PETITIONER:
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/07/1998
BENCH:
K.T. THOMAS, D.P. WADHWA
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
JUDGEMENTD.P. WADHWA, J.
Leave granted.
A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court has put a question mark on the authority of the Medical Council of India ( for short, the ’ Medical Council’) - the appellant - in its judgement dated July 16, 1997 to fix intake for admission of students to various medical colleges in the State of Karnataka. Medical Council is aggrieved by that part of the impugned judgement where the Division Bench held that prior to insertion of Sections 10A, 10B, and 10C in the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short, the Medical Council Act’) by the Amending Act 31 of 1993 neither the Central Government nor the Medical Council could fix the admission capacity in the medical colleges in the State and that this authority to determine the admission capacity in the medical colleges vested in State by virtue of tow State enactments, namely, Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (for short, ’Karnataka Universities Act’) and Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 (for short, ’Karnataka Capitation Fee Act’). The Division Bench, however, held that after the amendment of the Indian Medical council Act by insertion of Sections 10A, 10B and 10C, the two State enactments would yield to the extent of repugnancy and that now the power to fix admission capacity rests with the Medical Council. The Division Bench said that admission capacity for purpose of increase or decrease in each of the college, has got to be determined as on or before June 1, 1992 with reference to what had been fixed by the State Government or that foxed by the medical colleges and not with reference to the minimum standard of education regulations prescribed under Section 19A, of the Medical Council Act by the Medical Council which it said were only "recommendatory" as held in State of Madhya Pradesh and anr. v. Kumari Nivedita Jain and ors.(1981 (4) SCC 296). Thus, according to the Division Bench future admission will, however, have to be regulated on the basis of the capacity fixed or determined by the Medical Council as provisions of Sections 10A, 10B and 10C are prospective.
State of Karnataka has also filed appeal. It felt aggrieved by that part of the impugned judgment of the Division Bench where it scuttled the powers of the State to fix admission capacity to the medical colleges. Stand of the State is that Section 10A is applicable only when it comes to increase the existing admission capacity in the colleges and that the intake capacity already fixed by the State under its statutory powers could not be reduced.
In the third appeal filed by the Rajiv Gandhi Dental College and which pertains to Dental Colleges under the provisions of the Dentists Act, 1948, there is similar challenge to the authority of the Dental Council of India to fix the intake of admission of students to Dental Colleges. The provisions of this Act are in peri materia to that of the Indian Medical Council Act and decision in the appeal filed by the Medical Council of India would be applicable to the appeal filed by Rajiv Gandhi Dental College.
Impugned Division Bench decision was rendered in an appeal against the judgment dated September 20, 1996 of a single judge (G.C. Bharuka, J.) of the High Court in a writ petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation. Learned Single Judge considered the whole spectrum of law relating to admission in Medical Colleges in the State and held as under:
"I s.53(10) of the State
Universities Act and Sec.4(1)(b) of
the State Capitation Fee Act
empowering the universities and/or
the State Government to fix or
increase intakes of the medical
colleges being repugnant to
Sections 10A, 10B and 10C of the
Central Act, are held as void and
inoperative.
II. The power in relation to
fixation and/or increase of the
admission capacities of the medical
colleges has to be governed
strictly and exclusively under the
provisions of Sec.10A/10C of the
Central Act.
III. No medical college can admit
any student in excess of its
admission capacity fixed by the
Council subject to any increase
thereof as approved by the Central
Government under and in accordance
with the provisions of Sec.10A or
Sec.10C of the Central Act.
IV. The regulations framed on the
aspects of medical education
referred to in Secs.19A and 33 of
the Central Act are mandatory in
nature."
The State of Karnataka went in appeal against the judgment of the single Judge which, as noted above, was partly allowed. In the appeal , the Divisions Bench took the view that Sections 10A, 10B and 10C of the Act have only prospective operation. While the Medical Council and the Central Government contend that learned single Judge was correct in this approach to the matter in controversy, the State of Karnataka says that introduction of Sections 10A, 10B and 10C in the Act made no difference to its authority to regulate admission to Medical Colleges in view of the judgement of this Court in A.K. Singh vs. State of Bihar [(1994) 4 SCC 401] and that power under Section 10A of the Medical Council Act was confined only to increasing the existing admission capacity and the intake capacity already fixed by the State under its statutory powers could not be reduced.
When the matter came up before this Court in special leave petition (SLP No.14839/97) filed by the Medical Council, this Court, while issuing notice, stayed the impugned judgment of the Division Bench. In the appeal filed by the Rajiv Gandhi Dental College, it was also directed that the State would confine the admissions to the dental colleges to the intake capacity as fixed by the Dental Council.
Before we consider the rival contentions, we may set out the relevant provisions of law but even before that we take note of the observations of this Court in State of Kerala vs. Kumari T.P. Roshana & Anr. [(1979) 1 SCC 572] where the Court said as under :-
"The Indian Medical Council Act,
1956 has constituted the Medical
Council of India as an expert body
to control the minimum standards of
medical education and to regulate
their observance. Obviously, this
high-powered Council has power to
prescribe the minimum standards of
medical education. It has implicit
power to supervise the
qualifications or eligibility
standards for admission into
medical institutions. Thus there is
an overall invigilation by the
Medical Council to prevent sub-
standard entrance qualifications
for medical courses."
The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
Sections 2 of the Medical Council Act defines various terms used in the Act. "Approved institution" means a hospital, health centre or other such institution recognised by a University as an institution in which a person may undergo the training, if any, required by this course of study before the award of any medical qualification to him; "Council" means the Medical Council of India constituted under this Act; "medical institution" means any institution, within or without India, which grants degrees, diplomas or licences in medicine; "recognised medical qualification" means any of the medical qualifications included in the Schedules; "University" means any University in India established by law and having a medical faculty.
"Sec. 10-A. Permission for
establishment of new medical
college, new course of study, etc.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act or any other
law for the time being in force-
(a) no person shall establish a
medical college; or
(b) no medical college shall-
(i) open a new or higher course of
study or training (including a
post-graduate course of study or
training) which would enable a
student of such course or training
to qualify himself for the award of
any recognised medical
qualification; or
(ii) increase its admission
capacity in any course of study or
training (including a post-graduate
course of study or training);
except with the previous permission
of the Central Government obtained
in accordance with the provisions
of this section.
Explanation 1.- For the purposes of
this section, "person" includes any
University or a trust but does not
include the Central Government.
Explanation 2.- For the purposes of
this action, "admission capacity",
in relation to any course of study
or training (including post-
graduate course of study or
training) in a medical college,
means the maximum number of
students that may be fixed by the
Council from time to time for being
admitted to such course or
training.
