http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 27  

PETITIONER: MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       16/07/1998

BENCH: K.T. THOMAS, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                      J U D G E M E N T D.P. WADHWA, J.      Leave granted.      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  judgement 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 judgement where the Division Bench held that prior to insertion of Sections 10A, 10B, and 10C in the 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  tow 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 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 foxed 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 admission 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.      State of  Karnataka has  also  filed  appeal.  It  felt

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 27  

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.      In the  third appeal  filed by  the Rajiv Gandhi Dental College and  which pertains  to Dental  Colleges  under  the provisions of  the 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 peri 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.      Impugned Division  Bench decision  was rendered  in  an appeal against  the judgment  dated September  20, 1996 of a 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 admission  in Medical  Colleges in  the State and held as under:      "I   s.53(10)    of    the    State      Universities 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      Sections 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 Divisions 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  this 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 judgement of  this Court  in A.K.  Singh vs.  State of Bihar [(1994) 4  SCC 401]  and that power under Section 10A of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 27  

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.      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.      Before we  consider the  rival contentions,  we may set out the  relevant provisions  of law but even before that we take note  of the  observations of  this Court  in State  of Kerala vs.  Kumari T.P.  Roshana &  Anr. [(1979)  1 SCC 572] where the Court said as under :-      "The Indian  Medical  Council  Act,      1956 has  constituted  the  Medical      Council of  India as an expert body      to control the minimum standards of      medical education  and to  regulate      their observance.  Obviously,  this      high-powered Council  has power  to      prescribe the  minimum standards of      medical education.  It has implicit      power     to      supervise     the      qualifications    or    eligibility      standards   for    admission   into      medical institutions. Thus there is      an  overall   invigilation  by  the      Medical  Council  to  prevent  sub-      standard  entrance   qualifications      for medical courses."      The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956      Sections 2  of the  Medical Council Act defines various terms used  in  the  Act.  "Approved  institution"  means  a hospital, health centre or other such institution recognised by a  University as  an institution  in which  a person  may undergo the  training, if  any, required  by this  course of study before  the award of any medical qualification to him; "Council" means  the Medical  Council of  India  constituted under this Act; "medical institution" means any institution, within or  without India,  which grants degrees, diplomas or licences in  medicine;  "recognised  medical  qualification" means any  of the  medical qualifications  included  in  the Schedules;  "University"   means  any  University  in  India established by law and having a medical faculty.      "Sec.    10-A.    Permission    for      establishment   of    new   medical      college, new course of study, etc.-      (1)    Notwithstanding     anything      contained in  this Act or any other      law for the time being in force-      (a) no  person  shall  establish  a      medical college; or      (b) no medical college shall-      (i) open  a new or higher course of      study  or   training  (including  a      post-graduate course  of  study  or      training)  which   would  enable  a      student of  such course or training      to qualify himself for the award of      any       recognised        medical      qualification; or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 27  

    (ii)   increase    its    admission      capacity in  any course of study or      training (including a post-graduate      course of study or training);      except with the previous permission      of the  Central Government obtained      in accordance  with the  provisions      of this section.      Explanation 1.- For the purposes of      this section, "person" includes any      University or  a trust but does not      include the Central Government.      Explanation 2.- For the purposes of      this action,  "admission capacity",      in relation  to any course of study      or   training    (including   post-      graduate   course   of   study   or      training)  in  a  medical  college,      means   the   maximum   number   of      students that  may be  fixed by the      Council from time to time for being      admitted   to    such   course   or      training.      (2)(a)  Every   person  or  medical      college shall,  for the  purpose of      obtaining  permission   under  sub-      section (1),  submit to the Central      Government a  scheme in  accordance      with the  provisions of  clause (b)      and the  Central  Government  shall      refer the scheme to the Council for      its recommendations.      (b)  The   scheme  referred  to  in      clause (a)  shall be  in such  form      and contain such particulars and be      preferred in  such  manner  and  be      accompanied with such fee as may be      prescribed.      (3) On  receipt of  a scheme by the      Council under  sub-section (2), the      Council  may   obtain  such   other      particulars as  may  be  considered      necessary by  it from the person or      the medical  college concerned, and      thereafter, it may,-      (a) if  the scheme is defective and      does  not   contain  any  necessary      particulars,  give   a   reasonable      opportunity  to   the   person   or      college  concerned   for  making  a      written representation and it shall      be open  to such  person or medical      college to  rectify the defects, if      any, specified by the council;      (b)  consider  the  scheme,  having      regard to  the factors  referred to      in sub-section  (7), and submit the      scheme    together     with     its      recommendations  thereon   to   the      Central Government.      (4)  The  Central  Government  may,      after considering  the  scheme  and      the recommendations  of the Council      under  sub-section  (3)  and  after      obtaining,  where  necessary,  such

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 27  

    other   particulars   as   may   be      considered necessary by it from the      person or  college  concerned,  and      having  regard   to   the   factors      referred  to  in  sub-section  (7),      either    approve     (with    such      conditions,  if   any,  as  it  may      consider necessary)  or  disapprove      the scheme  and any  such  approval      shall be  a permission  under  sub-      section (1):      Provided that  no scheme  shall  be      disapproved    by    the    Central      Government except  after giving the      person  or   college  concerned   a      reasonable  opportunity   of  being      heard.      Provided further  that  nothing  in      this sub-section  shall prevent any      person  or  medical  college  whose      scheme has not been approved by the      Central  Government   to  submit  a      fresh scheme  and the provisions of      this section  shall apply  to  such      scheme, as  if such scheme has been      submitted for  the first time under      sub-section (2).      (5) ...      (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   post-graduate      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  of      study or  training or accommodating      the  increased  admission  capacity      have  been  provided  or  would  be      provided  within   the   time-limit

