# MODERN DENTAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH CENTRE & ORS v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS

- **Citation:** [2016] 3 S.C.R. 579
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2016
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 4060,of2009
- **Bench:** Anil R. Dave, A.K. Sikri, R.K. Agrawal, Adarsh Kumar Goel, R. Banumathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/modern-dental-college-and-research-centre-ors-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh-ors-31246
- **Pages:** 139

## Headnote

Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavasayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh
Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 - ss.
3(d), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 - Madhya Pradesh Private Medical and
Dental Post Graduate Courses Entrance Examination Rules, 2009
- r. 9 - Constitution of India -Art. J9{J)(g) and 19(6):
Validitylvires of the provisions of the Act and the Rules -
Challenged to, by appellants-private unaided 111edical and dental
colleges - Challenge made to the provisions relating to admission
of students in post graduate courses, .fixation of fee, reservation of
seats, provisions relating to eligibility for admission on the ground
of being violative of Art. l 9(l){g) as also on the ground of
competence of the State legislature since the subject matter was
exclusively reserved for Parliament - Held: Right claimed by the
appellants is a .fundamental right guaranteed u/Art. 19(l}(g) - Act
imposes reasonable restrictions on the right given to the appellants,
thus. protected u/Art. 19(6) - Provisions in the Act and the Rules
relating to fixation ojfee 110t violative of Ari. 19( l){g) - Reservations
of seats for SC/ST and OBC in private educational insti1U1io11s in
consonance with Art. 15(5) - Holding of co111111011 en/ranee test for
admission under the control of State does not impinge the autonomy
of such institutions - Further, impugned legislation is not beyond
the legislative competence of the State - Thus, the Act and the Rules
are constitutionally valid - High Court rightly upheld the validity_
of the provisions of the Act and the Rules.
Provisions in the Act and Rules relat)ng to fixation of.fee -
Challenge to - Held: Parameters laid down in s. 9 have to be kept
in mind while fixing the fee - Fee to be charged hus to be suggested
579
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
580
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016) 3 S.C.R.
by the said educational inslitution itself - Committee is to satisfY
itself that the fee charge"'d did not a111ount to profiteering or
com111ercialisation of education and was based on intelligible factors
mentioned in s. 9(1) - It is only a regulatO!y measure and does not
take away the poll'ers of the educational institution to fix their own
fee - Thus, the provision relating to .fixation of fee by selling up a
Co111111it1ee to oversee that institutions are not charging a fee which
amounts to capitation or profiteering are reasonable restrictions
and do no/ suffer from any constitutional vice.
Power of State io conduct Common entrance test (CET) -
Challenge to - Held: CET is in larger interest and we(fare of the
students to promote merit, add excellence and curb malpractices -
Holding of CET zmder the control of the State does not impinge this
autonomy - Admission is still in the hands of these institutions -
Sole pwpose of holding CET is to ensure that ad111issions done by
the educational institutions are strictly on merit.
Regulatory mechanism - Regulations under Adhiniya111 of 2007
- Need for - Held: Provisions of Adhiniya111 of 2007 are aimed at
seeking laudable objectives in larger public interest - Object of
setting zip institutions for the State is a welfare function for the
purpose of excelling in educational standards - Profit motive
adopted by the private institutions leads to a large degree of secrecy
and corruption - As such, 111echa11ism of regulations under the
impugned laws is legal, constitutional, fair, /ramparel1l and upholds
the primary criteria of merit - Regulations do not i11ji·i11ge on the
fundamental rights of either the minorities or non-minorities to
establish and administer educational institutions and must as such
be upheld as ralid.
Constitution of India;,_
Art. 19(lj(g) and 19(6) - Right of private unaided professional
institutions to establish and manage educational institutions - Held:
G
Right of professional institutions to establish and manage
educational institutions is regarded as a11 'occupation' befitting the
recognition of this right as a fundamental right u/ Art. 19(1 ){g) -
Four specific

## Text

_Characters 0–39,926 of 328,550. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39926 for what follows._

[2016] 3 S.C.R. 579
MODERN DENTAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH CENTRE & ORS.
A
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4060,of2009)
MAY02,2016
[ANIL R. DAVE, A.K. SIKRI, R.K. AGRAWAL, ADARSH
KUMAR GOEL AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavasayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh
Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 - ss.
