# NIDHI KAIM AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [2017] 2 S.C.R. 527
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2017
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1727of2016
- **Bench:** Jagdish Singh Khehar, Kurian Joseph, Arun Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/nidhi-kaim-and-another-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-others-31830
- **Pages:** 83

## Headnote

Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board Act,
2007- Examination process - Tampering of - Entrance examination
for admissions into medical colleges - Allegation of conspiracy and
use of unfair means in the examination - Cancellation of admissions
of appellants and others - Challenge against -
Held: The
manipulation by which the appellants obtained admission involved
not only a breach in the computer system, whereby roll numbers
were allotted to the appellants. to effectuate their plans, it also
involved the procurement of meritorious persons, .to assist them, in
answering the questions (in the Pre-Medical Test) - The seating
arrangement of appellants next to the concerned helper, at the
examination, was also based on further computer interpolations -
Not only were the seating plans distorted for achieving the purpose,
even the institutions where the appellants were to take the PreMedical Test, were arranged in a manner, as would suit the
appellants, again by a similar process of computer falsification -
The admission of appellants to the MBBS course was, thus, based
on a well orchestrated plan based on established fraud - In view of
the sequence of facts, it is not possible to accept, that the deception
and deceit, adopted by the appellants, was a simple ajfab; which
can be overlooked - The involvement of the appellants was indeed
the most grave and extreme - In view thereof, the consequence of
established fraud cannot be ignored, to do complete justice in a
matter, in exercise of jurisdiction vested in this Court, u!Art.142 of
the Constitution - Constitution of India - Art. I 42 - Scam.
Constitution of India:
Art.142 - Mass fraud - Admission obtained by fraud -
Invocation of Art. I 42, to do complete justice, determining
527
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
528
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 2 S.C.R.
parameters - Held: The /ll'o important parameters for consideration
are, "larger interest of administration oj justice", and "preventing
manifest injustice" - The facts and circumstances of the instant
case do not reveal the existence. of either of these two factors -
With Vyapam having cancelled the appellants' admission lo the MBBS
course, and the said orders having been upheld by the High Court,
as well as, by this Court, ii cannot be said that the cancellation
orders were unjust - If the admission of the appellants to the MBBS
course, was improper, the cancellation orders, were obviously proper
- If the academic benefits of the appellants, arising out of their
admission cancelled by Vyapam are restored, tht cancellation orders
would be set at naught - That would not serve the "larger interest
of administration of justice" - On the contrary, such an initiative
would cause "manifest injustice" - It is, therefore, not possible in
the facts of the instant case to invoke Art. 142 of the Constitution
in the larger interest of the administration of justice - It is also not
possible to accept, that any manifest injustice would be done to the
appellants, if their admissions are cancelled - Scam.
Art. I 42 - Exercise of power u/Art. I 42 to do complete
;us/ice - Connotation of words "complete justice"- Held: The words
"complete justice" used in Art.142 would not include the power, to
disregard even statutory provisions, and/or a declared
pronouncement of law under Art.141, even in exceptional
circumstances - Debates and deliberations in Parliament, leading
to a valid legislation, represent the will of the majority- It is difficult,
to visualize a situation, wherein a valid legislation, would render
injustice to the parties, or would lead to a situation of incomplete
;ustice for one or the other party - In view of the conscious
involvement of the appellants in gaining admission to the MBBS
course, by means of a fraudulent stratagem of trickery, the
declaration of law with reference to fraud cannot be ignored or
overlooked - Nothing obtained by fraud, can be sustained - This
declaredproposition of law, must apply to the case of the app

## Text

_Characters 0–39,877 of 204,952. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39877 for what follows._

[2017] 2 S.C.R. 527
NIDHI KAIM AND ANOTHER
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 1727of2016)
FEBRUARY 13,2017
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI, KURIAN JOSEPH AND
ARUN MISHRA, JJ.]
Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board Act,
2007- Examination process - Tampering of - Entrance examination
for admissions into medical colleges - Allegation of conspiracy and
use of unfair means in the examination - Cancellation of admissions
of appellants and others - Challenge against -
Held: The
manipulation by which the appellants obtained admission involved
not only a breach in the computer system, whereby roll numbers
were allotted to the appellants. to effectuate their plans, it also
involved the procurement of meritorious persons, .to assist them, in
answering the questions (in the Pre-Medical Test) - The seating
arrangement of appellants next to the concerned helper, at the
examination, was also based on further computer interpolations -
Not only were the seating plans distorted for achieving the purpose,
even the institutions where the appellants were to take the PreMedical Test, were arranged in a manner, as would suit the
appellants, again by a similar process of computer falsification -
The admission of appellants to the MBBS course was, thus, based
on a well orchestrated plan based on established fraud - In view of
the sequence of facts, it is not possible to accept, that the deception
and deceit, adopted by the appellants, was a simple ajfab; which
can be overlooked - The involvement of the appellants was indeed
the most grave and extreme - In view thereof, the consequence of
established fraud cannot be ignored, to do complete justice in a
matter, in exercise of jurisdiction vested in this Court, u!Art.142 of
the Constitution - Constitution of India - Art. I 42 - Scam.