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 27  

    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  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  students      likely  to   attend  such   medical      college  or   course  of  study  or      training  by   persons  having  the      recognised medical qualifications;      (f) the  requirement of manpower in      the field  of practice of medicine;      and      (g) any  other factors  as  may  be      prescribed."      "Sec.10.B    Non-recognition     of      medical qualifications  in  certain      cases.-      (1) ...      (2) ...      (3)  Where   any  medical   college      increases its admission capacity in      any course  of  study  or  training      except with the previous permission      of  the   Central   Government   in      accordance with  the provisions  of      section   10A,    no        medical      qualification   granted    to   any      student of  such medical college on      the basis  of the  increase in  its      admission  capacity   shall  be   a      recognised  medical   qualification      for the purposes of this Act.      Explanation.- For  the purposes  of      this  section,   the  criteria  for      identifying a  student who has been      granted a  medical qualification on      the basis  of such  increase in the      admission capacity shall be such as      may be prescribed.      Sec.10-C.    Time    for    seeking      permission  for   certain  existing      medical colleges, etc.-      (1) If  after 1st day of June, 1992      and on  and before the commencement      of  the   Indian  Medical   Council      (Amendment) Act,  1993  any  person      has established  a medical  college      or any medical college has opened a      new or  higher course  of study  or      training or  increase the admission      capacity, such  person  or  medical      college, as  the case may be, shall      seek, within  a period  of one year      from the commencement of the Indian      Medical  Council  (Amendment)  Act,      1993, the permission of the Central      Government in  accordance with  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 27  

    provisions of section 10A.      (2)  If   any  person   or  medical      college, as  the case may be, fails      to seek  the permission  under sub-      section  (1),   the  provisions  of      section 10B  shall apply, so far as      may be,  as if,  permission of  the      Central Government  under s10A  has      been refused."      Under  Section   11  of   the  Medical   Council   Act, qualifications  granted   by  any   University  or   medical institution  in  India  which  are  included  in  the  First Schedule shall  be recognised medical qualifications for the purposes of  this Medical  Council Act.  Any  University  or medical  institution   in  India   which  grants  a  medical qualification not  included in  the First Schedule may apply to  the   Central  Government  to  have  such  qualification recognised, and the Central Government, after consulting the Medical  Council,  may,  by  notification  in  the  Official Gazette, amend  the First  Schedule so  as to  include  such qualification therein.  Under Section 16 every university or medical institution  in  India  which  grants  a  recognised medical qualification  shall furnish such information as the Medical Council  may, from  time to  time, require as to the courses of  study and  examinations to  be undergone for the purpose  of   attaining  qualification   and  other  details requisite for obtaining such qualification. Under Section 17 of the  Medical Council  Act, the Executive Committee of the Medical Council  shall appoint medical inspectors to inspect any  medical   institutions,  college,   hospital  or  other institution where  medical education  is given  or to attend any  examination   held  by   any  University   or   medical institution for  the purpose  of recommending to the Central Government recognition  of medical  institution.  Similarly, the Medical  Council is  authorised to  appoint visitors for the same  purpose.  The  inspectors  and  the  visitors  are required to  report on  the adequacy  of  the  standards  of medical education including staff, equipment, accommodation, training and  other facilities prescribed for giving medical education or  on the  sufficiency of every examination which they attend.  Then come  Sections 19  and 19A and which have been  set  out  above  providing  for  laying  down  minimum standards   of   medical   education   and   withdrawal   of recognition. These are as under :      "Sec.19.Withdrawal of recognition.-      (1)  When   upon  report   by   the      Committee  or   the   visitor,   it      appears to the Council-      (a) that  the course  of study  and      examination to  be undergone in, or      the   proficiency   required   from      candidates at  any examination held      by,  any   University  or   medical      institution, or      (b)  that   the  staff,  equipment,      accommodation, training  and  other      facilities  for   instruction   and      training    provided     in    such      university or  medical  institution      or  in   any   College   or   other      institution  affiliated   to   that      University, do  not conform  to the      standards prescribed by the Council      the  Council   shall  make   a  are      presentation to  that effect to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 27  

