# MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC

- **Citation:** [1998] 3 S.C.R. 740
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1998-07-16
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 3275 of 1998
- **Bench:** M.M. Punchhi Cj, K.T. Thomas, D.P Wadhwa
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/medical-council-of-india-v-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-etc-16395
- **Pages:** 34

## Headnote

Indian Medical Council Act I956 And The Amending Act 3I of I993Ss JOA. JOB & IOC- The Central Act Prevails over the Karnataka Educational
Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act and the Karnataka State
C Universities Act, and will override any provision in the said State
enactments repugnant to the provisions of the Central Act-Any Medical
college/University which wants to increase the admission capacity has to
apply to the Central Govt. with the permission of both the State Govt. and
the concerned University- Only the Medical Council can prescribe the
D number of students to be admitted- Similarly, the Dental Council will
exercises an authority similar to that of the Medical Council under the
Dentists Act over the Dental Colleges.
Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee)
Act 1984-S4(I) (b)- State Govt. cannot fix a maximum number of students
E over and above that fixed by the Medical Council,
Karnataka State Universities Act 1976-S 53 (10)-Ss JOA, Band C
of the Central Act (Indian Medical Council Act, 1956) prevails in respect of
the number of the students to be admitted
F
Constitution of India-Constitutional Amendment Act I976-- Indian
Medical Council Act is relatable to Entry 66 of List. /. Regulations framed
under S. 33 of the Central Act prevail over the repugnant provision of the
State Acts, which are relatab/e to Entry 25 and 26 of the Concurrent List.
Interpretation of Statutes-Where the language of the Statute is neither
G plain nor unambiguous, reference to exposition from contemporary authority
may be used for interpreting-Court not bound by the clarifications given
by the Central Government or any other authority interpreting a provision
of/aw.
On a postal complaint about admissions to Medical Colleges, Single
H Judge held that, the increase in the admission capacity is decided by the
740
·-
MEDICAL COUNCIL OFiNDIA v. STATE
741
Medical Council as approved by the Central government and the provisions A
of the State Acts which are repugnant to Ss IO A,B and C of Central Act
are void. On appeal, the Division Bench held that because of the amendment
of the Medical Council Act in 1993, Ss IOA, Band C would override State
enactments after June 1,1992, but it will not affect action tak'i!n prior to that
date. The short question raided in the Civil Appeal before this Court is,
whether the State government and the Universities, by virtue of powers B
provided with under the relevants Statues, can increase the number of seats
in Medical Colleges in the State overlooking the provisions of Sections IO
A, B And C of the Medical Council Amendment Act 1993.
Allowing the appeals, this Court
c
HELD : 1. It is the Medical Council which can prescribe the number
of students 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. The
Single Judge was right in his view that no medical college can admit any D
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 IO A, IO B, and 10 C will prevail over Section 53 (IO) 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 E
illegality to perpetuate for all time to come. The Division Bench, 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 has been fixed by the State Government or the admission
capacity fixed by the medical colleges and not with reference to the minimum F
standard of education prescribed under Section 19A of the Medical Council
A

## Text

_Characters 0–39,769 of 84,892. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39769 for what follows._

A
B
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC.
JULY 16, 1998
[M.M. PUNCHHI CJ., K.T. THOMAS AND D.P WADHWA, JJ.]
Indian Medical Council Act I956 And The Amending Act 3I of I993Ss JOA. JOB & IOC- The Central Act Prevails over the Karnataka Educational
Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act and the Karnataka State
C Universities Act, and will override any provision in the said State
enactments repugnant to the provisions of the Central Act-Any Medical
college/University which wants to increase the admission capacity has to
apply to the Central Govt. with the permission of both the State Govt. and
the concerned University- Only the Medical Council can prescribe the
D number of students to be admitted- Similarly, the Dental Council will
exercises an authority similar to that of the Medical Council under the
Dentists Act over the Dental Colleges.
Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee)
Act 1984-S4(I) (b)- State Govt. cannot fix a maximum number of students
E over and above that fixed by the Medical Council,
Karnataka State Universities Act 1976-S 53 (10)-Ss JOA, Band C
of the Central Act (Indian Medical Council Act, 1956) prevails in respect of
the number of the students to be admitted
F
Constitution of India-Constitutional Amendment Act I976-- Indian
Medical Council Act is relatable to Entry 66 of List. /. Regulations framed
under S. 33 of the Central Act prevail over the repugnant provision of the
State Acts, which are relatab/e to Entry 25 and 26 of the Concurrent List.
