Case: Medical Council of India Vs. G.C.R.G. Memorial Trust &amp; Others

4. When the matter was listed on 06th September 2017, this Court had passed the following order :Issue notice fixing a returnable date within four weeks.        As Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General for respondentn of India and Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2, no further notice need be issued.        As far as respondent No.5 and 6 are concerned, let notice be issued.        Dasti in addition is permitted.        As an interim order, it is directed that there shall be stay of the operation of order dated 1st September, 2017 further corrected on 4th September 2017.        If the Institution has admitted students they are debarred from continuing in the course. We have passed this order as we while disposing of the writ petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution had passed the following order :We really fail to fathom the manner in which the High Court has misconstrued our order and passed the final order for5. We shall initially address the first issue. To adjudge the issue of propriety of the order passed by the High Court, we are compelled to travel in a time machine. Then had filed a writ petition, i.e., Writ Petition (Civil) No.13530 of 2017 before the High Court and was dealt with by the Division Bench of the High Court on 08th August 2017. On that day, the following order came to be passed:In reference to order dated 4.8.2017, the Central Government, as per the instructions received by Mr. Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1, has agreed to entertain the petitioners matter along with other similar matters and consider it to revaluate the recommendations/views of the MCI, Hearing Committee, DGHS and the Oversight Committee as available on record for grant of approval to then to admit the students in MBBS Course, after affording an opportunity of hearing to then to the extent necessary. To facilitate the Central Government, the whole paragraph 25 of the judgment in which directive has been issued by the Supreme Court is reproduced below:        25. In the above persuasive premise, the Central Government is hereby ordered to consider afresh the materials on record pertaining to the issue of confirmation or otherwise of the letter of permission granted to the petitioner colleges/institutions. We make it clear that in undertaking this exercise, the Central Government would revaluate the recommendations/views of the MCI, Hearing Committee, DGHS and the Oversight Committee, as available on records. It would also afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner colleges /institutions to the extent necessary. The process of hearing and final reasoned decision thereon, as ordered, would be completed peremptorily within a period of 10 days from today. The parties would unfailinge in compliance of this direction to meet the time frame fixed.        Therefore, we also direct the Central Government to consider the petitioners matter accordingly within seven days as framed by Honble the Supreme Court.        The matter is listed before Honble the Supreme Court on 24.8.2017.        We, therefore, also direct the registry to list this matter on 28.8.2017The matter is listed before Honble the Supreme Court on 24.8.2017.        We, therefore, also direct the registry to list this matter on 28.8.20177. As the facts would further uncurtain, the institution filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution before this Court and chose to withdraw the same to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The said order has already been quoted while reproducing the order dated 06.09.2017.

Reasoning: 8. The content of the order dated 28.08.2017 is graphically clear. The High Court was not allowed to pass any interim order pertaining to the Academic Session8 but the Division Bench of the High Court, for some unfathomable and inscrutable reason, referred to certain judgments of this Court and allowed the prayer. It is beyond our comprehension as to how the High Court could have even remotely thought of passing an order granting the Letter of Permission for the Academic Session. It is worthy to mention here that before the High Court, time was sought on behalf of the Central Government and the MCI to file counter affidavits. The same was denied and the contesting parties were deprived of the opportunity to contest. Be it noted, the writ petition that was filed before this Court was withdrawn on 28th August, 2017 and a fresh writ was filed before the High Court on 29th August 2017 and the judgment was delivered without waiting for the reply from the Central Government or MCI on 01st September 2017. It is clear as the cloudless sky that the judgment of the High Court shows unnecessary and uncalled for hurry, unjustified haste and an unreasonable sense of promptitude possibly being oblivious of the fact that the stand of the Medical Council of India and the Central Government could not be given indecent burial when they were parties on record. Such a procedure cannot be countenanced in law9. The controversy cannot be allowed to end with our aforesaid finding. The judicial propriety requires judicial discipline. In the absence of a reply filed by the Medical Council of India and the Central Government, it could not have been possible to answer the factual matrix of the case. What is not possible, is not possible. We may hasten to add that in respect of the cases where renewal was granted, Mr. Vikas Singh would submit that the deficiency was within the permissible limit but in the present case, it was not so and in any case, granting renewal for8 and confirmation of letter of permission for7 was totally unwarranted. In most of the cases, this Court has directed forn by the MCI which would then take a final decision for the academic year. It is a most unfortunate situation that the Division Bench has paved such a path. One cannot but say that the adjudication by the Division Bench tantamounts to a state as if they dragged themselves to the realm of willing suspension of disbelief. Possibly, they assumed that they could do what they intended to do. A Judge cannot think in terms of what pleases the Prince has the force of law. Frankly speaking, the law does not allow so, for law has to be observed by requisite respect for law15. The aforestated thoughts are not only meaningfully pregnant but also expressively penetrating. They clearly expound the role of a Judge, especially the effort of understanding and attitude of judging. A Judge is expected to abandon his personal notion or impression gathered from subjective experience. The process of adjudication lays emphasis on the wise scrutiny of materials sans emotions. A studied analysis of facts and evidence is a categorical imperative. Deviation from them is likely to increase the individual gravitational pull which has the potentiality to take justice to her coffin16. As is perceptible, we had stayed the operation of the order at the interim stage and further directed that if the Institution had admitted students they were debarred from continuing in the course. The same stands confirmedWe think not. Students are to be compensated. They had paid the fees. Hopes were kindled in their hearts and aspirations in their mind18. Before parting, it is necessary to add and repeat that the Division Bench had no reason to abandon the concept of judicial propriety and transgress the rules and further proceed on a path where it was not required to. Such things create institutional problems and we are sure that the learned Judges shall be guided by it. As far as the prayer of the institution as regards the Academic Session9 is concerned, it does not deserve consideration and, accordingly, stands rejected. We say so as an unscrupulous litigant who conceived the idea of paving the path of his own desire, moving according to his design, proceeding as per his whim and marching ahead with brazenness abandoning any sense of prudence cannot be leniently dealt with. It is the duty of the Court to take stringent action, for he has polluted the purity attached to the justice dispensation system and sullied the majesty of law