    Central Government.      (2)    After    considering    such      representation,     the     Central      Government may send it to the State      Government of  the State  in  which      the    University     or    medical      institution  is  situated  and  the      State Government  shall forward  it      along with  such remarks  as it may      choose to make to the University or      medical   institution,    with   an      intimation  of  the  period  within      which  the  University  or  medical      institution    may    submit    its      explanation    to     the     State      Government.      (3)   On   the   receipt   of   the      explanation    or,     where     no      explanation is submitted within the      period fixed, then on the expiry of      that period,  the State  Government      shall make  its recommendations  to      the Central Government.      (4) The  Central  Government  after      making  such  further  inquiry,  if      any, as  it may  think fit, may, by      notification   in    the   Official      Gazette, direct that an entry shall      be made in the appropriate Schedule      against    the     said     medical      qualification  declaring   that  it      shall  be   a  recognised   medical      qualification  only   when  granted      before a  specified date,  or  that      the said  medical qualification  if      granted to  students of a specified      college or  institution  affiliated      to  any   university  shall   be  a      recognised  medical   qualification      only   when    granted   before   a      specified date  or, as the case may      be,   that    the   said    medical      qualification shall be a recognised      medical qualification  in  relation      to   a    specified   college    or      institution   affiliated   to   any      University only  when granted after      a specified date.      Sec.19.A   Minimum   standards   of      medical education.-(1)  The Council      may prescribe the minimum standards      of medical  education required  for      granting     recognised     medical      qualifications  (other  than  post-      graduate medical qualifications) by      Universities       or       medical      institutions in India.      (2) Copies of the draft regulations      and of  all  subsequent  amendments      thereof shall  be furnished  by the      Council to  all  State  Governments      and  the   Council  shall,   before      submitting   the   regulations   or      amendment thereof,  as the case may      be, to  the Central  Government for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 27  

    sanction, take  into  consideration      the   comments    of   any    State      Government  received  within  three      months  from   the  furnishing   of      copies aforesaid.      (3) The  Committee shall  from time      to time  report to  the Council  on      the efficacy of the regulations and      may recommend  to the  Council such      amendments thereof  as it may think      fit.      Sec.33. Power to  make regulations.      The Council  may, with the previous      sanction of the Central Government,      make regulations generally to carry      out the  purposes of this Act, and,      without prejudice to the generality      of this power, such regulations may      provided for-      (a) to (f) ...      (fa) the  form of  the scheme,  the      particulars to  be  given  in  such      scheme, the  manner  in  which  the      scheme is  to be  preferred and the      fee payable  with the  scheme under      clause (b)  of sub-section  (2)  of      section 10A;      (fb) any other factors under clause      (g) of  sub-section (7)  of section      10A;      (fc) the criteria for identifying a      student  who  has  been  granted  a      medical qualification  referred  to      in the  Explanation to  sub-section      (3) of section 10B;      (g) to (i)  ...      (j) the courses and period of study      and of  practical  training  to  be      undertaken,   the    subjects    of      examination and  the  standards  of      proficiency therein to be obtained,      in    Universities    or    medical      institutions    for     grant    of      recognised medical qualifications;      (k)   the   standards   of   staff,      equipment,     accommodation,      training and  other facilities  for      medical education;      (l)  the  conduct  of  professional      examinations,   qualifications   of      examiners  and  the  conditions  of      admission to such examinations;"      The Karnataka Educational Institutions      (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984.      This  was   enacted  to   prohibit  the  collection  of capitation fee for admission  to educational institutions in the State of karnataka. The preamble to the Act recited that collection of  capitation fee  for admission  of students in educational institutions  was wide  spread in  the State and this  undesirable   practice  was   not  conducive   to  the maintenance  of   educational  standards   beside   it   was contributing  to   large  scale  of    commercialisation  of education.  Educational  institution  has  been  defined  in clauses (c)  of Section  3, which  means any  institution by whatever name called, whether managed by Government, private

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 27  

body, local authority, trust, University or any other person carrying on  the activity of imparting education in medicine or engineering leading to a degree conferred by a University established under the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (Karnataka  Act  28  of  1976)  and  any  other  educational institution, or class or classes of such institution, as the Government may, by notification specify.      Section  4   regulates  the  admission  to  educational institutions etc. and is as under :-      "4.  Regulations  of  admission  to      educational  institutions   etc.  -      Subject to  such rules,  or general      or special  orders, as  may be made      by the  Government in  this  behalf      and any  other  law  for  the  time      being in force, -      (1) (a)  the minimum  qualification      for  admission  to  any  course  of      study in an educational institution      shall be  such as may  be specified      by -      (i) the  University, in the case of      any course  study in an educational      institution   maintained    by   or      affiliated to such University:      Provided that  the Government  may,      in the  interest of  excellence  of      education, fix  any higher  minimum      qualification  for  any  course  of      study;      (ii) the Government, in the case of      other courses of study in any other      educational institution;      (b) the  maximum number of students      that could be admitted to a  course      of   study    in   an   educational      institution shall be such as may be      fixed by  the Government  from time      to time;      (2)  in  order  to    regulate  the      capitation fee charged or collected      during the  period specified  under      the  proviso   to  section  3,  the      Government may,  from time to time,      by  general   or   special   order,      specify in  respect of each private      educational institution  or call or      classes of such institution.      (a) the  number of  seats set apart      as Government seats:      (b) the number of seats that may be      filled up by the management of such      institution;      (i) from  among Karnataka  students      on the  basis of  merit, on payment      of such  cash  deposits  refundable      after such number of years, with or      without   interest    as   may   be      specified therein,  but without the      payment of capitation fee; or      (ii) at the discretion:      Provided that  such number of seats      as  may   be   specified   by   the      Government but  not less than fifty      per cent  of the  total  number  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 27  