Constitution of India:
Art.142 - Mass fraud - Admission obtained by fraud -
Invocation of Art. I 42, to do complete justice, determining
527
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
528
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 2 S.C.R.
parameters - Held: The /ll'o important parameters for consideration
are, "larger interest of administration oj justice", and "preventing
manifest injustice" - The facts and circumstances of the instant
case do not reveal the existence. of either of these two factors -
With Vyapam having cancelled the appellants' admission lo the MBBS
course, and the said orders having been upheld by the High Court,
as well as, by this Court, ii cannot be said that the cancellation
orders were unjust - If the admission of the appellants to the MBBS
course, was improper, the cancellation orders, were obviously proper
- If the academic benefits of the appellants, arising out of their
admission cancelled by Vyapam are restored, tht cancellation orders
would be set at naught - That would not serve the "larger interest
of administration of justice" - On the contrary, such an initiative
would cause "manifest injustice" - It is, therefore, not possible in
the facts of the instant case to invoke Art. 142 of the Constitution
in the larger interest of the administration of justice - It is also not
possible to accept, that any manifest injustice would be done to the
appellants, if their admissions are cancelled - Scam.
Art. I 42 - Exercise of power u/Art. I 42 to do complete
;us/ice - Connotation of words "complete justice"- Held: The words
"complete justice" used in Art.142 would not include the power, to
disregard even statutory provisions, and/or a declared
pronouncement of law under Art.141, even in exceptional
circumstances - Debates and deliberations in Parliament, leading
to a valid legislation, represent the will of the majority- It is difficult,
to visualize a situation, wherein a valid legislation, would render
injustice to the parties, or would lead to a situation of incomplete
;ustice for one or the other party - In view of the conscious
involvement of the appellants in gaining admission to the MBBS
course, by means of a fraudulent stratagem of trickery, the
declaration of law with reference to fraud cannot be ignored or
overlooked - Nothing obtained by fraud, can be sustained - This
declaredproposition of law, must apply to the case of the appellants,
as well.
Art. I 42 - Admission obtained by fraud - Invocation of
Art. 142 on plea of being young and immature - The submission of
appellants was that they should not be identified, as a part of the
syndicate, engaged in manipulating their admissions, even though
NIDHI KAIM AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF MADHYA
529
PRADESH AND OTHERS
they were the beneficiaries thereof and that they were young, and
not mature enough to understand the consequences of their actions -
These submissions are outrightly rejected - Even a juvenile
wrongdoer faces trial and is subjected to statutory consequences -
The appellants in this case, irrespective of their age, were conscious
of the regular process of admission - They breached the same by
devious means - They must therefore, suffer the consequences of
their actions - Each one of the appellants, was aware of the fact,
that their admission to the MBBS course, would be determined 011
the basis of their performance in the Pre-Medical Test - Rather
than appearing in the qualifying test 011 their own, they chose to
seek assistance of meritorious students, to garner higher marks -
Probably, the appellants were sure, that they would not be able to
gain admission to the MBBS' course, on their own merit - That is
why, they had to strategize their admission to the MBBS cour~e -
Therefore, the contention that the appellants were· meritorious
students, and as such, their admission to the MBBS course, deserved
to be preserved is rejected -In that view of the matter, relief wArt.142
not granted - Appellants had consciously sought the assistance of
a syndicate, engaged in manipulating admissions to medical
institutions - They were beneficiaries of acts of deceit and
deception - In that view of the matter, the case of the appellants
does not commend, as a matter deserving of any sympathetic
consideration.
Art.142 - Jurisdiction 1inder, scope - Held: The jurisdiction
exercisable u!Art.14:;- cannot ever be invoked, to salvage, and
legitimize acts of fraudulent character - Fraud, cannot be allowed
to trounce, on thi stratagem of public good - The issue in hand,
has an infinitely vast dimension - If immediate social or societal
gains is kept in mind, the perspective. of consideration would be
different - The basic fundamental right of equality before law and
equal protection of the laws, is extended to citizens and non-citizens
alike, through Art.14 on the fountainhead of fairness - The actions
of the appellants, are founded on unacceptable behaviour, and in
complete breach of the rule of law - Their actions, constitute acts
of deceit, invading into a righteous social order - National character
cannot be sacrificed for benefits, individual or societal - In the
facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it would not be proper
to legitimize the admission of the appellants, to the MBBS course,
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
530
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[20 l 7] 2 S.C.R.
in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in this Court u/Art.1./2 of the
Constitution.
