# ( v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS - **Citation:** [2009] 14 S.C.R. 667 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2009-09-17 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 6370 of 2009 - **Bench:** K.G Balakrishnan, P. Sathasivam, J.M. Panchal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/v-medical-council-of-india-ors-25067 - **Pages:** 44 ## Headnote Indian Medical Council Act, 1956: c s. 12, 13(4-A) (as inserted by Act 34 of 2001), Second Schedule - Third Schedule, Part II - Medical qualification granted by Universities/Medical Institutions outside India - Recognition under Scheme of reciprocity by Medical Council + of India as medical qualification for purposes of Act - s. 13( 4A) prescribing screening test for Indian citizens granted D medical qualification by named Institutions outside India for granting provisional/temporary/permanent registration - HELD: It had come to notice of Legislature that. a large number of private agencies were sponsoring Indian citizens E for medical studies to institutions outside India, such students also included those who did not fulfil the minimum eligibility -41 requirements for admission to medical courses in India - • Serious aberrations were noticed in the standard of medical institutions in some of the foreign countries, which were not F on par with the standards of medical education in India and, as such, Parliament rightly felt necessity of making provision to enable MCI to conduct screening test - The date specified 'II by Central Government uls 13(3) being 15.3.2002, an Indian citizen granted medical qualification by institutions outside India shall not be entitled to be enrolled on Medical Register G "'-f in the country after 15. 3. 2002 unless he qualifies the screening test - MCI Eligibility Requirement for taking admission in an undergraduate medical course in a Foreign Medical Institution Regulations, 2002 - Screening Test 667 H 668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A Regulations, 2002 - Interpretation of statutes - Purposive construction/Mischief rule. Under the scheme of reciprocity, in terms of s.12 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956; medical 8 qualifications granted by Kathmandu University in respect of Manipal College of Medical Sciences, Pokhara and Nepal in or after July 1999 was recognized by the Medical Council of India for the purposes of the Act Since various private agencies, for commercial considerations, sponsored Indian students including those who failed to C fulfil the minimum eligibility requirements for admission to medical course in India, for medical studies in institutions outside India, the Act was amended by Medical Council of India (Amendment) Act, 2001 (Act 34 of 2001 ), inserting s.13(4-A) providing for screening test D for a citizen of India who obtained medical qualification by an institution in a country outside India; and qualifying the screening test was deemed to be the recognised medical qualification for the purpose of the Act. As several deficiencies in infrastructural, teaching and other E facilities were found in Manipal College of Medical Sciences, Pokhra, the MCI took a ~ecision to withdraw the recognition granted to the College and not to grant provisional/final registration to any student passing from the said Institute who has not passed the scr.eening test F Some of the students of the Manipal College of Medical Sciences, Pokhra .who were issued provisional/ temporary registration by MCI were denied permanent registration on the ground that they had not cleared the prescribed screening test They filed writ petitions which G were dismissed by the High Court. Aggrieved, they filed the appeals. Some othe.r students who were denied provisional registration by MCI filed petitions for special leave to appeal. Similarly situated students of the Institute of Medicine, Tribhuwan University filed the writ petition H under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. YASH AHUJA AND ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF 669 INDIA & ORS. It was contended for the appellants and the writ A ~ petitioners that the Second Schedule and Part II of the Third Schedule to the Act exhausted the qualifications granted by the medical institutions outside India which were recognized .as medical qualifications for the purposes of the Medical Council of India Act, 1956 B whereas Sub-Section (4A), (48) an ## Text _Characters 0–39,860 of 93,906. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39860 for what follows._ [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 667 __,. YASH AHUJA AND OTHERS A -( V. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS. " (Civil Appeal Nos. 6370 of 2009 Etc. Etc.) I( ( SEPTEMBER 17, 2009 B [K.G BALAKRISHNAN, CJI., P. SATHASIVAM AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] Indian Medical Council Act, 1956: c s. 12, 13(4-A) (as inserted by Act 34 of 2001), Second Schedule - Third Schedule, Part II - Medical qualification granted by Universities/Medical Institutions outside India - Recognition under Scheme of reciprocity by Medical Council + of India as medical qualification for purposes of Act - s. 13( 4A) prescribing screening test for Indian citizens granted D medical qualification by named Institutions outside India for granting provisional/temporary/permanent registration - HELD: It had come to notice of Legislature that. a large number of private agencies were sponsoring Indian citizens E for medical studies to institutions outside India, such students also included those who did not fulfil the minimum eligibility -41 requirements for admission to medical courses in India - • Serious aberrations were noticed in the standard of medical institutions in some of the foreign countries, which were not F on par with the standards of medical education in India and, as such, Parliament rightly felt necessity of making provision to enable MCI to conduct screening test - The date specified 'II by Central Government uls 13(3) being 15.3.2002, an Indian citizen granted medical qualification by institutions outside India shall not be entitled to be enrolled on Medical Register G "'-f in the country after 15. 3. 2002 unless he qualifies the screening test - MCI Eligibility Requirement for taking admission in an undergraduate medical course in a Foreign Medical Institution Regulations, 2002 - Screening Test 667 H 668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A Regulations, 2002 - Interpretation of statutes - Purposive construction/Mischief rule. Under the scheme of reciprocity, in terms of s.12 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956; medical 8 qualifications granted by Kathmandu University in respect of Manipal College of Medical Sciences, Pokhara and Nepal in or after July 1999 was recognized by the Medical Council of India for the purposes of the Act Since various private agencies, for commercial considerations, sponsored Indian students including those who failed to C fulfil the minimum eligibility requirements for admission to medical course in India, for medical studies in institutions outside India, the Act was amended by Medical Council of India (Amendment) Act, 2001 (Act 34 of 2001 ), inserting s.13(4-A) providing for screening test D for a citizen of India who obtained medical qualification by an institution in a country outside India; and qualifying the screening test was deemed to be the recognised medical qualification for the purpose of the Act. As several deficiencies in infrastructural, teaching and other E facilities were found in Manipal College of Medical Sciences, Pokhra, the MCI took a ~ecision to withdraw the recognition granted to the College and not to grant provisional/final registration to any student passing from the said Institute who has not passed the scr.eening test F Some of the students of the Manipal College of Medical Sciences, Pokhra .who were issued provisional/ temporary registration by MCI were denied permanent registration on the ground that they had not cleared the prescribed screening test They filed writ petitions which G were dismissed by the High Court. Aggrieved, they filed the appeals. Some othe.r students who were denied provisional registration by MCI filed petitions for special leave to appeal. Similarly situated students of the Institute of Medicine, Tribhuwan University filed the writ petition H under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. YASH AHUJA AND ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF 669 INDIA & ORS. It was contended for the appellants and the writ A ~ petitioners that the Second Schedule and Part II of the Third Schedule to the Act exhausted the qualifications granted by the medical institutions outside India which were recognized .as medical qualifications for the purposes of the Medical Council of India Act, 1956 B whereas Sub-Section (4A), (48) and 4(C) of s.13 deal with the residual subject of individual recognition of medical qualifications obtained by Indian citizens from the '-t institutions outside India which were not specified in any of the three Schedules and therefore the appellants c could not be subjected to screening test contemplated by s.13(4A). The question for consideration before the Court was: whether the MCI was justified in asking the appellants and others who obtained MBBS qualification D -t from Kathmandu University to qualify the screening test '(' prescribed by the Regulations. Dismissing the appeals and the petition, the Court HELD: 1. Though the MCI has recommended to the E Central Government to withdraw the recognition granted ~ to the College, the Central Government has not initiated any action against the College. The Central Government ~ has made it clear in its affidavit that Manipal College of Medical Sciences, Pokhara, Nepal continues to be F recognized under the Act. [Para 15] [693-F-G] .... ., 2.1. In order to make the scheme of recognition of .J medical qualification by Universities or medical institutions in India complete, one has got to read the G A,~ provisions of s.11 with the provisions of sub-Sections (1 ), (2) and (5) of s.13 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Section 11, First Schedule, sub-Sections (1 }, (2) and (5) of s. 13 and Part I of the Third Schedule constitute a complete code relating· to the scheme of recognition of H . 