Holding

Section 13(4A) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 applies to all foreign medical qualifications, including those recognised under the reciprocity scheme, and the screening test requirement is valid and applicable from the date specified by the Central Government.

Summary

The petitioners, Indian citizens who obtained MBBS degrees from Manipal College of Medical Sciences, Pokhara (recognised under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956), were denied permanent registration by the Medical Council of India (MCI) because they had not passed the screening test mandated by the Act. They challenged the requirement, arguing that the qualifications listed in the Second Schedule and Part II of the Third Schedule were exhaustive and that Section 13(4A) and 13(48) could not be applied to them. The Supreme Court examined the statutory scheme, reading Sections 12 and 13 together and applying a purposive (mischief) construction to determine the legislative intent. It held that Section 13(4A) applies to all foreign medical qualifications, including those recognised under the reciprocity scheme of Section 12, and that the screening test is a valid post‑amendment requirement. The Court rejected the petitioners’ contentions, affirmed the MCI’s authority to impose the test, and dismissed the appeals and writ petitions. Consequently, the petitioners must appear for the screening test to obtain registration.

Issues considered

Whether Section 13(4A) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 applies to qualifications recognised under the Second Schedule (reciprocity scheme).
Whether the screening test requirement is prospective or retrospective with respect to qualifications obtained before the specified date.
Whether the MCI’s press release exempting certain foreign qualifications from the screening test is legally binding.
Whether the requirement to pass the screening test violates the principle of non‑discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Indian Medical Council Act, 1956s. 11, s. 12, s. 13(3), s. 13(4), s. 13(48), s. 13(4A), s. 13(4C), s. 14, s. 15

Subjects

Indian Medical Council Actscreening testforeign medical qualificationrecognition of degreespurposive constructionmischief rulemedical registrationreciprocity schemeconstitutional discrimination

Judgment

[2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 667

__,. YASH AHUJA AND OTHERS A
-( V.
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6370 of 2009 Etc. Etc.)
"
II(
( SEPTEMBER 17, 2009
B
[K.G BALAKRISHNAN, CJI., P. SATHASIVAM AND
J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.]

Indian Medical Council Act, 1956:
c
s. 12, 13(4-A) (as inserted by Act 34 of 2001), Second
Schedule - Third Schedule, Part II - Medical qualification
granted by Universities/Medical Institutions outside India -
Recognition under Scheme of reciprocity by Medical Council
of India as medical qualification for purposes of Act - s. 13(4-
+ A) prescribing screening test for Indian citizens granted D
medical qualification by named Institutions outside India for
granting provisional/temporary/permanent registration -
HELD: It had come to notice of Legislature that. a large
number of private agencies were sponsoring Indian citizens
E
for medical studies to institutions outside India, such students
also included those who did not fulfil the minimum eligibility
-41
requirements for admission to medical courses in India -
• Serious aberrations were noticed in the standard of medical
institutions in some of the foreign countries, which were not
on par with the standards of medical education in India and, F
as such, Parliament rightly felt necessity of making provision
to enable MCI to conduct screening test - The date specified
'II by Central Government uls 13(3) being 15.3.2002, an Indian
citizen granted medical qualification by institutions outside
India shall not be entitled to be enrolled on Medical Register G
"'-f in the country after 15. 3. 2002 unless he qualifies the
screening test - MCI Eligibility Requirement for taking
admission in an undergraduate medical course in a Foreign
Medical Institution Regulations, 2002 - Screening Test
667 H
668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Regulations, 2002 - Interpretation of statutes - Purposive
construction/Mischief rule.

Under the scheme of reciprocity, in terms of s.12 of
the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956; medical
qualifications granted by Kathmandu University in
8
respect of Manipal College of Medical Sciences, Pokhara
and Nepal in or after July 1999 was recognized by the
Medical Council of India for the purposes of the Act Since
various private agencies, for commercial considerations,
sponsored Indian students including those who failed to
C fulfil the minimum eligibility requirements for admission
to medical course in India, for medical studies in
institutions outside India, the Act was amended by
Medical Council of India (Amendment) Act, 2001 (Act 34
of 2001 ), inserting s.13(4-A) providing for screening test
D for a citizen of India who obtained medical qualification
by an institution in a country outside India; and qualifying
the screening test was deemed to be the recognised
medical qualification for the purpose of the Act. As
several deficiencies in infrastructural, teaching and other
E facilities were found in Manipal College of Medical
Sciences, Pokhra, the MCI took a ~ecision to withdraw
the recognition granted to the College and not to grant
provisional/final registration to any student passing from
the said Institute who has not passed the scr.eening test
F Some of the students of the Manipal College of Medical
Sciences, Pokhra .who were issued provisional/
temporary registration by MCI were denied permanent
registration on the ground that they had not cleared the
prescribed screening test They filed writ petitions which
G were dismissed by the High Court. Aggrieved, they filed
the appeals. Some othe.r students who were denied
provisional registration by MCI filed petitions for special
leave to appeal. Similarly situated students of the Institute
of Medicine, Tribhuwan University filed the writ petition
H under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
YASH AHUJA AND ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF 669
INDIA & ORS.

It was contended for the appellants and the writ A
~ petitioners that the Second Schedule and Part II of the
Third Schedule to the Act exhausted the qualifications
granted by the medical institutions outside India which
were recognized .as medical qualifications for the
purposes of the Medical Council of India Act, 1956 B
whereas Sub-Section (4A), (48) and 4(C) of s.13 deal with
the residual subject of individual recognition of medical
qualifications obtained by Indian citizens from the
institutions outside India which were not specified in any
'-t
of the three Schedules and therefore the appellants
could not be subjected to screening test contemplated
c
by s.13(4A).

The question for consideration before the Court
was: whether the MCI was justified in asking the
appellants and others who obtained MBBS qualification D
-t from Kathmandu University to qualify the screening test
'('
prescribed by the Regulations.

Dismissing the appeals and the petition, the Court
HELD: 1. Though the MCI has recommended to the E
Central Government to withdraw the recognition granted
~
to the College, the Central Government has not initiated
any action against the College. The Central Government
~
has made it clear in its affidavit that Manipal College of
Medical Sciences, Pokhara, Nepal continues to be F
recognized under the Act. [Para 15] [693-F-G]
.....,
.J
2.1. In order to make the scheme of recognition of
medical qualification by Universities or medical
institutions in India complete, one has got to read the G
provisions of s.11 with the provisions of sub-Sections (1 ),
A,~
(2) and (5) of s.13 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
Section 11, First Schedule, sub-Sections (1 }, (2) and (5)
of s. 13 and Part I of the Third Schedule constitute a
complete code relating· to the scheme of recognition of H
.
670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A medical quaiifications granted by Universities or medical
institutions in India. [Para 20] (697-8-D]

2.2. Similarly, the scheme of recognition of medical
qualifications granted by medical institutions in countries
with which there is a scheme of reciprocity, dealt with by
8 s. 12 of the Act, has to be read along with s.13. A_ fair
reading of the provisions of s.12 with those of s.13, makes
it evident that the scheme of recognition of medical
qualifications granted by medical institutions outs_i_de _
India as envisaged by s.12 is not complete. In order to
C make the scheme complete, exhaustive and workable,
one has to take into account the provisions of sub-
sections (3) and (4) of s.13 of the Act. The scheme relating
to recognition of medical qualifications granted by
medical institutions outside India becomes workable only
D if the provisions of s.12 of the Act and the contents of
Second Schedule are considered with the provisions of +
sub-Sections (3) and (4) of s.13 and Part II of the Third
Schedule. [Para 21 and 22] (697-D; 699-F-H; 700-A]

E 2.3. Sub-section (3) of s.13 lays down that the medical
qualifications granted by medical institutions outside
India (before such date as the Central Government may, ~
by notification in the Official Gazette specify) which are •
included in Part II of the Third Schedule shall also b~. ;
F recognized medical qualifications for the purposes of the -·;:.
Act. However, the said sub- Section itself carves out an :.
exception that no person possessing any such
qualification shall be entitled to enrolment on any State ....,.-
Medical Register unless he is a citize1-. of India and has
undergone such practical training after obtaining that
G qualification as may be required by the rules or~,;
regulations in force in the country granting the
qualification or if he has not undergone any practical
training in that country, he has undergone such practical
training as may be prescribed. [Para 22] (698-0-G]
H
YASH AHUJA AND ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF 671
INDIA & ORS.
2.4. It is an admitted position that the date specified A
~·
by the Central Government u/s 13(3) in the Official Gazette
is March 15, 2002. It means that the medical qualifications
granted Uy medical institutions outside India before
March 15, 2002, which are included in Part II of the Third
Schedule, shall be recognized medical qualifications but B
no person possessing any such qualification shall be
entitled to enrolment on any State Medical Register if he
is not a citizen of India and has not undergone practical
training after obtaining that qualification as may be
-+ required by the rules or regulations in force in that c
country or if has not undergone practical training
prescribed under the Act or rules or regulations. [Para 21]
[698-G-H; 699-A-B]

3.1. Sub-Section (4A) of s.13 provides that a person
who is a citizen of India and obtains medical qualification D
..; granted by any medical institution in any country outside
India recognized for enrolment as medical practitioner in
that country after the date to be specified by the Central
Government, shall not be entitled to be eQrolled on any
Medical Register maintained by a State Medical Council E
or to have his name entered in the Indian Medical
Council, unless he qualifies the screening test in India
""' prescribed for the purpose and such foreign medical
.,I.. qualification shall be deemed to be recognized medical
qualification for the purposes of the Act for that person F
only after such person qualifies the said screening test.
Sub-Section (48) mentions that a person, who is citizen
of India, shall not, after the date to be specified by the
Central Government, be eligible to get admission to
obtain medical qualification granted by any medical G
institution in any foreign country unless he obtains an
.... eligibility certificate to be issued by the Council. It further
~

provides that in case such person obtains such
qualification without obtaining such eligibility certificate,
he will not be eligible to appear in the screening test H
672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
.,_