(2)(a) Every person or medical
college shall, for the purpose of
obtaining permission under sub-
section (1), submit to the Central
Government a scheme in accordance
with the provisions of clause (b)
and the Central Government shall
refer the scheme to the Council for
its recommendations.
(b) The scheme referred to in
clause (a) shall be in such form
and contain such particulars and be
preferred in such manner and be
accompanied with such fee as may be
prescribed.
(3) On receipt of a scheme by the
Council under sub-section (2), the
Council may obtain such other
particulars as may be considered
necessary by it from the person or
the medical college concerned, and
thereafter, it may,-
(a) if the scheme is defective and
does not contain any necessary
particulars, give a reasonable
opportunity to the person or
college concerned for making a
written representation and it shall
be open to such person or medical
college to rectify the defects, if
any, specified by the council;
(b) consider the scheme, having
regard to the factors referred to
in sub-section (7), and submit the
scheme together with its
recommendations thereon to the
Central Government.
(4) The Central Government may,
after considering the scheme and
the recommendations of the Council
under sub-section (3) and after
obtaining, where necessary, such
other particulars as may be
considered necessary by it from the
person or college concerned, and
having regard to the factors
referred to in sub-section (7),
either approve (with such
conditions, if any, as it may
consider necessary) or disapprove
the scheme and any such approval
shall be a permission under sub-
section (1):
Provided that no scheme shall be
disapproved by the Central
Government except after giving the
person or college concerned a
reasonable opportunity of being
heard.
Provided further that nothing in
this sub-section shall prevent any
person or medical college whose
scheme has not been approved by the
Central Government to submit a
fresh scheme and the provisions of
this section shall apply to such
scheme, as if such scheme has been
submitted for the first time under
sub-section (2).
(5) ...
(6) ...
(7) The Council, while making its
recommendations under clause (b) of
sub-section (3) and the Central
Government, while passing an order,
either approving or disapproving
the scheme under sub-section (4),
shall have due regard to the
following factors, namely:-
(a) whether the proposed medical
college or the existing medical
college seeking to open a new or
higher course of study or training,
would be in a position to offer the
minimum standards of medical
education as prescribed by the
Council under section 19A or, as
the case may be, under section 20
in the case of post-graduate
medical education;
(b) whether the person seeking to
establish a medical college or the
existing medical college seeking to
open a new or higher course of
study or training or to increase
its admission capacity has adequate
financial resources;
(c) whether necessary facilities in
respect of staff, equipment,
accommodation, training and other
facilities to ensure proper
functioning of the medical college
or conducting the new course of
study or training or accommodating
the increased admission capacity
have been provided or would be
provided within the time-limit
specified in the scheme;
(d) whether adequate hospital
facilities, having regard to the
number of students likely to attend
such medical college or course of
study or training or as a result of
the increased admission capacity
have been provided or would be
provided within the time-limit
specified in the scheme;
(e) whether any arrangement has
been made or programme drawn to
impart proper training to students
likely to attend such medical
college or course of study or
training by persons having the
recognised medical qualifications;
(f) the requirement of manpower in
the field of practice of medicine;
and
(g) any other factors as may be
prescribed."
"Sec.10.B Non-recognition of
medical qualifications in certain
cases.-
(1) ...
(2) ...
(3) Where any medical college
increases its admission capacity in
any course of study or training
except with the previous permission
of the Central Government in
accordance with the provisions of
section 10A, no medical
qualification granted to any
student of such medical college on
the basis of the increase in its
admission capacity shall be a
recognised medical qualification
for the purposes of this Act.
Explanation.- For the purposes of
this section, the criteria for
identifying a student who has been
granted a medical qualification on
the basis of such increase in the
admission capacity shall be such as
may be prescribed.
Sec.10-C. Time for seeking
permission for certain existing
medical colleges, etc.-
(1) If after 1st day of June, 1992
and on and before the commencement
of the Indian Medical Council
(Amendment) Act, 1993 any person
has established a medical college
or any medical college has opened a
new or higher course of study or
training or increase the admission
capacity, such person or medical
college, as the case may be, shall
seek, within a period of one year
from the commencement of the Indian
Medical Council (Amendment) Act,
1993, the permission of the Central
Government in accordance with the
provisions of section 10A.
(2) If any person or medical
college, as the case may be, fails
to seek the permission under sub-
section (1), the provisions of
section 10B shall apply, so far as
may be, as if, permission of the
Central Government under s10A has
been refused."
Under Section 11 of the Medical Council Act, qualifications granted by any University or medical institution in India which are included in the First Schedule shall be recognised medical qualifications for the purposes of this Medical Council Act. Any University or medical institution in India which grants a medical qualification not included in the First Schedule may apply to the Central Government to have such qualification recognised, and the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the First Schedule so as to include such qualification therein. Under Section 16 every university or medical institution in India which grants a recognised medical qualification shall furnish such information as the Medical Council may, from time to time, require as to the courses of study and examinations to be undergone for the purpose of attaining qualification and other details requisite for obtaining such qualification. Under Section 17 of the Medical Council Act, the Executive Committee of the Medical Council shall appoint medical inspectors to inspect any medical institutions, college, hospital or other institution where medical education is given or to attend any examination held by any University or medical institution for the purpose of recommending to the Central Government recognition of medical institution. Similarly, the Medical Council is authorised to appoint visitors for the same purpose. The inspectors and the visitors are required to report on the adequacy of the standards of medical education including staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities prescribed for giving medical education or on the sufficiency of every examination which they attend. Then come Sections 19 and 19A and which have been set out above providing for laying down minimum standards of medical education and withdrawal of recognition. These are as under :
"Sec.19.Withdrawal of recognition.-
(1) When upon report by the
Committee or the visitor, it
appears to the Council-
(a) that the course of study and
examination to be undergone in, or
the proficiency required from
candidates at any examination held
by, any University or medical
institution, or
(b) that the staff, equipment,
accommodation, training and other
facilities for instruction and
training provided in such
university or medical institution
or in any College or other
institution affiliated to that
University, do not conform to the
standards prescribed by the Council
the Council shall make a are
presentation to that effect to the
Central Government.
(2) After considering such
representation, the Central
Government may send it to the State
Government of the State in which
the University or medical
institution is situated and the
State Government shall forward it
along with such remarks as it may
choose to make to the University or
medical institution, with an
intimation of the period within
which the University or medical
institution may submit its
explanation to the State
Government.
(3) On the receipt of the
explanation or, where no
explanation is submitted within the
period fixed, then on the expiry of
that period, the State Government
shall make its recommendations to
the Central Government.