3(d), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 - Madhya Pradesh Private Medical and
Dental Post Graduate Courses Entrance Examination Rules, 2009
- r. 9 - Constitution of India -Art. J9{J)(g) and 19(6):
Validitylvires of the provisions of the Act and the Rules -
Challenged to, by appellants-private unaided 111edical and dental
colleges - Challenge made to the provisions relating to admission
of students in post graduate courses, .fixation of fee, reservation of
seats, provisions relating to eligibility for admission on the ground
of being violative of Art. l 9(l){g) as also on the ground of
competence of the State legislature since the subject matter was
exclusively reserved for Parliament - Held: Right claimed by the
appellants is a .fundamental right guaranteed u/Art. 19(l}(g) - Act
imposes reasonable restrictions on the right given to the appellants,
thus. protected u/Art. 19(6) - Provisions in the Act and the Rules
relating to fixation ojfee 110t violative of Ari. 19( l){g) - Reservations
of seats for SC/ST and OBC in private educational insti1U1io11s in
consonance with Art. 15(5) - Holding of co111111011 en/ranee test for
admission under the control of State does not impinge the autonomy
of such institutions - Further, impugned legislation is not beyond
the legislative competence of the State - Thus, the Act and the Rules
are constitutionally valid - High Court rightly upheld the validity_
of the provisions of the Act and the Rules.
Provisions in the Act and Rules relat)ng to fixation of.fee -
Challenge to - Held: Parameters laid down in s. 9 have to be kept
in mind while fixing the fee - Fee to be charged hus to be suggested
579
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
580
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016) 3 S.C.R.
by the said educational inslitution itself - Committee is to satisfY
itself that the fee charge"'d did not a111ount to profiteering or
com111ercialisation of education and was based on intelligible factors
mentioned in s. 9(1) - It is only a regulatO!y measure and does not
take away the poll'ers of the educational institution to fix their own
fee - Thus, the provision relating to .fixation of fee by selling up a
Co111111it1ee to oversee that institutions are not charging a fee which
amounts to capitation or profiteering are reasonable restrictions
and do no/ suffer from any constitutional vice.
Power of State io conduct Common entrance test (CET) -
Challenge to - Held: CET is in larger interest and we(fare of the
students to promote merit, add excellence and curb malpractices -
Holding of CET zmder the control of the State does not impinge this
autonomy - Admission is still in the hands of these institutions -
Sole pwpose of holding CET is to ensure that ad111issions done by
the educational institutions are strictly on merit.
Regulatory mechanism - Regulations under Adhiniya111 of 2007
- Need for - Held: Provisions of Adhiniya111 of 2007 are aimed at
seeking laudable objectives in larger public interest - Object of
setting zip institutions for the State is a welfare function for the
purpose of excelling in educational standards - Profit motive
adopted by the private institutions leads to a large degree of secrecy
and corruption - As such, 111echa11ism of regulations under the
impugned laws is legal, constitutional, fair, /ramparel1l and upholds
the primary criteria of merit - Regulations do not i11ji·i11ge on the
fundamental rights of either the minorities or non-minorities to
establish and administer educational institutions and must as such
be upheld as ralid.
Constitution of India;,_
Art. 19(lj(g) and 19(6) - Right of private unaided professional
institutions to establish and manage educational institutions - Held:
G
Right of professional institutions to establish and manage
educational institutions is regarded as a11 'occupation' befitting the
recognition of this right as a fundamental right u/ Art. 19(1 ){g) -
Four specific rights which encompass right to occupation are, right
to admit students; right to set up a reasonable fee structure; right to
appoint staff (teaching and non-teaching); and right to take action
H
if there is dereliction of duty on the part of any employees - Since,
MODERN DENTAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH CENTRE v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
education is treated as a noble 'occupation' on 'no profit no loss'
basis, those who establish and are managing the educational
institutions are llOt expected to illdulge ill profiTeering or
commercialisation this noble activity - Thus. complete fi"eedom is
not given to the fijiucational .institutions in respect of right to admit
the students and fixation of fee - It is subject to certain restrictiollS
- These are regulatory measures which can be adopted by the State
in respect of such institutions.
Art. 15(5), 19(JJ(g). 19(6), 30 - Chaflellge made to the
reservatioll of seats for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes alld
Other Backward Classes - Held: Since this Court ill P.A. lnamdar
held that there callnot be any fixation of quota or appropriation of
seats by the State, reservation which inheres setting aside quotas,
would not be permissible - It cannot be said that the provisions
seek to bring back the Unni Krishnan system o.f settillg up State quotas
- Thus, reservation of seats for SC/ST alld OBC in consonallce
with Article 15(5).