A referred to in sub-Section (4A). The proviso to sub-
section (48) enacts a rule that an Indian citizen, who has
acquired the medical qualification from foreign medical
institution or has obtained admission in a foreign medical
institution before the commencement of the Indian
B Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 2001, will not be
required to obtain eligibility certificate but if he is qualified .
to any medical course for recognized medical
qualification in any medical institution in India, he will have
to qualify the screening test for enrolment on any State
c Medical Register or for entering his name in the Indian
Medical Register. [Para 23] [701-A-H; 702-A]

3.2. It would not be correct to say that ss. 13(4A) and
13(48) cannot be applied to s. 12 of the Act, but may apply
to Part II of the Third Schedule, which includes those
D institutions with which there is no scheme of reciprocity.
[Para 27] [703-G-H]
+
3.3. Sub-sections (4A), (48) and (4C) of s.13 of the· Act
were brought on the Statute book by Act 34 of 2001, with
E effect from September 3, 2001. On analysis of sub-Section
(4A) it becomes sufficiently clear that it would apply when ,
three conditions are satisfied, namely, (i) when a citizen
of India obtains medical qualification granted by any
medical institution in any country outside India, (ii) the.
F medical qualification obtained must have been .
recognized for enrolment as medical practitioner in that
country and (iii) the medical qualification must have been
obtained after the date to be specified by the Central
Government. (Para 28] (704-A-C]

G 3.4. The phrase "medical qualification granted by any
medical institution in any country outside India"
employed in sub-Section (4A) of s.13 of the Act is not
restrictive in its application at all and takes within its
sweep the medical qualifications granted by any medical
H institution in any country outside India with which a
YASH AHUJA AND ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF 673
INDIA & ORS.

.-+ scheme of reciprocity for the purpose of recognition of A
medical qualification is in force as well as the cases
covered by sub-Sections (3) and (4) of s.13 of the Act.
[Para 28] [704-C-D]

3.5. It is relevant to notice that s. 11 of the Act refers B
to the First Schedule whereas s.12 refer~ to the Second
Schedule and s.13(1) and 13(2) refer to Part I of the Third
Schedule and ss~ 13(3) and 13(4) refer to Part II of the
Third Schedule. However, sub-Sections (4A) and (48) of
s.13 do not refer to any Schedule at all because by those
sub-Sections general provisions are enacted which apply
c
to all the cases where a citizen of India has obtained or
!s desirous of obtaining medical qualification granted by
any medical institution in any country outside India. [Para
28] [704-0-F]
D
-1· 4.1. Even if the material words of s.13(4A) are capable
of bearing two constructions, the most firmly established
rule for construction of such words is the rule of
"purposive construction or mischief rule". This rule
enables consideration of four matters in construing an E
Act - (1) what was the law before the making of the Act,
(2) what was the mischief or defect for which the law did
• not provide, (3) what is remedy that the Act has provided
~ and (4) what is the reason of the remedy. The rule then
directs that the courts must adopt that construction F
which suppresses the mischief and advances the
< remedy. [Para 29] [705-8-D]
l'

4.2. The law before the enactment of sub-Section 4(A)
of s.13 was that medical qualifications granted by
medical institutions in countries with which there was a G
A. --f scheme of reciprocity included in the Second Schedule,
were recognized qualifications for the purposes of the
Act. This law continues to be in force even after the
enactment of sub-Section (4A). However, over a period
of time, it had come to the notice of the Legislature that H
.~ .

674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A a large number of private agencies _sponsored students
for medical studies in institutions outside India for
+-- '
commercial consideration. It was noticed that such
students also included those who did not fulfill the
minimum eligibility requirements for admission to medical
B courses in India. Serious aberrations were noticed in the
standard of medical education in some of the foreign
countries,· which were not on par with the standards of
medical education available in India. These were:the
defects and/or mischiefs noticed for which no provision
c was made either in s.12 or sub-Sections (3) and (4) of s.13 ~
of the Act. It was, therefore, felt ntcessary by Parliament
to make a provision to enable th Council to conduct a
screening test. This is the remed~ that sub-Section (4A)
has provided. This remedy is prescribed to satisfy the MCI
with regard .to the adequacy of knowledge and skills
D
acquired by citizens of India, who obtain medical
qualifications from Universities or medical institutions +.
outside India and to ensure that those students have "
secured the standards of medical education in the
foreign countries, which are at par with standards of
E medical education in India. The remedies mentioned in
ss.13(4A) and 13(48) are prescribed because citizens of
India, who have obtained medical qualifications from
Universities or medical institutions outside India, would •
be entitled to practice medicine in India and they cannot ......
F be permitted to treat other citizens of India with their half-
baked knowledge and jeopardize their precious lives.
Thus by adopting rule of purposive construction or
mischief ruie, it will have to be held that the provisions of
ic;ub-Section (4A) of s.13 of the Act would also apply to the
G cases covered by s.12 of the Act. (Para 29) [705-D-H; 706-
A-E]

4.3. The scope of Section 13(4A) is quite clear and
>-"" '
covers all foreign medical institutions falling within the
H ambit of ss.12 and 13 of the Act. On a close and careful
YASH AHUJA AND ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF 675
INDIA & ORS.

reading of the provisions of the Amending Act of 2001 A
-t with the Eligibility Requirement Regulations and
~

Screening Test Regulation, both of 2002, it becomes clear
that the MCI is obliged to stipulate the screening test in
the case of all those candidates, who obtained medical
•, qualification from institutions outside India falling within B
the purview of ss.12 and 13 of the Act in view of the
statutory provisions of s.13(4A) of the Act. [Para 30] [707-
8-D]

.... 5. It is true that at one stage the MCI had released a
press note clarifying for the information of general public
c
that eligibility requirements for taking admission in an
undergraduate medical course mentioned in Foreign
Medical Institutions Regulations, 2002 and the Screening
Test Regulation, 2002 would not be applicable to the
students joining an undergraduate medical course in D
-< foreign countries, recognised and included in the Second
Schedule u/s 12 of the Act. However, this was the
'
....,,;; understanding of MCI, which is one of the parties before
the Court.The press release cannot be interpreted as
precluding MCI from canvassing correct import of the E
provisions of the Act. In any view of the matter, the press
release by MCI cannot preclude the court from placing
~ correct interpretation of the Act. [Para 30] [706-G-H; 707-
..,I..
A-8, D-E]
F
6.1. It would not be correct to say, If the provisions
of the Screening Test Regulations, 2002 are made
applicable to the citizens of India, who have obtained
medical qualifications granted by Universities or medical
~
institutions outside India, a serious anQmaly would arise
\ G
as all those students who are similarly placed as the
_,., ../
appellants, but who are not Indian citizens, would be
entitled to be enrolled on Medical Register maintained by
the State Medical Council or to have their names entered·
in the Indian Medical Register without undergoing the
H
676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A screening test whereas the appellants and other . -+-
students, who are citizens of India, would not be so
entitled without qualifying the screening test, which
would be discriminatory, is merely stated to be rejected.
[Para 31] [707-E-H]
,·'
B
6.2. It must be remembered that the appellants are
students of Manipal College of Medical Sciences,
Pokhara, Nepal, who have obtained MBBS degree
granted by Kathmandu University.. They have not laid
any factual data to indicate that in Nepal education +
c system of 10+2 is prevalent and that a student becomes
entitled to get admission to medi~al course only after he
clears Central Admission Test in order of merits. The
Indian Parliament never found that either large number
of students of Nepal or students· belonging to other
D countries but stliC:ying in Manipal College of Medical
Sciences, Pokhara, who are desirous of practicing
t
medicine in India, vvere sponsored by private agencies of
those countries for mcd:~al studies in the said institute
for commercial consideration. It is not the case of the
-- "

E appellants that students of Nepal or students of other
countries prosecuting medical studies in Manipal College
of Medical Sciences were/are not fulfilling the minimum ,.
eligibility requirements for admission to medical ·courses
,J,-
prescribed in their respective countries. Tile appellants
F failed to bring on record the facts, which would prima
facie show that the standards of medical education
prescribed either by the Government of Nepal or by Nepal
Medical Council are at par with the standards of medical
education available in India. Under such circumstances, I

G there was no scope for Parliament of India to prescribe
that students· of Nepal or students of other countries '~
)>.-
prosecuting medical studies in Manipal College of
Medical Sciences should als<?. qualify the screening test
prescribed before they ar~ enrolled on Medical Register
H
YASH AHUJA AND ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF 677
INDIA & ORS.
maintained by the State Medical Council or get their A
-t
names entered in Indian Medical Register. [Para 31] (707-
H; 708-A-Fl

7 .1. It cannot be said that the provisions of sub-
Sections (4A) and (48) of s.13 of the Act are prospective 8
in nature and as the appellants have not incurred any
disqualification after obtaining medical qualification of
MBBS degree from Kathmandu University, which is
4
included in the Second Schedule and, therefore, they
cannot be asked to qualify the screening test. It is an
admitted fact that the date specified by the Central
c
Government under sub-Section (3) of s.13 is March 15,
2002. Therefore, in view of the stipulations contained in
sub-Section (4A) of s. 13 of the Act, the provisions of said
sub-Sections would be applicable with effect from March
15, 2002. The effect of specification of the said date i's that D
' ~
a person who is citizen of India and obtains medical
qualification granted by any medical institution in any
country outside India, recognized for enrolment as
medical practitioner in that country, shall not be entitled
to be enrolled on Medical Register maintained by a State E
Medical Council or to have his name entered in the Indian
~
Medical Register after March 15, 2002, unless he qualifies
the screening test prescribed. [Para 32] [708-G-H; 709-A-·
--:},
C]
F
7.2. As made clear by the MCI, the provisions of sub-
Section (4A) of s.13 of the Act are applicable to all the
medical qualifications included in the Second Schedule.
It is an admitted position that the appellants and others
have applied for provisional registration/ permanent
G
registration after March 15, 2002. Therefore, the
• ..( appellants have to appear in the screening test
conducted by the National Board of Examination in terms
of the Screening Test Regulations made by the MCI.
H
678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A There is no doubt that the provisions of sub-Section (4A)
of s.13 of the Act are not being applied retrospectively -1- ,
but from the date specified by the Central· Government.
[Para 32] [709-C-E-G]

Sanjeev Gupta and others vs. Union of India (2005) 1
8
sec 45, relied on.
Case Law Reference:
(2005) 1 see 45 relied on para 13
c CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
6370 of 2009.