(4) The Central Government after
making such further inquiry, if
any, as it may think fit, may, by
notification in the Official
Gazette, direct that an entry shall
be made in the appropriate Schedule
against the said medical
qualification declaring that it
shall be a recognised medical
qualification only when granted
before a specified date, or that
the said medical qualification if
granted to students of a specified
college or institution affiliated
to any university shall be a
recognised medical qualification
only when granted before a
specified date or, as the case may
be, that the said medical
qualification shall be a recognised
medical qualification in relation
to a specified college or
institution affiliated to any
University only when granted after
a specified date.
Sec.19.A Minimum standards of
medical education.-(1) The Council
may prescribe the minimum standards
of medical education required for
granting recognised medical
qualifications (other than post-
graduate medical qualifications) by
Universities or medical
institutions in India.
(2) Copies of the draft regulations
and of all subsequent amendments
thereof shall be furnished by the
Council to all State Governments
and the Council shall, before
submitting the regulations or
amendment thereof, as the case may
be, to the Central Government for
sanction, take into consideration
the comments of any State
Government received within three
months from the furnishing of
copies aforesaid.
(3) The Committee shall from time
to time report to the Council on
the efficacy of the regulations and
may recommend to the Council such
amendments thereof as it may think
fit.
Sec.33. Power to make regulations.
The Council may, with the previous
sanction of the Central Government,
make regulations generally to carry
out the purposes of this Act, and,
without prejudice to the generality
of this power, such regulations may
provided for-
(a) to (f) ...
(fa) the form of the scheme, the
particulars to be given in such
scheme, the manner in which the
scheme is to be preferred and the
fee payable with the scheme under
clause (b) of sub-section (2) of
section 10A;
(fb) any other factors under clause
(g) of sub-section (7) of section
10A;
(fc) the criteria for identifying a
student who has been granted a
medical qualification referred to
in the Explanation to sub-section
(3) of section 10B;
(g) to (i) ...
(j) the courses and period of study
and of practical training to be
undertaken, the subjects of
examination and the standards of
proficiency therein to be obtained,
in Universities or medical
institutions for grant of
recognised medical qualifications;
(k) the standards of staff,
equipment, accommodation,
training and other facilities for
medical education;
(l) the conduct of professional
examinations, qualifications of
examiners and the conditions of
admission to such examinations;"
The Karnataka Educational Institutions
(Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984.
This was enacted to prohibit the collection of capitation fee for admission to educational institutions in the State of karnataka. The preamble to the Act recited that collection of capitation fee for admission of students in educational institutions was wide spread in the State and this undesirable practice was not conducive to the maintenance of educational standards beside it was contributing to large scale of commercialisation of education. Educational institution has been defined in clauses (c) of Section 3, which means any institution by whatever name called, whether managed by Government, private body, local authority, trust, University or any other person carrying on the activity of imparting education in medicine or engineering leading to a degree conferred by a University established under the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act 28 of 1976) and any other educational institution, or class or classes of such institution, as the Government may, by notification specify.
Section 4 regulates the admission to educational institutions etc. and is as under :-
"4. Regulations of admission to
educational institutions etc. -
Subject to such rules, or general
or special orders, as may be made
by the Government in this behalf
and any other law for the time
being in force, -
(1) (a) the minimum qualification
for admission to any course of
study in an educational institution
shall be such as may be specified
by -
(i) the University, in the case of
any course study in an educational
institution maintained by or
affiliated to such University:
Provided that the Government may,
in the interest of excellence of
education, fix any higher minimum
qualification for any course of
study;
(ii) the Government, in the case of
other courses of study in any other
educational institution;
(b) the maximum number of students
that could be admitted to a course
of study in an educational
institution shall be such as may be
fixed by the Government from time
to time;
(2) in order to regulate the
capitation fee charged or collected
during the period specified under
the proviso to section 3, the
Government may, from time to time,
by general or special order,
specify in respect of each private
educational institution or call or
classes of such institution.
(a) the number of seats set apart
as Government seats:
(b) the number of seats that may be
filled up by the management of such
institution;
(i) from among Karnataka students
on the basis of merit, on payment
of such cash deposits refundable
after such number of years, with or
without interest as may be
specified therein, but without the
payment of capitation fee; or
(ii) at the discretion:
Provided that such number of seats
as may be specified by the
Government but not less than fifty
per cent of the total number of
seats referred to in clauses (a)
and (b) shall be filled from among
Karnataka students.
Explanation. - For the purposes of
this section Karnataka students
means persons who have studied in
such educational institutions in
the State of Karnataka run or
recognised by the Government and
for such number of years as the
Government may specify;
(3) an educational institution
required to fill seats in
accordance with item (i) of sub-
clause (b) of clause (2) form a
committee to select candidates for
such seats. A nominee each or the
Government and the University to
which such educational institution
is affiliated shall be included as
members in such committee."
KARNATAKA STATE UNIVERSITY ACT, 1976
"Section 53.
(1) Colleges within the University
area may, on satisfying the
conditions specified in this
section, be affiliated to the
University as affiliated Colleges
by the University on the
recommendations made by the State
Government.
(2) A college applying for
affiliation to the University shall
send an application to the
Registrar within the time limit
fixed by Ordinances and shall
satisfy the Syndicate and the
Academic Council.
(a) .....
(b) .....
(c) that the strength and
qualifications of the teaching
staff and the conditions governing
their tenure of office are such as
to make due provision for the
courses of instruction, teaching or
training to be undertaken by the
college.
(d) That the building in which the
college is to be located are
suitable and that provision will be
made in conformity with the
Ordinances for the residence in the
college or in lodgings approved by
the college, for students not
residing with their parents or
guardians and for the supervision
and welfare of students.
(e) That due provision has been
made or will be made for a library.
(f) Where affiliation is sought in
any branch of experimental science,
that arrangements have been or will
be made in conformity with the
Statutes, Ordinances and
Regulations for importing
instruction in the branch of
science in a properly equipped
laboratory or museum;
(g) ......
(h) That the financial resources of
the college are such as to make due
provision for its continued
maintenance and efficient working,
and
(i) ......
10.(a) No admission of students
shall be made by a new college
seeking affiliation to any
University or by an existing
college seeking affiliation to a
new course of study to such
course, unless, as the case may be,
affiliation has been granted to
such new college or to the existing
college in respect of such course
of study.
(b) The maximum number of students
to be admitted to a course of study
shall not exceed the intake fixed
by the University or the
Government, as the case may be and
any admission made after this
section came into force in excess
of the intake shall be invalid.