Administration of Justice - Fair play and equity - Nothing,
obtained by fraud, can be sustained; as fraud unravels
everything - No person can be allowed to keep an advantage he
has obtained by fraud - Where two options are open to a Court,
and both are equally beckoning, it would be most prudent to choose
the one, which is founded on truth and honesty, and the one which
is founded on fair play and legitimacy - Siding with the option
founded on the deceit or fraud, or on favour as opposed to merit,
or by avoiding the postulated due process, would be imprudent - In
the facts and circumstances of the instant case, there was absolutely
no cause to legitimize the admissions of the appellants to the MBBS
course, since the same clearly fell in the imprudent category.
Dismissing the appeals, the. Court
HELD: 1.1. 1t·is not disputed that none of the appellants
would have been admitted to the MBBS course, as their merit
eosition hi the Pre-Medical Test, was not as a result of their own
efforts, but was based on extraneous assistance. The appellants
were helped in answering the questions in the Pre-Medical Test,
by meritorious candidates. The manipulation by which the
appellants obtained admission, involved, not only a breach in the
computer system, whereby roll numbers were allotted to the
appellants, to effectuate their plans. It also involved the
procurement of meritorious candidates/persons, who would .assist
them, in answering the questions (in the Pre-Medical Test). The
appellants' position, next to the concerned helper, at the
examination, was also based on further computer interpolations.
Not only were the seating plans distorted for achieving the
purpose, even the institutions where the appellants were to take
the Pre-Medical Test, were arranged in a manner, as would suit
the appellants, agaiu by a similar process of computer falsification.
This could only be effectuated, by a corrupted administrative
machinery. Whether, the nefarious and crooked administrative
involvement, was an inside activity, or an outside pursuit, is
inconsequential. All in all, the entire scheme of events, can well
be described as a scam. The appellants or their parents, would
NIDHI KAIM AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH AND OTHERS
obviously have had to pay large amounts of money, to the Vyapam
authorities. The appellants' admission to the MBBS course, was
therefore dearly based on a well orchestrated plan as based on
established fraud. [Paras 64, 65] (595-A; 596-E-G; 597-H]
Roscoe Pound-An Introduction to the Philosophy of Law, (Sixth
Indian Reprint - 2012) published by the Universal Law Publishing
Co. Pvt. Ltd. - referred to.
1.2. The controversy in the instant case, does not relate
to a singular academic session. Whether or not, this vitiated
process of obtaining admission to the MBBS course, was adopted
during the year 2007, and prior thereto, is not known as there
was no investigation prior to 2008. Investigation was initiated in
the first instance, with reference to admissions, for the year 2013.
Thereafter, investigation was extended to those, who had gained
admission to the MBBS course during the years 2008 to 2012.
Investigation revealed, a well thought out unethical plan, involving
administrative support, during six consecutive academic sessions
.•. from 2008 to 2013. Vyapam was certain, about the system
having been manipulated, at the hands of at least 634 candidates
(during the years 2008 to 2012 itself). There may well have been
others, but no action was taken against them, as their cases fell
beyond the realm of suspicion (on the parameters approved and
adopted by Vyapam). This Court, while dealing with admissions
during the years 2008 to 2012, followed the earlier judgment,
wherein admissions to the MBBS course during the year 2013,
were annulled. The factual and the legal position, with reference
to the admission of the appellants, to the MBBS course being
vitiated, thus attained finality. The fact that the appellants, had
gained admission to the MBBS course, by established fraud, does
not require any further consideration. In view of the sequence of
facts, it is not possible to accept, that the deception and deceit,
adopted by the appellants, was a simple affair, which can be
overlooked. [Para 65] [597-D-H; 598-A-B]
2.1. For invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, two
important parameters for consideration are, "larger interest of
administration of justice'', and ... preventing manifest injustice".
The facts and circumstances of the present case do not reveal
531
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
532
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2017] 2 S.C.R.
the existence, of either of these two factors. With Vyapam having
cancelled the appellants' admission to the MBBS course, and
with the above orders having been upheld by the High Court, as
well as, by this Court, it cannot be said that the cancellation orders
were unjust. If the academic benefits of the appellants, arising
out of their admission - cancelled by Vyapam are restored, the
cancellation orders would be set at naught. That, would undo,
the Vyapam orders, upheld by the High Court and this Court.
And this would not serve the "larger interest of administration
of justice". On the contrary, such an initiative would cause
"manifest injustice". It is therefore not possible to accept, that it
is possible in the facts of the present case, to invoke Article 142
of the Constitution - in the larger interest of the administration
of justice. ·u is also not possible to accept, that any manifest
injustice would be done to the appellants, if their admissions are
cancelled. To do justice in the matter, the order passed by Vypam
must be upheld, without any further modification or alteration.