Interpretation of Statutes-Where the language of the Statute is neither
G plain nor unambiguous, reference to exposition from contemporary authority
may be used for interpreting-Court not bound by the clarifications given
by the Central Government or any other authority interpreting a provision
of/aw.
On a postal complaint about admissions to Medical Colleges, Single
H Judge held that, the increase in the admission capacity is decided by the
740
·-
MEDICAL COUNCIL OFiNDIA v. STATE
741
Medical Council as approved by the Central government and the provisions A
of the State Acts which are repugnant to Ss IO A,B and C of Central Act
are void. On appeal, the Division Bench held that because of the amendment
of the Medical Council Act in 1993, Ss IOA, Band C would override State
enactments after June 1,1992, but it will not affect action tak'i!n prior to that
date. The short question raided in the Civil Appeal before this Court is,
whether the State government and the Universities, by virtue of powers B
provided with under the relevants Statues, can increase the number of seats
in Medical Colleges in the State overlooking the provisions of Sections IO
A, B And C of the Medical Council Amendment Act 1993.
Allowing the appeals, this Court
c
HELD : 1. It is the Medical Council which can prescribe the number
of students 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. The
Single Judge was right in his view that no medical college can admit any D
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 IO A, IO B, and 10 C will prevail over Section 53 (IO) 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 E
illegality to perpetuate for all time to come. The Division Bench, 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 has been fixed by the State Government or the admission
capacity fixed by the medical colleges and not with reference to the minimum F
standard of education prescribed under Section 19A of the Medical Council
Act which the Division Bench said was only 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 is said about the authority of the Medical Council G
under the Indian Medical Council Act would equally apply to the Dental
Council under the Dentists Act. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another v.
Kumari Nivedita Jain and Others, (1981) 4 SCC 296, relied on.
[772-H; 773-A-E)
2. Till January 3, 1977 education was a State subject under Entry II H
742
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998] 3 S.C.R.
A 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 II was deleted and
it was placed in Concurrent List by enlarging the existing Entry 25, relevant
entries 63 to 66 of the List I (Union List) and entries 25 and 26 of List Ill
B
(Concurrent List) in the Seventh Schedule. 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 Ill (Concurrent List). Regulations framed under Section 33 of the
Medical Council Act with the previous sanction of the Central Government
c are statutory. These regulations are farmed to carry out the Purposes of the
Medical Council Act and for various purposes mentioned in Section 33. If
a regulation falls within the purpose referred under Section 33 of the
Medical Council Act, it will have mandatory force. Regulations have been
framed with reference to clauses (fa), (fb), and (fc) which have been introduced
D
by the Amendment Act of 1993 w.e.f. August 27, 1992 and clauses (j), (k)
and (1) of Section 33. [757-F; 769-B-D)
Gujarat University, Ahmedabad v. Krishna Ranganath Madholkar,
(1963) Supp. 1 SCR 112, relied on
E
Dr. Ambesh Kumar v. Principal. L.L.R.M. Medical College, Meerut and
others, (1986) Supp. SCC 543; Osmania University Teachers Association v.
State of Andhra Pradesh and another, [1987) 4 SCC 671 and Ajay Kumar
Singh and others v. State of Bihar and others, [1994) 4 SSC 401, referred
to.
F
K.P Varghese v. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam and another, (1981) 4
sec 173, distinguished.
·-
3. 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
G the sole purpose of regulation in collection of capitation fee by colleges and
for that the State Government 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 Medical Council as per the Regulations. Chapter IX of the
~
....
Karnataka Universities Act, which contains provision for affiliation of colleges
and recognition in institutions, applies to all types of colleges like medical
H colleges. Sub-section (10) of Section 53, falling in Chapter IX of this Act,
=
-
-
)._
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. STATE
743
provides for maximum number of students in a college and that number shall A
not exceed the intake fixed by the University of 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 overseeing that
these standards are maintained. It is the Medical Council which is the B
principal body to lay down conditions for recognition of medical colleges
which would include the fixing of intake for admission to a medical college.
It is 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 C
in various departments in the college and in the hospitals. These Regulations
are in considerable details. For 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 that time of granting recognition to the college. However, D
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. E
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 the number of teaching beds will have to be in
the ratio of i beds per student admitted any increase in the number of
admissions will have corresponding increase in the teaching beds in the F
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 in medical colleges over that fixed
by Medical Council has any relation to the existence of relevant in G
infrastructure in their respective a colleges and that there is al~o
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 throughout the country. Seats in
medical colleges cannot be increased indiscriminately without regard to H
744
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998] 3 S.C.R.