    seats referred  to in  clauses  (a)      and (b)  shall be filled from among      Karnataka students.      Explanation. -  For the purposes of      this  section   Karnataka  students      means persons  who have  studied in      such  educational  institutions  in      the  State   of  Karnataka  run  or      recognised by  the  Government  and      for such  number of  years  as  the      Government may specify;      (3)  an   educational   institution      required   to    fill   seats    in      accordance with  item (i)  of  sub-      clause (b)  of clause  (2)  form  a      committee to  select candidates for      such seats.  A nominee  each or the      Government and  the  University  to      which such  educational institution      is affiliated  shall be included as      members in such committee."      KARNATAKA STATE UNIVERSITY ACT, 1976      "Section 53.      (1) Colleges  within the University      area   may,   on   satisfying   the      conditions   specified    in   this      section,  be   affiliated  to   the      University as  affiliated  Colleges      by   the    University    on    the      recommendations made  by the  State      Government.      (2)   A    college   applying   for      affiliation to the University shall      send   an    application   to   the      Registrar  within  the  time  limit      fixed  by   Ordinances  and   shall      satisfy  the   Syndicate  and   the      Academic Council.      (a) .....      (b) .....      (c)   that    the   strength    and      qualifications  of   the   teaching      staff and  the conditions governing      their tenure  of office are such as      to  make   due  provision  for  the      courses of instruction, teaching or      training to  be undertaken  by  the      college.      (d) That  the building in which the      college  is   to  be   located  are      suitable and that provision will be      made   in   conformity   with   the      Ordinances for the residence in the      college or  in lodgings approved by      the  college,   for  students   not      residing  with   their  parents  or      guardians and  for the  supervision      and welfare of students.      (e) That  due  provision  has  been      made or will be made for a library.      (f) Where  affiliation is sought in      any branch of experimental science,      that arrangements have been or will      be  made  in  conformity  with  the      Statutes,      Ordinances       and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 27  

    Regulations      for      importing      instruction  in   the   branch   of      science  in   a  properly  equipped      laboratory or museum;      (g) ......      (h) That the financial resources of      the college are such as to make due      provision   for    its    continued      maintenance and  efficient working,      and      (i) ......      10.(a)   No admission  of  students      shall be  made  by  a  new  college      seeking    affiliation    to    any      University  or   by   an   existing      college seeking  affiliation  to  a      new     course  of  study  to  such      course, unless, as the case may be,      affiliation  has  been  granted  to      such new college or to the existing      college in  respect of  such course      of study.      (b) The  maximum number of students      to be admitted to a course of study      shall not  exceed the  intake fixed      by   the    University    or    the      Government, as  the case may be and      any  admission   made  after   this      section came  into force  in excess      of the intake shall be invalid.      (c) No  student whose admission has      become invalid  under (b)  shall be      eligible to  appear  not  shall  be      presented by  the college to appear      at any examination conducted by the      University."      Section 33  of the  Medical Council  Act  empowers  the Medical Council  to  frame  regulations  with  the  previous sanction of the Central Government to carry out the purposes of the  Medical Council  Act.  In  exercise  of  this  power Medical Council  framed regulations  after approval  by  the Central   Government    providing   for   minimum   standard requirements for a medical college adopting admission on the basis of  admitting 100  students annually  as the base. The regulations  are   in  three   parts  -  Part-I  deals  with accommodation in  the college  and its  associated  teaching hospitals; Part-II  deals  with  staff  (both  teaching  and technical) and  Part-III deals with equipment in the college departments and  in the  hospitals.  These  regulations  are quite in detail. Again under Section 33, the Medical Council framed   regulations    prescribing    qualifications    for appointment of persons to the posts of teachers and visiting physicians/surgeons, etc.  in medical  colleges and attached hospitals for  under-graduate  and  post-graduate  teaching. These regulations  are also  framed after  approval  by  the Central  Government.   The  Medical   Council  then   framed regulations in  exercise  of  power  conferred  upon  it  by Section 10A  read with Section 33 of the Medical Council Act and with  the previous  approval of  the Central Government. These regulations relate to the establishment of new medical colleges, opening of higher posts of studies and increase of admission capacity  of the medical colleges. The regulations came into force w.e.f. September 20, 1993. These regulations provide that  maximum number  of admission  in  MBBS  course should not exceed 150 annually. It is the Central Government

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 27  

which permits  the increase  in admission  capacity  on  the recommendation of the Medical Council.      Till January  3, 1977  education was  a  State  subject under Entry  11 in  List II (Entry 11 - "education including universities, subject  to the  provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and  66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III"). By the 42nd Constitutional Amendment  Act 1976  Entry 11 was deleted and it was  placed in  the  Concurrent  List  by  enlarging  the existing Entry  25. Relevant  entries 63  to 66  of  List  I (Union List)  and entries  25 and 26 of List III (Concurrent List) in the Seventh are as under :-      List I (Union List)      "63. The  institutions known at the      commencement of  this  Constitution      as the  Benares  Hindu  University,      the Aligarh  Muslim University  and      the    [Delhi    University;    the      University established in pursuance      of   article    371E]   any   other      institution declared  by Parliament      by law  to  be  an  institution  of      national importance.      64. Institutions  for scientific or      technical education financed by the      Government of  India wholly  or  in      part and  declared by Parliament by      law to  be institutions of national      importance.      65. Union agencies and institutions      for -      (a)  professional,   vocational  or      technical training,  including  the      training of police officers; or      (b)  the   promotion   of   special      studies or research; or      (c)   scientific    or    technical      assistance in  the investigation or      detection of crime.      66. Co-ordination and determination      of standards  in  institutions  for      higher education  or  research  and      scientific      and       technical      institutions."      List III (Concurrent List)      "25. Education, including technical      education,  medical  education  and      universities,   subject    to   the      provisions of  entries 63,  64,  65      and 66  of List  I; vocational  and      technical training or labour.      26.  Legal,   medical   and   other      professions."      Scope of  Entry 66  of list  I was construed by 6 Judge Bench judgment  of this  Court in  The  Gujarat  University, Ahmedabad vs.  Krishna Ranganath  Madholkar and others (1963 Supp. (1)  SCR 112).  The question  for determination before the Court  was (1)  whether the  Gujarat University  had the power under the Gujarat University Act to prescribe Gujarati or  Hindi   or  both   as  exclusive   medium  or  media  of instructions and  examination and  (2)  whether  legislation authorising  the   University  to   impose  such  media  was constitutionally valid  in view of Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The controversy raised in that  case would,  however, not  survive after  the  42nd Amendment when