[Paras 66, 67] (598-G-H; 599-A, B-D]
2.2. It is not possible to accept, that the words "complete
justice" used in Article 142 of the Constitution, wo.uld include
the power, to disregard even statutory provisions, and/or a
declared pronouncement of law under Article 141 of the
Constitution, even in exceptional circumstances. Undoubtedly,
the proposition can certainly be acceptable to a very limited
extent, - to the extent of self-aggrandizement. The hypothesis -
that the Supreme Court can do justice as it perceives, even when
contrary to statute (and, declared pronouncement of law), should
never as a rule, be entertained by any Court/Judge, however
high or noble. Can it be overlooked, that legislation is enacted,
only with the object of societal good, and only in support of societal
causes? Legislation, always flows from reason and logic. Debates
and deliberations in Parliament, hading to a valid legislation,
represent the will of the majority. That will and determination,
must be equally "trusted", as much as the "trust" which is
reposed in a Court. Any legislation, which does not satisfy the
above parameters, would per se be arbitrary, and would be open
to being declared as constitutionally invalid. In such a situation,
the legislation itself would be struck down. It is difficult, to
visualize a situation, wherein a valid legislation, would render
NIDHI KAIM AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF MADHYA
533
PRADESH AND OTHERS
injustice to the parties, or would lead to a situation of incomplete
justice- for one or the other party. Keeping in mind the conscious
involvement of the appellants in gaining admission to the MBBS
course, by means of a fraudulent stratagem of trickery, the
declaration of law with reference to fraud cannot be ignored or
overlooked .. Nothing obtained by fraud, can be sustained. This
declared proposition of law, must apply to the case of the
appellants, as well. This is the outcome of the "trust" reposed in
this Court, as being fully equipped, to determine at its own, when
Article 142 of the Constitution can be invoked to render complete
justice, and when it cannot be so invoked. [Para 68] [600-C-D, EG; 601-B-D]
3.1. Conferring rights or benefits on the appellants, who
had consciously participated in a well thought of, and meticulously
orchestrated plan, to circumvent well laid down norms, for gaining
admission to the MBBS course, would amount to espousing the
cause of 'the unfair'. It would seem like, allowing a thief to retain
the stolen property. It would seem as if, the Court was not
supportive of the cause of those who had adopted and followed
rightful means. Such a course, would cause people to question
the credibility, of the justice delivery system itself. In the name
of doing complete justice, it is not possible for this Court to
support the vitiated actions of the appellants, through which they
gained admission to the MBBS course. [Para 69] [602-A-D]
3.2. There cannot be any defined parameters, within the
framework whereof, this Court would exercise jurisdiction under
Article 142 of the Constitution. The complexity of administration,
and of human affairs, would give room for the exercise of the
power vested in this Court under Article 142, in a situation where
clear injustice appears to have been caused, to any party to a /is.
In the absence of any legislation to the contrary, it would be open
to this Court, to remedy the situation. The submission of
appellants was that they should not be identified, as a part of the
syndicate, engaged in manipulating their admissions, even though
they were the beneficiaries thereof and that they were young,
and not mature enough to understand the consequences of their
actions. These submissions are outrightly rejected. Even in
situations where a juvenile indulges in crime, he has to face trial,
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
534
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2017] 2 S.C.R.
and is subjected to the postulated statutory consequences'. Law,
has consequences. And the consequences of law brook no
exception. The appellants in this case, irrespective of their age,
were conscious of the regular process of admission. They
breached the same by devious means. They must therefore, suffer
the consequences of their actions. It is not the first time, that
admissions obtained by deceitful means, would be cancelled. This
Court has consistently annulled, academic gains, arising out of
wrongful admissions. Acceptance of the prayer made by the
appellants on the parameter suggested by them, would result in
overlooking the large number of judgments, on the point.
Adoption of a different course, for the appellants, would trivialize
the declared legal position. [Paras 70, 71] [602-E-G; 603-E-G]
3.3. It is not possible to accept, either that the appellants
were innocent, or that they were immature in understanding the
consequences of their actions. Each one of the appellants, was
aware of the fact, that their admission to the MBBS course, would
be determined on the basis of their performance in the PreMedical Test. Rather than appearing in the qualifying test on
their own, they chose to seek assistance of meritorious students,
to garner higher marks. Probably, the appellants were sure, that
they would not be able to gain admission to the MBBS course,
on their own merit. That is why, they had to strategize their
admission to the MBBS course. Therefore, the contention that
the appellants were meritorious students, and as such, their
admission to the MBBS course, deserved to be preserved is
rejected. If this is where the truth lies (which we are sure, it
does), namely, that the appellants were quite sure that they would
not be able to gain admission to the MBBS course on their own
merit, surely the appellants are not entitled to any equitable
consideration. And, in that view of the matter, it would not be
proper to extend to the appellants, relief under Article 142 of the
Constitution. The appellants had consciously sought the
assistance of a syndicate, engaged in manipulating admissions to.
medical institutions. They were beneficiaries of acts of deceit
and deception. In the above view of the matter, the case of the
appellants does not commend, as a matter deserving of any
sympathetic consideration. The admission of the appellants to
NIDHI KAIM AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF MADHYA
535
PRADESH AND OTHERS
the MBBS course, cannot be legalized (or legitimized), in the
name -0f justice. [Paras-72, 73] [604-A-H; 605-A]
•
4. Where two options are open to a Court, and both are
equally beckoning, it would be most prudent to choose the one,
which is founded on truth and honesty, and the one which Is
founded on fair play and legitimacy. Siding with the u·ption founded
on the deceit or fraud, or on favour as opposed to merit, or by
avoiding the postulated due process, would be imprudent.