A proper infrastructure as per the Regulations of the Medical Council. Country
, does not want half-baked medical professionals coming out of medical colleges
which did. not have full facilities of teaching and were not exposed to the
patients and their ailments during the course of their study. Henceforth,
however, these medical colleges must restrict the number of admissions
B fixed by the Medical Council. [770-F-H; 771-A-H; 772-A-D)
4. After the insertion of Sections IOA, 108, and IOC 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
C 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
D recognised by the Medical Council can so apply. [772-E-F-G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3275 of
1998 Etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.7.97 of the Karnataka High
E Court in W.A. No. 8413 of 1996.
V.R. Reddy and M.S. Usgaonkar, Additional Solicitor Generals, Dushyant
Dave, R. Venkataramani, R. Rama Jois, Sushi! Kumar, N.N. Goswami, Maninder
Singh, S.M. Garg, S. Vidya Shanlrnr, K.R. Nagaraja, K.K. Tyagi, U.U. Lalit, D.M.
Nargolkar, Ms. Minakshi Vij, K. Ram Kumar, Ms. Lalita Kaushik, Naresh
F Kaushik, S.A. Divate, Ms. Kiran Suri, Maninder Singh, Girish Ananthamurthy,
(M.R. Naik) for P.P. Singh, S. Vijaya Shankar, K.K. Tyagi, R.P. Wadhwani,
P.Mahale, S.N. Bhat, R. Jagannath Goulay, Ms. Abha Jain, L.R. Singh, Rakesh
Kumar Sharma, Rajiv Nanda and B.K. Prasad for the appearing parties.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D.P. WADHWA, J. Leave granted.
A Division Bench of the Kamataka High Court has put a qu_estion mark
on the authority of the Medical Council of India ( for short, the 'Medical
H Council') - the appellant - in its judgement dated July 16, 1997 to fix intake
•
.f -
t> --
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. STATE [D.P WADHWA, J.]
745
for admission of students to various medical colleges in the State of Kamataka. A
~
,>
Medical Council is aggrieved by that part of the impugned judgement where
the Division Bench held that prior to insertion of Sections IOA, !OB, and 1 OC
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 B
the State and that this authority to determine the admission capacity in the
medical colleges vested in State by virtue of two State enactments, namely,
Kamataka State Universities Act, 1976 (for short, 'Kamataka Universities
--
Act') and Kamataka 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 c
insertion of Sections I OA, 1 OB and I OC, the two State enactments would yield
to the provisions of the Medical Council Act 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 D
I, 1992 with reference to what had been fixed by the State Government or that
fixed 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 E
will, however, have to be regulated on the basis of the capacity fixed or
determined by the Medical Council as provisions of Sections 1 OA, 1 OB and
1 OC are prospective.
State of Kamataka has also filed appeal. It felt aggrieved by that part
of the impugned judgment of the Division Bench where it scuttled the powers F
of the State to fix admission capacity to the medical colleges. Stand of the
State is that Section I OA 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 G
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.
H
746
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998) 3 S.C.R.
A
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:
B
"I
s.53(10) of the State Universities Act and Sec.4(l)(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 1 OA, 1 OB and I OC of the Central
Act, are held as void and inoperative.
C
II.
The power in relation to fixation and/or increase of the actmission
capacities of the medical colleges has to be governed strictly
and exclusively under the provisions of Sec.IOA/lOC of the
Central Act.
Ill. No medical college can admit any student in excess of its
D
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. I OA or Sec. I OC of the
Central Act.
E
F
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 I OA, I OB and IOC 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 1 OA, 1 OB and 1 OC in the Act made no difference to its authority to
regulate admission to Medical Colleges in view of the judgement of this Court
G in A.K. Singh v. State of Bihar, [1994) 4 SCC 401 and that power under Section
1 OA of the Medic.al 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
H (SLP No.14839/97) filed by the Medical Council, this Court, while issuing
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. STATE [D.P WADHWA, J.]
747
1•
notice, stayed the impugned judgment of the Division Bench. In the appeal A
filed by the Raj iv Gandhi Dental College, it wa~ 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 B
this Court in State of Kerala v. Kumari T.P. Roshana & Anr., [1979] l 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 C
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 invigilatioil by the Medical Council
to prevent sub-standard entrance qualifications for medical courses." D
The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
Section 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 E
undergo the training, if any, required by his 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 F
included in the Schedules; "University" means any Uniwrsity in India
established by law and having a medical faculty.
