Holding

The Court held that the college deliberately fabricated documents and made false statements to mislead the Court, constituting perjury under Section 193 IPC, warranting prosecution of the Dean, a two‑year admission ban, and a Rs 5 crore penalty, while directing refunds and compensation to the affected students.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the conduct of R.K.D.F. Medical College, which had been permitted to admit MBBS students but was found to have repeatedly failed to meet minimum standards. An enquiry revealed that the college fabricated patient records and falsified documents to mislead the Court and the Medical Council of India about its compliance, constituting false evidence. The Court held that such deception amounted to perjury under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, making the Dean liable for prosecution. Consequently, the college was barred from admitting first‑year MBBS students for two years and fined Rs 5 crore, with the amount payable to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. The Court also ordered refund of admission fees and a compensation of Rs 1 lakh to the affected students, while rejecting the college’s apology.

Issues considered

Whether the college made false statements and fabricated documents to show compliance with minimum standards for MBBS admission.
Whether such conduct amounts to perjury punishable under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code.
Whether the Dean of the college can be prosecuted under Section 193 IPC.
Whether the college should be debarred from admissions for a specified period.
Whether a monetary penalty can be imposed on the college for fraud on the Court.
Whether the students admitted provisionally are entitled to refund of fees and compensation.
Whether the college's apology can be accepted by the Court.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 193

Subjects

perjuryfalse evidencemedical college admissionfraudIPC Section 193penaltydebarmentstudent refundMCI regulationscourt deception

Judgment

920 [2019]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 1 S.C.R. 920 [2019] 1 S.C.R.

A SARVEPALLI RADHAKRISHNAN UNIVERSITY & ANOTHER

v.
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
B (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1001 of 2017)
JANUARY 17, 2019
[S. A. BOBDE, L. NAGESWARA RAO AND
R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.193 – False Evidence – False statement
C made before the Court on the basis of a fabricated document –
Petitioner No.2- College was permitted by the respondents to admit
MBBS students – There were recurring lapses on the part of the
petitioner no.2- college to meet the requisite minimum standards for
admission of MBBS students – Consequently, respondents cancelled
D the admission of students for the academic year 2017-18 and directed
College to discharge all the students – Writ petition before the
Supreme Court – Respondents contended that the College was
indulging in fraud by showing persons who were not sick as patients
to show compliance of the minimum requirements – On the other
hand, College placed records and contended that they were being
E unnecessarily troubled by the respondents in spite of their
compliance with required standards to admit MBBS students – A
committee was constituted to check the correctness of the statistics,
reports and materials placed before the Court – Pursuant thereto,
report submitted by the Committee before the Court – Thereafter,
F College submitted an apology for lapses on their part – Held:
Apology cannot be accepted – On the basis of the findings of the
Committee, it was clear that a false statement was made by the College
on the basis of a fabricated document – Assertion made by the
College regarding the genuineness of the patients in the hospital
turned out to be false in the enquiry conducted by the Committee –
G There were fake and incomplete addresses of the patients, in the
records of the hospital – Only 21 patients were identified and out of
these 8 turned out to be employees/students of the College – Further,
faculty members were found working elsewhere and running
hospitals – It was clear that the College was guilty of practicing
fraud on the Court – College administration indulged in
H
920
SARVEPALLI RADHAKRISHNAN UNIVERSITY v. UOI 921

manipulations and deceived the authorities to project compliance A
of the requisite minimum standards for admission of students –
College placed maneuvered documents to obtain a favourable order
– It is trite that every litigant has to approach the Court with clean
hands – A litigant who indulges in suppression of facts and
misrepresentation is not entitled for any relief – Thus, Dean of the
B
College liable for prosecution u/s.193 of IPC and the College liable
to be punished for committing perjury – Establishment of Medical
College Regulations, 1999 – Regns. 8(3)(1)(a) and 8(3)(1)(d) –
Perjury.
Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 – Regns.
8(3)(1)(a) and 8(3)(1)(d) – Forged/fake documents for the purpose C
of showing compliance with minimum requirements – Petitioner No.2-
College was permitted to admit MBBS students for the academic
year 2014-15 – However, for subsequent academic years i.e. 2015-
16, 2016-17 and 2017-18, the respondents found serious
deficiencies in the Assessment Report of College – There were D
various rounds of litigations between the petitioner-College and
the respondents – Finally, respondents cancelled the admission of
students for the academic year 2017-18 and directed College to
discharge all the students – Writ petition before the Supreme Court
– College placed records and contended that they were being
unnecessarily troubled by the respondents in spite of their E
compliance with required standards to admit students for MBBS
course – Held: College relied upon manipulated records to mislead
the Supreme Court for the purpose of getting favourable order –
College has been habitually indulging in foul play which is clear
from the course of events in 2015, when faculty members were found F
to have been working elsewhere and running hospitals – There were
fake and incomplete addresses of the patients, in the records of the
hospital – College indulged in large scale malpractices in showing
compliance of the minimum required standards to obtain permission
for admission of students – Thus, College barred from making
admissions for the year 1st year MBBS course for the next two years G
i.e. 2018-19 and 2019-20 – Further, a penalty of Rs. Five Crores
imposed on the College for playing fraud on the Court – Insofar as
the students who were admitted in the College for the academic
year 2017-18 are concerned, they were duly cautioned and
H
922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R.

