Case: Medical Council Of India Vs. State Of Karnataka

A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court has put a question mark on the authority of the Medical Council of India (for short, the `Medical Council) - the appellant - in its judgment dated July 16, 1997 to fix intake for admission of students to various medical colleges in the State of Karnataka. Medical Council is aggrieved by that part of the impugned judgment where the Division Bench held that prior to insertion of Sections 10A, 10B and 10C inthe Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short, the `Medical Council Act) by the Amending Act 31 of 1993 neither the Central Government nor the Medical Council could fix the admission capacity in the medical colleges in the State and that this authority to determine the admission capacity in the medical colleges vested in State by virtue of two State enactments, namely, Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (for short, `Karnataka Universities Act) and Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 (for short, `Karnataka Capitation Fee Act). The Division Bench, however, held that after the amendment of the Indian Medical Council Act by insertion of Sections 10A, 10B and 10C, the two State enactments would yield to the provisions of the Medical Council Act to the extent of repugnancy and that now the power to fix admission capacity rests with the Medical Council. The Division Bench said that admission capacity for purpose of increase or decrease in each of the college, has got to be determined as on or before June 1, 1992 with reference to what had been fixed by the State Government or that fixed by the medical colleges and not with reference to the minimum standard of education regulations prescribed under Section 19A of the Medical Council Act by the Medical Council which it said were only "recommendatory" as held in State of Madhya Pradesh and anr. v. Kumari Nivedita Jain and ors., 1981(4) SCC 296. Thus according to the Division Bench future admissions will, however, have to be regulated on the basis of the capacity fixed or determined by the Medical Council as provisions of Sections 10A, 10B and 10C are prospective.2. State of Karnataka has also filed appeal. It felt aggrieved by that part of the impugned judgment of the Division Bench where it scuttled the powers of the State to fix admission capacity to the medical colleges. Stand of the State is that Section 10A is applicable only when it comes to increase the existing admission capacity in the colleges and that the intake capacity already fixed by the State under its statutory powers could not be reduced.3. In the third appeal filed by the Rajiv Gandhi Dental College and which pertains to Dental Colleges under the provisions ofthe Dentists Act, 1948, there is similar challenge to the authority of the Dental Council of India to fix the intake of admission of students to Dental Colleges. The provisions of this Act are in pari materia to that of the Indian Medical Council Act and decision in the appeal filed by the Medical Council of India would be applicable to the appeal filed by Rajiv Gandhi Dental College.4. Impugned Division Bench decision was rendered in an appeal against the judgment dated September 20, 1996 of single Judge (G.C. Bharuka, J.) of the High Court in a writ petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation. Learned Single Judge considered the whole spectrum of law relating to admissions in Medical Colleges in the State and held as underS.53(10) of the State University Act and Sec. 4(1)(b) of the State Capitation Fee Act empowering the universities and/or the State Government to fix or increase intakes of the medical colleges being repugnant to Section 10A, 10B and 10C of the Central Act, are held as void and inoperative.II. The power in relation to fixation and/or increase of the admission capacities of the medical colleges has to be governed strictly and exclusively under the provisions of Sec. 10A/10C of the Central Act.III. No medical college can admit any student in excess of its admission capacity fixed by the Council subject to any increase thereof as approved by the Central Government under and in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 10A or Sec. 10C of the Central Act.IV. The regulations framed on the aspects of medical education referred to in Secs. 19A and 33 of the Central Act are mandatory in nature.The State of Karnataka went in appeal against the judgment of the single Judge which, as noted above, was partly allowed. In the appeal, the Division Bench took the view that Sections 10A, 10B and 10C of the Act have only prospective operation. While the Medical Council and the Central Government contend that learned single Judge was correct in his approach to the matter in controversy, the State of Karnataka says that introduction of Sections 10A, 10B and 10C in the Act made no difference to its authority to regulate admission to Medical Colleges in view of the judgment of this Court in A.K. Singh v. State of Bihar, (1994) 4 SCC 401  and that power under Section 10A of the Medical Council Act was confined only to increasing the existing admission capacity and the intake capacity already fixed by the State under its statutory powers could not be reduced.6. When the matter came up before this Court in special leave petition (SLP No. 14839/97) filed by the Medical Council, this Court, while issuing notice, stayed the impugned judgment of the Division Bench. In the appeal filed by the Rajiv Gandhi Dental College, it was also directed that the State would confine the admissions to the dental colleges to the intake capacity as fixed by the Dental Council.