670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A medical quaiifications granted by Universities or medical institutions in India. [Para 20] (697-8-D] 2.2. Similarly, the scheme of recognition of medical qualifications granted by medical institutions in countries with which there is a scheme of reciprocity, dealt with by 8 s. 12 of the Act, has to be read along with s.13. A_ fair reading of the provisions of s.12 with those of s.13, makes it evident that the scheme of recognition of medical qualifications granted by medical institutions outs_i_de _ India as envisaged by s.12 is not complete. In order to C make the scheme complete, exhaustive and workable, one has to take into account the provisions of subsections (3) and (4) of s.13 of the Act. The scheme relating to recognition of medical qualifications granted by medical institutions outside India becomes workable only D if the provisions of s.12 of the Act and the contents of Second Schedule are considered with the provisions of sub-Sections (3) and (4) of s.13 and Part II of the Third Schedule. [Para 21 and 22] (697-D; 699-F-H; 700-A] E 2.3. Sub-section (3) of s.13 lays down that the medical qualifications granted by medical institutions outside India (before such date as the Central Government may, ~ by notification in the Official Gazette specify) which are included in Part II of the Third Schedule shall also b~. ; F recognized medical qualifications for the purposes of the -·;:. Act. However, the said sub- Section itself carves out an :. exception that no person possessing any such qualification shall be entitled to enrolment on any State Medical Register unless he is a citize1-. of India and has undergone such practical training after obtaining that G qualification as may be required by the rules or~,; regulations in force in the country granting the qualification or if he has not undergone any practical training in that country, he has undergone such practical training as may be prescribed. [Para 22] (698-0-G] H + • ...,. . - YASH AHUJA AND ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF 671 INDIA & ORS. 2.4. It is an admitted position that the date specified A ~· by the Central Government u/s 13(3) in the Official Gazette is March 15, 2002. It means that the medical qualifications granted Uy medical institutions outside India before March 15, 2002, which are included in Part II of the Third Schedule, shall be recognized medical qualifications but B no person possessing any such qualification shall be entitled to enrolment on any State Medical Register if he is not a citizen of India and has not undergone practical -+ training after obtaining that qualification as may be required by the rules or regulations in force in that c country or if has not undergone practical training prescribed under the Act or rules or regulations. [Para 21] [698-G-H; 699-A-B] 3.1. Sub-Section (4A) of s.13 provides that a person D who is a citizen of India and obtains medical qualification ..; granted by any medical institution in any country outside India recognized for enrolment as medical practitioner in that country after the date to be specified by the Central Government, shall not be entitled to be eQrolled on any E Medical Register maintained by a State Medical Council or to have his name entered in the Indian Medical Council, unless he qualifies the screening test in India ""' prescribed for the purpose and such foreign medical .,I.. qualification shall be deemed to be recognized medical qualification for the purposes of the Act for that person F only after such person qualifies the said screening test. Sub-Section (48) mentions that a person, who is citizen of India, shall not, after the date to be specified by the Central Government, be eligible to get admission to obtain medical qualification granted by any medical G institution in any foreign country unless he obtains an .... eligibility certificate to be issued by the Council. It further ~ provides that in case such person obtains such qualification without obtaining such eligibility certificate, he will not be eligible to appear in the screening test H 672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. .,_ A referred to in sub-Section (4A). The proviso to subsection (48) enacts a rule that an Indian citizen, who has acquired the medical qualification from foreign medical institution or has obtained admission in a foreign medical institution before the commencement of the Indian B Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 2001, will not be required to obtain eligibility certificate but if he is qualified . to any medical course for recognized medical qualification in any medical institution in India, he will have to qualify the screening test for enrolment on any State c Medical Register or for entering his name in the Indian Medical Register. [Para 23] [701-A-H; 702-A] 3.2. It would not be correct to say that ss. 13(4A) and 13(48) cannot be applied to s. 12 of the Act, but may apply to Part II of the Third Schedule, which includes those D institutions with which there is no scheme of reciprocity. [Para 27] [703-G-H] 