A informed that their admission was purely provisional and they cannot
claim any equity if the College was later on found to be deficient –
By an earlier order of the Supreme Court, they were directed to be
adjusted in other medical Colleges for the year 2018-19 – However,
they are entitled for refund of the fee collected from them for
admission to the College – Penalty – Equity.
B
Dismissing the Writ petitions,
HELD: 1. On the basis of the findings of the Committee, it
is clear that a false statement has been made by the College on
the basis of a fabricated document. It was averred in the Writ
C Petition by the College that there were 365 patients in the hospital
at the time of inspection on 25 th September, 2017 but the
inspection team recorded that there were only seven patients
available. In support of the submission, reliance was placed on
the computerized data of the Medical Records Department. The
hard disk that was collected by the Committee to study the details
D of the patients who were admitted in the hospital prior to January,
2018 turned out to be empty and no data could be retrieved. The
assertion made by the College regarding the genuineness of the
patients in the hospital turned out to be false in the enquiry
conducted by the Committee. The Committee had serious doubts
E whether the patients were actually admitted. Most of the case
sheets, prescriptions, operative notes, etc. appeared to be written
by the same person in a very unprofessional manner. The
histopathological reports were found to be sketchy and
incomplete. On a thorough examination of the case sheets, the
experts from AIIMS opined that admission of the patients was
F unnecessary in a number of cases. In view of the fake and
incomplete addresses mentioned in the records of the hospital,
most of the patients could not be located. Only 21 patients were
identified and 8 out of these turned out to be employees/ students
of the College. All this goes to show that the College has indulged
G in large scale malpractices in showing compliance of the minimum
required standards to obtain permission for admission of students.
The College further tried to mislead this Court that it is compliant
in all respects, to get permission for the admission of students.
[Para 13][938-B-F]

H
SARVEPALLI RADHAKRISHNAN UNIVERSITY v. UOI 923

2. The brazen manner in which the College has indulged in A
relying upon manipulated records to mislead this Court for the
purpose of getting favourable order deserves to be dealt with in
a serious manner. This Court find that this is a fit case where,
Dean of the College must be held liable for prosecution under
Section 193 of Indian Penal Code. [Para 14][938-G-H]
B
3. There have been instances of errant medical colleges
making admissions to the medical courses without obtaining the
requisite permission. This Court came down heavily on such
deviant colleges by imposing penalties for the illegalities
committed by them in the matter of admission and for putting the
students’ future in jeopardy. The Committee exposes the evil C
design of the College in resorting to deceitful methods to cheat
the authorities concerned and this Court to secure permission
for admission of students. Apart from the prosecution of the Dean,
the College is liable to be suitably punished for committing
perjury. A penalty of Rs. Five Crores is imposed on the College D
for playing fraud on this Court. The amount may be paid to the
account of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. [Paras
15, 18][938-G-H; 939-A-B; 940-B]
4. This Court cannot accept the apology offered on behalf
of the College. The College has been habitually indulging in foul E
play which is clear from the course of events in 2015 when faculty
members were found to have been working elsewhere and
running hospitals. The bravado shown by the College in an
attempt to cheat the MCI, the Government and this Court has to
be condemned. [Para 16][939-C]
F
5. The students who were admitted in the 1st Year MBBS
Course in the College for the academic year 2017-18 were duly
cautioned and informed that their admission was purely
provisional and they cannot claim any equity if the College was
later on found to be deficient. They have been directed to be
admitted in other colleges for the years 2018-19. In the process, G
students have lost a precious academic year. However, they are
entitled for the refund of the fee collected from them for admission
to the College. [Para 17][939-E-F]

H
924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R.

A 6. For the aforementioned reasons, the following order is
passed:
(i) Dean of the Medical College Hospital and Research
Centre i.e. Petitioner No.2-herein is liable for prosecution under
Section 193 IPC. The Secretary General of this Court is directed
B to depute an Officer to initiate the prosecution in a competent
Court having jurisdiction at Delhi.
(ii) The College is barred from making admissions for the
1st Year MBBS course for the next two years i.e. 2018-19 and
2019-2020.
C (iii) A penalty of Rs. Five Crores is imposed on the College
for playing fraud on this Court. The amount may be paid to the
account of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
(iv) The students are entitled to receive the refund of fee
paid by them for admission to the College for the academic year
D 2017-19. In addition, the College is directed to pay a
compensation of Rs. One Lakh to the said students. [Para
18][939-G; 940-A-C]
In Re. Suo Motu Proceedings against R. Karuppan,
Advocate (2001) 5 SCC 289 : [2001] 3 SCR 750;
E Mohan Singh v. Amar Singh (1998) 6 SCC 686 : [1998]1
Suppl. SCR 252 – relied on.
Medical Council of India v. M.G.R. Educational &
Research Institute University (2015) 4 SCC 580 : [2015]
5 SCR 579; Medical Council of India v. Kalinga
F Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) (2016) 11 SCC
530 : [2016] 4 SCR 403; T N Godavarman Thirumalpad
(102) v. Ashok Khot and Anr. (2006) 5 SCC 1 : [2006]
2 Suppl. SCR 215 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
G [2001] 3 SCR 750 relied on Para 12
[1998] 1 Suppl.SCR 252 relied on Para 12
[2015] 5 SCR 579 referred to Para 15
[2016] 4 SCR 403 referred to Para 15