(c) No student whose admission has
become invalid under (b) shall be
eligible to appear not shall be
presented by the college to appear
at any examination conducted by the
University."
Section 33 of the Medical Council Act empowers the Medical Council to frame regulations with the previous sanction of the Central Government to carry out the purposes of the Medical Council Act. In exercise of this power Medical Council framed regulations after approval by the Central Government providing for minimum standard requirements for a medical college adopting admission on the basis of admitting 100 students annually as the base. The regulations are in three parts - Part-I deals with accommodation in the college and its associated teaching hospitals; Part-II deals with staff (both teaching and technical) and Part-III deals with equipment in the college departments and in the hospitals. These regulations are quite in detail. Again under Section 33, the Medical Council framed regulations prescribing qualifications for appointment of persons to the posts of teachers and visiting physicians/surgeons, etc. in medical colleges and attached hospitals for under-graduate and post-graduate teaching. These regulations are also framed after approval by the Central Government. The Medical Council then framed regulations in exercise of power conferred upon it by Section 10A read with Section 33 of the Medical Council Act and with the previous approval of the Central Government. These regulations relate to the establishment of new medical colleges, opening of higher posts of studies and increase of admission capacity of the medical colleges. The regulations came into force w.e.f. September 20, 1993. These regulations provide that maximum number of admission in MBBS course should not exceed 150 annually. It is the Central Government which permits the increase in admission capacity on the recommendation of the Medical Council.
Till January 3, 1977 education was a State subject under Entry 11 in List II (Entry 11 - "education including universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III"). By the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act 1976 Entry 11 was deleted and it was placed in the Concurrent List by enlarging the existing Entry 25. Relevant entries 63 to 66 of List I (Union List) and entries 25 and 26 of List III (Concurrent List) in the Seventh are as under :-
List I (Union List)
"63. The institutions known at the
commencement of this Constitution
as the Benares Hindu University,
the Aligarh Muslim University and
the [Delhi University; the
University established in pursuance
of article 371E] any other
institution declared by Parliament
by law to be an institution of
national importance.
64. Institutions for scientific or
technical education financed by the
Government of India wholly or in
part and declared by Parliament by
law to be institutions of national
importance.
65. Union agencies and institutions
for -
(a) professional, vocational or
technical training, including the
training of police officers; or
(b) the promotion of special
studies or research; or
(c) scientific or technical
assistance in the investigation or
detection of crime.
66. Co-ordination and determination
of standards in institutions for
higher education or research and
scientific and technical
institutions."
List III (Concurrent List)
"25. Education, including technical
education, medical education and
universities, subject to the
provisions of entries 63, 64, 65
and 66 of List I; vocational and
technical training or labour.
26. Legal, medical and other
professions."
Scope of Entry 66 of list I was construed by 6 Judge Bench judgment of this Court in The Gujarat University, Ahmedabad vs. Krishna Ranganath Madholkar and others (1963 Supp. (1) SCR 112). The question for determination before the Court was (1) whether the Gujarat University had the power under the Gujarat University Act to prescribe Gujarati or Hindi or both as exclusive medium or media of instructions and examination and (2) whether legislation authorising the University to impose such media was constitutionally valid in view of Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The controversy raised in that case would, however, not survive after the 42nd Amendment when Entry 11 of List II has been deleted. Reading Entry 11 List II as it existed the Court said that power of the State to legislate in respect of education including Universities must to the extent to which it is entrusted to the Union Parliament, whether such power is exercised or not, is deemed to be restricted. If a subject of legislation is covered by entries 63 to 66 even if it otherwise falls within the larger field of "education including Universities" power to legislate on that subject must lie with the Parliament. Entry 11 of List II and Entry 66 of List I must be harmoniously construed. The two entries undoubtedly overlap: but to the extent of overlapping, the power conferred by Entry 66 of List I must prevail over the power of the State under Entry 11 of List II. It is manifest that excluded heads deal primarily with education in institutions of national or special importance and institutions of higher education including research, science, technology and vocational training of labour. The Court held as under :-
"The State has the power to
prescribe the syllabi and courses
of study in the institutions named
in Entry 66 (but not falling within
entries 63 to 65) and as an
incident thereof it has the power
to indicate the medium in which
instruction should be imparted. But
the Union Parliament has an
overriding legislative power to
ensure that the syllabi and courses
of study prescribed and the medium
selected do not impair standards of
education or render the co-
ordination of such standards either
on an All India or other basis
impossible or even difficult. Thus,
though the powers of the Union and
of the State are in the Exclusive
Lists, a degree of overlapping is
inevitable. It is no t possible to
lay down any general test which
would afford a solution for every
question which might arise on this
head. On the one hand, it is
certainly within the province of
the State Legislature to prescribe
syllabi and courses of study and,
of course, to indicate the medium
or media of instruction. On the
other hand, it is also within the
power of the Union to legislate in
respect of media of instruction so
as to ensure co-ordination and
determination of standards, that is
to ensure maintenance or
improvement of standards. The fact
that the Union has not legislated,
or refrained from legislating to
the full extent of its powers does
not invest the State with the power
to legislate in respect of a matter
assigned by the Constitution to the
union. It does not, however, follow
that even within the permitted
relative fields there might not be
legislative provisions in
enactments made each in pursuance
of separate exclusive and distinct
powers which may conflict. Then
would arise the question of
repugnancy and paramountcy which
may have to be resolved on the
application of the "doctrine of
pith and substance" of the impugned
enactment. The validity of the
State legislation on University
education and as regards the
education in technical and
scientific institutions not falling
within Entry 64 of List I would
have to be judged having regard to
whether it impinges on the files
reserved for the Union under Entry
66. In other words, the validity of
State legislation would depend upon
whether it prejudicially affects
co-ordination and determination of
standards, but not upon the
existence of some definite Union
legislation directed to achieve
that purpose. If there be Union
legislation in respect of co-
ordination and determination of
standards, that would have
paramountcy over the State law by
virtue of the first part of Art.
254(1); even if that power be not
exercised by the Union Parliament
the relevant legislative entries
being in the exclusive lists, a
State law trenching upon the Union
field would still be invalid."
It further held :-
"Item No.66 is a legislative head
and in interpreting it, unless it
is expressly or of necessity found
conditioned by the words used
therein, a narrow or restricted
interpretation will not be put upon
the generality of the words. Power
to legislate on a subject should
normally be held to extend to all
ancillary or subsidiary matters
which can fairly and reasonably be
said to be comprehended in that
subject. Again there is nothing
either in item 66 or elsewhere in
the Constitution which supports the
submission that the expression "co-
ordination" must mean in the
context in which it is used merely
evaluation, co-ordination in its
normal connotation means
harmonising or bringing into proper
relation in which all the things
co-ordinated participate in a
common pattern of action. The power
to co-ordinate, therefore, is not
merely power to evaluate, it is a
power to harmonise or secure
relationship for concerted action.