3.3. Sub-sections (4A), (48) and (4C) of s.13 of the· Act were brought on the Statute book by Act 34 of 2001, with E effect from September 3, 2001. On analysis of sub-Section (4A) it becomes sufficiently clear that it would apply when , three conditions are satisfied, namely, (i) when a citizen of India obtains medical qualification granted by any medical institution in any country outside India, (ii) the. F medical qualification obtained must have been .. recognized for enrolment as medical practitioner in that country and (iii) the medical qualification must have been obtained after the date to be specified by the Central Government. (Para 28] (704-A-C] G 3.4. The phrase "medical qualification granted by any medical institution in any country outside India" employed in sub-Section (4A) of s.13 of the Act is not restrictive in its application at all and takes within its sweep the medical qualifications granted by any medical H institution in any country outside India with which a + YASH AHUJA AND ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF 673 INDIA & ORS. .-+ scheme of reciprocity for the purpose of recognition of A medical qualification is in force as well as the cases covered by sub-Sections (3) and (4) of s.13 of the Act. [Para 28] [704-C-D] 3.5. It is relevant to notice that s. 11 of the Act refers B to the First Schedule whereas s.12 refer~ to the Second Schedule and s.13(1) and 13(2) refer to Part I of the Third Schedule and ss~ 13(3) and 13(4) refer to Part II of the Third Schedule. However, sub-Sections (4A) and (48) of s.13 do not refer to any Schedule at all because by those c sub-Sections general provisions are enacted which apply to all the cases where a citizen of India has obtained or !s desirous of obtaining medical qualification granted by any medical institution in any country outside India. [Para 28] [704-0-F] D -1· 4.1. Even if the material words of s.13(4A) are capable of bearing two constructions, the most firmly established rule for construction of such words is the rule of "purposive construction or mischief rule". This rule enables consideration of four matters in construing an E Act - (1) what was the law before the making of the Act, (2) what was the mischief or defect for which the law did • not provide, (3) what is remedy that the Act has provided ~ and (4) what is the reason of the remedy. The rule then directs that the courts must adopt that construction F which suppresses the mischief and advances the < remedy. [Para 29] [705-8-D] ' l 4.2. The law before the enactment of sub-Section 4(A) of s.13 was that medical qualifications granted by G medical institutions in countries with which there was a A. --f scheme of reciprocity included in the Second Schedule, were recognized qualifications for the purposes of the Act. This law continues to be in force even after the enactment of sub-Section (4A). However, over a period of time, it had come to the notice of the Legislature that H .~ . 674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A a large number of private agencies _sponsored students for medical studies in institutions outside India for +-- ' commercial consideration. It was noticed that such students also included those who did not fulfill the minimum eligibility requirements for admission to medical B courses in India. Serious aberrations were noticed in the standard of medical education in some of the foreign countries,· which were not on par with the standards of medical education available in India. These were:the defects and/or mischiefs noticed for which no provision c was made either in s.12 or sub-Sections (3) and (4) of s.13 ~ of the Act. It was, therefore, felt ntcessary by Parliament to make a provision to enable th Council to conduct a screening test. This is the remed~ that sub-Section (4A) has provided. This remedy is prescribed to satisfy the MCI D with regard .to the adequacy of knowledge and skills acquired by citizens of India, who obtain medical qualifications from Universities or medical institutions +. outside India and to ensure that those students have " secured the standards of medical education in the E foreign countries, which are at par with standards of medical education in India. The remedies mentioned in ss.13(4A) and 13(48) are prescribed because citizens of India, who have obtained medical qualifications from Universities or medical institutions outside India, would • F be entitled to practice medicine in India and they cannot ...... be permitted to treat other citizens of India with their halfbaked knowledge and jeopardize their precious lives. Thus by adopting rule of purposive construction or mischief ruie, it will have to be held that the provisions of ic;ub-Section (4A) of s.13 of the Act would also apply to the G cases covered by s.12 of the Act. (Para 29) [705-D-H; 706A-E] 4.3. The scope of Section 13(4A) is quite clear and >-"" ' covers all foreign medical institutions falling within the H ambit of ss.12 and 13 of the Act. On a close and careful YASH AHUJA AND ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF 675 INDIA & ORS. reading of the provisions of the Amending Act of 2001 A -t with the Eligibility Requirement Regulations and ~ Screening Test Regulation, both of 2002, it becomes clear that the MCI is obliged to stipulate the screening test in the case of all those candidates, who obtained medical •, qualification from institutions outside India falling within B the purview of ss.12 and 13 of the Act in view of the statutory provisions of s.13(4A) of the Act. [Para 30] [7078-D] .... 