H [2006] 2 Suppl. SCR 215 referred to Para 15
SARVEPALLI RADHAKRISHNAN UNIVERSITY v. UOI 925

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. A
1001 of 2017.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
WITH
Writ Petition (C) No. 731 of 2018. B
Vivek Tankha, Sr. Adv., Sumit Nema, Prashant Sivarajan,
Amalpushp Shroti, Harsh Parashar, Amand Pandey, Abhimanyu Singh,
Aditya Singh, Gaurav Sharma, Prateek Bhatia, Dhaval Mohan, Prasana
Mohan, Arjun Garg, Sunny Choudhary, Rajesh Srivastava, Ms. Pragati
Neekhra, Danish Zubair Khan, Niraj Sharma, Kush Chaturvedi, Amit C
Sharma, Devashish Bharuka, Amrish Kr. Sharma (for G.S. Makker),
P. K. Dey, Merusagar Samantray, Leetesh Krishna, Arvind Kumar
Sharma, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J. 1. Permission was granted for the D
establishment of Petitioner No.2-R.K.D.F. Medical College Hospital and
Research Centre (hereinafter referred to as “the College) by Respondent
No.1 on the recommendation of Respondent No.2-herein- Medical
Council of India, with an intake capacity of 150 MBBS seats annually
for the academic year 2014-15. An inspection was conducted on 23rd
E
and 24th of February, 2015 for grant of renewal for admitting the 2nd
Batch of 150 MBBS students for the academic year 2015-16. The
Medical Council of India (MCI) recommended to the Central Government
to reject the permission for admission of the 2nd Batch of 150 MBBS
students for the academic year 2015-16 in view of the deficiencies found
in the Assessment Report. A review/ reassessment was done by the F
Executive Committee of Respondent No.2 at the request of the Central
Government. The Executive Committee of Respondent No.2
reconsidered the matter and recommended to the Central Government
not to renew the permission for the 2nd Batch of MBBS students for the
academic session 2015-16. There was a further recommendation that
G
the College should be debarred from making admissions for the next
two academic sessions. The Central Government accepted the
recommendation made by Respondent No.2 and rejected the request
for renewal. Yet another review/ reassessment was done by the Central
Government pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in SLP (C)
H
926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R.

A No.19543 of 2015 vide order dated 8th September, 2015. A Committee
was constituted to afford an opportunity of hearing to the College. The
College was denied permission to admit the 2nd Batch of the MBBS
students for the year 2015-16 by an order of Respondent No.1 dated
28th September, 2015. The High Court of Delhi quashed the said order
dated 28th September, 2015 and directed the Central Government to
B
examine the matter afresh vide its order dated 29th December, 2015 in
Writ Petition (C) No. 9663 of 2015. The Central Government reiterated
its decision by an order dated 1st January, 2016 to not grant permission to
the College to admit the 2nd Batch of MBBS students. One more
inspection was ordered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on
C 11th May, 2016 in Writ Petition (C) No.21223 of 2015. Respondent No.2
filed SLP (C) No.14729 of 2016 challenging the order dated 11th May,
2016 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. On 15th July, 2016,
this Court directed that a fresh inspection should be conducted. The
order dated 15th July, 2016 was modified by this Court on 9th September,
2016 by which the Oversight Committee was requested to consider the
D
matter pertaining to the admission of students in the College for the year
2016-17.
2. By an order dated 27th September, 2016, the Oversight
Committee accorded approval to the College for admission of students
for the year 2016-17. The Oversight Committee directed the College to
E rectify the deficiencies and submit a compliance report to the Ministry
of Health & Family Welfare by 27th September, 2016. The College was
informed that a bank guarantee of Rs. Two Crores in favour of Respondent
No.2 has to be furnished by 27th September, 2016. It was stated that
non-compliance of the conditions imposed by the Oversight Committee
F would result in the College getting debarred from fresh intake for two
years commencing 2017-18. The 2nd Batch of 150 students for the
academic year 2016-17 were admitted pursuant to the conditional
permission for renewal granted by the Central Government.
3. A joint verification inspection was conducted on 5th and 6th
G January, 2017 for renewal of permission to the 3rd Batch of MBBS
students for the academic year 2017-18. Finding gross deficiencies in
the infrastructure, clinical material, teaching faculty and other physical
facilities in the College, the Executive Committee of Respondent No.2
concluded that the undertaking given by the College on 28th September,
2016 was breached. The Committee decided to recommend to the Central
H
SARVEPALLI RADHAKRISHNAN UNIVERSITY v. UOI 927
[L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.]