Judicial conscience must only support the righteous cause. If,
despite its beiug righteous, a decision is seen as causing manifest
injustice, the exercise of the _power under Article 142 of the
Constitution, would be prudent. In such situations, an onerous
duty is cast on the Court, to step in, to render complete justice.
By adopting the above course, a Court would feel satisfied, in
having exercised. its discretion, on the touchstone of justice -
the concept which triggers the invocation of Article 142 of the
Constitution. ln the facts and circumstances of the present case,
there seems to be absolutely no cause to legitimize the admissions
of the appellants to the MBBS course, since the same clearly fall .
in the imprudent category. [Para 74] [605-D-F]
5. No matter how extensive the societal gains may be, the
jurisdiction conceived of under Article 142 of the Constitution,
to do complete justice in a matter, cannot be im:oked, in. a
situation as the one in hand. Even the trivialist act of wrong
doing, based on a singular act of fraud, cannot be countenanced,
in the name of justice. The present case, unfolds a mass fraud.
Truthful conduct, must always remain the hallmark of the rule of
law. No matter the gains, or the losses. The jurisdiction
exercisable by this Court under Article 142, cannot ever be
invoked, to salvage, and legitimize acts of fraudulent character.
Fraud, cannot be allowed to trounce, on the stratagem of public
good. The issue in hand, has an infinitely vast dimension. If
immediate social or societal gains is kept in mind, the perspective
of consideration wouid be different. The basic fundamental right, .
of equality before law and equal·protection of the laws, is extended.
to citizens and non-citizens alike, through Article 14 of the
Constitution, on the fountainhead of faimess. ·The actions of the
appellants, are founded on unacceptable behaviour, and in
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
536
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 2 S.C.R.
complete breach of the rule of law. Their actions, constitute acts
of deceit, invading into a righteous social order. National character
cannot be sacrificed for benefits - individual or societal. In the
facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it would not be proper
to legitimize the admission of the appellants, to the MBBS course,
in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article
142 of the Constitution. (Paras 75, 76 and 79) (606-A-C, E, G-H;
607-A-B; 609-F)
Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India
(1998) 2 SCR 795 : (1998) 4 SCC 409 - followed.
Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) 5 SCR
768 : (2012) 7 sec 433 - distinguished.
Gaurav Jain v. Union of India [1998) 2 SCR 493 :
(1998) 4 SCC 270; Union Carbide Corporation v.
Union of India [1991) 1 Suppl. SCR 251 : (1991) 4
SCC 584; State v. Sanieev Nanda [2012] 12 SCR 881
: (2012) 8 SCC 450; Sushi! Ansa/ v. State [2015) 9
SCR 552 : (2015) 10 SCC 359; Academy of Nutrition
Improvement v. Union of India (2011) 8 SCR 680 :
(2011) 8 SCC 274; Priyanka Estates International
Private Limited v. State of Assam [2009) 16 SCR 80 :
(2010) 2 SCC 27; Ramji Veerji Patel & Ors. v. Revenue
Divisional Officer & Ors. (2011) 14 SCR 821 : (2011)
10 SCC 643; State ~f Punjab v. Rafiq Masih
(Whitewasher) (2014] 8 SCR 228 : (2014) 8 SCC 883;
Empress v. !du Beg !LR (1881) 3 All 776; Vinod
Bhandari v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2015] 2 SCR
354 : (2015) 11 SCC 502; Mridul Dhar v. Union of
India (2005] 1 SCR 380 : (2005) 2 SCC 65; Gurdeep
Singh v. State of J&K 1995 Supp (1) SCC 188; Tanvi
Sarwal v. Central Board of Secondary Education
(2015) 7 SCR 780 : (2015) 6 SCC 573; Abhyudya
Sanstha v. Union of India [2011] 7 SCR 611 : (2011)
6 SCC 145; Director (Studies), D1: Ambedkar Institute
of Hotel Management, Nutrition and Catering
Technology, Chandigarh v. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan
[2008] 15 SCR 224 : (2009) 1 SCC 59; Kerala Solvent
Extractions Ltd. v. A. Unnikrishnan (2006) 13 SCC
NIDHI KA!M AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF MADHYA
537
PRADESH AND OTHERS
619; E.M Sankaran Namboodripad v. T. Narayanan
A
Nambiar [1971] 1 SCR 697 : (1970) 2 SCC 325;
Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India
(2005) 5 SCC 363; Lazarus Estates, Ltd. v. Beasley
