IQ CITY FOUNDATION & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 303, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
' ' 
[2017) 9 S.C.R. 303 
IQ CITY FOUNDATION & ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 502of2017) · 
AUGUST 01, 2017 
[DIPAK MISRA, AMITAVA ROY AND 
A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.) 
Education/Educational lnstit11tions: . 
A 
B 
Medical College - Applied for renewal of permission for its C 
51" batch of MBBS course for academic year 2017-I 8 - The 
Assessors after inspection of the instit11tion fo11nd certain deficiencies 
- Medical Council of India (MCI) after consideril1g the Assessment 
.. Rep01;t recommended to the Central· Government not· to renew the 
permission - However, the Hearing Committee of Central 
Government opined that the nature of deficiencies were not such as 
D 
to warrant disapproval - Central GovernmenHnstea.d of taking 
final decision refeired the matter back to MCI to review the same in 
(he light of recommendation of Hearing Committee - MCI constituted 
a team to carry out a Complialice Verification Assessment - The 
team 'conducted a regular inspection rather than limiting their scope . E 
of reviewing to the compliance of the observations of the Hearing 
Committee . ...;. Team noted certain ·deficiencies in their Con1pliance 
Verification - MCI again recommended disappro'val - Central· 
Government by impugned order dated '31.05.2017 rejected the 
scheme of permission of renewal:... Petitioner-College challenged 
the order u/Art. 32 of the.Constitution - Held: In view ofs. 10cA of F · 
Medical Council Act and Regulations and Rules framed
thereunder, 
power <if MCI cannot be restricted, b.v laying down as an absolute_ 
principle that if matter is sei1t. back by Central Government for 
Compliance Verification, the assessors inspection is limited on~y to 
verification of mentioned items and they cannot perceive other. G 
deficiencies - The direction of Central Government Joi·. Compliance 
Verifi<:ation should not be construed as a limited remand - The order· 
ofCentral Government was not a reasoned one - It was obligatory 
on its part to ascribe reasons - Central Government is directed to 
afford a f11rther opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-college -:-. 
303 
H
304 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
Medical Council Act, 1956 - s. JO-A. 
Issuing directions to Central Government, the Court 
HELD: 1. On a reading of Section 10-A of the Medical 
Council Act, 1956, Rule$, and the Regulations framed thereunder, 
it would be inapposite to restrict the power of the MCI by laying 
B down as an absolute principle that once the Central Government 
sends back the matter to MCI for compliance verification and 
the Assessors visit the College they shall only verify the 
mentioned items and turn a Nelson's eye even if they perceive 
certain other deficiencies. The direction of the Central 
c Government for compliance verification report should not be 
construed as a limited remand as is understood within the 
framework of Code of Civil Procedure or any other law. The 
distinction between the principles of open remand and limited 
remand, is not attracted. [Para 29) [322-D-F] 
. D 
2. The real compliant institutions should not always be kept 
E 
under the sword of Damocles. Stability can be brought by 
affirmative role played by the Central Government. And the 
stability and objectivity would be perceptible if reasons are 
ascribed .while expressing, a view and absence of reasons makes 
the decision sensitively susceptible. [Para 29)(322-G] 
3. The petitioners have been running the College since 
2013-14. Students who have been continuing their education shall 
continue for 2017-18. The order of the Central Government is 
not a reasoned
one. It is obligatory on its part to ascribe reasons. 
For the said purpose, Central Government to afford a further 
F opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and also take the 
assistance of the newly constituted Oversight Committee. [Para 
30](322-H; 323-A-B] 
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India and 
Ors. (2013) 10 SCC 60 : (2013) 9 SCR 325; Royal 
G 
Medical Trust (Registered) and Am: v. Union of India 
and Anr. (2015) 10 SCC 19 - relied on. 
H 
Dr. Ashish Ra11jan and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 
(2016) 11 SCC 225; Medical Council of fodia v. 
Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) and Ors.
IQ CITY FOUNDATION & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
305 
(2016) 11 SCC 530 : [2016] 4 SCR 403 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
c2016) u sec 225 
referred to 
·Para 7 
[2013] 9 SCR 325 
relied on 
Para 19 
[2016] 4 SCR 403 
referred to 
Para21 
c201s) 10 sec 19 
relied on 
Para 28 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 
502 of2017. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia. 
Salman Khurshid, s, G. Hasnain, Gurukrishna Kumar, A. Sharan, 
A 
B 
c 
P. S. Patwalia, Kapil Sibal, V. Giri, Nidhesh Gupta, R. Basant. Amit 
Sibal, Raju Ramachandran, San jay R. Hegde, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Mukul 
Rohatgi, Shyam Divan, C. A. Sundaram, Sr. Advs., S. P. Singh, Mohd. 