Government to debar the College from admitting students for the A
academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The Central Government accepted
the recommendations made by Respondent No.2 and by an
order dated 31st May, 2017 debarred the College from making admissions
for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
allowed Writ Petition (C) No.8100 of 2017 filed by the College questioning
B
the legality of order of the Central Government dated 31st May, 2017.
The College was permitted to provisionally admit 150 students. Aggrieved
by the judgment dated 21st July, 2017 of the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh, Respondent No.2 filed SLP (C) No.20400 of 2017 before this
Court. The re-inspection as directed by the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh was confirmed by this Court by an order dated 14th August, C
2017. It was made clear in the said order that the admission of students
shall be completely provisional, being dependent on the result of the
inspection. It was further mentioned that the admission of students
shall be liable to be cancelled if the College fails in the inspection and the
students will not be entitled to claim any equity. The students were
D
directed to be informed by the Counselling committee about the said
condition. An inspection was scheduled to be conducted on 14th & 15th
September, 2017 for renewal of the 4th Batch of students in College for
the MBBS course. According to Respondent No.2, the said inspection
had to be aborted midway as the assessors were manhandled and
physically forced to leave the College. At the request made by the E
College, another inspection was conducted on the 25th & 26th September,
2017. The Executive Committee of Respondent No.2 considered the
Assessment Report at its meeting held on 26th September, 2017 and
decided that admissions of the 4th Batch of 150 MBBS students for the
year 2017-18 should be cancelled in view of the following deficiencies
F
found in the inspection conducted on 25th & 26th September, 2017:
“I. Bed Occupancy at 10 a.m. on day of assessment was
01.07% (i.e. 7 out of 410).
II. There were no Major Surgical operation on day of
assessment. G
III. There was NIL Normal Delivery or LSCS on day of
assessment.
IV. Data of Clinical material like Casualty attendance,
Discharges, Major & Minor Operations,
H
928 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R.

A Radiological Investigations as provided by the Institute
are inflated.
V. ICUs: There was NIL patient in NICU/ PICU & only 1 patient
each in ICCU, MICU, SICU on day of assessment.
VI. Blood Bank: NIL Unit was dispensed on day of assessment.
B
VII. Deficiency of faculty is 15.65% as detailed in the report.
VIII. Shortage of residents is 40% as detailed in the report.
IX. Diet order was not recorded in the register on day of
assessment.
C
X. MRD is partly manual.
XI.Facilities in Central Research Laboratory are not adequate.
There are NIL ongoing or completed research projects.
XII. RHTC: Cold Chain equipment are not available. Survey
D / MCH / Immunization / Family Welfare registers are not
available. No activities under National Health Programmes
are carried out.
XIII.UHCC: Cold Chain equipment are not available. Survey
/ MCH / Immunization / Family Welfare Registers are not
E available.”
4. The Executive Committee of Respondent No.2 further decided
that Regulation 8(3)(1)(b)1 of the Establishment of Medical College
1
Regulation 8 (3)(1)- The permission to establish a medical college and admit students
may be granted initially for a period of one year and may be renewed on yearly basis
F subject to verification of the achievements of annual targets. It shall be the responsibility
of the person to apply to the Medical Council of India for purpose of renewal [as per
latest time schedule] prior to the expiry of the initial permission. This process of
renewal of permission will continue till such time the establishment of the medical
college and expansion of the hospital facilities are completed and a formal recognition
of the medical college is granted. Further admissions shall not be made at any stage
unless the requirements of the Council are fulfilled. The Central Government may at
G any stage convey the deficiencies to the applicant and provide him an opportunity and
time to rectify the deficiencies.
(b)- Colleges in the stage of III & IV renewal (i.e. Admission of fourth & fifth batch):
[If it is observed during any inspection of the Institute that the deficiency of teaching
faculty and / or Residents is more than 20% and / or bed occupancy is < 65%, compliance
of rectification of deficiencies from such an institute will not be considered for renewal
H of permission in that Academic Year.]
SARVEPALLI RADHAKRISHNAN UNIVERSITY v. UOI 929
[L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.]

Regulations, 1999 (“the MCI Regulations”) should be invoked in view of A
the deficiencies found in the bed occupancy and residents. The said
decision of Respondent No.2 was approved by the Oversight Committee.
5. Respondent No.2 directed the College to discharge all the
students admitted for the academic year 2017-18 by its letter dated 29 th
September, 2017. The Principal Secretary (Medical Division Department), B
Government of Madhya Pradesh- Respondent No.3-herein was
requested to cancel the admission of students made in the College for
the academic year 2017-18.
6. The communications dated 29th September, 2017 to the College
and the Respondent No.3 are subject matter of challenge in this Writ C
Petition. The College sought a further direction that a fresh inspection
should be conducted strictly in accordance with the Assessor’s Guide.
While issuing notice on 23rd October, 2017, this Court stayed the operation
of the communication dated 29th September, 2017. On 24th October,
2017 it was clarified that the students admitted as per the order dated
14th August, 2017 in SLP (Civil) No. 20400 of 2017 shall be permitted to D
continue with their studies. Thereafter, on a consideration of the
Assessment Report pursuant to the inspection dated 25th & 26th
September, 2017 and the submissions made on behalf of both sides, this
Court by an order dated 14th December, 2017 directed the admission of
the students to be cancelled. This Court took note of the order dated E
14th August, 2017 which made the admission of students subject to the
result of the inspection. As the students were found not to be complicit
and not having any role to play in non-compliance of the requisite standards
by the College, this Court considered it expedient to direct the students
to be accommodated in other colleges. By referring to the Assessment
Report pursuant to the inspection done on 25th & 26th September, 2017, F
learned Senior Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the
College was indulging in fraud by showing persons who were not sick as
patients only for the purpose of showing compliance of the minimum
requirements. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the College
refuted the said contention and argued that all the patients were genuine. G
As this Court was in no position to determine the truth or otherwise of
the allegations, an enquiry was directed to be conducted into the
correctness of the statistics, reports and material placed before this Court
by the College along with the Writ Petition. For the said purpose, a
committee was constituted by this Court. A senior officer deputed by
H
930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R.