5. It is true that at one stage the MCI had released a c press note clarifying for the information of general public that eligibility requirements for taking admission in an undergraduate medical course mentioned in Foreign Medical Institutions Regulations, 2002 and the Screening Test Regulation, 2002 would not be applicable to the D students joining an undergraduate medical course in -< foreign countries, recognised and included in the Second Schedule u/s 12 of the Act. However, this was the ' understanding of MCI, which is one of the parties before ....,,;; the Court.The press release cannot be interpreted as precluding MCI from canvassing correct import of the E provisions of the Act. In any view of the matter, the press release by MCI cannot preclude the court from placing ~ correct interpretation of the Act. [Para 30] [706-G-H; 707- ..,I.. A-8, D-E] F 6.1. It would not be correct to say, If the provisions of the Screening Test Regulations, 2002 are made applicable to the citizens of India, who have obtained medical qualifications granted by Universities or medical ~ institutions outside India, a serious anQmaly would arise \ G as all those students who are similarly placed as the _,., ../ appellants, but who are not Indian citizens, would be entitled to be enrolled on Medical Register maintained by the State Medical Council or to have their names entered· in the Indian Medical Register without undergoing the H 676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A screening test whereas the appellants and other . -+- students, who are citizens of India, would not be so entitled without qualifying the screening test, which would be discriminatory, is merely stated to be rejected. [Para 31] [707-E-H] ,·' B 6.2. It must be remembered that the appellants are students of Manipal College of Medical Sciences, Pokhara, Nepal, who have obtained MBBS degree granted by Kathmandu University .. They have not laid + c any factual data to indicate that in Nepal education system of 10+2 is prevalent and that a student becomes entitled to get admission to medi~al course only after he clears Central Admission Test in order of merits. The Indian Parliament never found that either large number D of students of Nepal or students· belonging to other countries but stliC:ying in Manipal College of Medical Sciences, Pokhara, who are desirous of practicing t medicine in India, vvere sponsored by private agencies of " those countries for mcd:~al studies in the said institute -- for commercial consideration. It is not the case of the E appellants that students of Nepal or students of other countries prosecuting medical studies in Manipal College of Medical Sciences were/are not fulfilling the minimum ,. eligibility requirements for admission to medical ·courses prescribed in their respective countries. Tile appellants ,J,- F failed to bring on record the facts, which would prima facie show that the standards of medical education prescribed either by the Government of Nepal or by Nepal Medical Council are at par with the standards of medical education available in India. Under such circumstances, I G there was no scope for Parliament of India to prescribe that students· of Nepal or students of other countries '~ prosecuting medical studies in Manipal College of )>.- Medical Sciences should als· YASH AHUJA AND ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF 679 .. INDIA & ORS. [J.M. PAN~HAL, J.] ~ 2. The appellants in appeal arising out Special Leave A Petition (C) No. 26777 of 2008 have challenged validity of common Judgment dated September 26, 2008 rendered by the High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 8056 of 2007 and other cognate petitions by which the prayer made by them to direct the Medical Council of India to grant forthwith the provisional B as well as permanent registration to them, as they have acquired medical qualifications granted by the Manipal College of Medical Science, Pokhara, Nepal which are recognized by Medical Council of India, without insisting that they should qualify the screening test, is rejected. c 3. In order to appreciate the controversy raised before this Court, it would be advantageous to notice certain facts, which are as under: Earlier the medical education in India was governed by the D ~ provisions of Indian Medical Council Act, 1933. Thereunder also the Medical Council of India ('MCI' for short) was constituted on which certain powers were conferred and duties were imposed. However, with the passage of time, it was noticed that there was no representation to licentiate members of the E medical profession nor there was provision: ~ (a) to provide for registration of the names of citizens ..;.. of India who had obtained foreign medical qualifications which were not recognized