Reasoning: Mr. Dave appearing for the Medical Council submitted that this Court in Nivedita Jains case did not say that all the Regulations framed by the Medical Council under Section 33 of the Medical Council Act were directory. He said that the Court in that case was considering Regulations 1 and 2 only and it had held that while Regulation 1 was mandatory, Regulation 2 was of directory character, i.e., it wasMr. Dave is correct in his submission. The Division Bench in the impugned judgment fell into basic error in holding that this Court in Nivedita Jains case said as if all the Regulations were directory in nature. We may now examine that judgment and a few others cited at Bar.Considering the law laid by this Court in aforementioned judgments and provisions of law, we do not think that the dispute raised by the State of Karnataka is any longer res integra.In the colleges in the State of Karnataka, the Medical Council prescribed the number of admissions that these colleges could take annually on the basis of these Regulations. Without permission of the Medical Council, the number of admissions could not be more than that prescribed at the time of granting recognition to the college. However, it appears that in violation of the provisions of the Medical Council Act, the universities and the State Government have been allowing increase in admission intake in the medical colleges in the State in total disregard of the regulations and rather in violation thereof. These medical colleges cannot admit students over and above the intake fixed by the Medical Council. These colleges have acted illegally in admitting more students than prescribed. Universities and the State Government had no authority to allow increase in the number of admissions in the medical colleges in the State. When regulations prescribed that number of teaching beds will have to be in the ratio of 7 beds per student admitted any increase in the number of admissions will have corresponding increase in the teaching beds in the attached hospital. These regulations have been over-looked by the universities and the State Government in allowing admissions over and above that fixed by the Medical Council. Respondents have not produced any document to show that increase in admission capacity to medical colleges over that fixed by the Medical Council has any relation to the existence of relevant infrastructure in their respective colleges and that there is also corresponding increase in number of beds for students in the attached hospitals. Standards have been laid by the Medical Council, an expert body, for the purpose of imparting proper medical education and for maintaining uniform standards of medical education throughout the country. Seats in medical colleges cannot be increased indiscriminately without regard to proper infrastructure as per the Regulations of the Medical Council.26. A medical student requires gruelling study and that can be done only if proper facilities are available in a medical college and hospital attached to it has to be well equipped and teaching faculty and doctors have to be competent enough that when a medical student comes out he is perfect in the science of treatment of human beings and is not found wanting in any way. Country does not want half-baked medical professionals coming out of medical colleges when they did not have full facilities of teaching and were not exposed to the patients and their ailments during the course of their study. The Medical Council, in all fairness, does not wish to invalidate the admissions made in excess of that fixed by it and does not wish to take any action of withdrawing recognition of the medical colleges violating the regulation. Henceforth, however, these medical colleges must restrict the number of admissions fixed by the Medical Council. After the insertion of Sections 10A, 10B and 10C in the Medical Council Act, the Medical Council has framed regulations with the previous approval of the Central Government which were published in the Gazette of India dated September 29, 1993 (though the notification is dated September 20, 1993). Any medical college or institution which wishes to increase the admission capacity in MBBS/higher courses (including diploma/degree/higher specialities) has to apply to the Central Government for the permission along with the permission of the State Government and that of the university with which it is affiliated and in conformity with the regulations framed by the Medical Council. Only the medical college or institution which is recognised by the Medical Council can so apply.27. Having thus held that it is the Medical Council which can prescribe the number of students to be admitted in medical courses in a medical college or institution it is the Central Government alone which can direct increase in the number of admissions but only on the recommendation of the Medical Council. In our opinion, the learned single Judge was right in his view that no medical college can admit any student in excess of its admission capacity fixed by the Medical Council subject to any increase thereof as approved by the Central Goverment and that Sections 10A, 10B and 10C will prevail over Section 53(10) of the State Universities Act and Section 41(b) of the State Capitation Fee Act. To say that the number of students as permitted by the State Government and or University before June 1, 1992 could continue would be allowing an illegality to perpetuate for all time to come. The Division Bench, in court opinion in the impugned judgment was not correct in holding that admission capacity for the purpose of increase or decrease in each of the medical colleges/institutions has got to be determined as on or before June 1, 1992 with reference to what had been fixed by the State Government or the admission capacity fixed by the medical colleges and not with reference to the minimum standard of education prescribed under Section 19A of the Medical Council Act which the Division Bench said were only recommendatory. Nivedita Jains case does not say that all the regulations framed by the Medical Council with the previous approval of the Central Government are directory or mere recommendatory. It is not that only future admission will have to be regulated on the basis of capacity fixed or determined by the Medical Council. Plea of the State Government that power to regulate admission to medical colleges is prerogative of the State has to be rejected.28. What we have said about the authority of the Medical Council under the Indian Medical Council Act would equally apply to the Dental Council under the Dentists Act.29. Accordingly, appeal by the Medical Council of India (SLP (C) No. 14839/97) is allowed and the impugned judgment of the Division Bench is set aside and we restore the judgment of the learned single Judge. Other appeals by the State of Karnataka (SLP (C) No. 20035/97) and Rajiv Gandhi Dental College (SLP (C) No. 5471/98) are dismissed. Medical Council of India shall be entitled to costs.