Zahid Hussain, Ms. Kamna Singh, Ms. Kanika, Ms. Lubna Naaz, Kamal 
D 
Mohan Gupta, Anshul Narayan, Amit Kumar, Atul Kumar, Avijit Mani 
Tripathi, Shaiya Sahay, Ms. Rekha Bakshi, Kumar Abhishek, Ms. Vidisha 
Kumar, A. Ramesh, Syed Ahmad Naqvi, Shauiyy Sahaye, Ms. Rekha 
Sahaye, Ms. Shilpi Gupta, Amitabh Sinha, Vivek Singh, G. Umapathy, 
Rakesh K. Sharma, Alco G. Rozario, Aditya Singh, S. Udaya Kumar 
Sagar, Ms. Bina Madhavaii, Ms. Akanksha Mehra (For Mis. Lawyer S E 
Knit & Co.), Ranjail Kumar Pandey, K. P. Gautam, Sandeep Bisht, 
Anshumaan B., Shrey Vardhan, Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Girijapati Kaushal, 
Mritunjay Kumar Sinha, Kunal Vajani, Pranaya Goyal, Nikhil Ranjan, 
Chiranj ivi Sharma, Abirath Thakur, Saket Sikri, Vikaalp Mudgal, Gopal 
Sankarnarayanan,V. Shyamohan, Surya Prakash, Ehsan Javaid, Pankaj 
F
Pandey, Amitesh Kumar, Shashank S. Singh, Ms. Babita Kushwaha, 
Ms. Priti Kumari, M. K. Sinha, Advs. for the Petitioners. 
Maninder Singh, ASG, Vikas Singh, Ajit Kumar Sinha, 
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Advs., Gaurav Sharma, Ms. Amandeep Kaur, 
Prateek Bhatia, Dhawal Mohan, Ms. Vara Gaur, Ms. Vriti Jindal, 
G 
R. Balasubramanian, Prabhas Bajaj, Akshay Amritanshu, Sanjai Kumar 
Pathak, Joheb Hussain, Ms. Binn Tamta, Dipak Goel, R. K. Rathore, 
Vibhu Shankar Mishra, G. S. Makker, Mishra Saurabh, T. Singh Dev, 
Ankit Lal, Arun Batra, Tanuj Bagga, Ad vs. for the Respondents. 
H
306 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DfPAK MISRA, J. l. In this Writ Petition preferred under 
Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia the petitioners have prayed for 
issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 31.05.2017 
passed under Section I 0-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, l 956 (for 
8 
brevity, 'the Act") by the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family 
Welfare, the 1" respondent herein, and further issue a direction to the 
said respondentto grant permission to the petitioner College for 41" renewal 
for the academic year 20l7-2018 to facilitate admission of the s•h batch 
(150 students) MBBS Course. 
C 
2. The expose' of facts essential for adjudication of the controversy 
are that IQ City Medical College attached to the teaching hospital, namely, 
IQ City Narayana Multispecialty Hospital was established in the year 
2013 by the petitioners with an intake of 150 (one hundred and fifty) 
seats MBBS Course. The Medical Council of India (MCI) conducted 
an inspection and granted the Letter of Permission (LOP) on 15.07.20 l 3 
D for the establishment of the new medical college at Burdwan, West 
Bengal with an annual intake of 150 students with effect from the 
academic year 2013-14. Vide letters dated 04.07.2014, 10.06.2015 and 
15.12.2015 renewals of permission for the 2nd (l" renewal), 3rd (2°d 
renewal) and 4th (3'd renewal) batches ofMBBS students atthe petitioner 
E College for the
academic years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 
respectively were granted by the respondent No. I. On 06.07.2016, 
petitioner-College submitted its scheme along with the requisite fees for 
the 4th renewal for the academic year 2017-18 which pertains to admission 
of the 5th batch of 1 SO students in MBBS course. On 09.07.2016, the 2nd 
respondent informed the College that the assessment for renewal of 
F permission for the academic year 2017-l 8 would be undertaken by the 
Assessors appointed by it at any time after 15.07.2016 and the petitioners 
were asked to fill in the Standard Inspection Form A, Form 8 and 
Declaration Form for the academic year 2017-18 and keep them ready 
for scrutiny at the time of assessment. There was also a direction for 
G submission of the soft copies of the said Forms. As averred, the petitioners 
duly submitted a compact disc containing soft copies off orm A, Form 8 
and Declaration Form and upon receipt of the necessary documents, the 
2nd respondent constituted a team of Assessors and directed them to 
carry out the assessment inspection of the College. The inspection team, 
that is, the Assessors, conducted a surprise inspection of the College on 
H 03.11.2016 and 04.11.2016. The Assessors pointed out certain deficiencies
IQ CITY FOUNDATION & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
307 
[DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
to the College and noted the same in the assessment report dated A 
04.1l.2016. It is put forth in the Regular Inspection Report that the 
shortfall in Te<1ching Faculty and Resident Doctors were only 4.5% and 
3.50% respectively which were well within the prescribed limit. Two 
other deficiencies that were pointed out, as asserted, were completely 
remediable and were duly remedied by the College. On 22.12.2016 the 
8 
Executive Committee of the respondent No. 2 considered the Assessment 
Repmt of the Assessors and decided to recommend to the respondent 
No. l not to renew the.permission to the College for the 4'h renewal for 
the academic year 2017-18. 