Art. 254 - List I Entry 66, List 111 Entry 25 - Legislative
competence of the State to enact Adhiniyam of 2007 - Held: Entry
66 List I dealt with determination and coordination 1~[ standards,
alld original Entry 11 of List II granted the States the exclusive
power to legislate with respect to all other aspects of education,
which was subsequently deleted, and replaced by amending Entry
25, List III, granting concurrent powers to both Parliament and
State Legislature to legislate with respect to all other aspects of
Education, except that which was specifically covered by Ent1:v 63
to 66 of the List I - When two Entries relating to education, one in
the Union List and the other in the Concurrent List, co-exist, they
have to be read harmoniously - Reading in this manne1; it would
becoille manifest that when it comes to co-ordinatioll and laying
down of standarcl1· in the higher educati011 or research and scientific
and technical institutions, power rests with the Union/Parliament to
the exclusion of the State Legislatures -Howeve1; as regards technical
and medical education, as ll'e!I as governance o.f universities, even
State Legislatures are given power by virtue of Entry 25 - Thus,
there was no violation of right of autonomy of the educational
instillltions in the CET being conducted by the State or an agency
nominated by the State or in fixing fee - Right 1~f a Stale to do so is
581
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
582
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 3 S.C.R.
subject Jo a central law - MP Niji Vyavasayik Shikshan Sanstha
(Pravesh Ka Vinzvuman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007
- Madhya Pradesh Private Medical and Denial Post Graduate
Courses Entrance Examination Rules, 2009.
Doctrines: Doctrine of Proportionality ~ Expla11ation and
application of - Held: While examini11g whether the impugned
pro'visions of the statute and Rules amounl to reasonable restrictions.
and are in the interest of general public, "doctri11e of proporlionality'
is applied - it is the balancing of fundamental right to cm;ry on
occupation on the one hand and the restrictions imposed on the
other hand - it is the set of rules determining the necessary and
sufficient conditions for limitation of a constitutionally protected
right by a lp11;'to be constitutionally permissible - For a proper
ba/a11ce between the two facts-rights and limitations imposed upo11
it by a statute, concept of 'proportionality', is a proper criterion -
Impugned provisions which may amount to 'restrictio11s 'on the right
of the institution to carry on their 'occupation'. are clearly
'reaso11able' and sati~fy the lest of proportionality.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: Per Sikri, J. (for ltimself, Dave J., Agrawal J., Goel
J., mu/ Ba1111111athi .J.)
Re.: Provisions relating to CET to be conducted by the State
machinery under Act; 2007 as well as Rules.
1.1 The right of professional institutions to establish and
manage educational institutions was finally regarded as an 'occupation' befitting the recognition of this right as a fundamental
right under Article 19(1 )(g) in T.M.A. Pai Fo1111datio11. The Court
delineated four specific rights which encompass right to occupation, namely, (i) a right to admit students; (ii) a right to set up a
reasonable fee structure; (iii) a right to appoint staff (teaching
and non-teaching); and (iv) a right to take action if there is dereliction of duty on the part of any employees. In viell\Of the said
recognition of the right to admit the students and a right to set
up a reasonable fee structure treating as part of occupation is
recognised as fundamental right under Article 19(1 )(g) of the
Constitution. !Paras 32, 331 1627-C, F-GI
1.2 While treating the managing of educational institution as
MODERN DENTAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH CENTRE v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
an 'occupation', the Court was categorical that this activity could
not be treated as 'business' or 'profen·io11 '.This right to carry on
the occupation that the education is, the same is not put at par
with other occupations or business activities or even other professions. It is a category apart which was carved out by this Court
in T.M.A. Pai Foundation. There was a specific purpose for not
doing so. Education is treated as a noble 'occupation' on '110 profit
110 loss' basis. Thus, those who establish ·and are managing the
educational institutions are not expected to indulge in profiteering or commercialise this noble activity. Keeping this objective
in mind, the Court did not give complete freedom to the educational institutions in respect of right to admit the students and
also with regard to fixation of fee. As far as admission of students
is concerned, the Court was categorical that such admissions have
to be on the basis of merit when it comes to higher education,
particularly in professional institutions. [Para 34] [628-A-D]
1.3 Jn order to see that merit is adjudged suitably and appropriately, the Court candidly laid clown that procedure for admission should be so devised which satisfies the triple test of
being fair, transparent and non-exploitative. Such merit should
be determined either by the marks that students obtained at qualifying examination or at the CET conducted by the institutions or
in the case of professional colleges, by Government agencies.
[Para 36] (628-H; 629-A-B)
1.4 The submission that by exercising the power to frame
Regulations, the State could not usurp the very function of conducting this admission test by the educational institutions; and
that it only meant that such a CET is to be conducted by the
educational institutions themselves and the Government could
only frame the Regulations to regulate such admission tests to
be conducted by the educational institutions and could not take
away the function of holding the CET cannot be accepted in view
of the unambiguous and categorical interpretation given by the
Supreme Court in P.A. lmmular with respect to certain observations in T.M.A. Pai Foundation case. [Paras 38, 39) (630-C-D)
1.5 It cannot be said that the State could intervene only after
proving that merit was compromised or capitation fee was being
charged. Post-audit measures would not meet the regulatory re583
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
584
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 3 S.C.R.
quirements. Control was required at the initial stage itself. Therefore, though 'occupation' is a fundamental right, which gives right
to the educational institutions to admit the students and also fix
the fee, at the same time, scope of such rights has been discussed and limitations imposed thereupon by the said .iudgments
themselves expiaining the nature of limitations on these rights.