The power conferred by item 66 List
I is not conditioned by the
existence of a state of emergency
or unequal standards calling for
the exercise of the power.
There is nothing in the entry which
indicates that the power to
legislate on co-ordination of
standards in institutions of higher
education, does not include the
power to legislate for preventing
the occurrence of or for removal of
disparities in standards. This
power is not conditioned to be
exercised merely upon the existence
of a condition of disparity nor is
it a power merely to evaluate
standards but not to take steps to
rectify or to prevent disparity. By
express pronouncement of the
Constitution makers, it is a power
to co-ordinate, and of necessity,
implied therein is the power to
prevent what would make co-
ordination impossible or difficult.
The power is absolute and
unconditional, and in the absence
of any controlling reasons it must
be given full effect according to
its plain and expressed intention."
Mr. Dave appearing for the Medical Council submitted that this Court in Nivedita Jain’s case did not say that all the Regulations framed by the Medical Council under Section 33 of the Medical Council Act were directory. He said that the Court in that case was considering Regulations 1 and 2 only and it had held that while Regulation 1 was mandatory, Regulation 2 was of directory character, i.e., it was recommendatory. Mr. Dave is correct in his submission. The Division Bench in the impugned fell into basic error in holding that this Court in Nivedita Jain’s case said as if all the Regulations were directory in nature. We may now examine that judgment and a few others cited at Bar.
In State of Madhya Pradesh and another vs. Kumari Nivedita Jain and others (1981 (4) SCC 296) there was challenge to the validity of the executive order passed by the State Government relaxing the conditions relating to the minimum qualifying marks for selection of students to medical colleges of the State in respect of candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes categories being violative of the Regulations framed under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The Court referred to the object of the Act and to its various provisions relevant being Sections 19 and 19A of the Medical Council Act. Nivedita Jain, who was a candidate for admission to the medical college in the State of Madhya Pradesh, contended that the order of the State Government, lowering the qualifying marks for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates for admission to medical colleges, contravened Regulation II and would be hit by Section 19 of the Medical Council Act exposing the medical colleges to the risk of being recognised. High Court had struck down the Government’s order being violative of Regulation II which had the force of a statute. This Court considered Regulations I and II. While Regulation I provided for admission to medical course stating that no candidate shall be allowed to be admitted to the medical curriculum proper until he had attained certain age and had passed certain examination, Regulation II provided for selection of students and it said that selection of students to a medical college should be based solely on merit of the candidate and it laid certain criteria to be adopted uniformly throughout the country for the determination of merit. This Court observed as under :-
"Regulation I prescribed the
eligibility f a candidate for
admission to medical courses. For
maintaining proper standards in
Medical Colleges and Institutions
it comes within the competence of
the Council to prescribe the
necessary qualification of the
candidates who may seek admission
into the Medical Colleges. As this
Regulation is within the competence
of the Council, the Council has
framed this Regulation in a manner
which leaves no doubt that this
Regulation is mandatory. The
language of this Regulation, which
starts with the words "no candidate
shall be allowed to be admitted to
the medical curriculum until...",
make this position absolutely
clear. On the other hand the
language in Regulation II which
relates to s election of candidates
clearly goes to indicate that the
Council itself appears to have been
aware of the limitation on its
powers to frame any such regulation
regarding the procedure or process
of selection of candidates for
admission to the medical course out
of the candidates qualified or
eligible to seek such admission."
The Court said that it was of the opinion that the use of the words "should be" in Regulation II was deliberate and was intended to indicate the intention of the Medical Council that it was only in the nature of recommendation. Regulation I, which lays down conditions or qualifications for admission into medical course, comes within the competence of Medical Council under Section 33 of the Medical Council Act and it is mandatory and the Medical Council has used language to manifest the mandatory character clearly, whereas Regulation II, which deals with process or procedures for selection from amongst eligible candidates for admission, is merely in the nature of a recommendation and directory in nature, as laying down the process or procedure for selection or admission of candidates out of the candidates eligible or qualified for such admission under Regulation I. The Court said that from the provisions of the Medical Council Act it was apparent that the authority of the Medical Council extends to the sphere of maintaining proper medical standards in medical colleges or institutions necessary for obtaining recognised medical qualifications and by virtue of this authority it may be open to the Medical Council to lay down the minimum educational qualification required for the students seeking admission into medical colleges. Medical Council was authorized to prescribe minimum standards of medical education required for granting recognized medical qualification including standards of post-graduate medical education. The Medical Council Act envisages that if it appears to the Medical Council that the course of study and examination to be undergone in, or the proficiency required from students at any examination held by any university or medical institution do not conform to the standard prescribed by the Medical Council or that the staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities for instructions and training provided in such university or medical institutions or in any college or other institution affiliated to that university do not conform to the standards prescribed by the Medical Council, it will make representation to that effect to the Central Government and on the consideration of the representation made by the Medical Council, the Central Government may take action in terms of the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Medical Council Act. The Medical Council Act also empowers the Medical Council to take various measures to enable it to judge whether proper medical standard is being maintained in particular institutions or not.
In Dr. Ambesh Kumar vs. Principal, L.L.R.M. Medical College, Meerut and others (1986 (Supp.) SCC 543) there were challenge to an order of the State Government laying down qualifications regarding eligibility of a candidate to be considered for admission to the post-graduate degree in M.D., M.S. and diploma course in M.D., M.S. etc. on the basis of merit in accordance with the Regulations made under the Indian Medical Council Act. It was contended that the order of the State was invalid as it encroached upon Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The State Government had issued a notice inviting applications for admission to various post-graduate courses in degree and diploma in different specialities of the medical colleges. In para 4 of the said notice it was specifically stated that the minimum eligibility qualification of the applicants would be according to the recommendations of Medical Council of India. Over and above what the Regulation of the Medical Council has prescribed the State Government laid the following provision :-
"No candidate shall be eligible for
admission to post-graduate degree
or diploma course, who has obtained
less than 55 per cent and 52 per
cent marks respectively, for the
two courses (degree & diploma) in
merit calculated in accordance with
para 2 of the said notice."