3. As further set forth, the l" respondent by its letter dated 
03.02.2017 communicated to the College the recommendation dated C 
28.01.2017 of the respondent No. 2 for disapproving the permission to 
the College for the 4'h renewal for the academic year 2017-18 and called 
upon the College to submit a detailed point-wise compliance with 
documentary evidence. The College was fu11her intimated about the 
hearing that was to be held on 09.02.2017 before the Hearing Committee. 
D 
A team of representatives of the College appeared before the Hearing 
Committee on the date fixed and submitted the compliance report of the 
remarks and observations made by the Assessors of the respondent No. 
2. In the second week of March, 2017, the petitioners received
a copy 
of order dated 0l.03.2017 issued by the 1" respondent recording the 
recommendations/order passed by the Hearing Committee of the 
E 
respondent No. 1 und_er Section l 0-A( 4) of the Act. The recommendation 
of the Hearing Committee was to the effect that the deficiencies pointed 
out by the znd respondent were not such to warrant disapproval at that 
stage. Despite the aforesaid findings of the Hearing Committee, the I •1 
respondent, instead of taking a final decision, referred the matter back 
F 
to the respondent No. 2 to review the same in the light of the 
recommendations/ findings of the Hearing Committee alongwith 
documents submitted by the petitioners and to furnish its recommendation. 
4. On receipt of the said communication, the 2nd respondent on 
17 .03.2017 constituted a team to carry out a Compliance Verification G 
Assessment of the College. The team of Assessors instead of carrying 
out a compliance verification, on 21.03.2017 conducted a regular 
inspection in a random manner and instead of limiting to their scope of 
reviewing the compliance of the remarks/observations of the Hearing 
Committee proceeded to make a different kind of assessment. 
H
308 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 9 S.C.R. 
A 
5. It is contended that though the Compliance Inspection Report 
was submitted, the Assessors required the College to submit a 
representation and accordingly, the College submitted the necessary 
representation to the respondent No. 2. The Assessors, as per the stand 
of the petitioners, noted certain deficiencies in their Compliance 
8 
Verification. Executive Committee of the respondent No. 2 held its 
meeting on 28.04.2017 but Minutes of the meeting were not uploaded on 
the official website of the respondent No. 2 until 29 .05.2017 and were 
not communicated to the petitioners. 
6. It is the stand of.the petitioners that on 20.05.2017, the petitioners 
approached the 1" respondent and submitted a detailed representation 
C on that day with regard to Compliance Verification and deficiencies found 
by the Assessors appointed by the respondent No. 2. The 1" respondent, 
by the impugned order dated 31.05.2017, accepted the recommendation 
of the 2nd respondent and rejected the scheme of permission of renewal 
for the 4'h renewal (admission of the 5'h batch, ISO student) MBBS 
D Course for the academic year 2017-18. It is alleged that the order dated 
31.05.2017 was communicated to the College on 30.06.2017. 
7. A counter affidavit has been filed by MCI contending, inter 
alia, that ifthe permission is granted after31.05.2017 it has to be for the 
subsequent academic year as per order passed by the Court in Dr. As/1isl1
R11njan and others v, Ullion of India & ot/1ers1 and subsequent orders 
E passed in the said case. The Hearing Committee, according to MCI, 
was constituted by the Central Government and its members were 
eminent personalities and considering the report of Assessors, LOP for 
the academic year 2017-18 has been denied. The stand that the renewal 
has been illegally rejected is not correct as there are gross deficiencies. 
F 
It is the stand of the MCI that question of"open remand" and ''limited 
re.mand" does not arise. Once an inspection is conducted by the 
Assessors, it has to be done wholly and appropriately so that the standard 
of an institution that imparts medical education is maintained and the 
said standard is non-variable. The stand that the Assessors report dated 
21.03.2017 pointed out certain deficiencies which were not mentioned 
G in the previous assessment report dated 04.11.2016 is neither acceptable 
nor tenable, for the reason it is the solemn duty of the Assessors to 
ensure that there is no deficiency in the medical college and they cannot 
ignore the deficiencies and, therefore, the plea that it exceeded the mandate 
is not only mercurial but wholly inconceivable. 
H 
1 (20I6J 11sec22s
IQ CITY FOUNDATION & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
309 
[DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
8. We have heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for A 
the petitioners, Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General 
for the Union of India and Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel for 
the MCI. 
9. It is submitted by Mr. Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the 
petitioners that the 1" respondent could not have sent back the matter to 
B 
the MCI as it was obligatory on its part to take the final decision and 
further, it should not have agreed with the opinion of the Executive 
Committee, as the Assessors transgressed the order of remand. That 
apart, submits Mr. Rohatgi, there was no justification to take a decision 
on the last date, that is, 31.0S .2017. 
10. Mr. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the MCI, 
referring to Section 10-A of the Act submits that an institution has to 
maintain consistency in imparting education and where major deficiencies 
are distinctly evident during co111pliance verification, an institution cannot 
c 
be allowed to lean upon the earlier assessment report. According to Mr. 
Singh, institution has to remain ever compliant and it cannot be in an D 
oscillating position. According to him, one day it can have faculty members 
and remajn dutiful to the statute and another day in total disregard play 
truant with the provision, for such a situation would crucify the sanctity 
of the medical education. 