A the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), was directed to
head the Committee which would have two doctors of the All India
Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) as its members. It is relevant to
note that in the said order dated 14th December, 2017 it was made clear
that the College may have to face prosecution under Section 193 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) if the allegations made by Respondent
B
No.2 were found to be correct. The decision to constitute a committee
by this Court was arrived at after a thorough examination of the
voluminous material placed on record by the College. The material was
constituted of several photographs showing patients occupying the beds
and their case sheets. A bare perusal of the photographs did not convince
C us that the patients were genuine. After a close scrutiny of the case
sheets, we had serious doubts about the necessity for admission of persons
suffering from minor ailments as in-patients.
7. The students who were admitted in the College for the year
2017-18 were directed to be adjusted in the other private medical colleges
D in the State of Madhya Pradesh for the academic year 2018-19 by an
order passed by this Court on 3rd July, 2018. The students were directed
to pay the fees to the colleges to which they are admitted. It was
mentioned in the said order dated 3rd July, 2018 that the entitlement of
the students for refund of the fee paid for admission to the College shall
be adjudicated at the final hearing of the Writ Petition.
E
8. The Committee appointed by this Court on 14th December, 2017
submitted its Report on 12th July, 2018. It was mentioned in the Report
inter alia, that the Committee visited the College on 29th January, 2018
around 11.30 a.m. and found that the patient waiting area for OPD
Registration was totally empty. After visiting several wards in the hospital,
F the Committee found that the attendance of patients was abysmally low
and the patients shown to be admitted in OPDs/ wards were not in
conformity with the actual number of patients. It was further stated in
the Report that a scrutiny of the medical case files of the in-patients
showed that their admission was not necessary. The case duty rosters
G for duty doctors as well as nurses were not available in the wards and
the junior doctors on duty were not able to identify and confirm who had
written the case notes/ progress notes on the case files.
9. The Committee collected the medical sheets of 435 patients
who were shown to have been admitted in the hospital on the date of the
H inspection conducted on 25th & 26th September, 2017. The hard disk
SARVEPALLI RADHAKRISHNAN UNIVERSITY v. UOI 931
[L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.]

that was obtained from the hospital for verification of the details of A
patients who were admitted prior to 7th January, 2018 was edamined by
the CBI. It was found that the hard disk was empty and did not contain
any data. The conclusion of the Committee after a detailed enquiry
revealed the following:
“i. The petitioner college has claimed that 6 doctors namely, B
Dr. Ritesh Kumawat, Dr. MR Gaikwad, SB Petkar, Dr.
Deepak Kaladagi, Dr. Jeetendra Gupta and Dr. Ram
Ballabh Thakur couldn’t attend the MCI inspection on
25.09.2017 as they were summoned by Court/Police in
connection with a motor accident case. However, such
claim was found to be incorrect. C

ii. All of the six doctors namely, Dr. Ritesh Kumawat, Dr. MR
Gaikwad, SB Petkar, Dr. Deepak Kaladagi, Dr. Jeetendra
Gupta, Dr. Ram Ballabh Thakur, when examined, denied
having received any notice from police regarding the motor
accident. D

iii. Out of the 10 doctors (Sr. Residents/ Jr. Residents) who
were not counted by the assessors on the strength of the
petitioner college as faculty on the ground that they were
not residing in the college hostel, 9 doctors could be
contacted, Examination of those 9 doctors revealed : E

• 07 doctors confirmed during enquiry that they were not
staying in the hostel in the college campus and they
themselves had conveyed the MCI assessors in this
regard. It is mandatory to stay in hostel as per Assessor’s
Guide issued by MCI for academic year 2018-19. F
• The other two resident doctors, i.e. Dr. Meenal Parmar
and Dr. Arpita Mishra, stated that they were staying in
the hostel but were not considered on the strength of
the college by the MCI assessors.
G
iv. Out of the 8 resident doctors which petitioner college had
claimed to be on night duty and so couldn’t appear before
MCI assessors by 11 AM, enquiry revealed that:
• Out of the above mentioned 8 resident doctors, 6 doctors
stated that they were not on payroll of the petitioner
H
932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R.