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 27  

Entry 11  of List II has been deleted. Reading Entry 11 List II as  it existed  the Court said that power of the State to legislate in  respect of  education  including  Universities must to  the extent  to which  it is  entrusted to the Union Parliament, whether  such power  is  exercised  or  not,  is deemed to  be restricted.  If a  subject of  legislation  is covered by  entries 63  to 66  even if  it  otherwise  falls within   the    larger   field   of   "education   including Universities" power  to legislate  on that  subject must lie with the  Parliament. Entry  11 of  List II  and Entry 66 of List I  must be  harmoniously  construed.  The  two  entries undoubtedly overlap:  but to  the extent of overlapping, the power conferred  by Entry 66 of List I must prevail over the power of the State under Entry 11 of List II. It is manifest that  excluded   heads  deal  primarily  with  education  in institutions  of   national  or   special   importance   and institutions  of   higher  education   including   research, science, technology  and vocational  training of labour. The Court held as under :-      "The  State   has  the   power   to      prescribe the  syllabi and  courses      of study  in the institutions named      in Entry 66 (but not falling within      entries  63   to  65)   and  as  an      incident thereof  it has  the power      to indicate  the  medium  in  which      instruction should be imparted. But      the   Union   Parliament   has   an      overriding  legislative   power  to      ensure that the syllabi and courses      of study  prescribed and the medium      selected do not impair standards of      education   or   render   the   co-      ordination of such standards either      on an  All  India  or  other  basis      impossible or even difficult. Thus,      though the  powers of the Union and      of the  State are  in the Exclusive      Lists, a  degree of  overlapping is      inevitable. It  is no t possible to      lay down  any  general  test  which      would afford  a solution  for every      question which  might arise on this      head.  On   the  one  hand,  it  is      certainly within  the  province  of      the State  Legislature to prescribe      syllabi and  courses of  study and,      of course,  to indicate  the medium      or media  of  instruction.  On  the      other hand,  it is  also within the      power of  the Union to legislate in      respect of  media of instruction so      as  to   ensure  co-ordination  and      determination of standards, that is      to    ensure     maintenance     or      improvement of  standards. The fact      that the  Union has not legislated,      or refrained  from  legislating  to      the full  extent of its powers does      not invest the State with the power      to legislate in respect of a matter      assigned by the Constitution to the      union. It does not, however, follow      that  even   within  the  permitted      relative fields  there might not be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 27  

    legislative      provisions      in      enactments made  each in  pursuance      of separate  exclusive and distinct      powers  which  may  conflict.  Then      would   arise   the   question   of      repugnancy  and  paramountcy  which      may have  to  be  resolved  on  the      application  of  the  "doctrine  of      pith and substance" of the impugned      enactment.  The   validity  of  the      State  legislation   on  University      education  and   as   regards   the      education    in    technical    and      scientific institutions not falling      within Entry  64 of  List  I  would      have to  be judged having regard to      whether it  impinges on  the  files      reserved for  the Union under Entry      66. In other words, the validity of      State legislation would depend upon      whether  it  prejudicially  affects      co-ordination and  determination of      standards,   but   not   upon   the      existence of  some  definite  Union      legislation  directed   to  achieve      that purpose.  If  there  be  Union      legislation  in   respect  of   co-      ordination  and   determination  of      standards,    that    would    have      paramountcy over  the State  law by      virtue of  the first  part of  Art.      254(1); even  if that  power be not      exercised by  the Union  Parliament      the  relevant  legislative  entries      being in  the  exclusive  lists,  a      State law  trenching upon the Union      field would still be invalid."      It further held :-      "Item No.66  is a  legislative head      and in  interpreting it,  unless it      is expressly  or of necessity found      conditioned  by   the  words   used      therein,  a  narrow  or  restricted      interpretation will not be put upon      the generality  of the words. Power      to legislate  on a  subject  should      normally be  held to  extend to all      ancillary  or   subsidiary  matters      which can  fairly and reasonably be      said to  be  comprehended  in  that      subject.  Again  there  is  nothing      either in   item 66 or elsewhere in      the Constitution which supports the      submission that the expression "co-      ordination"  must   mean   in   the      context in  which it is used merely      evaluation,  co-ordination  in  its      normal      connotation       means      harmonising or bringing into proper      relation in  which all  the  things      co-ordinated   participate   in   a      common pattern of action. The power      to co-ordinate,  therefore, is  not      merely power  to evaluate,  it is a      power  to   harmonise   or   secure