This Court considered the question so raised and upheld the Government’s order with the following observations:-
"20. The only question to be
considered is whether the impugned
order is repugnant to or encroaches
upon or it is in conflict with the
power of the Central legislature to
make laws in respect of matters
specified in Entry 66 of List I of
the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution. The Indian Medical
Council pursuant to Section 33 of
the Indian Medical Council Act had
made certain recommendations which
have been embodied in the
Regulations made by the Central
Government laying down the criteria
or standards for admitting the
candidates to various post-graduate
disciplines in the Medical Colleges
of the State. These Regulations, as
has been quoted hereinbefore,
clearly prescribe that the
candidates should be selected
strictly on merit judged on the
basis of academic record in the
undergraduate courses i.e. MBBS
Course and this selection should be
conducted by the University. There
are also other eligibility
qualifications provided in the said
Regulations namely the candidates
must have obtained full
registration i.e. they must have
completed satisfactorily one year
of compulsory rotating internship
after passing the final MBBS
examination and also they must have
done one year’s housemanship prior
to admission to the post-graduate
degree or diploma course."
"22. In the instant case the number
of seats for admission to various
post-graduate courses both degree
and diploma in Medical Colleges is
limited and a large number of
candidates undoubtedly apply for
admission to these courses of
study. In such circumstances the
impugned order laying down the
qualification for a candidate to be
eligible for being considered for
selection for admission to the said
courses on the basis of the merit
as specified by Regulations made
under the Indian Medical Council
Act, cannot be said to be in
conflict with the said Regulations
or in any way repugnant to the said
Regulations. It does not in any way
encroach upon the standards
prescribed by the said Regulations.
On the other hand by laying down a
further qualification of
eligibility it promotes and
furthers the standards in an
institution."
In Osmania University Teachers’ Association vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another (1987 (4) SCC 671) the question for consideration before the Court was if the Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education Act, 1966 was constitutionally valid being violative of Entry 66 List I or Entry 25 List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The Court examined the relevant entries in List I and List III and said that the field to which impugned Act applied was already occupied by the University Grants Commission Act, passed by the Union Parliament. The impugned Act had established a Commissionerate which the Court said had practically taken over the academic programmes and activities of the Universities and Universities had been rendered irrelevant if not nonentities. The Court observed as under :-
"14. Entry 25 List III relating to
education including technical
education, medical education and
universities has been made subject
to the power of Parliament to
legislate under Entries 63 to 66 of
List I. Entry 66 List I and Entry
25 List III should, therefore, be
read together. Entry 66 gives power
to Union to see that a required
standard of higher education in the
country is maintained. The standard
of Higher Education including
scientific and technical should not
be lowered at the hands of any
particular State or States.
Secondly, it is the exclusive
responsibility of the Central
Government to co-ordinate and
determine the standards for higher
education. That power includes the
power to evaluate, harmonise and
secure proper relationship to any
project of national importance. It
is needless to state that such a
co-ordinate action in higher
education with proper standards, is
of paramount importance to national
progress. It is in this national
interest, the legislative field in
regard to ’education’ has been
distributed between List I and List
III of the Seventh Schedule.
15. The Parliament has exclusive
power to legislate with respect to
matters included in List I. The
State has no power at all in regard
to such matters. If the State
legislates on the subject falling
within List I that will be void,
inoperative and unenforceable.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
25. It is apparent from this
discussion that the Commissionerate
Act has been drawn by the large in
the same terms as those of the UGC
Act. The Commissionerate Act, as we
have earlier seen also contains
some more provisions. Both the
enactments, however, deal with the
same subject matter. Both deal with
the co-ordination and determination
of excellence in the standards of
teaching and examination in the
Universities. Here and there, some
of the words and sentences used in
the Commissionerate Act may be
different from those used in the
UGC Act, but nevertheless, they
convey the same meaning. It is just
like referring to the same person
with (sic by) different
descriptions and names. The
intention of the legislature has to
be gathered by reading the statute
as a whole. That is a rule which is
now firmly established for the
purpose of construction of
statutes. The High Court appears to
have gone on a tangent. The High
Court would not have fallen into an
error if it had perused the UGC Act
as a whole and compared it with the
Commissionerate Act or vice versa."
Mr. Reddy, appearing for the State of Karnataka, referred to a decision of this Court in Ajay Kumar Singh and others vs. State of Bihar and others (1994 (4) SCC 401). In this case the Court was considering the question of permissibility of providing reservations under clause (4) of Article 15 of the Constitution in post-graduate medical courses in the State of Bihar. The State Government had issued a prospectus relating to post-graduate medical admission test, 1992 providing reservation in favour of socially and educationally backward classes, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women. One of the contentions raised was that the Regulations made by the Medical Council prescribed reservation of seats in post-graduate medical courses on any grounds whatsoever and that the Regulation being statutory in nature prevailed over the executive orders made by the State of Bihar in exercise of executive powers. The Court again considered the relevant entries in Lists I and III of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and the provisions of the Medical Council of India Act and the Regulations framed under Section 33 of that Act. The Court observed as under :-
"18. A review of the provisions of
the Act clearly shows that among
other things, the Act is concerned
with the determination and
coordination of standards of
education and training in medical
institutions. Sections 16, 17 18
and 19 all speak of "the courses of
study and examinations to be
undergone" to obtain the recognised
medical qualification. They do not
speak of admission to such courses.
Section 19-A expressly empowers the
council to "prescribe the minimum
standards of medical education"
required for granting undergraduate
medical qualification. So does
Section 20 empower the council to
prescribe standards of postgraduate
medical education but "for the
guidance of universities" only. It
further says that the council "may
also advise universities in the
matter of securing uniform
standards for postgraduate medical
education throughout India". (The
distinction between the language of
Section 19-A and Section 20 is also
a relevant factor, as would be
explained later.) Clause (j) of
Section 33 particularises the
subjects with respect to which
Regulations can be made by the
council. It speaks of the courses
and period of study and the
practical training to be undergone
by the students, the subjects of
examination which they must pass
and the standards of proficiency
they must attain to obtain the
recognised medical qualifications
but it does not speak of admission
to such courses of study. Indeed,
none of the sections aforementioned
empower the council to regulate or
prescribe qualifications or
conditions for admission to such
courses of study. No other
provision in the Act does. It is
thus clear that the Act does not
purport to deal with, regulate or
provide for admission to graduate
or postgraduate medical courses.
Indeed, insofar as postgraduate
courses are concerned, the power of
the Indian Medical Council to
"prescribe the minimum standards of
medical education" is only advisory
in nature and not of a binding
character. In such a situation, it
would be rather curious to say that
the Regulations made under the Act
are binding upon them. The
Regulations made under the Act
cannot also provide for or regulate
admission to postgraduate courses
in any event."