I I. To have a complete projection
of the factual matrix, we think 
E 
it necessary to refer to the opinion of the Executive Committee recorded 
on 22.12.2016 on the Regular Verification. The said report reads as 
follows: 
"46. Renewal of permission for MBBS course for s•h batch (I SO 
students) IQ City Medical College, Burdwan, West Bengal under 
F 
West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Kolkata u/s IOA of 
the IMC Act, l 9S6 for the academic year 20 l 7- l 8. 
Read: the matter with regard to renewal of permission for MBBS 
course for s•h batch (ISO seats) of IQ City Medical College, 
Burdwan, West Bengal under West Bengal under West Bengal G 
University of Health Sciences, Kolkata u/s I OA of the IMC Act, 
I 9S6 for the academic year 2017-18. 
The Executive Committee of the Council considered the 
assessment report (3'd and 4'h November, 2016) and noted the 
following:-
H
310 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
I. Although the number of patients admitted amounted to the bed 
occupancy of80% but on actual verification most admissions were 
found to be fresh and new. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
2. Central Library: It is not air-conditioned. Reading room for 
Residents is not available. 
3. Students' Hostel: In Boys' hostel, Visitors' room A.C. study 
room with Computer & Internet, Recreation room are not available. 
Hygiene in Girls' is ve1y poor. 
4. Residents' Hostel: Available accommodation is 48 against 
requirement of85. 
5. Anatomy department: Available mounted specimens are 45. 
6. Pharmacoiogy department: In I Demonstration room, there are 
only 15 chairs with tables. 
7. RHTC: Residential accommodation is not available. 
8. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment report. 
In view of above, the Executive Committee of the Council 
decided to recommend to the Central Govt. not to renew the 
permission for admission of S1h batch of 150 MBBS students at 
IQ City Medical College, Burdwan, West Bengal under West 
Bengal under West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Kolkata 
u/s JOA of the IMC Act, 1956 for the academic year 2017-18." 
12. After receipt of the report of the Executive Committee, the 1 •1 
respondent vide communication dated 03.02.2017 enclosing thereto the 
letter dated 28.01.2017 of respondent No. 2, intimated the College that: 
"Subject: Renewal of Permission for admission of s•h batch of 
150 MBBs students for the
academic session 2017-18 - Hearing 
to the applicant u/s IOA(4) ofIMC, 1956- reg. 
Sir/Madam 
G 
I am directed to forward herewith a copy of MCI's letter 
dated 28.01.2017 recommending disapproval in respect of renewal 
permission at your College for the academic session 2017-18. 
2. In pursuance to the provisions contained in Section I OA( 4) of 
IMC Act, 1956, it has been decided to grant you hearing on 
H 
09.02.2017 at 10:30 AM by the Committee constituted by this
IQ CITY FOUNDATION & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
311 
. [DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
Ministry for this purpose in Room No. 243, A-Wing, Nirman A 
Bhawan, MaulanaAzad Road, New Delhi. 
3. You are requested to appear in person or depute an authorized 
representative to present the case of your Trust/Society vis-a-vis 
the disapproval Jetter of the MCI alogwith the requisite information 
in the enclosed format on the specified date & time failing which 
B 
the scheme will be decided ex-parte. You are also requested to 
bring two hard copies and one softcopy of the information/material 
you propose to present before the committee in the attached format 
in MS Word. You are also requested to send a letter of confirmation 
of participation by e-mail sujeet.charan@nic.in." 
13. ln pursuance of the communication made by the I" respondent, 
a team ofrepresentatives of the petitioner College appeared before the 
Hearing Committee on 09.02.2017 and clarified point-wise compliance 
c 
of the remarks/observations made by the Assessors and produced 
documentary evidence in that regard. In the second week of March, 
2017, as stated earlier, the petitioners received the letter dated 01.03.2017 
D 
issued by the l st respondent recording the recommendations/orders passed 
by the Hearing Committee. Relevant extract of the communication 
containing the recommendations of the Hearing Committee is reproduced 
below: 
"IQ City Medical College, Buman, 
West Bengal, [Renewal of 
Penniss ion of 5th Batch
(I SO 
seats)] 
There is no deficiency of faculty, 
residents and clinical material. 
Photographic evidence 
submitted by the college 
suggests that the deficiencies 
relating to air-<:onditioning in 
Central library I sttKlent' s ho&tel, 
resident hootel/RHTC 
· 
a:conmodation and specimen 
have been rectified 
The defici mcies are not such to 
wtrrant disapproval at this stage 
of co lle!le." 
E 
F 
G 
H
312 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
14. Though the Hearing Committee had sent the aforesaid 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
recommendation, yet the I" respondent thought it appropriate to refer 
the matter back to MCI and the manner of reference is as follows: 
"4. 
IQ City Medical College, 
There is no deficienc) Pf 
BurdW<ln, West Bengal 
faculty, residents and clinical 
material. 
Photographic evidence 
Renewal of Pennission of submittal by the college 
5th batch (150 seats) 
suggests that the deficiencies 
relating to air-conditioning in 
Central library I student's 
hostel, resident hostel I 
RHTC occommodation and 
specimens have been 
rectified. 
The deficiencies are not such 
to warrant disapproval at this 
stage of college. 