A college on the day of inspection i.e. 25.09.2017. Even
4 of those doctors had stated that they never joined the
hospital.
• 1 doctor (Dr. Ritesh Kumawat) stated that he was not
present on the day of the inspection, i.e. 25.09.2017.
B • And another doctor Dr. Devyani Patel was present on
25.09.2017 but she was rightly excluded by the MCI
assessors as she couldn’t make her presence by 12 noon
(which was mandated as per Assessor’s Guide).
v.The 3 doctors namely Dr. Priyank Jain, Dr. Manoj Sahu
C and Dr. Amit Jain, who were not treated as Sr. Resident
doctors by the MCI assessors doesn’t seem to be justifiable
considering the fact that all three of them were treated as
Sr. Resident Doctors on earlier inspection on 05.01.2017.
vi. Two tutors who have been shown as present in the
D assessment by the college had not attended the assessment
proceedings on 25.09.2017.
vii. Due to vague and incomplete type of the addresses
mentioned in the record of the petitioner college, most of
the patients could not be located as merely the names of
E the colonies and sub areas have been found to be
mentioned on the patient case sheets. In theidentified 21
patients, 8 are the employees/students of various RKDF
institutions.
xiv. On the basis of the medical analysis of the case sheets of
F the patients most doctors from AIIMS are of the similar
view that it is doubtful that all these patients were actually
admitted and that too for such a long duration.
xv. Most of the doctors are also of the opinion that the range
of cases shown to be admitted was grossly inadequate for
G training of students.
xvi. The doctors were also of the opinion that in most of the
case sheets prescriptions, operative notes, etc.appears to
have been written by the same person in a very
unprofessional manner. Alsohistopathological reports are
H very sketchy and incomplete.
SARVEPALLI RADHAKRISHNAN UNIVERSITY v. UOI 933
[L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.]

xvii.Dr. S.C. Sharma, Professor and HoD, ENT Department, A
AIIMS has examined 14 medical sheets of the patients
shown on bed in ENT Department of petitioner’s college
on 25/25.09.2017. As per his opinion most of the patients
appear to be fictitious.
xviii. Dr. H.L. Nag, Professor, Orthopedics, AIIMS has B
examined 52 medical sheets of the patients shown on bed
in Orthopedics Department of petitioner’s college on 25/
26.09.2017. He held that majority of those cases could
have been managed without hospital admissions.
xix.Dr. Naval Kishore Vikram, Professor General Medicine C
AIIMS has examined 97 medical patients of G e n e r a l
Medicine and 12 patients of TB && Chest Department
who were shown to be on bed on 25/26.09.2017. He has
concluded that it appears doubtful that those patients were
actually admitted in the hospital. Most of the patients
appear to be over treated by various medications, D
particularly antibiotics. He also held that most of the cases
had limited number of diagnosis which is grossly inadequate
for training of medical students.
xx. Dr. Pankaj Hari, Professor Paediatrics Department, AIIMS
has examined 62 medical sheets of the patients shown on E
bed in Paediatrics Department of petitioner’s college on
25/26.09.2017. He concluded that the admitted cases have
limited diagnosis which is quite inadequate for training of
students in a medical college. He also raised doubt over
the authenticity of those medical files. F
xxi.Dr. Vinod K. Khetan, Professor, Department of
Dermatology and Venerelogy, AIIMS, examined 10 medical
sheets of the patients shown on bed in Dermatology
department of petitioner’s college on 25/26.09.2017. He
raised serious doubts over the authenticity of patient being G
actually admitted. He also opined that the range of cases
admitted and their work-up is grossly inadequate for the
training of students.

H
934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R.

A xxii. Dr. Namrata Sharma, Professor, Deptt. of O p t h a l m i c
Sciences, AIIMS has concluded that in out of total 17 cases,
admission of the 02 patients was required whereas in all
other cases patient could have been managed under day
care OPD.
B xxiii. Dr. Mamta Sood, Professor, Deptt. of Psychiatry, AIIMS
examined 08 medical sheets of the patients shown on bed
in Psychiatry Department of petitioner’s college on 25th /
26.09.2017. Though she mostly agreed that the treatment
shown to be given to the patients was appropriate, but she
opined that they didn’t require to be admitted.
C
xxiv.Dr. Ongikla Bhutia, Professor, Division of Oral
Maxillofacil Surgery, AIIMS examined 11 medical sheets
of the patients shown on bed in Oral Maxillofacial
Surgery Department of petitioner ’s college on
25/26.09.2017. The doctor opined that the diagnosis
D appeared repetitive. Neither pre-operative radiography nor
post operative radiography were found on record. Consent
from for the surgery was also found to be absent in some
cases.
xxv. Dr. Deepika Deka, Professor, Deptt. of Obstetrics and
E Gynaecology, AIIMS had examined 56 medical sheets of
the patients shown on bed in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Department of petitioner’s college on 25/26.09.2017. She
raiseddoubt whether actual surgery was performed or not.
She also raised doubt over the genuineness of the
F admissions shown for those patients.
viii.Dr. Subodh Kumar, Professor, Deptt. of Surgical
Disciplines, AIIMS examined 96 medical sheets of the
patients on bed on 25/26.09.2017. He raised serious doubt
over the genuineness of patients actually admitted. He
G also held that spectrum of cases shown to be admitted was
grossly inadequate for training of students.”
10. When the matter was listed on 5th December, 2018, Shri Vivek
Tankha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the College, submitted
that the College intends to submit an apology for the lapses on their part.
H
SARVEPALLI RADHAKRISHNAN UNIVERSITY v. UOI 935
[L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.]

