.11.2002 and even ifrenewal was granted by the Central Government after
F that date, 100 seats would go waste. The High Court, by an order made on
15.11.2002, directed the Government to include the seats of the respondent's
institution in the seat matrix to allocate the same to the deserving students in
accordance with rules. By another order made on 03.12.2002, after adverting
to the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Era Educational Trust &
Anr., [2000] 5 SCC 57, the learned single Judge of the High Court passed
G further orders imposing conditions to the following effect :-

"(i) The Central Government on consideration of the
recommendations of the Medical Council of India would grant
the renewal of permission if the petitioner-institution satisfies
all the legal requirements within seven days from the date of
H receipt of such recommendations.
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA•• RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES [RAJENDRA BABU, J.) 1123

---' (ii) Pending receipt of such permission being granted, the 4th A
respondent-State Government is directed to issue seat matrix for
50 seats for the petitioner-institution for the academic year 2002-
2003 forthwith.
(iii) The 5th respondent CET Cell shall issue necessary advertisement
and complete the counselling and allot 50 seats included in the B
seat matrix to the eligible students on or before 20th of December,
2002
(iv) As the students are admitted to the college in pursuance of the
interim order passed by this Court, even before the permission
is granted by the Central Government, it is made clear that this
will not give any right to the students or the college to claim
c
credit for the classes conducted after the commencement of the
course till the permission from the Central Government under
Section IO-A is accorded.
(v) Students are not entitled to appear in any examination until they
compiete the prescribed minimum period of studies after the
D
"7 permission is granted under Section IO-A
(vi) No further admission would be made to the first batch ofMBBS
course of the petitioner institution except on vacancies arising
from any of the students now allotted or refusing to pursue their
studies. E
(vii) If any student who has been admitted to the petitioner college
refused to join the course, the petitioner college shall duly
intimate the 5th respondent-CET Cell and after confirming the
same, is at liberty to admit the· students to those vacancies.
Admission for such vacancies shall be filled up on or before F
23rd December, 2002.
(viii)In the event of the petitioner failing to obtain the necessary
permission from the Central Government under Section IO-A,
this order will not aid any equities in favour of the petitioner
institution or those students who have been admitted in pursuance G
to the interim order passed by this Court.
(ix) In the event of the Central Government declining to grant
permission under Section I 0-A, the petitioner institution shall
refund to the students admitted in pursuance of this order, the
entire fee collected by them and similarly the students shall not H
1124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A claim any right to pursue the studies in the even of refusal of
such permission. The petitioner institution shall file an
undertaking to this effect before 10.12.2002, and all the students
who are to be admitted in pursuance of the interim order also
shall give an undertaking to the CET Cell before collecting the
admission order.
B
(x) In so far as the payment of fee is concerned, the students shall
pay the fee as prescribed by the Government to the free seats,
payment seats and the fee payable by the. student is subject to
the same being worked out in terms of eleven member judgment
of the Supreme Court in TMA. Pai' case.
c
(xi) The petitioner institution shall on production of the admission
order issued by the CET Cell shall admit the students without
raising any objections.
(xii) It is made clear that having regard to the exceptional
D circumstances this order is passed and it is further made clear
that it shall not be precedent to any institution approaching this
Court.
(xiii)The Central Government is directed to consider the request of
the petitioner for renewal of the permission which is pending
E before them within fifteen days from today.
Copy of this interim order shall be handed over to the learned counsel
appearing for all the parties forthwith."

As a consequence of this order having been made, some of the students or,
not being permitted to take first year examination scheduled to be held in the
r F
month of September, 2003 they filed writ petitions before the High Court.
The High Court, by an order made on 28.08.2003, directed that they may be
permitted to take the examinations for the first year MBBS scheduled to
commence in the month of September, 2003 by accepting the examination
fee tendered by them on or before 29.08.2003 or such other date as the
G University may fix subject to the result of the said writ petition. As against
that order writ appeals were filed before the High Court. The Division Bench
of the High Court in W.A. No. 6568-6619/03 and W.A. 6791/03, pending the
admission of the appeal, granted an interim relief. The High Court noted that
it could not allow the concerned institutions to perpetuate the illegality, but
in the circumstances of the case, declined to interfere with the order of the
H learned Single Judge permitting the students to appear for the examination,
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA" RAJ!V GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES [lWENDRA BABU. J.] 1125
which was scheduled to be held from September 23, 2003 without making A
the decision of the learned Single Judge a precedent. It is against this order
dated 22.09.2003 passed in the writ appeals these petitions have been filed.

Inasmuch as the Council has not challenged the orders of the High
Court by which students were admitted and to which we have adverted to
earlier and these matters are still pending before the High Court for final B
consideration, we do not think, this is a fit case in which we should interfere.