From the Judgment & Order dated 26.9.2008 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. No. 8056 of 2007.
D
WITH
W.P. (C) No. 154 of 2009.

C.A. Nos. 6371 and 6372 of 2009.
E.
A.K. Ganguli, C.A. Sundaram, P.H. Parekh, Dr. Rajeev
Dhavan, T.S. boabla, Sunil Gupta, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha,
Abhijeet Chatterjee, Harshvardhan Jha, Subodh Kr. Pathak, S.C
Ghosh, B. Patnaik, Rohini Nusa, Abhishek Gupta, Sushila Ram,
Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Maninder Singh, Gaorav Sharma,
F Sumeet Bhatia, Surbhi Mehta, Lakshmi Raman Singh, Kishan
Kumar. Sunita Sharma, S.S. Rawat, Rashml Malhotra, (for D.S.
Mahra), Radha Shyam Jena, (NP), Braj Kishore Mishra, Apama
Jha, Abhishek Yadav, Vikram, Tanushree Sinha, Jasbir Singh
Malik, ({or S.K. Sabharwal) and S. Rajappa for the appearing
G parties. ·
....
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by >·
J.M. PANCHAL, J. 1, Leave granted in all the Special
H Leave Petitions.
YASH AHUJA AND ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF 679
. INDIA & ORS. [J.M. PAN~HAL, J.]

~
2. The appellants in appeal arising out Special Leave A
Petition (C) No. 26777 of 2008 have challenged validity of
common Judgment dated September 26, 2008 rendered by the
High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 8056 of 2007 and other
cognate petitions by which the prayer made by them to direct
the Medical Council of India to grant forthwith the provisional B
as well as permanent registration to them, as they have
acquired medical qualifications granted by the Manipal College
of Medical Science, Pokhara, Nepal which are recognized by
Medical Council of India, without insisting that they should qualify
the screening test, is rejected. c
3. In order to appreciate the controversy raised before this
Court, it would be advantageous to notice certain facts, which
are as under:

Earlier the medical education in India was governed by the D
~ provisions of Indian Medical Council Act, 1933. Thereunder also
the Medical Council of India ('MCI' for short) was constituted
on which certain powers were conferred and duties were
imposed. However, with the passage of time, it was noticed
that there was no representation to licentiate members of the E
medical profession nor there was provision:

~ (a) to provide for registration of the names of citizens
..;.. of India who had obtained foreign medical
qualifications which were not recognized by the
Indian Medical Council Act, 1933; F

(b) . to provide for temporary recognition of medical
qualifications granted by medical institutions in
countries outside India with which scheme of
reciprocity ·exists; G
,,._~
(c) to provide for the formation of a committee of
postgraduate medical education for the purpose of
assisting the MCI to prescribe standards of
postgraduate medical education for the guidance
H
680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

..
A of Universities and;
~
(d) to provide for the maintenance of an All-India
register by the MCI.

Thus it became necessary to bring a legislation to provide for
B the reconstitution of MCI and the maintenance of a medical '
.I

register for India and for matters connected therewith. That is
how, the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ('the Act' for short)
came to be enacted by Parliament repealing the Act of 1933.

c 4. Section 12 of the Act deals with recognition of medical +-
qualifications granted by medical institutions in countries with
which there is a scheme of reciprocity. The MCI is empowered
to enter into negotiations with the authority in any country outside
India which by law of such country is entrusted with the
D maintenance of a register of medical practitioners, for settling
a scheme of reciprocity for the recognition of medical
qualifications. Once such a scheme is settled, the Central >-·
Government is authorized to amend the second schedule so
as to include therein the medical qualification which the council
has decided should be recognised. The medical qualifications
E
granted by medical institutions outside India which are included
in the second schedule are recognized medical qualifications.

5. The Nepal authority had forwarded a scheme for grant ~

of recognition of MBBS qualifications conferred by Kathmandu Jt·
F University, in respect of students of Manipal College of Medical
~

Sciences. Pokhara, Nepal. Jhe MCI entered into negotiation
with the Nepal Authority for settling a scheme of reciprocity for
recognition of medical qualifications. One of the conditions of
recognition was that the·college would not admit more than 100 •'
G students annually. On the request of Ministry of health,
Government of India, the MCI inspected the said college in the
year 2000. The college was assessed and evaluated in the light ..,.. A

of minimum standards prescribed by the MCI relating to
infrastructure, teaching facilities, etc. After inspection, a report
H was submitted to Government of India. On the basis of the said
YASH AHUJA AND ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF 681
INDIA & ORS. [J.M. PANCHAL, J.]

report, scheme of reciprocity was settled after which the A
Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
(Department of health) issued notification dated September 26,
2001, amending Second Schedule to the Act by inserting an
entry to the effect that the qualification of MBBS granted by
Kathmandu University shall be recognized as medical B
qualification when granted in or after July, 1999, in respect of
students of Manipal College of Medical Sciences, Pokhara.

6. Over a period of time, it was noticed that a large number
of private agencies sponsored Indian students for medical
studies in institutions outside India for commercial
c
considerations. Such students also included the students who
failed to fulfill the minimum eligibility requirements for admission
to medical courses in India. Serious aberrations were noticed
in the standards of medical education available in some of the
foreign countries which were not at par with the standards of D
~ medical education available in India. Due to lack of uniformity
in the standards of medical education in various foreign
countries, it was decided to make a provision in the Act to
enable the MCI to conduct a screening test in order to satisfy
itself with regard to the adequacy of knowledge and skills E
acquired by citizens of India who obtain medical qualifications
from universities or medical institutions outside India before
-c
they are granted registration to practice medicine in India.
-.;. Accordingly the Act was amended by the Indian Medical Council
(Amendment) Act, 2001 and new Section 13(4A) was inserted, F
which requires that a person who is citizen of India and obtains
medical qualification granted by any medical institution in any
country outside India recognized for enrolment as medical
practitioner in that country after such date as may be specified
by the Central Government under sub- Section (3) shall not be G
,,., entitled to enrolled on any medical register maintained by a
--( State Medical Council or to have his name entered in the Indian
Medical Register, unless he qualifies the screening test in India
prescribed for such purpose and such foreign medical
qualification after such person qualifies the said screening test H
682 · SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A shall be deemed to be the recognized medical qualification for - i-
the purpose of this Act for that person.

7. The Ministry of Health, Government of India, by letter
dated January 11-16, 2007, asked the MCI to oconduct an
~
B inspection of Universal College of Medical Sciences,
Bhairahwa, Nepal and other institutions in Nepal recognised for
granting MBBS degree under the Act to re-assess the facilities
available there as doctors coming out of those colleges were
eligible to practice medicine in India. Accordingly the inspection +
team of MCI.went to Pokhara to inspect the college on January
c 19-20, 2007 to re-assess the infrastructural, teaching and other
facilities available at the said college for grant of qualifications
recognized and included in the Second Schedule to the Act.

The Dean of the college did not permit the inspection of
,_•
,
D the college despite repeated requests. However, he permitted ~.
the members of the Inspection Team to visit the college and the
hospital on January 19, 2007, asserting that the colleges
recognized by the MCI and included fn the Second Schedule
to the Act were not subject to re-assessment by the MCI.
E Though the inspection team was not permitted to re-inspect the
college, the said team visited the college on January 19, 2007
and prepared a report indicating the deficiencies noticed ...
during the visit. The report prepared was considered by the
~'
Executive Committee of the MCI in its meeting held on February ~

F 5, 2007, wherein the members of the ad-hoc committee
appointed by the Supreme Court were also present. Having
. regard to the deficiencies pointed out in the report, it was
resolved by the Executive Committee, to carry out an inspection
to re-assess the under graduate teaching and training facilities
• '

available at the said college. Accordingly a fax message dated
G
February 19, 2007 was dispatched to the Principal of the )-- ...... 1-

college that an inspection would be carried out by the Council
Inspectors on 21st and 22nd February, 2007. The Principal was
also instructed to fill a set of standard inspection forms A and
Band declaration contained in Forms C and D and handover
H
YASH AHUJA AND ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF 683
. INDIA & ORS. [J.M. PANCHAL, J.]
...)
the same to the Council Inspectors. The acting Dean of the A
college faxed a letter dated February 19, 2007 to the Secretary,
MCI protesting attempt by the MCI to reinspect the college and
stated that the Dean was abroad on a study visit and, therefore,
--('
the visit by the team should be deferred till his return. In
continuation of faxed letter dated February 19, 2007, the acting B
/ Principal of the College addressed another letter dated
February 21, 2007 mentioning that the inspection was not
feasible in view of the earlier stand tha~ the College was not
subject to re-assessment. Thereupon, the Executive Committee
of the MCI wrote a letter dated February 23, 2007 to the c
Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Health and
forwarded the report dated January 19, 2007, wherein certain
deficiencies noticed were mentioned. By the said letter the
... Executive Committee informed the Government of India that a
decision was taken to re-inspect the College and not to grant
D
provisional/final registration under Section 12(2) of the Act, till
"'· the matter was finally decided. However, the record shows that
in spite of protest lodged by the acting Principal of the said
College, the Inspectors of Council went to Pokhara and carried
out inspection on February 21 & 22, 2007. The Inspectors
submitted their inspection report which was considered by the E
Executive Committee of the MCI in its meeting held on March
~
3, 2007. The Committee took into consideration the stand of
+ the College that it was not subject to another inspection as well

.... as reports indicating several deficiencies which were noticed
by the Inspecting Team of MCI during the visit of the College. F
The Executive Committee of the MCI took a decision to
recommend to the general body of the MCI to withdraw the
recognition granted to Manipal College of Medical Sciences,
Pokhara, Nepal, for the award of MBBS degree granted by
Kathmandu University under Section 12(3) of ttie Act and not G
"" ·-;( to grant provisional/final registration under Section 12(2) of the
Act, to any student passing from the said Institute who has not
passed the screening test. The meeting of the General Body
of MCI was convened on March 10, 2007, to consider the
recommendation made by the Executive Committee. The H
684. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A General Body approved the recommendation made by the
Executive Committee. The decision taken by the General Body .(..

of MCI was communicated to the Government of India vide letter.
dated May 29, 2007. The case of Manipal College of Medical
Sciences, Pokhara, is that the recognition granted to the
B College under Section 12(2) of the Act is on reciprocal basis "
between the concerned authorities in India and Nepal and,
therefore, it is its understanding that the College/University is
not subject to re-assessment and in any event without informing
or obtaining approval of Nepal Government/Nepal Medical
Council/Kathmandu University, such re-assessment of College +
c
by MCI is not proper.