by the F Indian Medical Council Act, 1933; (b) . to provide for temporary recognition of medical qualifications granted by medical institutions in countries outside India with which scheme of reciprocity ·exists; G ,,._~ (c) to provide for the formation of a committee of postgraduate medical education for the purpose of assisting the MCI to prescribe standards of postgraduate medical education for the guidance H 680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. .. A of Universities and; ~ (d) to provide for the maintenance of an All-India register by the MCI. B Thus it became necessary to bring a legislation to provide for ' the reconstitution of MCI and the maintenance of a medical .I register for India and for matters connected therewith. That is how, the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ('the Act' for short) came to be enacted by Parliament repealing the Act of 1933. c 4. Section 12 of the Act deals with recognition of medical +- qualifications granted by medical institutions in countries with which there is a scheme of reciprocity. The MCI is empowered to enter into negotiations with the authority in any country outside India which by law of such country is entrusted with the D maintenance of a register of medical practitioners, for settling a scheme of reciprocity for the recognition of medical >-· qualifications. Once such a scheme is settled, the Central Government is authorized to amend the second schedule so as to include therein the medical qualification which the council E has decided should be recognised. The medical qualifications granted by medical institutions outside India which are included in the second schedule are recognized medical qualifications. 5. The Nepal authority had forwarded a scheme for grant ~ of recognition of MBBS qualifications conferred by Kathmandu Jt· F University, in respect of students of Manipal College of Medical Sciences. Pokhara, Nepal. Jhe MCI entered into negotiation ~ with the Nepal Authority for settling a scheme of reciprocity for recognition of medical qualifications. One of the conditions of recognition was that the·college would not admit more than 100 •' G students annually. On the request of Ministry of health, Government of India, the MCI inspected the said college in the year 2000. The college was assessed and evaluated in the light ..,.. A of minimum standards prescribed by the MCI relating to infrastructure, teaching facilities, etc. After inspection, a report H was submitted to Government of India. On the basis of the said YASH AHUJA AND ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF 681 INDIA & ORS. [J.M. PANCHAL, J.] report, scheme of reciprocity was settled after which the A Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Department of health) issued notification dated September 26, 2001, amending Second Schedule to the Act by inserting an entry to the effect that the qualification of MBBS granted by Kathmandu University shall be recognized as medical B qualification when granted in or after July, 1999, in respect of students of Manipal College of Medical Sciences, Pokhara. 6. Over a period of time, it was noticed that a large number of private agencies sponsored Indian students for medical c studies in institutions outside India for commercial considerations. Such students also included the students who failed to fulfill the minimum eligibility requirements for admission to medical courses in India. Serious aberrations were noticed in the standards of medical education available in some of the foreign countries which were not at par with the standards of D ~ medical education available in India. Due to lack of uniformity in the standards of medical education in various foreign countries, it was decided to make a provision in the Act to enable the MCI to conduct a screening test in order to satisfy itself with regard to the adequacy of knowledge and skills E acquired by citizens of India who obtain medical qualifications from universities or medical institutions outside India before -c they are granted registration to practice medicine in India. -.;. Accordingly the Act was amended by the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 2001 and new Section 13(4A) was inserted, F which requires that a person who is citizen of India and obtains medical qualification granted by any medical institution in any country outside India recognized for enrolment as medical practitioner in that country after such date as may be specified by the Central Government under sub- Section (3) shall not be G entitled to enrolled on any medical register maintained by a ,,., State Medical Council or to have his name entered in the Indian --( Medical Register, unless he qualifies the screening test in India prescribed for such purpose and such foreign medical qualification after such person qualifies the said screening test H 682 · SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A shall be deemed to be the recognized medical qualification for - ithe purpose of this Act for that person. 