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 27  

    relationship for  concerted action.      The power conferred by item 66 List      I  is   not  conditioned   by   the      existence of  a state  of emergency      or unequal  standards  calling  for      the exercise of the power.      There is nothing in the entry which      indicates   that   the   power   to      legislate   on   co-ordination   of      standards in institutions of higher      education,  does  not  include  the      power to  legislate for  preventing      the occurrence of or for removal of      disparities  in   standards.   This      power  is  not  conditioned  to  be      exercised merely upon the existence      of a  condition of disparity nor is      it  a   power  merely  to  evaluate      standards but  not to take steps to      rectify or to prevent disparity. By      express   pronouncement    of   the      Constitution makers,  it is a power      to co-ordinate,  and of  necessity,      implied therein  is  the  power  to      prevent   what   would   make   co-      ordination impossible or difficult.      The   power    is   absolute    and      unconditional, and  in the  absence      of any  controlling reasons it must      be given  full effect  according to      its plain and expressed intention."      Mr. Dave  appearing for  the Medical  Council submitted that this Court in Nivedita Jain’s 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  was recommendatory. Mr.  Dave is  correct in his submission. The Division Bench  in the  impugned fell  into basic  error  in holding that  this Court  in Nivedita Jain’s case said as if all the  Regulations were  directory in  nature. We  may now examine that judgment and a few others cited at Bar.      In State  of Madhya  Pradesh  and  another  vs.  Kumari Nivedita Jain  and others  (1981  (4)  SCC  296)  there  was challenge to  the validity  of the executive order passed by the State Government relaxing the conditions relating to the minimum  qualifying  marks  for  selection  of  students  to medical colleges  of  the  State  in  respect  of  candidate belonging  to   Scheduled  Castes   and   Scheduled   Tribes categories being  violative of  the Regulations framed under Section 33  of the  Indian Medical  Council Act,  1956.  The Court referred  to the  object of the Act and to its various provisions relevant being Sections 19 and 19A of the Medical Council  Act.   Nivedita  Jain,  who  was  a  candidate  for admission to  the medical  college in  the State  of  Madhya Pradesh, contended  that the  order of the State Government, lowering the   qualifying  marks for  Scheduled  Castes  and Scheduled  Tribes   candidates  for   admission  to  medical colleges, contravened  Regulation II  and would  be  hit  by Section 19  of the  Medical Council Act exposing the medical colleges to  the risk  of being  recognised. High  Court had struck  down  the  Government’s  order  being  violative  of Regulation II  which had  the force of a statute. This Court considered Regulations I and II. While Regulation I provided

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 27  

for admission  to medical  course stating  that no candidate shall be  allowed to  be admitted  to the medical curriculum proper until  he had  attained certain  age and  had  passed certain examination, Regulation II provided for selection of students and it said that selection of students to a medical college should be based solely on merit of the candidate and it laid  certain criteria to be adopted uniformly throughout the country  for the  determination  of  merit.  This  Court observed as under :-      "Regulation   I    prescribed   the      eligibility  f   a  candidate   for      admission to  medical courses.  For      maintaining  proper   standards  in      Medical Colleges  and  Institutions      it comes  within the  competence of      the  Council   to   prescribe   the      necessary  qualification   of   the      candidates who  may seek  admission      into the  Medical Colleges. As this      Regulation is within the competence      of the  Council,  the  Council  has      framed this  Regulation in a manner      which leaves  no  doubt  that  this      Regulation   is    mandatory.   The      language of  this Regulation, which      starts with the words "no candidate      shall be  allowed to be admitted to      the medical  curriculum  until...",      make   this   position   absolutely      clear.  On   the  other   hand  the      language  in  Regulation  II  which      relates to s election of candidates      clearly goes  to indicate  that the      Council itself appears to have been      aware  of  the  limitation  on  its      powers to frame any such regulation      regarding the  procedure or process      of  selection   of  candidates  for      admission to the medical course out      of  the   candidates  qualified  or      eligible to seek such admission."      The Court  said that it was of the opinion that the use of the words "should be" in Regulation II was deliberate and was intended  to  indicate  the  intention  of  the  Medical Council that  it was  only in  the nature of recommendation. Regulation I,  which lays  down conditions or qualifications for  admission   into  medical   course,  comes  within  the competence of  Medical  Council  under  Section  33  of  the Medical Council  Act and  it is  mandatory and  the  Medical Council  has   used  language   to  manifest  the  mandatory character clearly,  whereas Regulation  II, which deals with process or  procedures for  selection from  amongst eligible candidates for  admission, is  merely in  the  nature  of  a recommendation and  directory in  nature, as laying down the process  or   procedure  for   selection  or   admission  of candidates out  of the  candidates eligible or qualified for such admission  under Regulation I. The Court said that from the provisions  of the  Medical Council  Act it was apparent that the  authority of  the Medical  Council extends  to the sphere of  maintaining proper  medical standards  in medical colleges or  institutions necessary for obtaining recognised medical qualifications  and by  virtue of  this authority it may be  open to  the Medical Council to lay down the minimum educational qualification  required for the students seeking admission  into   medical  colleges.   Medical  Council  was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 27  