"Sec. l 0-A. Permission for establishment of new medical college,
new course of study, etc.-(!) Notwithstanding anything contained in
this Act or any other law for the time being in forceG
(a) no person shall establish a medical college; or
(b)
no medic;al 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 H
748
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998] 3 S C.R.
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 I.- 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 section, "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 (I), 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
G
concerned fqr 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;
H
(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.
I
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. STATE [D.P WADHWA, J.]
749
(4) The Central Government may, after considering the scheme and A
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 l\'.lving
regard to the factors referred to in sub-section (7), either approve
(with such conditions, if any, as it may consider necessary) or B
disapprove the scheme and any such approval shall be a permission
under sub-section (I) :
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.
C
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).
D
(5) .. .
(6) .. .
(7) The Council, while making its recommendations under clause (b)
of sub-section (3) and the Central Government, while passing an order, E
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 F
of medical education as prescribed by the Council under section
19A or, as the case may be, under section 20 in the case of postgraduate 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 G
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 H
750
A
-~
' .
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998) 3 S.C.R.
of study or training or accommodating the increased admission
capacity havr 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 hav,, 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 ~ersons 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. I O.B Non-recognition of medical qualifications in certain cases.-
(!) .. .
(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 I OA,
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.
G
Sec.I 0-C. Time for seeking permission for certain existing medical
colleges, etc.-
(!) If after the I st 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
H
college has opened a new or higher course of study or training
/..
..
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. STATE [D.P WADHWA, J.]
751
or increase the admission capacity, such person or medical college, A
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 I OA.
(2)
If any person or medical college, as the case may be, fails to seek B
the permission under sub-section (I), the provisions of section
I OB shall apply, so far as may be, as if, permission of the Central
Government under s I OA 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 C
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 D
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 E
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 qua!ifications granted by that University or medical F
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 G
come Sections 19 and i 9A and which have been set out below providing for
laying down minimum standards of medical education and withdrawal of
reccgnition. These are as under :
"Sec.19. Withdrawal of recognition.-(!) When upon report by the
Committee or the visitor, it appears to the Council :-
H
752
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998] 3 S.C.R.
(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 tha, University, do not conform to the standards
prescribed by the Council the Council shall make a representation
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 wanted after a specified date.
Sec.19.A Minimum standards of medical education.-(!) The Council
may prescribe the minimum standards of medical education required
for granting recognised medical qualifications (other than postgraduate medical qualifications) by Universities or medical institutions
H
in India.
,
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. STATE [D.P WADHWA, J.]
753
(2) Copies of the draft regulations and of all subsequent amendments A
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 c Jmments of any State Government
received within three months from the furnishing of copies aforesaid. B
(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 Co~.mcil may, with the previous
sanction of the Central Government, make regulations generally to C
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 D
section I OA;
(fb) any other factors under clause (g) of sub-sectio:i (7) of section
JOA;
(fc) the criteria for identifying a student who has been granted a
medical qualification referred to in the Explanation to sub-section (3) E
of section I OB;
(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 F
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 G
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 H
754
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
'
[1998] 3 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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,
C or class or classes of such institution, as the Government may, by notification
specify.
D
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, -
(I)( a) the minimum qualification for admission to any course of study
E
in an educational institution shall be such as may be specified
by -
F
G
(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
H
the period specified under the proviso to section 3, the Government
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. STATE [D.P WADHWA, J.)
755
,,..
may, from time to time, by general or special order, specify in respect A
of each private educational institution or class or classes of such
institution.
(a) the number of seats set apart as Government seats:
(b) the number of seats tlfat may be filled up by the management B
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
c
(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.
D
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;
E
(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 of the Government and
the University to which such educational institution is affiliated shall
be included as members in such committee."
F
KARNATAKA STATE UNIVERSITY ACT, 1976
"Section 5 3.
( 1) Colleges within the University area may, on satisfying the conditions
specified in this section, be affiliated to the University as affiliated G
Colleges by the Univer:>ity 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.
H
756
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998] 3 S.C.R.
A
(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
B
provision for the courses of instruction, teaching or training to be
undertaken by the college.
( d) That the buildings 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,
c
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 eJ1!)erimental science,
D
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) ......
E
(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
F
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
G
study shall not exceed the intake fixed by the University or th~
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
H
at any examination conducted by the University."
\
~
I
' ·~
~
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. STA TE [D.P WADHWA, J.]
757
,;.
Section 33 of the Medical Council Act empowers the Medical Council A
to frame regulations with the previous ~anction of the Central Government to
carry out the purposes of the Medical Council Act.