[Para 43] [632-G-H; 633-A]
1.6 The impugned legislation and Rules impose certain restrictions. Having regard to the pronouncement in T.NJ.A. Pai
Fou11datio11, with lucid clarifications to the said judgment given
by this Court in RA. bwmdar, it becomes clear that insofar as
such regulatory measures arc concerned, the same can be adopted
by the State in respect of minority run institutions as well. [Paras
44, 48] (633-B; 636-H; 637-A)
1.7 It is well settled that the right under Article 19(l)(g) is
not absolute in terms but is subject to reasonable restrictions
under clause (6). Reasonableness has to be determined having
regard to the nature of right alleged to be infringed, purpose of
the restriction, extent of restriction and other relevant factors.
In applying these factors, one cannot lose sight of the Directive ·
Principles of State Policy. The Court has to try to strike a just
balance between the fundamental rights and the larger interest
of the society. Court interferes with a Statute if it clearly violates
the fundamental rights. The Court proceeds on the footing that
the Legislature understands the needs of the people. The Constitution is primarily for the common man. Larger interest and
welfare of student community to promote merit, achieve excellence and curb malpractices, fee and admissions can certainly be
regulated. [Para 50] [637-C-EJ
T.MA. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Kamataka &
Ors. 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 : (2002) 8 SCC 481 -
explained and relied on.
G
P.A. /namdar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
2005 (2 ) Suppl. SCR 603 : (2005) 6 SCC 537 - relied
on.
St. Stephens College v. University of Delhi 1991 (3)
Suppl. SCR 121 : (1992) 1 sec 558 - distinguished.
H
Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. v. State of AJ1dhra Pradesh
MODERN DENTAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH CENTRE v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
& Ors. 1993 (1) SCR 594:(1993) 1 SCC 645; State of
Bombay v. RMD Chamarbaugwala & Am: 1957 SCR
874; Islamic Academy or Education & Anr. v. State of
Karnataka & Ors. 2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 474 : (2003) 6
sec 697 - referred to.
Doctrine of Proportionality:
2.1 The State is empowered to make any law relating to the
professional or technical qualifications necessary for practicing
any profession or carrying on any occupation or trade or business. Thus, while examining as to whether the impugned provisions of the Statute and Rules amount to reasonable restrictions
and are brought out in the interest of the general public, the exercise that is required to be undertaken is the balancing of fundamental right to carry on occupation on the one hand and the
restrictions imposed on the other hand. This is what is known as
'Doctrine of Proportionality'. Jurisprudentially, 'proportionality' can
be defined as the set of rules determining the necessary and sufficient conditions for limitation of a constitutionally protected right
by a law to be constitutionally permissible. [Para 53) [638-D-F]
2.2 For a proper balance between the two facts viz. the rights
and limitations imposed upon it by a statute the concept of
'proportionality', which is a proper criterion. To put it pithily, when
a law limits a constitutional right, such a limitation is constitutional
if it is proportional. The law imposing restrictions will be treated
as proportional if it is meant to achieve a proper purpose, and if
the measures taken to achieve such a purpose are rationally
connected to the purpose, and such measures are necessary. The
. exercise which, therefore, to be taken is to find out as to whether
the limitation of constitutional rights is for a purpose that is
reasonable and necessary in a democratic society and such an
exercise involves the weighing up of competitive values, and
ultimately an assessment based on proportionality i.e. balancing
of different interests. [Para 56, 57) [640-F-G; 641-F]
2.3 The doctrine of proportionality, is enshrined in Article
_19 itself in clause (1) along with ciause (6) thereof. While defining
as to what constitutes a reasonable restriction, it has been held
that the expression 'reas'o11able restriction' seeks to strike a
balance between the freedom guaranteed by any of the sub585
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
586
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 3 S.C.R.
clauses of cl (1) of Article 19 and the social control permitted by
any of the clauses (2) to (6). It is held that the expression
· 'reasonable' connotes that the limitation imposed on a person in
the enjoyment of the right should not be arbitrary or of an
excessive nature beyond what is required in the interests of public.
Further, in order to be reasonable, the restriction must have a
i:easonable relation to the object which the legislation seeks to
achieve, and must not go in excess of that object. At the same
time, reasonableness of a restriction has to be determined in an
objective manner and from the standpoint of the interests of the
general public and not from the point of view of the persons upon
whom the restrictions arc imposed or ·upon abstract
considerations. [Para 58] [641-G-H; 642-A-BJ
2.4 It was held in T.M.A. Pai Fo1111datio11 that there can be
Committees constituted to supervise conducting of such CET.