authorized  to   prescribe  minimum   standards  of  medical education   required   for   granting   recognized   medical qualification including  standards of  post-graduate medical education. The  Medical Council  Act envisages  that  if  it appears to  the Medical Council that the course of study and examination to  be undergone in, or the proficiency required from students  at any  examination held by any university or medical  institution   do  not   conform  to   the  standard prescribed  by  the  Medical  Council  or  that  the  staff, equipment, accommodation,  training and other facilities for instructions and  training provided  in such  university  or medical institutions  or in any college or other institution affiliated  to   that  university  do  not  conform  to  the standards prescribed  by the  Medical Council,  it will make representation to  that effect to the Central Government and on the  consideration of  the  representation  made  by  the Medical Council,  the Central  Government may take action in terms of  the provisions  contained in  Section  19  of  the Medical Council  Act. The  Medical Council Act also empowers the Medical Council to take various measures to enable it to judge whether proper medical standard is being maintained in particular institutions or not.      In Dr.  Ambesh Kumar  vs. Principal,  L.L.R.M.  Medical College, Meerut and others (1986 (Supp.) SCC 543) there were challenge to  an order  of the  State Government laying down qualifications regarding  eligibility of  a candidate  to be considered for  admission to  the  post-graduate  degree  in M.D., M.S.  and diploma  course in  M.D., M.S.  etc. on  the basis of merit in accordance with the Regulations made under the Indian  Medical Council  Act. It  was contended that the order of  the State  was invalid as it encroached upon Entry 66 of  List I  of the  Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The  State   Government  had   issued  a   notice   inviting applications for  admission to various post-graduate courses in degree  and diploma  in  different  specialities  of  the medical colleges.  In para  4 of  the  said  notice  it  was specifically   stated    that   the    minimum   eligibility qualification of  the applicants  would be  according to the recommendations of  Medical Council of India. Over and above what the  Regulation of  the Medical  Council has prescribed the State Government laid the following provision :-      "No candidate shall be eligible for      admission to  post-graduate  degree      or diploma course, who has obtained      less than  55 per  cent and  52 per      cent marks  respectively,  for  the      two courses  (degree &  diploma) in      merit calculated in accordance with      para 2 of the said notice."      This Court considered the question so raised and upheld the Government’s order with the following observations:-      "20.  The   only  question   to  be      considered is  whether the impugned      order is repugnant to or encroaches      upon or  it is in conflict with the      power of the Central legislature to      make laws  in  respect  of  matters      specified in  Entry 66 of List I of      the   Seventh   Schedule   to   the      Constitution.  The  Indian  Medical      Council pursuant  to Section  33 of      the Indian  Medical Council Act had      made certain  recommendations which      have   been    embodied   in    the      Regulations  made  by  the  Central

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 27  

    Government laying down the criteria      or  standards   for  admitting  the      candidates to various post-graduate      disciplines in the Medical Colleges      of the State. These Regulations, as      has   been   quoted   hereinbefore,      clearly    prescribe    that    the      candidates   should   be   selected      strictly on  merit  judged  on  the      basis of  academic  record  in  the      undergraduate  courses   i.e.  MBBS      Course and this selection should be      conducted by  the University. There      are    also    other    eligibility      qualifications provided in the said      Regulations namely  the  candidates      must     have     obtained     full      registration i.e.  they  must  have      completed satisfactorily  one  year      of compulsory  rotating  internship      after  passing   the   final   MBBS      examination and also they must have      done one  year’s housemanship prior      to admission  to the  post-graduate      degree or diploma course."      "22. In the instant case the number      of seats  for admission  to various      post-graduate courses  both  degree      and diploma  in Medical Colleges is      limited  and   a  large  number  of      candidates  undoubtedly  apply  for      admission  to   these  courses   of      study. In  such  circumstances  the      impugned  order   laying  down  the      qualification for a candidate to be      eligible for  being considered  for      selection for admission to the said      courses on  the basis  of the merit      as specified  by  Regulations  made      under the  Indian  Medical  Council      Act,  cannot   be  said  to  be  in      conflict with  the said Regulations      or in any way repugnant to the said      Regulations. It does not in any way      encroach   upon    the    standards      prescribed by the said Regulations.      On the  other hand by laying down a      further      qualification       of      eligibility   it    promotes    and      furthers  the   standards   in   an      institution."      In Osmania  University Teachers’  Association vs. State of Andhra  Pradesh  and  another  (1987  (4)  SCC  671)  the question for  consideration before  the  Court  was  if  the Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education Act, 1966 was constitutionally  valid being violative of Entry 66 List I or  Entry 25  List III  of the  Seventh  Schedule  to  the Constitution. The  Court examined  the relevant  entries  in List I  and List  III and  said  that  the  field  to  which impugned Act  applied was already occupied by the University Grants Commission  Act, passed  by the Union Parliament. The impugned Act  had established  a Commissionerate  which  the Court  said   had  practically   taken  over   the  academic programmes  and   activities   of   the   Universities   and Universities  had  been  rendered  irrelevant  if  not  non-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 27  