The Court then said that the Regulations made by the Medical Council speak generally of students for postgraduate training being selected "strictly on merit judged on the basis of academic record in the undergraduate course". This, the Court said, was more in the nature of advice and not in binding direction and went to observe as under :-
"The Regulation does not say that
no reservations can be provided
under Article 15(4). The power
conferred upon the State by clause
(4) of Article 15 is a
constitutional power. The said
power obviously could not have been
overridden or superseded by a
Regulation made by the Indian
Medical Council under the Act. The
Regulation must be read consistent
with Article 15(4) and if so read,
it means that the students shall be
admitted to postgraduate training
strictly on the basis of merit in
each of the relevant classes or
categories, as the case may be. Any
other construction seeking to give
an absolute meaning to the said
Regulation would render it invalid
both on the ground of travelling
beyond the Act. It may also fall
foul of Article 15(4)."
The Court also referred to an earlier decision in Nivedita Jain’s case (1981 (4) SCC 296) where, as noted in that case, this Court said that Regulation II was directory and did not have any mandatory force. Whether a Regulation is directory or mandatory will depend upon the language used in the Regulation and the object of the Act it seeks to achieve.
Mr. Rama Jois, appearing for J.N. Medical College, Belgaum, respondent No. 16, submitted that if the State or the University has fixed intake for admission to medical college as on June 1, 1992 that would continue to hold good unless the medical college asks for increase. He said that even if the Medical Council had passed production of the seats existing on June 1, 1992 it could do so only after notice and after hearing the medical college. He submitted that in the letter of the Central Government to the Secretary, Medical Council, which is dated January 19, 1994, clarification was given as to the word "established" mentioned in Section 10-A of the Medical Council Act, as amended. In this letter the opinion of the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs (Department of Legal Affairs) was communicated, which was to the following effect :-
"The provisions of Section 10-A of
the IMC (Amendment) Act, 1993 will
not apply to those colleges who
have obtained all necessary
statutory/ administrative approvals
from the respective authorities and
where admission procedure was
commenced prior to 1st June, 1992.
This would imply that all those
Medical Colleges who have started
the admission procedure prior to
1.6.1992, after taking the
following permission, will be
outside the purview of ’Amendment’
Act;-
(i) Permission of the concerned
State Government.
(ii) Affiliation of the concerned
University.
This would also apply to cases of
increase in admission capacity in
Medical Colleges and starting of
new Post Graduate Medical Courses."
He said there were further answers to queries raised by the Medical Council in this letter, which showed that Section 10-A would not be applicable in case admission procedure was commenced prior to June 1, 1992. In support of his submission that such a clarification will be binding on the Medical Council Mr. Rama Jois referred to a decision of this Court in K.P. Varghese vs. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam and another (1981 (4) SCC 173). In this case Central Board of Direct Taxes issued two circulars which were binding on the Tax Department in administering or executing a certain provision in the Act. The Court said that quite apart from the binding of the circulars "they are clearly in the nature of contemporanea expositio furnishing legitimate aid in the construction of sub-section (2). The rule of construction by reference to contemporanea expositio is a well established rule for interpreting a statute by reference to the exposition it has received from contemporary authority, though it must give way where the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous". We do not think that the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court under the Income-tax Act, 1961 would be applicable to the clarification issued by the Central Government in its letter dated January 19, 1994. Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 empowers the Central Board of Direct Taxes to issue such orders, instructions and directions to other Income-tax authorities as it may deem fit for the proper administration of that Act. The powers which the Central Board of Direct Tax exercise under Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are statutory in nature. A court is, however, not bound by any clarification that may be issued by the Central Government or any other authority interpreting a certain provision of law. We may, however, note that in the case of J.N. Medical College, we are told, that certain proceedings are pending either in the Karnataka High Court or before the Medical Council regarding the number of seats for admission to the College. It is not necessary for us to comment on those proceedings.
The Indian Medical Council Act is relatable to Entry 66 of List I (Union List). It prevails over any state enactment to the extent the State enactment is repugnant to the provision of the Act even though the State Acts may be relatable to Entries 25 or 26 of List III (Concurrent List). Regulations framed under Section 33 of the Medical Council Act with the previous sanctions of the Central Government are statutory. These regulations are framed to carry out the purposes of the Medical Council Act and for various purposes mentioned in Section 33. If a regulation falls within the purposes referred under Section 33 of the Medical Council At, it will have mandatory force. Regulations have been framed with reference to clauses (fa), (fb) and (fc) (which have been introduced by the Amendment Act of 1993 w.e.f. August 27, 1992) and clauses (j), (k) and (l) of Section 33.
Considering the law laid by this Court in aforementioned judgments and provisions of law, we do not think that the dispute raised by the State of Karnataka is any longer re integra.
Proceedings before the learned single Judge started on a complaint received through post wherein it was alleged that Medical Colleges in the State of Karnataka had been permitted by the State Government to admit students far in excess of the admission capacities fixed by the Medical Council and that this was so despite the directions issued by the Medical Council in its letter dated November 21, 1994 to the State Government, copied of which were also sent to the Director of Medical Education and to the Principals and Deans of the Medical colleges inviting their attention to the provisions of Sections 10A,10B, and 10c of the Medical Council Act which amendment came into effect from August 27, 1992. In this letter of the Medical colleges in the State of Karnataka were admitting students in excess of the number of students fixed by the Medical Council because of the orders of the Karnataka Government. The letter gave details of the admission capacity fixed by the Medical Council and their sanction by the State and yet the admission of students in some colleges was over and above the strength that was fixed by the State Government. A direction, therefore, was issued to take corrective steps and to reduce the excess number of admissions being made in the medical colleges in the State to the number as approved by the Medical Council. By letter dated August 24, 1995, the Central Government informed the State Government that if there was any proposal to increase the admission capacity in medical colleges, it was required to be submitted to the Central Government in the prescribed format. The State Government was, therefore, requested to submit the proposal to increase the admission capacity college-wise to the Central Government. Since there was no response to the request made by the Medical Council to reduce the admission capacity to that fixed by the Medical Council, it requested the Central Government by its letter dated August 20, 1996 for taking penal action under Section 19 of the Medical Council Act for the purpose of derecognising the medical qualifications granted by the universities in the State. Pleas of the State Government and colleges in the State were that the Medical Council had n statutory authority under the Medical Council Act or any other existing law to fix the admission capacity of the medical colleges in the State and that even Sections 10A, 10B and 10c did not vest any such power in the Medical Council and further that even after June 1, 1992 or for that matter August 27, 1992, the power to fix the admission capacity of a medical college could be traced only to the State Government under Section 53(10) of the Karnataka Universities Act, 1976 read with Section 4(1) (b) of the Capitation Fee Act. Learned single Judge did not find any merit in any of these pleas raised by the respondents and allowed the writ petition as aforesaid. As noted above on appeal by the State of karnataka, the Division Bench in its impugned judgment partly allowed the same.