This process of interpretative balancing and constitutional
balancing was remarkably achieved in P.A. Jmmular by not only
giving its premature to dcholding of CET but it went further to
hold that agency conducted the CET must be the one which enjoys
the utmost credibility and expertise in the matter to achieve
fulfillment of twin objectives of transparency and merit and for
that purpose it permitted the State to provide a procedure of
holding a CET in the interest of securing fair and merit based
admissions and preventing maladministration. [Para 60] [643-EF]
2.5 The larger public interest warrants such a measure.
Having regard to the malpractices which are noticed in the CET
conducted by such private institutions themselves, for which
plethora of material is produced, it is, undoubtedly, in the larger
interest and welfare of the students community to promote merit,
add excellence and curb malpractices. The extent of restriction
has to be viewed keeping in view all these factors and, therefore,
the impugned provisions which may amount to 'restrictions' on
the right of the appellants to carry on their 'occupation', are clearly
'reasonable' and satisfy the test of proportionality. [Para 61) [643G-H; 644-A]
2.6 The Parliamentary Committee Report notes the dismal
picture of exploitation in making admissions by charging huge
capitation fee and compromising merit. This may not apply to all
MODERN DENTAL COLLEGE AND. RESEARCH CENTRE v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
institutions but if the Legislature which represents the people
has come out with a legislation to curb the menace which is
generally prevalent, it cannot be held that there is no need for
. any regulatory measure. "An enactment is 'm organism in its
environment". The law is not an Eden of concepts but rather ah ·
everyday life of needs, interests and the values that a given society
seeks to realise in a given time. The law is a tool which is intended
to provide solutions for the problems of human being in a society.
[Para 62) (644-B-C]
"
2.7 The High Court in its judgment has analysed the
provisions of the Act and found that provisions for merit based
admissions and procedure for fee fixation did not violate
fundamental right of th~ private institutions to conduct admissions
and to fix fee. The said view is accepted and it is held that
provisions relating to admission as contained in the Act and the
Rules are not offensive of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
[Para 63) [644-D-E]
R. v. Oakes (1986) 1 SCR 103; P.P. Enterprises & Ors.
v. Union of India & Ors. 1982 (3) SCR 510:(1982) 2
SCC 33i Hanij Quareshi Mohd. v. State of Bihar 1959
SCR 629; MR.F Ltd. v, Inspector Kera/a Govt. 1998
(2) Suppl. SCR 632 : (1998) 8 sec 227; T.MA. Pai
Foundation & Ors. v. State ~f.Karnataka & Ors. 2002
(3) Suppl. SCR 587 : (2002) 8 SCC 481; Islamic
Academy or Education & Am: v. State of Karnataka &
Ors. 2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 474:(2003) 6 SCC 697; P.A.
]namdar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2005
(2) Suppl. SCR 603 : (2005) 6 SCC 537;- referred to.
Proportionality: ConstitutiOnal Rights and Their
Limitation by Aharon Barak Cambridge University Press
2012; Justice Frankfuter: 'A Symposium of Statutory
Construction: Forward', 3, Vand L. Rev. 365, 367 ( 1950)
- referred to.
Provisions in the Act Rules relating to fixation of fee are
unconstitutional being violative of Article 19(l)(g) of the
Constitution?
3.1 On going through Section 9 of the Act, 2007 it is fou_nd
587
A
B·
c
D
E
F
G
H
588
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 3 S.C.R.
that the parameters which are laid down therein that has to be
kept in mind while fixing the fee are in fact the one which have
been enunciated in the judgments of this Court. It is also
significant to note that the Committee which is set up for this
purpose, !Ulmely, Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee, is
discharging only regulatory function. The fee which a particular
educational institution seeks to charge from its students has to
be suggested by the said educational institution itself. The
Committee is empowered with. a purpose to satisfy itself that the
fee proposed by the educational institution did ilot amount to
profiteering or commercialisation of education and was based on
intelligible factors mentioned in Section 9(1) of the Act, 2007.