2. In view of the above, MCI is requested to review the above 
schemes in light of the recommendations of Hearing Committee 
alongwith documents submitted by the applicant Colleges and 
furnish its recommendation accordingly to this Ministry. The 
compliance submitted by the applicant College are enclosed 
herewith in original." 
I 5. It needs t-0 be.clarified that the communication also referred 
to some other colleges but we are only concerned with the petitioner 
G College for which we have reproduced the relevant extract. 
H 
I 6. The team of Assessors who went for compliance verification 
conducted a surprise verification on 21.03.20 I 7 and noted certain 
. deficiencies to which we shall refer to at a later stage.
IQ CITY FOUNDATION & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
313 
[DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
17.Afterreceiptofthe said report, the l ~respondent on 3I.05.2017 A 
accepted the Report of the MCI and denied LOP for the academic year 
2017-18. It is the stand of the petitioners that the said letter was received 
on 21.06.2017. Whether Jetter was received on that day or not is not 
relevant in praesenti. What is pertinent is to appreciate the communication 
dated 3 1.05.2017. It reads as follows: 
"To, 
The Principal/Dean, 
IQ City Medical College, 
Savapur, Bijra Road, Jemua, Durgapur, 
West Bengal- 713206 
Subject: Renewal of permission for MBBS course for 5th 
Batch of 150 students at IQ City Medical College, Burd wan, West · 
Bengal for the academic session 2017-18 u/s I OA of IMC Act, 
1956-reg. 
B 
c 
Ref No. 12012027/2016-ME.l(FTS.3084749) dated 31" May, D 
2017. 
Sir, 
Drawing reference to the above subject you are directed to 
submit a present status report of the deficiencies and 
recommendation of Medical Council of India that were not 
E 
complied by your Institute and for which the Central Government 
has directed you NOT to admit any students in MBBS course for 
academic year 2017-18. 
You are further dii-ected to submit Action Taken Report in 
this regard immediately." 
F 
18. In Dr. As/1ish Ranjan and others (supra), the Court, dealing 
with establishment of medical college, has stated thus: . 
"2. In the "Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999", 
in "SCHEDULE FOR
RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS FOR 
ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW MEDICAL COLLEGES AND 
G 
PROCESSING OF THE APPLICATIONS BY THE CENTRAL 
GOVERNMENT AND THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF 
INDIA" the following shall be substituted as under: 
H

314 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
TIME SCHEDULE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS FOR 
ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW MEDICAL COLLEGES/ 
RENEWAL OF PERMISSION AND PROCESSING OF THE 
APPLICATIONS BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND 
THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA 
B 
SI. 
Stage of processing 
Last Date 
Nos. 
I. 
Receipt ofapplications 
Between 151" June to I' 
by the Central 
July (both days inclusive) 
Government 
of any year 
c 
2. 
Forwarding application 
By 15
111 July 
by the Central 
Government to the 
Medical Council of India 
3. 
Technical scrutiny, 
By 15t11 December 
assessment and 
D 
recommendations for 
letter of permission by 
the Medical Council of 
India 
4. 
Receipt of reply/ 
Two months from receipt 
E 
comp! iance from the 
of recommendation from 
applicant by the Central 
MCI but not beyond 31
51 
Government and for 
January 
personal hearing thereto, 
if any, and fornarding of 
compliance by the 
F 
Central Government to 
the Medical Council of 
India 
5. 
Final recommendations 
By 30
111 April 
for the letter of 
G 
permission by the 
Medical Council of India 
6. 
Issue ofl.etter of 
By 31'1 May 
permission by the 
Central Government 
H
IQ CITY FOUNDATION & ANR. v. UNION OF lNDIA & ORS. 
315 
[DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
Note l .• In case of renewal of permission. the applicants A 
shall submit the application to the Medical Council of India by 15th 
July." 
19. In Manolmr Lal Sharma v. Medical Co1111cil of l11dia and 
otlters2, it has been held: 
"19. MCI on the basis of the reports, regular and compliance, is 
B 
legally obliged to form an opinion with regard to the capacity of 
the college to provide necessary facilities in respect of staff, 
equipments, accommodation, training and other facilities to ensure 
proper functioning of the medical college or for increase of 
admission capacity." 
C 
20. Thereafter, the Court referred to Section 10-A of the Act and 
the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 framed 
thereunder and ruled: 
"24. Surprise inspection. in this case, was conducted to ascertain 
whether compliance report could be accepted and to ascertain D 
whether the deficiencies pointed out in the regular inspection were 
rectified or not. By pointing out the deficiencies, MCI is giving an 
opportunity to the College to rectify the deficiencies, if any noticed 
by the inspection team. It is the duty of the College to submit the 
compliance report, after rectifying the deficiencies. MCI can 
conduct a surprise inspection to ascertain whether the deficiencies 
had been rectified and the compliance report be accepted or not." 