We once again emphasis that the law declared by this Court in Union
of India v. Era Educational Trust and Anr., (supra) that i11terim order should
not be granted as a matter of course, particularly in relation to matter where
standards of institutions are involved and the pennission to be granted to C
such institutions is subject to certain provisions of law and regulations
applicable to the same, unless the same are complied with. Even if the High
Court gives certain directions in relation to consideration of the applications
filed by concerned educational institutions for grant of pennission or manner
/
in which the same should be processed should not form a basis to direct the D
admission of students in these institutions which are yet to get approval from
the concerned authorities or pennission has not been granted by the Council.

Now, in the present case such orders have led to a stage on which the
examination was to take place and students have appeared in such examination
and matters are still pending final consideration by the High Court, we do not E
think it necessary to say anything further in this matter.

The petitions shall stand disposed of subject to the observations made
by us.

SPECIAL LEA VE PETITION (C) No. 20385/2003 F
Respondent No. I had established a Medical College and hospital,
respondent No. 2. The college was granted pennission as provided under
Section I 0-A of the Medical Council Act for the academic year 2001-02 to
enable the college to make admissions of first batch of students in the first
year of the MBBS. However, on 4th and 5th June, 2002 the Inspectors of the G
Council conducted an inspection of the respondent college for the purpose of
renewal of permission for the academic year 2002-03. On account of certain
deficiencies the respondent college was not granted renewal of permission
for admission of 2nd batch of students of the college for the academic session
2002-03. The inspection report of 4th and 5th June 2002 was considered by H
I 126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A the Executive Committee of the Council in its meeting held on 24.6:2002 and
due communication thereof was made to the respondents. On 2.7.2002,
respondent 1'ios. I and 2 made a communication stating that they have complied
with the deficiencies pointed out in the inspection report. By a communication
dated 22.08.2002 the compliance report sent by respondents Nos. 1 and 2
B was disputed by the Council. Another inspection for compliance verification
was carried out by the Council on I Ith and 12th October, 2002 and deficiencies
found in the said inspection report the Executive Committee of the Council
which met on 31.10.2002 did not recommend renewal of permission for
admission of 2nd batch ofMBBS students. A communication dated 5.11.2002
was sent to this effect which also indicated the deficiencies pointed out in the
C inspection report. The respondents were also advised by a communication
sent on 6.11.2002 not to admit fresh batch of students till the deficiencies are
rectified.

A writ petition No. 42277/2002 was filed in the High Court praying for
a direction that the petitioners herein be directed to grant renewal of permission
0 for admission for the academic session of 2002-03 and that writ petition is
still pending adjudication before the High Court.

On 3.12.2002 a learned Single Judge of the High Court directed inclusion
of the annual intake capacity of the respondent college for the grant of
admissions to the first year of the MBBS course through CET for the year
E 2002-03. The learned Single Judge after adverting to the decision of this
Court in Union of India v. Era Educational Trust and Anr. (supra) made an
order granting permission for admission to the second batch of students in
the !st year of the MBBS course; stipulating that in the event the Government
oflndia declined to grant permission in terms of Section I 0-A of the Medical
p Council Act, the students should not claim equities to pursue further studies
and students who wanted to be admitted in such colleges also had to give an
undertaking to this effect. The learned Single Judge also granted an interim
order staying the operation of the communication of the Government of India
dated 6.12.2002 and the matter was carried in appeal before the Division
Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1603/2003. However, the writ
G appeal filed by the Council challenging the orders dated 3.12.2002 and
4.12.2002 passed in the writ petitions referred to earlier was dismissed as
having become infructuous on the ground of subsequent interim orders having
been passed by the learned Single Judge.

When the matter stood thus, even in terms of the order made by the
H
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA•·. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEAL TH SCIENCES [RAJENDRA BABU, J] 112 7

learned Single Judge on 3.12.2002 in Writ Petition no. 4227712002, the A
requirements having not been fulfilled in terms of the Medical Council Act,
the college should have discharged the students admitted for the academic
session 2002-03 in terms of the orders of the High Court itself as the Central
Government has not as yet granted permission to the respondent college
re.newing permission admitting the students. But that part of the matter is not B
before us. What is pointed out now is that when the respondent college
sought for renewal of permission for the subsequent year 2003-04; that when
the said college was not entitled even for admission for the academic session
2002·03, the High Court granted identical orders; that when the issue of
admissions of students for the academic session 2002-03 was still pending to
be decided; that according to the Council such admissions are contrary to C
law; that in terms of direction issued in the interim order dated 3.12.2002 the
students have to be discharged and the Government of India had passed an
order on 13 .6.2003 declining permission to the respondent college, another
interim order should not have been passed on 12.09.2003 directing admissions
of another batch of students for the academic session 2003-04 once again
completely disregarding the provisions of the Act and regulations made D
thereunder and the decisions of this Court.