He requested us to give a quietus to this matter. He submitted that there A
are students presently studying in the institution who would be affected
by any adverse order passed against the College.
11. It has been brought to our notice by the Respondent No.2-
MCI that during the inspection conducted on 23rd & 24th February, 2015
for the purpose of granting admission for the academic year 2014-15, it B
was found that there were patients who were fake and others who had
been admitted without any significant illness. The MCI was constrained
to invoke Regulation 8(3)(1)(a)2 and Regulation 8(3)(1)(d)3 of the MCI
Regulations in view of the College submitting forged/ fake documents
for the purpose of showing compliance with the minimum requirements.
C
2
Regulation 8 (3)(1) The permission to establish a medical college and admit students
may be granted initially for a period of one year and may be renewed on yearly basis
subject to verification of the achievements of annual targets. It shall be the responsibility
of the person to apply to the Medical Council of India for purpose of renewal [as per
latest time schedule] prior to the expiry of the initial permission. This process of
renewal of permission will continue till such time the establishment of the medical D
college and expansion of the hospital facilities are completed and a formal recognition
of the medical college is granted. Further admissions shall not be made at any stage
unless the requirements of the Council are fulfilled. The Central Government may at
any stage convey the deficiencies to the applicant and provide him an opportunity and
time to rectify the deficiencies.

(a) Colleges in the stage of Letter of Permission upto II renewal (i.e. Admission E
of third batch):
[If it is observed during any inspection/assessment of the institute that the deficiency
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)/
renewal of permission in that Academic Year.]
F
3
Regulation 8(3)(1)(d) Colleges which are 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 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
G
Years – i.e. that Academic Year and the next Academic Year also.
[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.]

Bracketed portions substituted/ modified/ aletered in terms of Gazette Notification dated
18.03.2016. H
936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R.

A A complaint was made by Dr. A.K. Banerjee, Ex-Associate Professor
of Surgery of the College on 25th March, 2015 alleging that more than
50% of the doctors who were shown as full-time Faculty Members
were full-time private practitioners. Dr. Paresh Ruparel who was shown
as a Professor of Surgery in the College was working as a surgeon at
V.S. Hospital affiliated to MHL Medial College, Ahmedabad and was
B
also running a private hospital. Dr Ruparel was referred to Ethics
Committee and he was suitably dealt with for misdemeanor. Without
delving deep into the details of the Report submitted by the Committee,
it is clear that the College is guilty of practicing fraud on this Court. The
conduct of the College administration in indulging in manipulations and
C hoodwinking the authorities to project compliance of the requisite
minimum standards for admission of students does not deserve to be
condoned. The impunity with which the College has manufactured records
to convince us that they were being unnecessarily hounded by the MCI
in spite of their compliance with the required standards is deprecated.
The brazen attempt by the College in taking this Court for a ride by
D
placing on record maneuvered documents to obtain a favourable order
is a clear-cut act of deceit. The justification given by the College regarding
the absence of certain residents has turned out to be a concocted story.
Had we not initiated an enquiry by the Committee of Experts, the fraud
played by the College on this Court would not have come to light. It is
E trite that every litigant has to approach the Court with clean hands. A
litigant who indulges in suppression of facts and misrepresentation is not
entitled for any relief. The conduct of the College in this case to mislead
this Court for the purpose of getting a favourable order is reprehensible
and the College deserves to be dealt with suitably.
F 12. In Re. Suo Motu Proceedings against R. Karuppan,
Advocate4, this Court observed as under:
“13. Courts are entrusted with the powers of dispensation
and adjudication of justice of the rival claims of the parties
besides determining the criminal liability of the offenders for
G offences committed against the society. The courts are further
expected to do justice quickly and impartially not being biased
by any extraneous considerations. Justice dispensation system
would be wrecked if statutory restrictions are not imposed
upon the litigants, who attempt to mislead the court by filing
4
(2001) 5 SCC 289
H
SARVEPALLI RADHAKRISHNAN UNIVERSITY v. UOI 937
[L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.]

and relying upon false evidence particularly in cases, the A
adjudication of which is dependent upon the statement of facts.
If the result of the proceedings are to be respected, these issues
before the courts must be resolved to the extent possible in
accordance with the truth. The purity of proceedings of the
court cannot be permitted to be sullied by a party on frivolous,
B
vexatious or insufficient grounds or relying upon false
evidence inspired by extraneous considerations or revengeful
desire to harass or spite his opponent. Sanctity of the affidavits
has to be preserved and protected discouraging the filing of
irresponsible statements, without any regard to accuracy.”
In Mohan Singh v. Amar Singh5 case, it was observed by this C
Court :
“36. …Tampering with the record of judicial proceedings and
filing of false affidavit in a court of law has the tendency of
causing obstruction in the due course of justice. It undermines
and obstructs free flow of the unsoiled stream of justice and D
aims at striking a blow at the rule of law. The stream of justice
has to be kept clear and pure and no one can be permitted to
take liberties with it by soiling its purity.”
13. In the affidavit filed along with the Writ Petition, Mr. S.S.
Kushwaha, Dean of the R.K.D.F. Medical College Hospital and Research E
Centre stated that the contents in the Writ Petition are true and correct
to the best of his knowledge and belief. According to the College, the
Assessment Report pursuant to the inspection conducted on 25th and
26th September, 2017 was unfair as the justification for the absence of
six members of the faculty was not accepted. The averment in the Writ F
Petition is to the effect that the said six doctors who had received summons
from the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bairagarh were at the police station at
11 a.m. on 25th September, 2017 in connection with the complaint relating
to a motor accident case. The Committee enquired into the correctness
of the claim made by the College regarding the absence of the six faculty
members. Mr. Mohan Sharma, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police of G
Bairagarh Police Station stated that there was no such notice issued for
summoning the six doctors to the police station. On further enquiry, the
six doctors namely Dr. Ritesh Kumawat, Dr. MR Gaikwad, SB Petkar,
5
(1998) 6 SCC 686
H
938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R.