Eventually, the Court held: 
E 
. "27. We are also of the view that
such an order is not vitiated by 
violation of principles of natural justice. especially, when no 
FI 
allegation of bias or mala fide has been attributed against the two 
doctors who constituted the inspection team, which conducted 
the surprise inspection on 6-7-2013. When the inspection team 
consists of two doctors ofunquestionable integrity and reputation, 
who are experts in the field. there is no reason to discard the 
G 
report of such inspection. In such circumstances, we are of the 
view that MCI has rightly passed the order rejecting the approval 
for renewal of permission for the third batch of 150 MBBS students 
. granted for the academic year 2013-2014." 
2 (2013) IOSCC60 
H
316 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017) 9 S.C.R. 
A 
21. In Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical 
Sciences (KIMS) tmd otl1ers3• the Court rejected the stand of the 
respondents therein. It observed: 
"24. Medical education must be taken very seriously and when 
an expert body certifies that the facilities in a medical college are 
8 
inadequate, the courts are not equipped to take a different view in 
the matter except for very cogent jurisdictional reasons such as 
mala tides of the Inspection Team. ex facie perversity in the 
inspection report, jurisdictional error on the part of MCI, etc. Under 
no circumstance should the High Court examine the report as an 
appellate body-this is simply not the function of the High Court. 
C 
In the present case there was no ground made out at law for 
setting aside the report of the Inspection Team. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
26. It appears to us that both MCI and the Central Government 
each having twice considered the inspection report submitted by 
neutral Medical Professors, with the Central Government having 
given a personal hearing to KIMS on the second occasion (and 
perhaps on the first occasion as well) the matter ought to have 
been given a quietus by the High Court at least for the academic 
year 2015-2~16.''. 
22. Be it noted, in the said case, the two-Judge Bench took note 
of the status of the Assessors and echoed the note that was sounded in 
Manohar Lal Sharma (supra) which we think it apt to reproduce:
"6. Our attention was also drawn to the decision of this Court in 
Ma11ohar Lal Sharma v. Medical C'ouncil of India (supra) 
wherein it was held that since the inspection is taken by "doctors 
ofunquestionable integrity and reputation, who are experts in the 
field, there is no reason to discard the report of such an inspection". 
In the present appeal, there is no allegation made by KIMS of any 
mala fides of the inspection team or any perversity in the inspection 
report and hence, there is no question of challenging the conclusions 
of a neutral, randomly selected inspection team in its assessment." 
23. In the case at hand, what is urged by Mr. Rohatgi, learned 
senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, is that Assessors travelled 
beyond the order of remand and that singularly makes the inspection 
H 
'(2016) 11 sec s30
. IQ CITY FOUNDATION & AN_!l. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
3 17 
[DlPAK MISRA, J.] 
. 
. perverse and thereby vulnerable. At this juncture, it is seemly to refer A 
the remarks of the Assessors which relate to the following aspects: 
"a. Deficiency of faculty is 15 .90% as detailed in the report. 
b. Shortage of Residents is 25.88% as detailed in the report. 
c. On the day of inspection the number shown is not tallying with 
B 
number actually-present in the hospital. At random verification at 
3, OPD registration counters at 12.45 pm, is only 110 ( 40,30 and 
40 new patients). Many patients in the ward are admitted with 
minor complaints like cough, cold, itching. and the case sheets are 
. not filled up, the bed occupancy is not tallying \.vith, number 
submitted. 
· 
· 
·' 
C 
d. Students' Hostels: In Boys' ho~tel; Visitors'. room, A.C. Study 
room with Computer & Internet, Recreation room are not avai !able. 
e. In Anatomy department, some specimens are not mounted but 
kept in buckets." 
24. It has also found certain other deficiencies with regard to 
casualty attendance, operating work, etc. The College has replied to the 
same which is as follows: 
"In connection with the above subject I would like to submit the 
D 
following paragraph for your kind consideration. . 
E 
. 
. 
. 
. 
I. That during the last MCI inspection held on 3rd and 4'
11 Nov 
2016 our Faculty & Resident deficiency was 2.18 and 3.38 
. respectively. However on 21.03.2017 surprise inspection and due
to their personal commitment they could not come by I l AM and 
could not appear before the assessors. 
F 
2. Secondly, the State NEET Post Graduate counseling and the 
Diplomat in National Board EDNB) counseling in process, many 
of the senior and Junior Residents and few faculty members had 
gone to KOLKATA for their counseling hence. were ~ot able to 
appear in the inspection conducted on 21.03.2017. 
o 
3. Thirdly most of these faculties and residents are working with 
us since long time and kind of documentary proof for the same 
· can be submitted, but because of the counseling they were unable 
to make it. 
H
318 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 9 S.C.R. 
A 
4. It will not be out of place to mention here that our faculties and 
residents had gone to attend medical camps in suburban areas as 
such they could not reach by 11 AM to appear before the assessors. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Hence their absence may kindly be considered to offset the faculty 
and resident deficiency." 
25. As the facts have unrolled, there is no dispute that the petitioner 
College had submitted a scheme for 2017-18 for intake of 150 candidates. 