The State Acts, namely, Karnataka Universities Act and Karnataka Capitation Fee Act must give way to the central Act, namely, the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Karnataka Capitation Fee Act was enacted for the sole purpose of regulation in collection of capitation is empowered to fix the maximum number of students that can be admitted but that number cannot be over and above that fixed by the Medial Council as per the Regulations. Chapter IX f the Karnataka Universities Act, which contains provision for affiliation of colleges and recognition of institutions, applies to all types of colleges and not necessarily to professional colleges like medical colleges. Sub-section (10) of Section 53, falling in Chapter IX of this Act, provides for maximum number of students to be admitted to course for studies in a college and that number shall not exceed the intake fixed by the University or the Government. But this provision has again to be read subject to the intake fixed by the Medical Council under its Regulations. It is the Medical Council which is primarily responsible for fixing standards of medical education and over-seeing that these standards are maintained. It is the Medical Council which is the principal body to lay down conditions for recognition of medical colleges which would include the fixing of intake for admission to a medical college. We have already seen in the beginning of this judgment various provisions of the Medical Council Act. It is, therefore, the Medical Council which in effect grants recognition and also withdraws the same. Regulations under Section 33 of the Medical Council Act, which were made in 1977, prescribe the accommodation in the College and its associated teaching hospitals and teaching and technical staff and equipment in various departments in the college and in the hospitals. These Regulations are in considerable details. Teacher-student ratio prescribed is 1 to 10 exclusive of the professor or head of the department. Regulations further prescribe, apart from other things, that number of teaching beds in the attached hospitals will have to be in the ratio of 7 beds per student admitted. Regulations of the Medical Council, which were approved by the Central Government in 1971, provide for the qualification requirements for appointments of persons to the posts of teachers and visiting Physician/Surgeons of medical colleges and attached hospitals.
In the colleges in the State of Karnataka, the Medical Council prescribed the number of admissions that these colleges could take annually on the basis of these regulations. Without permission of the Medical Council, the number of admissions could not be more than that prescribed at the time of granting recognition to the college. However, it appears that in violation of the provisions of the Medical Council Act, the universities and the State Government have been allowing increase in admission intake in the medical colleges in the State in total disregard of the regulations and rather in violation thereof. These medical colleges cannot admit students over and above the intake fixed by the Medical Council. These colleges have acted illegally in admitting more students than prescribed. Universities and the State Government had no authority to allow increase in the number of admissions in the medical colleges in the State. When regulations prescribed that number of teaching beds will have to be in the ratio of 7 beds per student admitted any increase in the number of admissions will have corresponding increase in the teaching beds in the attached hospital. These regulations have been over-looked by the universities and the State Government in allowing admissions over and above that fixed by the Medical Council. Respondents have not produced any document to show that increase in admission capacity to medical colleges over that fixed by the Medical Council has any relation to the existence of relevant infrastructure in their respective colleges and that there is also corresponding increase in number of beds for students in the attached hospitals. Standards have been laid by the Medical Council, an expert body, for the purpose of imparting proper medical education and for maintaining uniform standards of medical education through out the country. Seats in medical colleges cannot be increased indiscriminately without regard to proper infrastructure as per the Regulations of the Medical Council.
A medical student requires gruelling study and that can be done only if proper facilities are available in a medical college and hospital attached to it has to be well equipped and teaching faculty and doctors have to be competent enough that when a medical student comes out he is perfect in the science of treatment of human being and is not found wanting in any way. Country does not want half-baked medical professionals coming out of medical colleges when they did not have full facilities of teaching and were not exposed to the patients and their ailments during the course of their study. The Medical Council, in all fairness, does not wish to invalidate the admissions made in excess of that fixed by it and does not wish to take any action of withdrawing recognition of the medical colleges violating the regulation. Henceforth, however, these medical colleges must restrict the number of admissions fixed by the Medical Council. After the insertion of Sections 10A, 10B and 10C in the Medical Council Act, the Medical Council has framed regulations with the previous approval of the Central Government which were published in the Gazette of India dated September 29, 1993 (though the notification is dated September 20, 1993). Any medical college or institution which wishes to increase the admission capacity in MBBS/higher courses (including diploma/degree/higher specialities) has to apply to the Central Government for the permission along with the permission of the State Government and that of the university with which it is affiliated and in conformity with the regulations framed by the Medical Council. Only the medical college or institution which is recognised by the Medical Council can so apply.
Having thus held that it is the Medical Council which can prescribe the number of student to be admitted in medical courses in a medical college or institution it is the Central Government alone which can direct increase in the number of admissions but only on the recommendation of the Medical Council. In our opinion, the learned single Judge was right in his view that no medical college can admit any student in excess of its admission capacity fixed by the Medical Council subject to any increase thereof as approved by the Central Government and that Sections 10A, 10B and 10C will prevail over Section 53(10) of the State Universities Act and Section 41(b) of the State Capitation Fee Act. To say that the number of students as permitted by the State Government and or University before June 1, 1992 could continue would be allowing an illegality to perpetuate for all time to come. The Division Bench, in our opinion, in the impugned judgment was not correct in holding that admission capacity for the purpose of increase or decrease in each of the medical colleges/institutions has got to be determined as on or before June 1, 1992 with reference to what had been fixed by the State Government or the admission capacity fixed by the medical colleges and not with reference to the minimum standard of education prescribed under Section 19A of the Medical Council Act which the Division Bench said were only recommendatory. Nivedita Jain’s case does not say that all the regulations framed by the Medical Council with the previous approval of the Central Government are directory or more recommendatory. It is not that only future admission will have to be regulated on the basis of capacity fixed or determined by the Medical Council. Plea of the State Government that power to regulate admission to medical colleges is prerogative of the State has to be rejected.
What we have said about the authority of the Medical Council under the Indian Medical Council Act would equally apply to the Dental Council under the Dentists Act.
Accordingly, appeal by the Medical Council of India (SLP (C) No.14839/97) is allowed and the impugned judgment of the Division Bench is set aside and we restore the judgment of the learned single Judge. Other appeals by the State of Karnataka (SLP (C) No.20035/97) and Rajiv Gandhi Dental College (SLP (C) No.5471/98) are dismissed. Medical Council of India shall be entitled to costs.