8. The appellants who were the students. of the Manipal
College of Medical Sciences, Pokhara and had obtained
MBBS qualification from Kathmandu University were issued ,
D provisional registration certificates by MCI and had started their
internship from the Medical Colleges recognized l"ly the MCI. ~-

However, on completion of internship, they were denied
permanent registration on the ground that they had not cleared
the prescribed screening test.
. E
9. In Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 28228 of 2008 the appellants were students, who had
graduated from the Manipal College of OMedical Sciences, ,..
Pokhara, Nepal. They applied to the Medical Council of India
...+-
F to grant provisional registration to enable them to start
internship. Sometime in April, 2007 some of the appellants, who k
were already granted temporary registration by the Medical
Council of India, approached the Medical Council of India for 1-
permanent registration. The appellants from both the categories
r-
were denied registration by the Medical Council of India. The
G
denial was communicated through a letter in which the students
were informed that Council Inspectors, who had visited the ,.
r
Manipal College of Medical Sciences on 19th and 20th January,
2007, had found certain infrastructural deficiencies in the
College and, therefore, it was decided to deny registration on
H
YASH AHUJA AND ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF 685
INDIA & ORS. [J.M. PANCHAL, J.]

, ~-
the ground that the recommendation was made to the Central A
Government that Manipal College of Medical Sciences be
derecognized. Therefore, the students invoked extra ordinary
jurisdiction of Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 8056 of 2007
and prayed to direct the Medical Council of India to grant 8
registration of the MBBS degrees awarded to them without
insistence to clear the screening test prescribed. The Division
Bench of the High Court heard the said petition along with batch
-t of other petitions and dismissed the same by judgment dated
September 26, 2008 giving rise to the Special Leave Petition c
(C) No. 28228 of 2008.
10. In appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.
28487 of 2008 the appellants were the students of Manipal
College of Medical Sciences, Pokhara, Nepal. Some of the
students had cipplied for provisional registration as well as D
~.
permanent registration. However, the registration claimed by
the students was denied to them. Therefore, they had filed writ
petitions before the Delhi High Court praying the Court to direct
the Medical Council of India to grant provisional registration
and/or permanent registration without insisting for clearance of E
screening test. In those petitions interim orders were passed
<'i
and Medical Council of India was directed to -'grant provisional
registration to those petitioners. The interim orders passed by
-+ the learned single Judge of Delhi High Court were challenged
...... in Letters Patent Appeal No. 327 of 2008 on the ground that F
the interim orders passed virtually granted the main relief
claimed in the petitions. The Letters Patent Appeal was
disposed of by order dated ,July 7, 2008 by giving direction to
dispose of the writ petitions expeditiously. The Division Bench
of the High Court dismissed the petitions by judgment dated G
' ~
September 26, 2008 by directing that the students should
~
undergo a screening test as prescribed by law. The appellants
herein were not parties to the writ petitions, but they were
aggrieved by judgment dated September 26, 2008 and,
therefore, they filed the Special Leave Petition No. 28487 of H
686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R:

A 2008 seeking permission to file the special leave petition.

11. In Writ Petition (C) No. 154 of 2009 the petitioners
were students of Institute of Medicine Tribhuvan Unive~itY: They
completed the MBBS degree course successfully. Therefore,
.the Tribhuvan University . had given some of the petitioners
B ' provisional certificates dated April 15, 2008. The Medical
Council of India released a press note dated October 8, .2008 .
withdrawing the recognition granted to Manipal Col~~g~ of
Medical Sciences, Pokhara and Universal College of M~di~al (
Sciences, Bhaiarahwa, Nepal, as there were certain complaints · +
C against both the institutions. While dealing with the complaints
against the aforesaid two institutions the Medical Council of
India also mentioned in the last paragraph of the press note
that earlier a press note on the website of MCI stating that the
provisions of Eligibility Certificate Regulations, 2002 and the ' · '--
0 Screening Test Regulations, 2002 would· not be applicable toJ: , ~
the foreign medical institutions recognised i.;nJer Section 12: ::i ~-
of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, was withdrawn with- i:
immediate effect. The effect of withdrawal of earlier press note : ·
is that the provisions of Eligibility Certificate Regulations 2002
E and the Screening Test Regulation 2002 would be applicable
to the students of foreign ·medical institutions recognised
under Section 12 of the Act and all students, who have obtained ... c
medical qualifications from foreign medical institutions,·:willLB 1"
have to qualify the screening test. Thus the grievance oMhe>up.+
F petitioner~ was that.they have been informed.that the MBBS1uc- _,,..
degrees would not be recognized without screening test ·rior- L
permanent registration certificates would be given to such= ·.. :.
students, who have already taken provisional registration·~ r

certificates. Therefore, the petitioners have invoked jurisdiction-.~. ··
G of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution by filing above-> ·:
numbered writ petition and prayed to quash the last paragraph'( ......
of press note dated October 8, 2008, which, according to them, :cy
affects them/students, who have been trained at the Institute of
Medicine, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal. It may ~, ·
H mentioned that the writ petition was placed for admis:sion "-7;~ 1 i
I
YASH AHUJA AND ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF 687
INDIA/& ORS. [J.M. PANCHAL, J.]

· hearing on April 20, 2009 and after hearing the learned counsel A
->-- for the petitioners notice was ordered to be issued to the
respondents and the petition was directed to be listed with
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 26777 of 2008 entitled Yash
Ahuja and others vs. Medical Council of India and others.
B
12. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties
at length and in great detail. This Court has also considered
the documents brought on record of the appeals and the
~· petition.

13. What is argued by the learned counsel for the C
appellants is that the Second Schedule and Part II of the Third
Schedule exhaust the medical qualifications granted by medical
institutions outside India, which are recognized as medical
qualifications for the purpose of the Act, whereas sub-Sections
(4A), (48) and (4C) of Section 13 deal with the residual subject D
-'\of individual recognition of medical qualifications obtained by
Indian citizens from the institutions outside India, which are not
specified in any of the three Schedules and, therefore, the
appellants cannot be subjected to a screening test postulated
by sub-Section (4A) of Section 13 of the Act as the appellants E
possess the medical qualification mentioned in the Second
Schedule. According to the learned counsel, the provisions of
. ~ sub-Section (4A) requiring a person who obtains medical
-+qualification granted by any medical institution in any country
outside India, to qualify the screening test and the provisions F
~ of sub-Section (48) requiring a citizen of India to obtain an
eligibility certificate to be eligible to get admission in any
medical institution in any foreign country and debarring him
from appearing in the screening test if he obtains such medical
qualification without obtaining eligibility certificate, are residual G
provisions as well as exceptions to Section 14 of the Act
- --J)roviding a special provision in certain cases for recognition
of medical qualifications granted by medical institutions in
countries with which there is no scheme of reciprocity and,
therefore, the appellants would not be liable to qualify the H
688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (AODL.) S.C.R.

A screening test when they have obtained medical qualifications ..f_-
included in the Second Schedule of the Act, which are medical
.qualifications for the purposes of the Act. It was asserted that
Sections 13(4A) and (48) cannot be read together with Section
12 of the Act because Section 12 is a self contained code
B whereas Part II of the Third Schedule includes those institutions
which are not subject to reciprocity scheme on which Second
Schedule is based and, therefore, the MCI cannot insist that
the appellants must qualify screening test mentioned in Section
13(4A) of the Act. What was asserted was that the intention of ~

c the Parliament in providing screening test under Section 13(4A)
and requiring to obtain eligibility certificate for admission and,
thereafter passing screening test contemplated under Section
13(48) is that they should be regarded as additional
requirements restricted to the institutions mentioned .in Part 1,1
of the Third Schedule and, therefore; the impugned judgment •';:-
D ,,.._
should be reversed. According to the learned counsel for the
appellants, the words in Section 13(4A); to the effect "obtains
medical qualification granted by any medical institution in any -.
country outside India" cannot be given an expanded meaning
because Section 13 itself excludes Scheduled One and
E Schedule Two and as Section 13 is ambiguous, the language
of the heading should be referred to for adopting interpretation
that Section 13(4A) would not apply to those Indian citizens ~o
have obtained medical qualifications included in Second
""
.+
Schedule. The learned counsel for the appellants emphasized
F that if the provisions of the Screening Test Regulations 2002
are made applicable to the Indian citizens who have obtained
medical qualificatic:ms included in the Second Schedule to the
Act, a serious anomaly would arise in as much as all those
students who are similarly plac~d as tne appellants but who are
G not Indian citizens would be entitled to be enrolled on any
Medical Register maintained by a State Medical Council or to )- .....
have their names-.entered in the Indian Medical Register witho' it
undergoing the screening test whereas the appellants and other
students who are Indian citizens would not be entitled to such
H a privilege without qualifying screening test which would be
YASH AHUJA AND ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF 68~
INDIA & ORS. [J.M. PANCHAL, J.]