7. The Ministry of Health, Government of India, by letter dated January 11-16, 2007, asked the MCI to oconduct an ~ B inspection of Universal College of Medical Sciences, Bhairahwa, Nepal and other institutions in Nepal recognised for granting MBBS degree under the Act to re-assess the facilities available there as doctors coming out of those colleges were eligible to practice medicine in India. Accordingly the inspection + c team of MCI.went to Pokhara to inspect the college on January 19-20, 2007 to re-assess the infrastructural, teaching and other facilities available at the said college for grant of qualifications recognized and included in the Second Schedule to the Act. • The Dean of the college did not permit the inspection of ,_ D the college despite repeated requests. However, he permitted ~. , the members of the Inspection Team to visit the college and the hospital on January 19, 2007, asserting that the colleges recognized by the MCI and included fn the Second Schedule to the Act were not subject to re-assessment by the MCI. E Though the inspection team was not permitted to re-inspect the college, the said team visited the college on January 19, 2007 and prepared a report indicating the deficiencies noticed ... during the visit. The report prepared was considered by the ~' Executive Committee of the MCI in its meeting held on February ~ F 5, 2007, wherein the members of the ad-hoc committee appointed by the Supreme Court were also present. Having • . regard to the deficiencies pointed out in the report, it was ' resolved by the Executive Committee, to carry out an inspection to re-assess the under graduate teaching and training facilities G available at the said college. Accordingly a fax message dated February 19, 2007 was dispatched to the Principal of the )-- ...... 1college that an inspection would be carried out by the Council Inspectors on 21st and 22nd February, 2007. The Principal was also instructed to fill a set of standard inspection forms A and H Band declaration contained in Forms C and D and handover YASH AHUJA AND ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF 683 . INDIA & ORS. [J.M. PANCHAL, J.] . ..) the same to the Council Inspectors. The acting Dean of the A college faxed a letter dated February 19, 2007 to the Secretary, MCI protesting attempt by the MCI to reinspect the college and stated that the Dean was abroad on a study visit and, therefore, --(' the visit by the team should be deferred till his return. In continuation of faxed letter dated February 19, 2007, the acting B / Principal of the College addressed another letter dated February 21, 2007 mentioning that the inspection was not feasible in view of the earlier stand tha~ the College was not subject to re-assessment. Thereupon, the Executive Committee of the MCI wrote a letter dated February 23, 2007 to the c Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Health and forwarded the report dated January 19, 2007, wherein certain deficiencies noticed were mentioned. By the said letter the ... Executive Committee informed the Government of India that a "'· decision was taken to re-inspect the College and not to grant D provisional/final registration under Section 12(2) of the Act, till the matter was finally decided. However, the record shows that in spite of protest lodged by the acting Principal of the said College, the Inspectors of Council went to Pokhara and carried out inspection on February 21 & 22, 2007. The Inspectors E submitted their inspection report which was considered by the Executive Committee of the MCI in its meeting held on March ~ 3, 2007. The Committee took into consideration the stand of + the College that it was not subject to another inspection as well .... as reports indicating several deficiencies which were noticed F by the Inspecting Team of MCI during the visit of the College. The Executive Committee of the MCI took a decision to recommend to the general body of the MCI to withdraw the recognition granted to Manipal College of Medical Sciences, Pokhara, Nepal, for the award of MBBS degree granted by Kathmandu University under Section 12(3) of ttie Act and not G "" ·-;( to grant provisional/final registration under Section 12(2) of the Act, to any student passing from the said Institute who has not passed the screening test. The meeting of the General Body of MCI was convened on March 10, 2007, to consider the recommendation made by the Executive Committee. The H 684. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A General Body approved the recommendation made by the Executive Committee. The decision taken by the General Body .(.. of MCI was communicated to the Government of India vide letter. dated May 29, 2007. The case of Manipal College of Medical Sciences, Pokhara, is that the recognition granted to the B College under Section 12(2) of the Act is on reciprocal basis " between the concerned authorities in India and Nepal and, therefore, it is its understanding that the College/University is not subject to re-assessment and in any event without informing or obtaining approval of Nepal Government/Nepal Medical + c Council/Kathmandu University, such re-assessment of College by MCI is not proper. 