Therefore, it is only a regulatory measure and docs not take away
the powers of the educational institution to fix their own fee. [Para
74] [650-B-D)
3.2 The provisions relating to admission of students through
Government test to be conducted by the State and the provision
relating to fixation of fee by setting up a Committee to oversee
that institutions are not charging a fee which amounts to capitation
or profiteering arc reasonable restrictions and do not suffer from
any constitutional vice. The provision of the Act and the Rules
arc, therefore, in tune with the sentiments and directions contained
in P.A. bumular. The enactment in question does not run foul of
any of the existing central laws. As far as the introduction of a
CET at a national level is concerned, the same was not enforced
during the period of operation of the State Statute. In any event,
th.~re being no regulations regarding fixation or determination of
fees of these institutions to ensure that the same does not allow
commercialisation or profiteering, the State Legislature was well
competent to enact provisions regarding the same. [Para 74, 75]
652-B-D)
3.3 When imparting of quality education to cross-section of
the society, particularly, the weaker section and when such private
educational institutions arc to rub shoulders with the State
managed ed.ucational institution to meet the challenge of the
implementing ambitious constitutional promises, the matter is
to be examined in a different hue. It is this spirit which is kept in
mind while balancing the right of these educational institutions
given to them under Article 19(1)(g) on the one hand and
MODERN DENTAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH CENTRE v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
reasonableness of the restrictions which have been imposed by
the impugned legislation. The right to admission or right to fix
the fee guaranteed to these appellants is not taken away
completely, as feared. T.M.A. Pai Foundation ~ives autonomy to
such institutions which remain intact. Holding of CET under the
control of the State does not impinge this auto.:ioniy. Admission
is still in the hands of these institutions. Once it is even conceded
by the appellants that in admission of students 'triple test' is to be
met, the impugned legislation aims at that. After all, the sole
purpose of holding CET is to adjudge merit and to ensure that
admissions which are done by the educational institutions, are
strictly on merit. This is again to ensure.larger public interest. It
is beyond comprehension that merely by assuming the power to
hold CET, fundamental right of the appellants to admit the
students is taken away. Likewise, when it comes to fixation of
fee, the main purpose is that State acts as a regulator and satisfies
itself that the fee which is proposed by the educational institution
does not have the element of profiteering and also that no
capitation fee etc. is charged. In fact, this dual function of
regulatory nature is going to advance the public interest inasmucli
as those students who are otherwise meritorious but are not in a
position to meet unreasonable demands of capitation fee etc. are
not deprived of getting admissions. The impugned provisions,
therefore, are aimed at seeking laudable objectives in larger public
interest. Law is not static, it has to change with changing times
and changing social/societal conditions. [Para 84] [655-H; 656A-E]
T.MA. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka &
Ors. 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 : (2002) 8 SCC 481;
P.A. Inamdar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
2005 (2 ) Suppl. SCR 603 : (2005) 6 SCC 537; Unni
Krishnan, JP. & Ors. v. State of Andhra-Pradesh &
Ors. 1993 (1) SCR 594 : (1993) 1 SCC 645' Islamic
Academy or Education & Am: v. State. of Karnataka &
Ors. 2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 474 : (2003) 6 SCC 697;
Modern School v. Union o/India 2004 (1) Suppl. SCR
668 : (2004) 5 sec 583 - referred to.
Need for regulatory mechanism:
589
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
4.1 In the field of the education, therefore, this constitutional
H
,
~-
590
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
,H
. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 3 S.C.R.
goal remains pivotal which mak~s it distinct and special in
contradistinction with other economic activities as the purpose
of education is to bring about social transformation and thereby a
better society as it aims at creating better human resource which
would contribute to the socie-economic and political upliftment
of the nation. The concept of welfare of the society would apply
more vigorously in the field of education. Even otherwise, for
economist, education as an economic activity, favourably
compared to those of other economic concerns like agriculture
and industry, has its own inputs and outputs; and is thus analyzed
in terms of the basic economic tools like the laws of return,
principle of equimarginal utility and the public finance. Guided by
these principles, the State is supposed to invest in education up
to a point w.here- the socio-economic returns to education equal
to those from other.State expenditur~s, whereas the individual is
guided in his decision to pay for a type of education by the
possibility of returns accruable to him. All these considerations
make out a case for setting up of a stable Regulatory mechanism.
f~ara 83] f 655-D-GJ
4.2 The Association of Private Colleges failed to hold their
CETs in a fair, transparent and rational manner. The accountability
and transparency in State actions is much higher than in private
actions. It is needless to say that the incidents of corruption in
the State machinery were brought in the public eye immediately
and have been addressed expeditiously. The same could never
have been done in case of private actions. Even on a keel of
comparative efficiency, it is more than evident that the State
process is far more transparent and fair than one that is devised
by the private colleges which have no mechanism of any checks
and balances. The State agencies are subject to the Right to
.Information Act, Audit, State Legislature, Anti-Corruption
agencies, Lokayukta, etc. [Para 88] [658-C-E]
4.3 The very object of setting up institutions for the State is
a welfare function, for the purpose of excelling in educational
standards. On the other hand, the primary motivation for private
parties is profit motive or philanthropy. When the primary
motivation for institutions is profit motive, it is natural that many
means to achieve th~ same shall be adopted by the private
MODERN DENTAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH CENTRE v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
institutions which leads to a large degree of secrecy and
corruption. As such, the mechanism of regulations as envisaged
under the impugned laws is legal, constitutional, fair, transparent
and uphold the primary criteria of merit. The same does not
infringe on the fundamental rights of either the minorities or the
non-minorities to establish and administer educational
institutions and must as such be upheld as valid. [Para 89] [658F-G]
4.4 The occupation of education cannot be treated at par
with other economic activities. In this field, State cannot remain
· a mute spectator and has to necessarily step in in order to prevent
exploitation, privatization and commercialisation by the private
sector. Even in respect of those economic activities which are
undertaken by the private sector essentially with the objective
of profit making (and there is nothing bad about it), while throwing
open such kind of business activities in the hands of private sector,
the State has introduced regulatory regime as well by providing
Regulations under the relevant statutes. [Para 78] [653-F-G]
IMA. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka &
Ors. 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 : (2002) 8 SCC 481 ..:
relied on.