discriminatory and as such classification cannot be sustained A
-.>-
in view of Article 14 of the Constitution. The stand of the M,CI
that the appellants and other similarly placed students, who have
obtained medical qualifications included in the Second
Schedule, must qualify the screening test, should not be upheld
by the Court. According to the learned counsel for the appellants B
'
the MCI itself had held out and clarified for the· information of
the general public that the eligibility requirements for taking
admission in an undergraduate medical course in Foreign
..... Medical Institution, the Regulations of 2002 and the Screening
Test Regulations, 2002, would not apply to the students who join c
an undergraduate medical course in foreign countries
recognized and included in the Second Schedule under Section
12 of the Act and, therefore, also it should be held that the MCI
'
is not justified in asking the appellants to qualify the screening
< test. In the alternative, it was argued that the provisions of sub- D
~ Sections 13 (4A) and (48) are prospective in nature and,
therefore, the appellants cannot be asked to clear the
" screening test before getting their names enrolled on the
Medical Register maintained by a State Medical Council or to
have their names entered in the Indian Medical Register. It was
E:
contended that the screening test stipulation is not being applied
to the students who obtain medical qualifications granted by
41 medical institutions mentioned in the Second Schedule to the
Act and, therefore, reliefs prayed for should be granted by the
+ Court. It may be mentioned that the Union of India has supported
the claim of the appellants. F

14. The learned counsel for the MCI contended that even
de hors the provisions of Amendment Act of 2001, the Council
is empowered and obliged under the statutory scheme of the
Act in going behind the degree for scrutinizing and evaluating G
..-, the foreign medical qualification secured by a candidate
~
seeking registration from the Council under the Act and,
therefore, the appellants are not entitled to seek direction from
this Court that the MCI should grant provisional/ permanent
registration to them. According to the learned counsel, H
~
690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009114 {ADDL.) S.C.R. '

A screening test is required to be undergone in several countries
like U.K., U.S.A., etc. where doctors from abroad with a foreign _{_-
degree intend to start medical practice and, therefore, adoption
of a similar system in India cannot be regarded as
unreasonable. It was pointed out that closer and careful reading
B of the provisions of the Amending Act of 2001 read with the
Eligibility Req'uirement Regulations and Screening Test
Regulations of 2002 makes it sufficiently clear that the Council
is under a statutory obligation to prescribe the screening te~~ ~
for all those candidates who obtained/obtain medical,,
c qualifications from institutions outside India falling within the,_ ~
purview of Sections 12 and 13 of the Act and, therefore, the~
appellants are rightly non-suited by Delhi High Court. Placing 11 ,
reliance on the decisions in Ms. Anuradha Saini vs. Union of
India decided on 1107-2002 by the Delhi High Court and
Sanjeev Gupta vs. Union of India (2005) 1 SCC 45 it was /
D ~
pleaded that it is permissible to the MCI to adopt any
reasonable methodology for scrutiny and evaluation of the ?--
teaching and training imparted to the candidates holding /

qualifications mentioned in the Second Schedule to the Act and
since the procedure and methodology of the conduct of
E screening test is approved by this Court, the MCI is justified in
asking·the appellants and other similarly placed candidates to
qualify the screening test. According to the learned counsel for !I,
the MCI, all colleges seeking recognition or continuation of, : 1 , 1 ~

recognition under Section 12 of the Act have to fulfill the -. :.;c
F minimum requirements laid down by the MCI for medical +
'>11
institution in India because under the provisions of Section 12 .. '

the citizens of foreign countries are also entitled to practice
medicine in India and therefore the provisions of Section 10
8(3) laying down that if any medical college increases its
G e1dmission capacity without obtaining the prior permission of
the Government of India, the medical qualification obtained from ?•C

such college becomes unrecognized, have been enacted. What ,....,
')-
is stressed is that the true intent and scope of Section 13(4A)
is quite clear and as the said sub-section covers all medical_
H qualifications mentioned in Sections 12 and 13 of the Act, the
YASH AHUJA AND ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF 691
INDIA & ORS. [J.M. PANCHAL, J.]

plea that Section 13(4A) should be treated as a proviso should A
->-- not be accepted. It was argued that by a resolution, the General
Body of MCI ·has corrected its understanding of the matter by
declaring that the screening test would be necessary for
candidates holding medical qualifications falling within the
-i purview of Sections 12 and 13 of the Act and the registration 8
of the candidates for research, training, charity etc. mentioned
in Section 14 of the Act is not subject to qualifying the screening
test by virtue of Section 13(4C) but not because Se~tion 14 is
an exception to Sections 13(4A) and 13(4B), as has been
contended by the appellants. It was pointed out that the so
called clarification made by MCI was with reference to the
c
provisions of Section 13(48) and even otherwise, the MCI on
a reconsideration of the proposition of law can comprehend a
different construction and as the construction and/or
interpretation of statutory provisions cannot rest entirely on the
D
stand adopted by any party in the tis, the attempt to bind down
""I the MCI to the clarification made is of little assistance to the
appellants. Answering the contention raised on behalf of the
•, appellants that the screening test is not being applied to all the
foreign medical institutions mentioned in Section 12 of the Act,
it was pointed out that the General Body of the Council in its E
Meeting held on March 1, 2009 resolved that each of the Indian
citizens who secures a medical qualification from a foreign
c
medical institution falling within the purview of Section 12 or
+ Section 13, shall be obliged to qualify the screening test and
therefore it is not correct to say that only students of Manipal F
,. College of Medical Sciences, Pokhara are subjected to the
screening test. It was pleaded that specification of the cut off
date of March 15, 2002 by the Ministry of Health, Government
1111!'"
of India for the applicability of the regulations relating to the
screening test, does not affect any vested right of the appellants G
as it is always open to the authority to create and impose
.#
~ stipulations which are applicable from a particular cut off date
and as such there is no· question of vested rights being taken
away with retrospective operation. What was emphasized was
that over a period of time it had come to the notice of the H
.692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 14 (ADDL) S.C.R.

A legislature that a large number of private agencies had
sponsored students for medical studies in the iostitutions
outside India for commercial consideration who had even not
fulfilled the minimum eligibility requirements and therefore the
Act was amended pursuant to which regulations have been
8 framed and the appellants who have acquired M.B.B.S.
qualification from Kathmandu University mentioned in second
schedule to the 'Act are asked to qualify the prescribed
screening test in larger interest of public but are not debarred .
from starting any medical practice in India in accordance with
C law and, therefore, the appeals and the petitions filed under
Article 32 should be dismissed.

15. As far as the issue of inspection of Manipal College
of Medical Sciences, Pokhara by team of the MCI is concerned,
.·this Court finds· that by a communication dated january 11,
D 2007 the Central G::vernment had requested the MCI to inspect
Universal College of Medical Sciences, Bhairahwa, Nepal to·
reassess the facilities etc. made available to the students as
the said college was !est !:ispected by the MCI in April, 2000.
It was also mentioned in the said letter that medical institutions
E in Nepal, recognized for granting MBBS degree under the Act
also be inspected by MCI to assess the present quality of
medical education being imparted there, as the doctors
coming out of these colleges are eligible to practice medicine
, in India. By the said letter, the MCI w2s asked to intimate
F Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
about the action taken by it. The Manipal College of Medical
Sciences, Pokhara is situated in Nepal.. The medical
qualification of MBBS granted by Kathmandu University in
respect of the students of the said college is recognized under
G the ·_.·Act. Therefore, there is no manner of doubt that the MCI
was authoriz~~ by the Central Government to inspect the said
college to assess the facilities offered by the said college. The
MCI has asserted that the said college was inspected by its
inspectors on January 19-20, 2007 and it was found that the
H college is/was admitting 150 students annually though its intake
YASH AHUJA AND ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF 693
INDIA & ORS. [J.M. PANCHAL, J.]

capacity recognized by Government of India as well as by the A
->-
MCI is only 100 students per year. According to the MCI it had
addressed a communication dated February 23, 2007 to the
Government of India and recommended re-inspection of ~he
college to ascertain whether deficiencies found were removed
by the College. It had also recommended Central Government e
not to grant provisional/permanent registration under Section
12(2) of the Act. The record does not indicate that the
Government of India had opposed the recommendation made
~. by the MCI and probably could not have opposed the
recommendation of MCI to re-inspect the colJege in view of its c
letter dated January 11, 2007. The case of MCI is that the re-
inspection. of the college was attempted to be carried out on
February 22, 2007 but the acting Principal of the college had
not allowed the inspection to be carried out and appropriate
report was submitted. According to the MCI, its General Body
D
~ vide commt,mication dated May 29, 2007 had recommended
to the Government of India to withdraw the recognition granted
--/' to the college. The appellants have asserted that since the
college is recognized under Section 12 of the Act no
reassessment can be done by the MCI without the consent of
E
the Nepal Government and the Nepal Medical Council. It may
be mentioned that in the present proceedings, the question to
~ be decided is whether the MCI is justified in asking the
appellants and others who have obtained MBBS qualification
A
from Kathmandu University to qualify the screening test
prescribed by the Regulations. Though the MCI has F
~
recommended the Central Government to withdraw the
recognition granted to the college, the Central Government
has not initiated any action against the college. The Central
Government has made it clear in its affidavit that Manipal
College of Medical Sciences continues to be recognized under G
... -I the Act. The determination of question posed for consideration
of the Court as to whether those candidates who .have obtained
MBBS qualification from Kathmandu University ,,,;
can be
subjected to the screening test or not d9es nofdepend upon
the fact as to whether the said c~l:cw.J was properly inspected H
.:.:._
~'
694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A by the MCI nor the said question can be decided with reference
to the effect of recommendation made by the General Body of --\-
MCI to the Central Government to de-recognise the colleg~ but
solely depends on the interpretation of different provisions of
the Act. Therefore, this Court refrains from expressing any view .
B on the question whether the college was property inspected by
the MCI or what is the effect of the recommendation made by
the MCI to the Central Government to de-recognise the college.