8. The appellants who were the students. of the Manipal College of Medical Sciences, Pokhara and had obtained MBBS qualification from Kathmandu University were issued , D provisional registration certificates by MCI and had started their internship from the Medical Colleges recognized l"ly the MCI. ~- However, on completion of internship, they were denied permanent registration on the ground that they had not cleared the prescribed screening test. . E 9. In Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 28228 of 2008 the appellants were students, who had graduated from the Manipal College of OMedical Sciences, ,.. Pokhara, Nepal. They applied to the Medical Council of India ...+- F to grant provisional registration to enable them to start internship. Sometime in April, 2007 some of the appellants, who k were already granted temporary registration by the Medical Council of India, approached the Medical Council of India for 1permanent registration. The appellants from both the categories rG were denied registration by the Medical Council of India. The denial was communicated through a letter in which the students were informed that Council Inspectors, who had visited the ,. Manipal College of Medical Sciences on 19th and 20th January, r 2007, had found certain infrastructural deficiencies in the H College and, therefore, it was decided to deny registration on YASH AHUJA AND ORS. v. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF 685 INDIA & ORS. [J.M. PANCHAL, J.] ~- the ground that the recommendation was made to the Central A Government that Manipal College of Medical Sciences be , derecognized. Therefore, the students invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 8056 of 2007 and prayed to direct the Medical Council of India to grant 8 registration of the MBBS degrees awarded to them without insistence to clear the screening test prescribed. The Division Bench of the High Court heard the said petition along with batch -t of other petitions and dismissed the same by judgment dated September 26, 2008 giving rise to the Special Leave Petition c (C) No. 28228 of 2008. 10. In appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 28487 of 2008 the appellants were the students of Manipal College of Medical Sciences, Pokhara, Nepal. Some of the D students had cipplied for provisional registration as well as ~. permanent registration. However, the registration claimed by the students was denied to them. Therefore, they had filed writ petitions before the Delhi High Court praying the Court to direct the Medical Council of India to grant provisional registration and/or permanent registration without insisting for clearance of E screening test. In those petitions interim orders were passed <'i and Medical Council of India was directed to -'grant provisional registration to those petitioners. The interim orders passed by -+ the learned single Judge of Delhi High Court were challenged ...... in Letters Patent Appeal No. 327 of 2008 on the ground that F the interim orders passed virtually granted the main relief claimed in the petitions. The Letters Patent Appeal was disposed of by order dated ,July 7, 2008 by giving direction to dispose of the writ petitions expeditiously. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the petitions by judgment dated G ' ~ September 26, 2008 by directing that the students should ~ undergo a screening test as prescribed by law. The appellants herein were not parties to the writ petitions, but they were aggrieved by judgment dated September 26, 2008 and, therefore, they filed the Special Leave Petition No. 28487 of H 686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R: A 2008 seeking permission to file the special leave petition. 11. In Writ Petition (C) No. 154 of 2009 the petitioners were students of Institute of Medicine Tribhuvan Unive~itY: They completed the MBBS degree course successfully. Therefore, .the Tribhuvan University . had given some of the petitioners B ' provisional certificates dated April 15, 2008. The Medical Council of India released a press note dated October 8, .2008 . withdrawing the recognition granted to Manipal Col~~g~ of Medical Sciences, Pokhara and Universal College of M~di~al ( Sciences, Bhaiarahwa, Nepal, as there were certain complaints · + C against both the institutions. While dealing with the complaints against the aforesaid two institutions the Medical Council of India also mentioned in the last paragraph of the press note that earlier a press note on the website of MCI stating that the provisions of Eligibility Certificate Regulations, 2002 and the ' · '-- 0 Screening Test Regulations, 2002 would· not be applicable toJ: , ~ the foreign medical institutions recognised i.;nJer Section 12: ::i ~- of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, was withdrawn with- i: immediate effect. The effect of withdrawal of earlier press note : · is that the provisions of Eligibility Certificate Regulations 2002 E and the Screening Test Regulation 2002 would be applicable to the students of foreign ·medical institutions recognised under Section 12 of the Act and all students, who have obtained ... c medical qualifications from foreign medical institutions,·:willLB 1" have to qualify the screening test.