III. Re.: Reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes
5. Since this Court in P.A. Inamdar has held that there can591
A
B
c
D
E
not be any fixation of Quuta or appropriation of seats by the State,
reservation which inheres setting aside Quotas, would not be
permissible. The submission that the provisions .seek to bring - F
back the Unni Krishnan system of setting up State Quotas which
has been expressly held by this Court to be impermissible, cannot be accepted. In (act, as can be seen from the impugned judgment having regard to the provisions of Clause (5) of Article 15
of the Constitution, there was no serious challenge laid to SecG
tion 8 read with Rules 4(2), 7 and 15 of the Rules, 2008. In fact,
·counsel for the appellants .conceded that they had not challenged
93rd Constitutional Amendment vide which Article 15(5) was inserted into the Constitution. In any case, there is hardly any
ground to challenge the said constitutional amendment, which
has already been upheld by a Constitution Bench judgment in
H
592
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 3 S.C.R.
the case of Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust. The other
submission that a reading of the reservation provisions in Rule 7
would show that it would be difficult to work out said percentage
having regard to·-the fact that number of seats in the post-graduate dental and medical ·courses in different specialized disciplines
are few. The High Court successfully dealt with the argument by
appropriately demonstrating, by means of charges, that not only
it was possible to work out extent of reservation provided for
different categories, sufficient number of seats were available
for general categories as well. Thus, there is no merit in the challenge to the reservation of seats for SC/ST and OBC etc. which
is in consonance with Article 15(5). [Para 87) [657-F-H; 658-AB]
Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust (Registered) &
Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 2014 (11) SCR 712 :
(2014) 8 sec 1 - followed.
P.A. lnamdar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
2005 (2 ) Suppl. SCR 603 : (2005) 6 SCC 537; Unni
Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh &
Ors. 1993 (1) SCR 594: (1993) 1 SCC 645- referred
to.
Whether the impugned legislation is beyond the legislative
competence of the State of Madhya Pradesh?
6.1 Entry 66 in List I is a specific Entry having a very specific
and limited scope. It deals with co-ordination and determination
of standa1·ds,in institution of higher education or research as well
as scientific and technical institutions. The words 'co-ordi11alion
amt delerminalio11 of standards' would mean laying down the said
standards. Thus, when it comes to prescribing the standards for
such institutions of higher learning, exclusive domain is given. to
the Union. However, that would not include conducting of
examination, etc. and admission of students to such ins.titutions
or prescribing the fee in these institutions of higher education,
etc. In fact, such co-ordination and determination of standards,
insofar as medical education is concerned, is achieved by
Parliamentary legislation in the form of Medical Council of India
Act, 1956 and by creating the statutory body like Medical Council
of India. The functions that are assigned to MCI include within
MODERN DENTAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH CENTRE v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
its sweep determination of standards in a medical institution' as
well as co-ordination of standards and that of educational
institutions. When it comes to regulating 'education' as such, which
includes even medical education as well as universities (which
are imparting higher education), that is prescribed in Entry 25 of
List Ill, thereby giving concurrent powers to both Union as well
as States. It is significant to note that earlier education, including
universities, was the subject matter of Entry 11 in List II. Thus,
power to this extent was given to the State Legislatures. However,
this Entry was omitted by the Constitution (Forty-Second
Amendment) Act, 1976 with effect from July 03, 1977 and at the
same time Entry 25 in List II was amended. Education, including
university education, was thus transferred to Concurrent List
and in the process technical and medical education was also added.
Thus, i(the submission of the appellants is accepted, it may render
Entry 25 completely otiose. When two Entries relating to
education, one in the Union List and the other in the Concurrent
List, co-exist, they have to be read harmoniously. Reading in
this manner, it would become manifest that when it comes to coordination and laying down of standards in the higher education
or research and scientific and technical institutions, power rests
with the Union/Parliament to the exclusion of the State
Legislatures. However, other facets of education, including
technical and medical education, as well as governance of
universities is concerned, even State Legislatures are given
power by virtue of Entry 25. The field covered by Entry 25 of
List III is wide enough and as circumscribed to the limited extent
of it being subject to Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I. [Para 93]
[659-G; 660-A-G]
6.2 There was no violation of right of autonomy of the
educational institutions in the CET being conducted by the State
or an agency nominated by the State or in fixing fee. The right of
a State to do so is subject to a central law. Once the notifications
under the Central statutes for conducting the CET called 'NEET'
become operative, would be a matter between the States and the
Union, to be sorted out on the touchstone of Article 254 of the
Constitution. [Para 98] [663-A-B]
Bharti Vidyapeeth (Deemed University) & Ors. v. State
of Maharashtra & Am: 2004 (2 ) SCR 775:(2004) 11
593
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
594
A
B
c
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 3 S.C.R.
sec 755 - partly overruled.