16.The submission that the Second Schedule and Part II
of the Third Schedule, exhaust the qualifications granted by the
c medical institutions· outside India which are recognized as '
medical qualifications for the purposes of the Act whereas Sub-
Section (4A), (48) and 4(C) of Section 13 deal with the residual
subject of individual recognition of medical qualifications
obtained by Indian citizens from the institutions outside India
D which are not specified in any of the three Schedules and ,
.,.._
therefore the appeliants cannot be subjected to a screP,ning test
. contemplated by Section 13(4A) cannot be ar.cepted.
I?

:17. In order to resolve tile controversy raised before this
E Court, it would be necessary to examine the Scheme envisaged
by the Act.
18. The Preamble to the Act suggests that the Act is >
enacted to provide for the reconstitution of the Medical Council )...
of India and the maintenance of a medical registei for India and
F for matters connected therewith. Section 2 defines certain terms
1?
and states that "Council" means the Medical Council of India
constituted under the Act. Medical institution is defined to mean
any institution, within or without India, which grants degrees,
diplomas or licences of medicine, whereas the term "recognized
G medical qualification" means any of the medical qualifications
included in the Schedules. Section 3 provides for constitution
and composition of the Council whereas Section 7 deals with
~
...
term of office of President, Vice-President and members of the
Council and Section 9 provides for officers, Committees and d
H 'servants of the Council.
YASH AHUJA AND ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF 695
INDIA & ORS. (J.M. PANCHAL, J.]
19. Section 10A, brought on the Statute Book by Act 31 A
- >--
of 1993 with effect from August 27, 1992, deals with
permission for establishment of new medical college, new .
course of study. Sub-Section (1) of Section 10A begins with
non-obstante clause and provides that notwithstanding anything
-l
contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, B
no person shall establish a medical college nor any medical
college shall open a new or higher course of study or otraining
or increase its admission capacity in any course of study or
training, except with the previous permission of the Central
Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of the
said Section. Explanation 1 to Section 10A(1) explains as to
c
what is meant by the word 'person' whereas Explanation 2
mentions as to what is meant by the words 'admission
capacity'. Sub-Section 2 inter alia stipulates that in order to
obtain permission of the Central Government, the person
D
~
desirous of establishing a medical college or a medical college
desirous of opening a new or higher course of study or training
or increasing its admission capacity has to submit a scheme
to the Central Government and the Central Government has to
forward the scheme to the Council for its recommendations.
Sub-Section (3), amongst other things, provides for manner in E
which the scheme forwarded to it has to be evaluated by the
~ Council and Clause {b) mandates that the Council has to
consider the scheme having regard to the factors referred to
~
in sub-Section (7) of Section 1OA. A glance at sub-Section (7)
('
of Section 1OA makes it clear that the intention of the legislature F
in providing the factors is to see that a medical student
acquires proficiency in the science of treatment of human beings
and is not found wanting in any way. Section 108 of the Act
provides the consequences that would follow in case a medical
college is established without previous permission of the G
... "' Central Government or when any medical college opens a Flew
or higher course of study or training and inter alia provides that
when any medical college increases its admission capacity in
any course or training without previous permission of the Central
Government, no medical qualification granted to any student of H
696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A such medical college on the basis of the increase in its
,.(-
admission capacity shall be a recognized medical qualification
for the purposes of.the Act.

20. Recognition of medical qualification by Universities or
medical institutions in India is provided by Section 11. It is
B
mentioned in sub-section 1 of the said Section that the medical
qualifications g~anted by any -·university or medical institution
in India which are included in the First Schedule shall be
recognized medical qualifications for the purposes of the Act.
Sub-Section (2) empowers the Central Government to amend
>--
c the First Schedule, when an application is made either by the
University or medical institution in India so as to include the
- medical qualification not included in the First Schedule but is
granted either by the University or the medical institution. Thus
the First Schedule is not exhaustive and can be amended by
D the Central Government subject to the conditions mentioned in
~-
sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act. Even if the amendment
is made in the First Schedule, Section 11 does not exhaust the
scheme of recognition of medical qualifications granted by the
Universities or medical institutions in India. It was noticed that
E ho provision was made in Section 11 of the Act regarding
recognition of medical qualifications granted by several
medical institutions which are not included in the First Schedule. )>-
Further it was also necessary to recognize the medical
qualifications granted to a citizen of India before August 15, ~

F 1947 by medical institutions in the territories now forming part
of Pakistan and before April 1, 1937, by medical institutions in
the territories now forming part of Burma. Therefore, the
Legislature has enacted Section 13(1) and provided in the said
sub-Section that the medical qualifications granted by medical
G institutions in India which are not included in the First Schedule
and which are included in Part I of the Third Schedule shall also
be recognized qualifications for the purposes of the Act. Sub- ~-
Section (2) of Section 13 lays down that the medical
qualifications granted to a 'Citizen of India (a) before August 15,
1947 by the medical institutions in the territories now forming
H
YASH AHUJA AND ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF 697
lNDIA & ORS. [J.M. PANCHAL, J.]

part of Pakistan and (b) before April 1, 1937 by medical A
_).
institutions in the territories now forming part of Burma which
are included in Part I of the Third Schedule shall also be
recognized medical qualifications for the purposes of the Act.
The scheme envisaged for recognition of medical qualifications
granted by Universities or medical institutions in India is such 8
that Section 11 of the Act cannot be read in isolation, because
the said Section does not offer a complete scheme relating to
recognition of medical qualifications granted in India. In order
to make the scheme complete, one has got to read the
~
provisions of Section 11 with the provisions of sub-Sections (1), c
(2) and (5) of Section 13 of the Act. Section 11, First Schedule,
sub-Sections (1), (2) and (5) of Section 13 and Part I of the
Third Schedule constitute a complete code relating to the
scheme of recognition of medical qualifications granted by
! Universities or medical institutions in India. D
21. Similarly, recognitipn of medical qualifications granted
""' by medical institutions in countries with which there is a scheme
of reciprocity is dealt with by Section 12 of the Act. Sub-Section
(1) of Section 12 of the Act provides that the medical
qualifications granted by medical institutions outside India which E
are not included in the Second Schedule will be recognized
medical qualifications for the purposes of the Act. Sub-Section
• (2) of the said Section inter alia lays down that the Council
~ may enter into negotiation with the Competent Authority in any
..... country outside India to settle a scheme of reciprocity and on F
/ the basis of such a scheme, the Central Government may
amend the Second Schedule so as to include therein the
medical qualifications which the Council has decided, should
be recognized and it may also direct that an entry shall be made
in the last column of the Second Schedule against such medical G
qualification, declaring that it shall be a recognized medical
>~ qualification only when granted. after a specified date. Sub-
Section (3) of Section 12 deals with the powers of the Central
Government to amend the Second Schedule and give direction
that an entry be made therein in respect of any medical H
698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADOL.) S.C.R.
,)
r

A qualification declaring that it shall be a recognized medical ,,( -
qualification only when granted before a specified date. Sub-
Section (4) deals with a situation where the Council has
refused to recommend any medical qualification which has
been proposed for recognition by any Authority referred to in ...
B sub-Section (2) of Section 12 of the Act and provides that in '\

such
.
a situation the Authority
'
would be entitled to apply to the
/

Central Government and the Central Government may, after
considering the application of the Authority and obtaining a
).. '
. report, if any, from the Council as to the reasons for any such
c refusal, by notification, amend the Second Schedule so as to
include such qualification therein and the provisions of sub-
Section (2), shall apply to such notification. As noticed. earlier,
Section 13 also makes provisions for recognition of medical
,L
q·ualifications granted by certain medical institµtions outside
India whose qualifications are not included in the Second
D f-
Schedule. While examining the scope of Section 11 of the Act, ~ ..

the Court has already taken into account the sweep and ambit
,\,
of sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 13 of the Act. Therefore, ~

it would be relevant to examine the scope of sub-Section (3) I
of Section 1~ of the Act. The said sub-Section lays down that I
~
E the medical qualifications granted by medical institutions
outside India (before such date as the Central Government may,
).
by notification in the Official Gazette specify) which are included
in Part II of the Third Schedule shall also be recognized medical ~

qualifications for the purposes of the Act. However, the said
F sub-Section itself carves out an exception that no person ~
I
possessing any such qualification shall be entitled to enrolment
on any State Medical Register unless he is a citizen of India
and has undergone such practical training after obtaining that ~
I,_
qualification as may be required by the rules or regulations in
G force in the country granting the qualification or if he has not
undergone any practical training in that country, he has r- ~
undergone such practical training as may be prescribed. It is '
an admitted position that the date specified by the Central k-

Government under Section 13(3) in the Official Gaze~te is I

H March 15, 2002. It means that the medical qualifications granted
YASH AHUJA AND ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF 699
INDIA & ORS. [J.M. PANCHAL, J.]
-) by medical institutions outside India before March 15, 2002, A
which are included in Part II of the Third Schedule, shall be
recognized medical qualifications but no person possessing
any such qualification shall be entitled to enrolment on any State
Medical Register if he is not a citizen of India and has not
undergone practical training after obtaining that ·qualification B
as may be required by the rules or regulations In-force in that
country or if has not undergone practical training prescribed
under the Act or rules or regulations. Sub-Section (4) inter alia
.... states that the Central Government may amend Part II of the
Third Schedule so as to include therein any qualification granted c
by a medical institution outside India which is not included in
the Second Schedule subject to the limitations and exceptions
made in the two provisos to the said sub-section. The first
proviso which is brought into force with effect from September
3, 2001, stipulates that after September 3, 2001 no such
D
~ amendment shall be made in Part II of the Third Schedule to
"
include any primary medical qualification granted by any
medical institution outside India. The second proviso further lays
down that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply to
inclusion in Part 11 of the Third Schedule any "primary medical
qualification" which expression is explained to be any minimum E
qualification sufficient for enrolment on any S~ate Medical
.,. Register or for entering the name in the Indian Medical Register,
~ -l- granted by any .·medical institution outside India, to any person
. whose name is entered in the Indian medical Register.
~
F
22. A fair reading of the provisions of Section 12 with those
of Section 13, makes it evident that the scheme of recognition

- of medical qualifications granted by medical institutions outside
India as envisaged by Section 12 is not complete. In order to
make the scheme complete, exhaustive and workable, one has G
~ to take into account the provisions of sub-Sections (3) and (4)
~
of Section 13 of the Act. The scheme relating to recognition of
~
medical qualifications granted by medical institutions outside

'
lli1
(
India becomes workable only if the provisions of Section 12 of
the Act and the contents of Second Schedule are· considered H
700 SUPREME COURT>REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A with the provisions of sub-Sections (3) and (4) of Section 13 A, -
and Part II of the Third Schedule.