(1956) 1 All E.R.341 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
B
11'!98] 2 SCR 493
referred to
Para3
[1991] 1 Suppl. SCR 251
referred to
Para 15
[2012] 12 SCR 881
referred to
Para 17
c
[2Q15] 9 SCR 552
referred to
Para 18
[2Q121 5 SCR 768
distinguished
Para 19
[2Q11] 8 SCR 680
referred to
Para 20
[2Q09] 16 SCR 80
referred to
Para 21
D
[2011] 14 SCR 821
referred to
Para 21
[2Q14] 8 SCR 228
referred to
Para 22
ILR (1881) 3 All 776
referred to
Para35
E
[2Q15] 2 SCR 354
referred to
Para 58(i)
[2Q05] 1 SCR 380
referred to
Para 58(ii)
1995 Supp (1) sec 188
referred to
Para 58(iii)
F
[2Q15] 7 SCR 780
referred to
Para 58(iv)
[2Qll] 7 SCR 611
referred to
Para 58 (v)
[2008] 15 SCR 224
referred to
Para 58(vi)
(2006) 13 sec 619
referred to
Para 58(vii)
G
[1971] 1 SCR 697
referred to
Para 60
(2Q05) 5 sec 363
referred to
Para60
[1~98] 2 SCR 795
followed
Para 68
H
538
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 2 S.C.R.
A
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1727
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
of2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.10.2014 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 7676
of2014
WITH
C.A.Nos. 1720-1724, 1726, 1728, 1729, 1733, 1734-1741, 17421749, 1750-1751, 1752, 1753-1758, 1759-1764, 1765, 1766, 1767-1768,
1769-1774, 1776-1787, 1788, 1789-1791, 1792-1794, 1795-1798, 17991805, 1806-1808, 1809, 1810-1811, 1812, 1813-1814, 1815, 1816-1817,
1818-1819, 1820, 1822-1824, 1825, 1826, 1827, 1828, 1830, 1831-1832,
1833, 1834, 1835, 1836-183}, 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842, 1843, 1844,
1845, I846and 1847-1852of2016
C. A. Nos. 2503-2504 and 2505 of2017.
R.Venkataramani, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Raju Ramachandran, Sr.
Advs. Purushaindra Kaurav,AAG, Vijay Kumar, Mrs. V. Vijaya Laxmi,
Yashraj Singh Bundela, Mrs. Neelam Singh, Rajeev Kumar, Thomas
Oommen, Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Vikram Mehta, Varun Singh, Tanvir Nayar,
Prashant Singh, Varun Kumar Tikmani, Raka Chatterjee, Vikas Mehta,
Nar Hari Singh, Ms.Pragati Neekhra, Sunny Choudhary, Ms. Rupali
Bandhopadhaya, Nikhil Jain, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Varinder Kumar
Sharma, Mohd. Shahid Hussain, Bharat Singh, A. K. Upadhyay, Amit
Pawan, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Rajender Prasad, Ms. Abha R.
Sharma, N&vin Prakash, Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Mukesh Kumar
Singh, K. S. Srinivasan, Ravi Chandra Prakash, Luv Kumar, L. Nidhi
Ram Sharma, T. Mahipal, Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Mrs. M. Singh, E. C.
Agrawala, Divyakant Lahoti, Parikshit Ahuja, Shashank Gari;, Gaurav
Jain, Raju! Shrivastava, K. Krishna Kumar, Abhinav Shrivastava, R.
Balasubramanian, R. K. Rathore, Vibhu Shanker Mishra, Prabhas Bajaj,
Santosh Kumar, Akshay Amritanshu, M. K. Maroria, Mishra Saurabh,
Ankit Kr. Lal, Rajeev Kumar Bansal, Brahma Prakash, Sanjeev Bansal,
Akshay K.Ghai, C. D. Singh, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Arjun Garg,
Manish Yadav, Ishan Nagar, Shashank Shekher, Mritunjay Kumar Sinha,
Gaurav Sharma, Prateek Bhatia, Vara Gaur, Pramod Kumar Sharma,
Abhinav Gupta (For Ms.Pratibha Jain), Hemani Sharma, Ashwani
Bhardwaj, Advs. for the appearing parties.
NIDHI KAIM AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH AND OTHERS
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI I. Leave granted in the
special leave petitions.
2. Orders were passed by the Madhya Pradesh Professional
Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as, 'Vyapam'), cancelling
the results of the appellants, of their professional MBBS course, on the
ground that the appellants had gained admission to the course, by resorting
to unfair means, during the Pre-Medical Test. These orders were passed,
with reference to candidates, who had been admitted to the above course,
during the years 2008 to 2012. A challenge to the orders of cancellation,
was raised by the appellants, by invoking the jurisdiction of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as, 'the High Court')
under Article 226 of the Constitution. All writ petitions raising the above
challenge were dismissed. Resultantly, the appellants approached this
Court. The orders of the High Court were affirmed by a Division Bench
(hereinafter referred to as, the 'former Division Bench'), on 12.05.2016.