A Dr. Deepak Kaladagi, Dr. Jeetendra Gupta and Dr. Ram Ballabh Thakur
denied having received any notice from the police station. Dr. Ritesh
Kumawat further denied having filed any complaint regarding the motor
accident. On the basis of the above findings of the Committee, it is clear
that a false statement has been made by the College on the basis of a
fabricated document. It was averred in the Writ Petition by the College
B
that there were 365 patients in the hospital at the time of inspection on
25th September, 2017 but the inspection team recorded that there were
only seven patients available. In support of the submission, reliance was
placed on the computerized data of the Medical Records Department.
The hard disk that was collected by the Committee to study the details
C of the patients who were admitted in the hospital prior to January, 2018
turned out to be empty and no data could be retrieved. The assertion
made by the College regarding the genuineness of the patients in the
hospital turned out to be false in the enquiry conducted by the Committee.
The Committee had serious doubts whether the patients were actually
admitted. Most of the case sheets, prescriptions, operative notes, etc.
D
appeared to be written by the same person in a very unprofessional
manner. The histopathological reports were found to be sketchy and
incomplete. On a thorough examination of the case sheets, the experts
from AIIMS opined that admission of the patients was unnecessary in a
number of cases. In view of the fake and incomplete addresses
E mentioned in the records of the hospital, most of the patients could not
be located. Only 21 patients were identified and 8 out of these turned
out to be employees/ students of the College. All this goes to show that
the College has indulged in large scale malpractices in showing compliance
of the minimum required standards to obtain permission for admission of
students. The College further tried to mislead this Court that it is compliant
F
in all respects, to get permission for the admission of students.
14. The brazen manner in which the College has indulged in relying
upon manipulated records to mislead this Court for the purpose of getting
favourable order deserves to be dealt with in a serious manner. We find
that this is a fit case where Mr. S.S. Kushwaha, Dean of the College
G must be held liable for prosecution under Section 193 IPC.
15. There have been instances of errant medical colleges making
admissions to the medical courses without obtaining the requisite
permission. This Court came down heavily on such deviant colleges by
imposing penalties for the illegalities committed by them in the matter of
H
SARVEPALLI RADHAKRISHNAN UNIVERSITY v. UOI 939
[L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.]

admission and for putting the students’ future in jeopardy.6 We have A
noticed a disturbing trend of some medical colleges in projecting fake
faculty and patients for obtaining permission for admission of students.
The Committee exposes the evil design of the College in resorting to
deceitful methods to cheat the authorities concerned and this Court to
secure permission for admission of students. Apart from the prosecution
B
of the Dean, the College is liable to be suitably punished for committing
perjury.
16. We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the apology
offered on behalf of the College. The College has been habitually indulging
in foul play which is clear from the course of events in 2015 when faculty
members were found to have been working elsewhere and running C
hospitals. The bravado shown by the College in an attempt to cheat the
MCI, the Government and this Court has to be condemned. The
Committee constituted by this Court is due to the vehemence with which
the Counsels appearing for the College were trying to convince us that
they are fully compliant with all the requirements. “Apology is an act of D
contrition. Unless apology is offered at the earliest opportunity and in
good grace, the apology is shorn of penitence and hence it is liable to be
rejected. If the apology is offered at the time when the contemnor finds
that the court is going to impose punishment it ceases to be an apology
and becomes an act of a cringing coward.7”
E
17. The students who were admitted in the 1st Year MBBS Course
in the College for the academic year 2017-18 were duly cautioned and
informed that their admission was purely provisional and they cannot
claim any equity if the College was later on found to be deficient. They
have been directed to be admitted in other colleges for the years 2018-
19. In the process, students have lost a precious academic year. However, F
they are entitled for the refund of the fee collected from them for
admission to the College.
18. For the aforementioned reasons, we pass the following order:
(i) Mr. S.S. Kushwaha, Dean of the R.K.D.F. Medical College G
Hospital and Research Centre i.e. Petitioner No.2-herein is liable for
prosecution under Section 193 IPC. The Secretary General of this Court
6
(2015) 4 SCC 580 ¶ 45.6 -Medical Council of India v. M.G.R. Educational & Research
Institute University and (2016) 11 SCC 530 ¶31, 31.2 & 31.4 – Medical Council of
India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS)
7
T N Godavarman Thirumalpad (102) v. Ashok Khot and Anr. (2006) 5 SCC 1 at H
Para 31
940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R.

A is directed to depute an Officer to initiate the prosecution in a competent
Court having jurisdiction at Delhi.
(ii) The College is barred from making admissions for the 1st Year
MBBS course for the next two years i.e. 2018-19 and 2019-2020.
(iii) A penalty of Rs. Five Crores is imposed on the College for
B playing fraud on this Court. The amount may be paid to the account of
the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
(iv) The students are entitled to receive the refund of fee paid by
them for admission to the College for the academic year 2017-19. In
addition, the College is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. One Lakh
C to the said students.

19. The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly.
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 731 OF 2018:
The Writ Petition is hereby dismissed in terms of the above
D
judgment.

Ankit Gyan Writ Petitions dismissed.

E

F

G

H