23. Then comes the provisions of sub-Sections (4A), (48)
and (4C) of Section 13 which fall for consideration of this Court.
It may be mentioned that sub-Sections · (4A), (48) and.(4C)
8
have been brought on the statute book by Act 34 of 2001 which
has come into force with effect from September 3, 2001. Those
provisions read as under:
)..
"(4A) A person who is a citizen of India and. obtains
c medical qualification granted by ahy medical institution in
any country outside India recognized for enrolment as
medical practitioner in that country after such date as may
be specified by the Central Government under sub-Section
(3), shall not be entitled to be enrolled on any Medical
D Register maintained by a State Medical Council or to have ..,._
,.,
his name entered in the Indian Medical Register unless he
qualifies the screening test in India prescribed for such
purpose and such foreign medical qualification after such ,,_
\

person qualifies the said screening test shall be deemed
E to be the recognized medical qualification for the purposes
of this Act for tha1 person. (48) A person who is a citizen
of India shall not, after such date as may be.specified by ~

the Central Government under sub-section (3), be eligible
to get admission to obtain medical qualification grant~d··
j.. -....
F by any medical institution in any foreign country without·
obtaining an eligibility certificate issued to him by the
"
;

Council and in case any such person obtains such
qualification without obtaining such eligibility certificate, he
shall not be eligible to appear in the screening test referred "•I
I

to in sub-section (4A): ,,I •
t=
G
Provided that an Indian citizen who has acquired the \.- ..
medical qualification from foreign medical institution or "
has obtained admission in foreign medical institution ,
1"I

before the commencement of the Indian Medical Council
H (Amendment) Act, 2001 shall not be required to obtain -
I-
~
YASH AHUJA AND ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF 701
INDIA & ORS. [J.M. PANCHAL, J.]
- '1- eligibility certificate under this sub-section but, if he is A
qualified for admission to any medical course for
recognized medical qualification in any medical institution
in India, he shall be required to qualify only the screening
test prescribed for enrolment on any State Medical
Register or for entering his name in the Indian Medical B
Register.

(4C) Nothing contained in sub-sections (4A) and (48) shall
-'- apply to the medical qualifications referred to in section
14 for the purposes of that section."
c
Sub-Section (4A) provides that a person who is a citizen of
India and obtains medical qualification granted by any medical
institution in any country outside India recognized for enrolment
as medical practitioner in that country after the date to be
~ specified by the Central Government, shall not be entitled to be D
enrolled on any Medical Register maintained by a State Medical
Council or to have his name entered in the Indian Medical
Council, unless he qualifies the screening test in India,
prescribed for the purpose and such foreign medical
qualification shall be deemed to be recognized medical E
qualification for the purposes of the Act for that person only after
....; such person quafifies the said screening test. Sub-Section (48)
mentions that a person, who is citizen of India, shall not, after
~
the date to be specified by the Central Government, be eligible
to get admission to obtain medical qualification granted by any F
medical institution in any foreign country unless he obtains an
eligibility certificate to be issued by the Council. It further
provides that in case such person obtains such qualification
without obtaining such eligibility certificate, he will not be
eligible to appear in the screening test referred to in sub-
G
~ " Section (4A). The proviso to sub-Section (48) enacts a rule that
an Indian citizen, who has acquired the medical qualification
from foreign medical institution or has obtained admission in
a foreign medical institution before the commencement of the
Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 2001, will not be
H
...
702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A required to obtain eligibility certificate but if he is qualified to
any medical course for recognized medical qualification in any
medical in~titution in India, he will have to qualify the screening
test for enrolment on any State Medical Register or for entering
his name in the Indian Medical Register. Sub-Sectiqn (4C)
:B provides that nothing contained in sub-Sections (4A) and (48)
shall apply to the medical qualifications referred to in Section
14 for ttie purposes of that Section. Sub-Section (5) of Se~tion
13 mentions that any medical institution in India, which is
desirous of getting a medical qualification granted by it, included
c in Part I of the Third Schedule, may apply to the Central
Government to have such qualification recognized. It further
provides that the Central Government, after consulting the
Council, may, by notification, amend Part I of the Third Schedule
so as to include such qualification therein. It also provides that _
the notification may direct that an entry shall be made in the·
0
last column of Part I of the Third Schedule against such medical - - ~
qualification declaring that it shall be recogr.ized medical-
qualification only when granted after a specified date. ·'

24. Section 14 of the Act lays down special provisions in
E certain cases for recognition of medical qualification grant~d
by medical institutions in countries with which there i~,!lo .
scheme of reciprocity. Sub-Section (1) of Section 14_inter ~J(a, _1 _jr.
provides that after consultation with the Council, the <;;~i:-i~r~l 3 ,!
Government may, by notification, direct that medical .._,_
F qualification granted by medical institutions in any country
outside India in respect of which a scheme of reciprocity for.
the recognition of medical qualifications is not in force, shall be
recognized medical qualifications for the purposes of the Act
or shall be so only when granted after a specified_ date ..
G However, the proviso makes it very clear that medical practice·
by the persons who possess such qualifications shall be . _.,
permitted only if such persons are enrolled as medical "_).-
practitioners for the time being in force in that country and would
be limited to the institution which they are attached for the time - ·
H being in force for the purposes of teaching, research or
YASH AHUJA AND ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF 703
INDIA & ORS. [J.M. PANCHAL, J.]
charitable work and would also be limited to the period A
-'1- specified fo in this behalf by the Central Government, by
general or special order. Sub-Section (2) of Section 14
stipulates that in respect of any such medical qualification, the
Central Government, after consulting the Council, may, by
notification, direct that it shall be recognized medical 8
qualification only when granted before a specified date.

25. A conjoint and purposeful reading of the different
provisions of the Act makes it sufficiently clear that Section 14
--', is an exception to Section 12, which deals with recognition of C
medical qualifications granted by medical institutions in
countries with which there is a scheme of reciprocity.

26. Section 15 of the Act refers to the right of a person
possessing qualifications in the Schedules to be enrolled. Sub-
section (1) mentions that subject to the other provisions D
~. contained in the Act, the medical qualifications included in the
Schedules shall be sufficient qualification for enrolment on any
State Medical Register. Sub-Section (2) further provides that,
save as provided in Section 25, no person other than a
medical practitioner enrolled on a State Medical Register, shall E
practice medicine in any State or hold office as physician or
surgeon etc., whereas sub-Section (3) provides for punishment
~ for contravention of any of the provisions of sub-Section (2) of
4'" Section 15 of the Act.

27. The contention that sub-Sections (4A) and (48) of F
Section 13 are residual provisions to which Section 14 of the
Act, making a special provision in Certain cases for recognition
of medical qualifications granted by medical institutions in
countries with which there is no scheme of reciprocity, is an
exception or the plea that Sections 13(4A) and 13(48) cannot G
> be applied to Section 12 of the Act, which is a self contained
"code but may apply to Part II of the Third Schedule, which
includes those institutions with which there is no scheme of
reciprocity, cannot be accepted.
H
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R:

A 28. It is relevant to notice that sub-Sections (4A), (48) and
(4C) of Section 13 of the Act were brought on the Statute book ~-
by Act 34 of 2001, with effect from September 3, 2001. On
analysis of sub-Section (4A) it becomes sufficiently clear that
it would apply when three conditions are satisfied, namely, (i)
B when a citizen of India obtains medical qualification granted by ,,
any medical institution in any country outside India, (ii) the
medical qualification obtained must have been recognized for
enrolment as medical practitioner in that country and (iii) the
medical qualification must have been obtained after the·date~
}-
c to ,be specified by the Central Government. The phr-ase
"medical qualification granted by any medical institution in any
country outside India" employed in sub-Section (4A) of Section
13 of the Act is not restrictive in its application at all and takes
within its sweep the medical qualifications granted by any
medical institution in any country outside India with which a
D
_scheme of reciprocity for the purpose of recognition of medical ,.._
qualification is in force as well as the cases covered by sub- ·
Sections (3) and (4) of Section 13 of the Act. What is relevant
to notice is that Section 11 of the Act refers to the First
Schedule whereas Section 12 refers -..._ to the Second Schedule
E and Sections 13(1) and 13(2) refer to Part I of the Third
Schedule and Sections 13(3) and 13(4) refer to Part II of the
Third Schedule. However, sub-Sections (4A) and (48). of
;.
Section 13 do not refer to any Schedule at all because by those·
sub-Sections general provisions are enacted which apply to' all:. y
F the cases where a citizen of India has obtained or is desiro-us -·
of obtaining medical qualification granted by any medicir.i
institution in any country outside India. The provisions of sub~1 ;
Sections t4A) anq (48) would have applied to the cases·
covered by Section 14 of the Act also but for sub-Section (4C)
G of Section 13. Sub..Section (4C) of Section 13 specifically ·
provides that nothing contained in sub-Sections (4A) and (4B)
shall apply to the medical qualifications referred to in Section ~ ...
14-for the purposes of that Section. If the Legislature was so
minded, nothing prevented it from laying down in Section 13(4C)
H that the provisions of sub-Sections (4A) and (48) would also
YASH AHUJA AND ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF 705
INDIA & ORS. [J.M. PANCHAL, J.]

not apply to the cases covered by Section 12 of the Act. If the A
_~· arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants are
accepted, the Court will have to re-write sub-Section (4C) by
laying down that the provisions of sub-Sections (4A) and (48)
would also not apply to the cases covered by Section 12 of the
Act. Such a course is neither permissible nor warranted by the B
facts of the case.