There is also no controversy that there was an inspection and the Hearing 
Committee had given certain recommendations and the Central 
Government thought it appropriate to send it back to the MCI for the 
compliance verification report. S'ection 10-A of the Act deals with 
permission for establishment of new medical college, new course of 
study, etc. and sub-section (7) thereof deals with as to what steps have 
to be taken by MCI while making its recommendation to the Central 
Government either approving or disapproving. Sub-section (7) reads as 
follows: 
"10-A. Permission for establisltmellt of /lew medical college, 
new course of study, etc.-(1)-(6) * * * 
(7) The Council, while making its recommendations under clause 
(b) of sub-section (3) and the Central Government, while passing 
an order, either approving or disapproving the scheme under sub-
section (4), shall have due regard to the following factors, 
namely-
- (a) whether the proposed medical college or the
existing medical 
college seeking to open a new or higher course of study or training, 
would be in a position to offer the minimum standards of medical 
education as prescribed by the Council under Section 19A or, as 
the case may be, under Section 20 in the case of postgraduate 
medical education. 
(b) whether the person seeking to establish a medical college or 
the existing medical college seeking to open a new or higher course 
of study or training or to increase its admission capacity has 
adequate financial resources; 
(c) whether necessary facilities in respect of staff. equipment, 
accommodation, training and other facilities to ensure proper 
functioning of the medical college or conducting the new course
IQ CITY FOUNDATION & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
3 t 9 
[DIPAK MISRA J.] 
or study or training or accommodating the increased admission A 
capacity, have been provided or would be provided within the 
time-limit specified in the scheme; 
(d) whether adequate hospital facilities, having regard to the 
number of students likely to attend such medical college or course 
of study or training or as a result of the increased admission 
B 
capacity, have been provided or would be provided within the 
time-limit specified in the scheme; 
( e) whether any arrangement has been made or programme drawn· 
to impart proper"training to stude11ts likely to attend such medic_al 
college or coilrse of study or training by persons having the c 
recognised medical qualifications; 
(j) the requirement of manpower in the field of practice of 
medicine; and 
(g) any other factors as may be prescribed." 
26. In Mano/tar Lal Sharma (supra), the Court has referred to 
Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Act, 20 J 0 which confers powers 
on the Board of Governors as per Section 3-B(b ). The said provision 
reads thus: 
D 
"3-B. Certain modifications of t/1e Act.-During the period whirn 
E 
the Council stands superseded-
! 
* 
*· 
* 
(b) TheBoard o.f Go.vernors shall-
(i)exercise the powers and discharge the functions of the Council 
underthisAct and for this purpose, the provisions of this Act shall 
have effect subject to the modification that references therein to 
the Coun~il shall be construed
as references to the Board of 
Governors; 
F 
(ii) grant indepeQdently permission for establishment of new 
. medical colleges or opening a new or higher course ofstudy or G · 
traininior increase in admission capacity in any course-of study 
or training referred to in Section I OA or giving the person or college 
concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard as provided 
under Section I OA without prior permission of the Central 
H
320 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20 t 7) 9 S.C.R. 
A 
Government under that section, including exercise of the power 
to finally approve or disapprove the same: a,nd 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
(iii) dispose of the matters pending with the Central Government 
under Section IOA upon receipt of the same from it." 
27. Interpreting Section 3-B(b), the Court held thus: 
"22. MCI, with the previous sanction by the Central Government. 
in exercise of its powers conferred by Sections I 0-A and 33 of 
the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, made the Regulations known 
as the Establishment of Medical College Regulations. l 999. 
Regulation 8 of the 1999 Regulations deals with grant of permission 
for establishment of new college. Application/ Scheme submitted 
by the applicants is evaluated and the verification takes place by 
conducting physical inspection by the team of inspectors of MCI. 
The Board of Governors may grant LoP to the applicant for making 
admissions in the first year ofMBBS course in the medical college 
and the permission is renewed every year subject to the college 
achieving the yearly target mentioned in "Minimum Standard 
Requirements for the Medical College for 150 Admissions Annually 
Regulations, 1999". Schedule I of the abovementioned Regulation 
provides for accommodation in the medical college and its teaching 
hospital. Schedule II deals with equipment required for various 
departments in the college and hospital. The requirements are 
statutorily prescribed and,
therefore, the Board of Governors has 
no power to dilute the statutory requirements mentioned in the 
abovementioned Regulations." 
28. At this stage, we may usefully refer to the directions enumerated 
in Royal Medical Trust (Registered) a11d a11otlzer v. Union of India 
and anotlzet4, wherein a three-Judge Bench was dealing with justifiability 
of the communications issued by the Central Government recommending 
disapproval of applications preferred in respect of Medical Colleges of 
the applicants for the academic year 2014-15. The Court, referring to 
Section I 0-A of the Act and the Regulations framed by the MCI and 
further adverting to various aspects, ruled: 
"31. MCI and the Central Government have been vested with 
monitoring powers under Section 1 OA and the Regulations. It is 
expected of these authorities to discharge their functions well within 
H 
'(201si lO sec 19
,,··,_'' 
'.· 
IQ CITY FOUNDATI~N & ANR. v. UNION OF INbIA. & ORS. 
[DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
321 
the statutory confines as well as in conformity with the Schedule A 
to the Regulations. If there is inaction on their part or non-
observance of the time schedule, it is bound to have adverse effect 
on all concerned. The affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of 
India shows that though the number of seats had risen, obviously 
because of permissions granted for establishment of new colleges, 
because of disapproval of renewal cases the resultant effoct was 
8 
net loss in terms of number of seats available for the academic 
year. It thus not only caused loss of opportunity to the students 
community but at the same time caused loss to the society in 
terms of less number of doctors being available. MCI and the 
Central Government must therefore show due diligence right from 
C 
the day when the applications are received. The Schedule giving 
various stages and time"limits must accommodate every possible 
eventuality and at the same time must comply with the 
requirements of observance of natural justice at various levels. In 
our view the Schedule must ideally take care of: 
(A) Initial assessment of the application at the first level should 
·comprise of checking necessary requirements such as essentiality 
certificate, consent for affiliation and physical features like land 
and hospital requirement. If an applicant fails to fulfil these 
requirements, the application on the face
ofit, would be incomplete 
and be rejected. Those who fulfil the basic requirements would 
be considered at the next stage. 
(B) Inspection should then be conducted by the Inspectors of 
MCI. By very nature such inspection must have an element of 
surprise. Therefore sufficient time of about three to four months 
ought to be givep to fy1CI to cause inspection at any time and such 
inspection should normally be undertaken latest by January. 
Surprise inspection would ensure that the required facilities and 
infrastructure are always in place and not borrowed or put in 
temporarily. 
D 
E 
F 
(C) Intimation of the result or outcome of the inspection would 
G 
then be communicated. If the infrastructure and facilities are in 
order, the medical college concerned should be given requisite 
permission/renewal. However, if there are any deficiencies or 
shortcomings, MCI must, after pointing out the c!eficiencies, grant 
to the college concerned sufficient time to report compliance. 
H
322 
A 
B 
c 
-o 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 
(D) If compliance is reported and the applicant states that the 
deficiencies stand removed, MCI must cause compliance 
verification. It is possible that such compliance could be accepted 
even without actual physical verification but that assessment be 
left entirely to the discretion of MCI and the Central Government. 
In cases where actual physical verification is required, MCI and 
the Central Government must cause such verification before the 
-.deadline. 
(E) The result of such verification if positive in favour of the 
medical college concerned, the applicant ought to be given requisite 
permission/renewal. But ifthe deficiencies still persist or had not 
been removed, the applicant will stand disentitled so far as that 
academic year is concerned." [Emphasis added] 
29. On a reading of Section 10-A of the Act, Rules and the 
Regulations, as has been referred to in Manol1ar Lal Sharma (supra), 
and the view expressed in Royal Medical Trust (supra), it would be 
inapposite to restrict the power of the MCI by laying down as an absolute 
principle that once the Central Government sends back the matter to 
MCI for compliance verification and the Assessors visit the College 
they shall only verify the mentioned items and turn a Nelson's eye even 
if they perceive certain other deficiencies. It would be playing possum. 
E The direction of the Central Government for compliance verification 
report should not be
construed as a limited remand as is understood 
within the framework of Code ofCivil Procedure or any other law. The 
distinction between the principles of open remand and limited remand, 
we are disposed to think, is not attracted. Be it clearly stated, the said 
principle also does not flow from the authority in Royal Medical Trust 
F (supra). In this context, the objectivity of the Hearing Committee and 
the role of the Central Government assume great significance. The real 
compliant institutions should not always be kept under the sword of 
Damocles. Stability can be brought by affirmative role played by the 
G 
Central Government. And the stability and objectivity would be perceptible 
ifreasons are ascribed while expressing a view and absence ofreasons 
makes the decision sensitively susceptible. 
30. Having said this, we are not inclined to close the matter. The 
petitioners have been running the College since 2013-14. We have been 
apprised that students who have been continuing their education shall 
H continue for 2017-18.As we find the order of the Central Government is
IQ CITY FOUNDATION & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
323 
. [DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
not a reasoned one. It is obligatory on its part to ascribe reasons. For the A 
said purpose, we would like the Central Government to afford a further 
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and also take the assistance of 
the newly constituted Oversight Committee as per the order dated July 
18, 2017 passed by the Constitution Bench in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 
408 of 2017 titled Amma Clumdravati Educational amt Charitable 
B 
Trust and others v. Union of India and another and thereafter take a 
decision within two weeks. Needless to say, the decision shall contain 
reasons. We repeat at the cost of repetition that the decision must be an 
informed one. 
31. Before parting with the case for the present, it is warrantable 
to state that "health'', a six letter word, when appositely spelt and 
C 
pronounced, makes the body and mind holistic and an individual feels 
victorious. Apart from habit and nature, some external aid is necessary. 
And that is why, it is essential to have institutic.rns which are worthy to 
impart medical education so that the society has not only qualified doctors 
but doctors with impeccable and sensitive qualities. A lapse has the D 
potentiality to invite a calamity. Not for nothing, Hippocrates had said, 
"A wise man ought to realize that health is his most valuable possession." 
Therefore, the emphasis is on the compliant institutions that can really 
educate
doctors by imparting quality education so that they will have the 
inherent as well as cultivated attributes of excel,lence. 
32. List the matter on 24'h August, 2017 awaiting the decision of 
the Central Government. 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Directions issued. 
E