Gujarat University & Anr. v. Shri Krishna Ranf(anath
Muqholkar & Ors. 1964 (Supp.) 1 SCR 112; Dr. Preeti
Srivastava & Am: v. State of MP. & Ors. 1999 (1) Suppl.
SCR 249 : (1999) 7 SCC 120; R. Chttralekha v. State
of Mysore (1964) 6 SCR 368; State of T.N. & Anr. v.
Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute & Ors.
1995 (2) SCR 1075 : (19.95) 4 sec 104; State of
Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra
Mahavidalaya & Ors. 2006 (3) SCR 638: (2006) 9 SCC
1; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kumari Nivedita Jain &
Ors. 1982 (1) SCR 759: (1981) 4 SCC 296; Ajay Kumar
Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (1994) 4 SCC
401 - referred to.
7.1 This Court had earlier appointed committees headed by
. the retired High Court Judges in all the States to regulate the
D
admissions and fee structure. This was a stopgap arrangement
till suitable legislation was framed and once the admission process
under a statutory law becomes operative, the grievance of all
concerned on the subject of proper functioning of the regulatory
mechanism will need to be properly addressed. The Central
E
F
G
H
Government itself had appointed a group of experts to study th_e
Medical Council Act, 1956 and to make recommendations. The
said Committee gave its report suggesting reforms in the
regulatory oversight of the medical profession by the Medical
Council. The Committee examined the MCI. It was observed
that the MCI was repeatedly found short of fulfilling its mandated
responsibilities. Taking note of corruption in the MCI it was
recommended that expeditious action should be taken to amend
the .statute and enact a new legislation. Current system of
inspections was found to be unsatisfactory. [Paras 99, 100] [663E-F; 664-A, HJ
7 .2 Pending consideration at appropriate executive or
legislature level, an Oversight .Committee needs to be set in
place in exercise of powers of this Court under Article 142 of the
Constitution to oversee the functioning of the MCI and all other
matters considered by the Parliamentary Committee. There is
no error in the view taken by the High Court. The directions are
MODERN DENTAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH CENTRE v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
issued for the constitution of an Oversight Committee. The said
Committee will have the authority to oversee all statutory functions
under the MCI Act. All policy decisions of the MCI will require
approval of the Oversight Committee. The Committee will be
free to issue appropriate remedial directions. The Committee
•
will function till the Central Government puts in place any other
appropriate mechanism after due consideration of the Expert
Committee Report. [Paras 102, 103-, 105] [669-C-D, G-H]
T. Devadasan v. Union of India & Anr: (1964) 4 SCR
680; P.A. Inamdar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra &
Ors. 2005 (2 ) Suppl. SCR 603: (2005) 6 SCC 537;
MR. Balaji & Ors. v. The State of Mysore & Ors. (1993)
Supp. 1 SCR 439; Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of
India & Ors. 2007 (4) SCR 493: (2007) 4 SCC 361;
Indian Medical Association v. Union of India & Ors.
2011 (6) SCR 599:(2011) 7 SCC 179; State of Bombay
v. RMD Chamarbaugwala & Am: 1957 SCR 874; R. v.
Oakes (1986) 1 SCR 103; P.P. Enterprises & Ors. v.
Union of India & Ors. 1982 ( 3 ) SCR 510:(1982) 2
SCC 33; Hanif Quareshi Mohd. v. State of Bihar 1959
SCR 629; MR.F. Ltd. v. Inspector Kera/a Govt. 1998
(2) Suppl. SCR 632:(1998) 8 SCC 227 - referred to.
Per Banumathi, J. (Supplementing):
Lack of legislative competence of tlte State to enact Act 2007
as tliefie/d is occupied by Entry 66 of Union List:
1.1 The words 'co-ordination' and 'determination of the
standards in liif(lier education', in Entry 66 of the Union List is
preserve of the Parliament. The word 'co-ordination' means
harmonisation with a view to forge a uniform pattern for concerted
action. The term 'fixing of standards of institutions for higher
-education' is for the purpose of harmonising co-ordination of the
various institutions for higher education across the country.
Looking at the present distribution of legislative powers between
the Union and the States with regard to the field of 'education',
that State's power to legislate in relation to "education, including
teclinical education, medical education and universities". is
analogous to that of the Union. However, such power is subject
595
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
596
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 3 S.C.R.
A ·to entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of Union List, as laid down in entry
25 of Concurrent List. It is the responsibility of the Central
Government to determine the standards of higher education and
the same should not be lowered at the hands of any particular
State.