29. Even if the material words of Section 13(4A) are
capable of bearing two constructions, the most firmly
."( established rule for construction of such words is the rule of
"purposive construction or mischief rule". This rule enables C
consideration of four matters in construing an Act - (1) what
was the law before the making of ..the Act, (2) what was the
mischief or defect for which the law did not provide, (3) what is
remedy that the Act has provided and (4} what is the reason of
the remedy. The rule then directs that the courts must adopt that D
4":. construction which suppresses the mischief and advances the
remedy. Applying this principle of construction to sub-Section
(4A) of Section 13 of the Act, this Court finds that the law before
the enactment of the said sub-Section was that medical
qualifications granted by medical institutions in countries with E
which there was a scheme of reciprocity included in the Second
Schedule, were recognized qualifications for the purposes of
the Act. This law continues to be in force even after the
~ enactment of sub-Section (4A). However, over a period of time,
it had come to the notice of the.Legislature that a large number F
of private agencies sponsored students for medical studies in
institutions outside India for commercial consideration. It was
noticed that such students also included those students, who
did not fulfill the minimum eligibility requirements for admission
to medical courses in India. Serious aberrations were noticed G
in the standard of medical education in some of the foreign
- ~ countries, which were not on par with the standards of medical
education available in India. These were the defects and/or
mischiefs noticed for which no provision was made either in
Section 12 or sub-Sections (3) and (4} of Section 13 of the Act. H
!iii-

706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A · In th~ year 1956, when the Indian Medical Council Act was
enacted, it must not have been contemplated by any one that ~
a large number of private agencies would sponsor students for
medical studies in institutions outside India for commercial
considerations including those students who were not fulfilling
B the minimum eligibility requirements for admission to medical
courses in India, etc. It was, therefore, felt necessary by
Parliament to make a provision to enable the Council to
conduct a screening test. This is the remedy that sub-Section
(4A) has provided. This remedy is prescribed to satisfy the MCI
with regard to the adequacy of knowledge and skills acquired
c by citizens of India, who obtain medical qualifications from
Universities or medical institutions outside India and to ensure
that those students have secured the standards of medical
education in the foreign countries, which are at par with ,,...
standards of medical education in India. The remedies
D mentioned in Sections 13(4A) and 13(4B) are prescribed
because citizens of India, who have obtained medical ~·
qualifications from Universities or medical institutions outside
India, would be entitled to practice medicine in India and they
cannot be permitted to treat other citizens of India with their half-
E baked knowledge and jeopardize their precious lives. Thus by
adopting rule of purposive construction or mischief rule, it will
have to be held that the provisions of sub-Section (4A) of
Section 13 of the Act would also apply to the cases covered ,.
by Section 12 of the Act. .,.
F
30. The argument that MCI has admittedly understood and
applied the provisions of the Act by releasing press note to
mean that the 'screening test would not be necessary for ,/

students who have obtained degree from foreign medical
G institutions recognised under Section 12 of the Act and,
therefore, MCI is precluded in insisting that the students, who
have obtained degrees from foreign medical institutions, is ....
~
devoid of merit. It is true that at one stage the MCI had
released a press note clarifying for the information of general
public that eligibility requirements for taking admission in an
H
YASH AHUJA AND ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF 707
INDIA & ORS. [J.M. PANCHAL, J.]
undergraduate medical course mentioned in Foreign Medical A
~· Institutions Regulations, 2002 and the Screening Test
Regulation, 2002 would not be applicable to the students
joining an undergraduate medical course in foreign countries,
recognised and included in the Second Schedule under
Section 12 of the Act. However, this was the understanding of B
MCI, which is one of the parties before the Court. The scope
of Section 13(4A) is quite clear and covers all foreign medical
institutions falling within the ambit of Sections 12 and 13 of the
Act. On a close and careful reading, provisions of the
~-
Amending Act of 2001 with the Eligibility Requirement c
Regulations and Screening Test Regulation, both of 2002, it
becomes at once clear that the MCI is obliged to stipulate the
screening test in the case of all those candidates, who obtained
medical qualification from medical institutions outside India
filling within the purview of Sections 12 and 13 of the Act in view
D
of the statutory provisions of Section 13(4A) of the Act. The
~
press release cannot be interpreted as precluding MCI from
canvassing correct import of the provisions of the Act. In any
view of the matter, the Court is of the firm opinion that press
release by MCI cannot preclude the court from placing correct
E
interpretation of the Act. Therefore, the said plea has no
substance and is hereby rejected.

31. The contention that if the provisions of the Screening
'( Test Regulations, 2002 are made applicable to the citizens of
India, who have obtained medical qualifications granted by F
Universities or medical institutions outside India, a serious
anomaly would arise as all those students who are similarly
placed as the appellants, but who are not Indian citizens, would
be entitled to be enrolled on Medical Register maintained by
the State Medical Council or to have their names entered in G
the Indian Medical Register without undergoing the screening
test whereas the appellants and other students, who are
citizens of - India, would not be so entitled without qualifying
the screening test,· which would be discriminatory, is mere\y
stated to be rejected. It must be remct"'1hered that the appellants H
708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A are students, who have obtained MBBS degree granted by
Kathmandu University in respect of Manipal College of Medical ,,,_...,_
Sciences, Pokhara, Nepal. They have not laid any factual data
to indicate that in Nepal education system of 10+2 is prevalent
and that a student becomes entitled to get admission to medical
B course only after he clears Central Admission Test in order of
merits. The Indian Parliament never found that either large
number of students of Nepal or other students belonging to other.
countries but studying in Manipal College of Medical Sciences;"
Pokhara, who are desirous of practicing medicine in India, were
c sponsored by private agencies of those countries for medical
studies in the said institute for commercial consideration. It is
not the case of the appellants that students of Nepal or students
of other countries prosecuting medical studies in Manipal
College of Medical Sciences were/are not fulfilling the minimum
eligibility requirements for admission to medical courses -..,
D
prescribed in thelr raspective countries. The appellants failed
to bring on record the facts, which would prima facie show that ~
the standards of medical education prescribed either by the
Government of Nepal or b;· Nepal Medical Council are at par ~

with the standards of medical education available in· Ind la.
E Under such circurnstances, there was no scope for Parliament
of India to prescribe that students of Nep~I or students of other
countries prosecuting medical studies in Manipal College of
Medical Sciences should also qualify the screening ·test ~

prescribed before they are enrolled on Medical Register y
F maintained by the State Medical Council or get ,their names
entered in Indian Medical Register. The plea based on so
...
called discrimination has no substance and is, therefore,
.rejected.

G 32. The alternative plea that the provisions cf sub-Sections
(4A) and (48) of Section 13 of the Act are. -prospective in
nature and as the appellants have not incurred any
disqualification after obtaining medical qualification of MBBS
),- -
degree from Kathmandu University, which is included in the
H Second Schedule and, therefore, they cannot be asked to
YASH AHUJA AND ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF 709
INDIA & ORS. [J.M. PANCHAL, J.]
qualify the screening test, is devoid of merits. It is an admitted A
-'t fact that the date specified by the Central Government under
sub-Section (3) of Section 13 is March 15, 2002. Therefore, in
view of the stipulations contained in sub-Section (4A) of
Section 13 of the Act, the provisions of said sub-Sections
would be applicable with effect from March 15, 2002. The effect B
of specification of the date of March 15, 2002 is that a person
who is citizen of India and obtains medical qualification granted
by any medical institution in any country outside India,
recognized for enrolment as medical practitioner in that country,
~ shall not be entitled to be enrolled on Medical Register c,
maintained by a State Medical Council or to have his name
entered in the Indian Medical Register after March 15, 2002,
unless he ._-qualifies the screening test prescribed. As made
clear by the MCI, the provisions of sub-Section (4A) of Section
13 of the Act are applicable to all the medical qualifications 0
included in the Second Schedule. It is an admitted position that
~ the appellants and others have applied for provisional
registration/ permanent registration after March 15, 2002.
-..:+ Therefore, the appellants have to appear in the screening test
conducted by the National Board of Examination in terms of the
E
Screening Test Regulations made by the MCI. In Sanjeev Gupta
and others vs. Union of India [(2005) 1 SCC 45], challenge
was made to the stipulations for conduct of the screening test,
~
by the students who had been admitted in undergraduate
'< medical courses in the institutions outside India between 1994
and 2000. Moat of the students had qualified in the F
undergraduate course but some of them, who had joined such
courses during 1999-2000, were still pursuing the course. After
considering the provisions of the Act a Three Judge Bench of
this Court uniformly applied the screening test provisions to
all the candidates from the cut,.off date of March 15, 200~. G
Therefore, there is no doubt that the provisions of sub-Section
~ (4A) of Section 13 of the Act are not being applit:!d
retrospectively but from the date specified by the Central
Government. Under the circumstances the plea based on
retrospective application of sub-Sec'.;Jn (4A) of Section 13 of H
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A the Act cannot be accepted and is hereby rejected.
¥-
33. For the reasons stated in the judgment, this Court doe$
not find any substance in the appeals and the petition.
Therefore, they are dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
8
34.ln view of the dismissal of the appeals, pending
applications also stand dismissed.

R.P. Appeals and petition dismissed,

I