However, in exercise of jurisdiction vested in this Court, under Article
142 of the Constitution, J. Chelameswar, J. (the Hon'ble Presiding Judge,
of the 'former Division Bench') expressed the view, that complete justice
in the matter would be rendered, ifthe qualifications successfully acquired
by the appellants were not annulled, and the knowledge gained by them,
was not wasted. This, for the' simple reason, that knowledge could not
be transferred to those, who had been wrongfully deprived of admission,
and cancellation of the results of the appellants, would not serve any
purpose. Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. (the Hon'ble Companion Judge- in
the 'former Division Bench') expressed his disinclination for invoking
jurisdiction under Article 142, to sustain the benefit of education acquired
by the appellants, through a separate orderofthe same date - 12.5.2016.
This, for the simple reason, that those who had adopted unfair means,
could not be extended any indulgence.
3. On account of the divergence of opinion expressed by the
'former Division Bench', through their separate orders (dated 12.5.2016)
referred to above, Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, constituted this
larger Division Bench, to deal with the matter. During the course of
hearing, Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel submitted, that this
Court had granted leave, in the petition filed by his client (and many
others, similarly situated) on 24.2.2016. It was pointed out, that all these
539
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
540
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017) 2 S.C.R.
appeals had remained pending before this Court, wherein the correctness
of the impugned judgment(s) rendered by the High Court, was under
consideration. It was submitted, that leave having been granted, the
principle underlying the doctrine of merger would entail, that the judgments
rendered by the High Court would eventually merge in the final or
operative determination of this Court. It was also pointed out, that in
terms of Article 145(5) of the Constitution, nojudgmentcould be delivered
by this Court, save with the concurrence of majority of Judges, present
and hearing the case. It was submitted, that there was no majority
judgment on 12.5.2016, when the two Hon'ble Judges constituting the
'former Division Bench', passed separate orders. According to learned
counsel, in the absence of merger, all the civil appeals in hand, must be
deemed to have remained on the docket of this Court, awaiting decision
by an appropriate bench. It was contended, that the correct coU>se to
be followed, where there is a divergence of opinion between the two
Hon 'hie Judges was, a rehearing of the entire matter by a larger Bench.
The above determination, according to learned counsel, emerges from
the legal position expressed by this Court in Gaurav Jain v. Union of
India, ( 1998) 4 SCC 270. It was submitted, that in the absence of a
majority judgment, in terms of Article 145{5), and consequently in the
absence of an effective judgment of this Court (despite the two separate
orders passed by the 'former Division Bench' on 12.05.2016), there
existed no judgment in the eyes of law. It was accordingly submitted,
that the present Division Bench (of three-Judges) by a mandate of law,
was required to adjudicate upon the civil appeals fully, on all issues. It is
therefore, thatthis Bench passed the following order on 28.7.2016:
"After hearing had gone on for sometime, wherein the limited
issue canvassed was, whether this Court was justified in exercising
jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, our
attention was invited to the mandate contained in Article 145(5)
of the Constitution, so as to suggest, that the entire controversy
needed to be heard afresh, in view of the following order passed
by the Bench on 12th May, 2016:
"In view of the divergence of opinion in terms of separate
judgments pronounced by us in these appeals today, the
Registry is directed to place the papers before Hon 'hie the
Chief Justice oflndia for appropriate further orders."
We are of the view that the instant issue can be resolved by
NIDHI KAIM AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF MADHYA
541
PRADESH AND OTHERS [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJ!)
referring the matter back to the Bench, for a clarification, of the
A
order dated 12th May, 2016, whether the reference required rehearing of the entire matter, and if not, the limited issue referred
for consideration.
We have chosen to adopt the above course, so as to save precious
time of the Court. In the above view of the matter, the Registry
B
is directed to place the files of this case, before Hon 'ble the
Chief Justice oflndia, for seeking clarification of the Division
Bench which passed the order dated 12th May, 2016.
Post the matters for hearing, after clarification."
4. On 30.8.2016, the 'former Division Bench' passed another
order, in furtherance of the order extracted above. Relevant extract of
the same is reproduced below:
"Pursuant to the Order dated 28th July, 2016 of the larger Bench,
the matter was placed before this Bench.
Heard the learned counsel.
It appears from the above-mentioned order that, it was argued
before the larger Bench that by the Order of this Bench dated
12th May, 2016, a Reference was made to a larger Bench. The
submission is factually incorrect.
It is clear from the Order dated 12th May, 2016 that there was a
disagreement between both of us regarding the final order to be
passed in the app~als before us. Both of us recorded a concurrent
opinion that the examination .process in issue in these appeals,
conducted by Vyapam for the years 2008 to .2012 was vitiated
with reference to the appellants before this Court and few others.