Aggrieved by the order made on 12.09.2003 by the learned Single
Judge in identical terms that. had been done on previous occasion in Writ
Petition 4227712002 the petitioners preferred a writ appeal No. 33442-324431 E
2003 which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The
High Court while dismissing the said writ appeal noticed as follows :-

"We find that the first respondent has been permitted by the
Government of India to establish a new college on 18.5.200 I and the
college is running and admissions have been made. for 2001-2002 p
and 2002-2003. We also find that the terms under which learned
Single Judge has granted interim relief is practically in terms of the
conditions imposed by the Supreme Court in para 11 of the decision
in Union of India v. Era Medical Educational Trust and Anr., [2002) ·
5 SCC 57. We find that learned Single Judge has also taken care to
ensure that no equities can be claimed in the event of college not G
getting renewal for the year 2003-2004. In view of the submissions
made by learned counsel for the Medical Council of India, the counsel
for the institutions/medical college submitted that any other reasonable
further condition may be imposed to safeguard the students who may
be admitted."
H
1128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004) 3 S.C.R.

A Thereafter, the High Court continued the order adding further conditions.

There is serious dispute between the parties as to what are the
requirements to be fulfilled to get necessary permission. Whether majority of
the requirements have already been fulfilled or not; whether all the primary
conditions that have been provided have been fulfilled or not; whether non-
B fulfil!J1ent of certain other requirements which are of minor character should
not come in the way of grant of permission, are all such matters to be decided
in the course of the writ proceedings before the High Court rather than in
these proceedings. Therefore, we do not wish to enter upon the controversy
in this regard at this stage.
c Law is well settled that Section I0-A of the Medical Council Act which
provides for terms and conditions have to be fulfilled before starting or
establishing a medical college or starting higher courses making it clear that
what is postulated thereunder is evaluation of application made by the
institution concerned by the Central Government in the first instance, and
D then forwarding the same to the Medical Council of India for its further
examination. There are various steps envisaged under the Scheme such as (a)
issuance of letter of intent by the Central Government on the recommendation
of the Council; (b) issuance ofletter of permission by the Central Government
on the recommendation of the Council for starting admissions; (c ) issuance
of annual renewal to be granted by the Central Government on the
E recommendation of the Council; (d) at the stage of !st batch of students
admitted in MBBS course go for final year examination, grant of formal
recognition by the Central Government on the recommendation of the Council;
(e) if at any stage after the grant of initial permission entitling permission of
I st batch of students any college fails to fulfil the minimum norms in any
F successive year, as per the statutory regulations, further admissions are liable
to be stopped at any stage.

In the normal circumstances, the High Court ought not to issue an
interim order when for the earlier year itself permission had not been granted
by the Council. Indeed, by grant of such interim orders students who have
G been admitted in such institutions would be put to serious jeopardy, apart
from the fact that whether such institutions could run the medical college
without following the law. Therefore, we make it clear that the High Cou11
ought not to grant such interim orders in any of the cases where the Council
has not granted permission in terms of Section I 0-A of the Medical Council
H Act. If interim orders are granted to those institutions which have been
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA•'· RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES [RAJENDRA BABU. J) I J29

established without fulfilling the prescribed conditions to admit students, it A
will lead to serious jeopardy to the students admitted in these institutions.

Arguments have been advanced before us that there should be
transparency in the matter of granting permission by the Central Government
and Medical Council of India for starting or continuing colleges; that the
Council has to objectively look at the matters in the matter of grant of B
pennission and not withholding the same on unnecessary or flimsy reasons;
that the Council should also bear in mind that when an institution has been
established and initial permission has been granted and thereafter large
expenditure has been incurred by such institution, the same should not be
allowed to be withered away; that the Council should be helpful for starting C
and establishing medical colleges which are absolutely needed in this country
and their attitude should be positive and not negative.

It is unnecessary for us to examine all these aspects in the present case
because these matters arise out of interim orders passed by the High Court.
All that we need to emphasise in the present proceedings is that the High D
Courts should be very cautious in the matter of issuing interim orders in such
matters. If for one year students are not admitted and writ petitions seeking
for grant of pennission or renewal are considered by the High Courts quickly
and appropriate directions are issued to the Council by the High Courts to
process such applications and decision to give or refuse pennission to continue
such institutions should be taken finally and it is only thereafter if further E
difficulties arise, the same could be sorted out and not to grant pennission to
the colleges year after year when only initial permission has been granted to
such educational institutions.

Subject to these observations, these petitions stand disposed of.
F
We direct that the observations made by us shall be communicated to
all the High Courts to be placed before the concerned Hon'ble Judges to take
note of the same.

The special leave petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
G
v.s.s. Petitions disposed of.