We also agreed upon the conclusion that the appellants herein
are the beneficiaries of such vitiated process.
The only point of divergence between both ofus is that whether
the appellants should be disentitled to retain the benefits of the
training in medical course which they secured by virtue of their
being beneficiaries of a tainted examination process conducted
for the purpose of admitting them for training in medical colleges.
While one ofus (JusticeAbhay Manohar Sapre) is clearly of the
op in ion that the case of the appellants deserves no further
c
D
E
F
G
H
542
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 2 S.C.R.
consideration, the moment we concluded that they are the
beneficiaries of such tainted examination process, the other
(Justice J. Chelameswar) opitied for the reasons recorded that
their cases deserve some consideration and also opined that the
appellants should be permitted to pursue their medical course
and complete the same subject to certain conditions indicated in
the order.
We completely fail to understand the reference made to Article
145(5) of the Constitution in the Order dated 28th July, 2016. We
are of the opinion that neither the Constitution of India nor any
other law of this country provides an intra-court appeal insofar
as the Supreme Court is concerned. A re-hearing of the entire
matter as apparently suggested to the larger Bench, in our opinion,
would amount to an intra-court appeal. If the larger Bench of
this Court wishes to create such an intra-court appeal, we
obviously are powerless to stop it. We can only record our
understanding of the law on the question and it is as recorded
above.
Ordered accordingly."
In view of the order extracted above, it is apparent that, we are
only dealing with the issue, whether the jurisdiction vested in this Court
under Article I 42 of the Constitution, should be invoked in favour of the
appellants, in order to render complete justice in the matter.
5. According to Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 1727, 1720-1724, 1726,
I 728, 1776-1787 and 1846 of2016, the invocation of Article 142 in favour
of the appellants was a just and rightful determination, inasmuch as,
complete justice was sought to be rendered without adversely affecting
or impinging upon the rights of any other party. It was submitted, that
there is a distinction between "inherent jurisdiction" and "inherent power".
Likewise, there is a distinction between ensuring, that the ends of justice
are met - as against, rendering of complete justice. It was pointed out,
that Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred.
to as, 'the CPC') and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the CrPC') provide for situations,
wherein a Court can exercise inherent powers. It was submitted, that
inherent powers as contemplated under Sectio~ • 151 of the CPC, and
NIDHI KAIM AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH AND OTHERS [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR. CJI]
Section 482 of the CrPC, are controlled, and had limitations. It was
asserted, that the power conferred on the Supreme Court under Article
142 of the Constitution, was aimed at allowing this Court to do complete
justice, in any cause or matter. The instant power vested in this Court, it
was submitted, is unlimited. It was pointed out, that the expanse of Article
142, was clearly distinct from the inherent power contemplated under
the two procedural enactments, referred to above. In order to substantiate
his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on a treatise by Roscoe
Pound-An Introduction to the Philosophy of Law, (Sixth Indian Reprint
-2012, published by the Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.). Learned
counsel invited the Court's attention to the following opinion expressed
by the author: .
. "If we look back at the means of individualizing the aprilication
oflawwhich have developed in our legal system, it will be seen
that almost without exception they have to do with cases involving
the moral quality of individual conduct or of the conduct of
enterprises, as distinguished from matters of prope11y and of
commercial law. Equity uses its powers of individualizing to the
best advantage in connection with the conduct of those in whom
trust and confidence has been reposed. Juiy lawlessness is an
agency of justice chiefly in connection with the moral quality of
conduct where the special circumstances exclude that
"intelligence without passion" which, according to Aristotle,
characterizes the law. It is significant that in England today the
civil jury is substantially confined to cases of fraud, defamation,
malicious prosecution, assault and battery, and breach of promise
of marriage. Judicial individualization through choice of a rule is
most noticeable in the law of torts, in the law of domestic relations,
and in passing upon the conduct of enterprises.
The Application of Law
The elaborate system of individualization in criminal procedure
543
A
B
c
D
E
F
has to do wholly with individual human conduct. The informal
methods of petty courts are meant for tribunals which pass upon
G
conduct in the crowd and hurry of our large cities. The
administrative tribunals, which are setting up on every hand, are
most called for and prove most effective as means of regulating
the conduct of enterprises.
H
544
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2017] 2 S.C.R.
A like conclusion is suggested when we look into the related
controversy as to the respective provinces of common law and
oflegislation. Inheritance and succession, definition of interests
in property and the conveyance thereof, matters of commercial
law and the creation, incidents, a.nd transfer of obligations have
proved a fruitful field for legislation. In these cases the social
interest in the general security is the controlling element. But
where the questions are not of interests of substance but of the
weighing of human conduct and passing upon its moral aspects,
legislation has accomplished little. No codification of the law of
torts has done more than provide a few significantly broad
generalizations.