entities. The Court observed as under :-      "14. Entry  25 List III relating to      education    including    technical      education,  medical  education  and      universities has  been made subject      to  the   power  of  Parliament  to      legislate under Entries 63 to 66 of      List I.  Entry 66  List I and Entry      25 List  III should,  therefore, be      read together. Entry 66 gives power      to Union  to see  that  a  required      standard of higher education in the      country is maintained. The standard      of   Higher   Education   including      scientific and technical should not      be lowered  at  the  hands  of  any      particular   State    or    States.      Secondly,  it   is  the   exclusive      responsibility   of   the   Central      Government   to   co-ordinate   and      determine the  standards for higher      education. That  power includes the      power to  evaluate,  harmonise  and      secure proper  relationship to  any      project of  national importance. It      is needless  to state  that such  a      co-ordinate   action    in   higher      education with proper standards, is      of paramount importance to national      progress. It  is in  this  national      interest, the  legislative field in      regard  to   ’education’  has  been      distributed between List I and List      III of the Seventh Schedule.      15. The  Parliament  has  exclusive      power to legislate with  respect to      matters included  in  List  I.  The      State has no power at all in regard      to  such   matters.  If  the  State      legislates on  the subject  falling      within List  I that  will be  void,      inoperative and unenforceable.      xxx     xxx   xxx   xxx      25.    It  is  apparent  from  this      discussion that the Commissionerate      Act has  been drawn by the large in      the same  terms as those of the UGC      Act. The Commissionerate Act, as we      have  earlier  seen  also  contains      some  more   provisions.  Both  the      enactments, however,  deal with the      same subject matter. Both deal with      the co-ordination and determination      of excellence  in the  standards of      teaching  and  examination  in  the      Universities. Here  and there, some      of the  words and sentences used in      the  Commissionerate   Act  may  be      different from  those used  in  the      UGC  Act,  but  nevertheless,  they      convey the same meaning. It is just      like referring  to the  same person      with     (sic     by)     different      descriptions   and    names.    The      intention of the legislature has to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 27  

    be gathered  by reading the statute      as a whole. That is a rule which is      now  firmly   established  for  the      purpose    of    construction    of      statutes. The High Court appears to      have gone  on a  tangent. The  High      Court would not have fallen into an      error if it had perused the UGC Act      as a whole and compared it with the      Commissionerate Act or vice versa."      Mr.  Reddy,  appearing  for  the  State  of  Karnataka, referred to a decision of this Court in Ajay Kumar Singh and others vs.  State of Bihar and others (1994 (4) SCC 401). In this  case   the  Court  was  considering  the  question  of permissibility of providing reservations under clause (4) of Article 15  of the  Constitution  in  post-graduate  medical courses in  the State  of Bihar.  The State  Government  had issued  a   prospectus  relating  to  post-graduate  medical admission test,  1992 providing  reservation  in  favour  of socially  and   educationally  backward  classes,  Scheduled Castes, Scheduled  Tribes and  women. One of the contentions raised was  that the Regulations made by the Medical Council prescribed reservation  of seats  in  post-graduate  medical courses on  any grounds  whatsoever and  that the Regulation being statutory  in  nature  prevailed  over  the  executive orders made  by the  State of Bihar in exercise of executive powers. The  Court again  considered the relevant entries in Lists I  and III of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and the provisions  of the  Medical Council of India Act and the Regulations framed  under Section  33 of that Act. The Court observed as under :-      "18. A  review of the provisions of      the Act  clearly shows  that  among      other things,  the Act is concerned      with    the    determination    and      coordination   of    standards   of      education and  training in  medical      institutions. Sections  16,  17  18      and 19 all speak of "the courses of      study  and   examinations   to   be      undergone" to obtain the recognised      medical qualification.  They do not      speak of admission to such courses.      Section 19-A expressly empowers the      council to  "prescribe the  minimum      standards  of   medical  education"      required for granting undergraduate      medical  qualification.   So   does      Section 20  empower the  council to      prescribe standards of postgraduate      medical  education   but  "for  the      guidance of  universities" only. It      further says  that the council "may      also  advise  universities  in  the      matter    of    securing    uniform      standards for  postgraduate medical      education throughout  India".  (The      distinction between the language of      Section 19-A and Section 20 is also      a  relevant  factor,  as  would  be      explained  later.)  Clause  (j)  of      Section   33   particularises   the      subjects  with   respect  to  which      Regulations  can  be  made  by  the      council. It  speaks of  the courses

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 27  

    and  period   of  study   and   the      practical training  to be undergone      by the  students, the  subjects  of      examination which  they  must  pass      and the  standards   of proficiency      they  must  attain  to  obtain  the      recognised  medical  qualifications      but it  does not speak of admission      to such  courses of  study. Indeed,      none of the sections aforementioned      empower the  council to regulate or      prescribe     qualifications     or      conditions for  admission  to  such      courses   of    study.   No   other      provision in  the Act  does. It  is      thus clear  that the  Act does  not      purport to  deal with,  regulate or      provide for  admission to  graduate      or  postgraduate  medical  courses.      Indeed,  insofar   as  postgraduate      courses are concerned, the power of      the  Indian   Medical  Council   to      "prescribe the minimum standards of      medical education" is only advisory      in nature  and  not  of  a  binding      character. In  such a situation, it      would be rather curious to say that      the Regulations  made under the Act      are   binding    upon   them.   The      Regulations  made   under  the  Act      cannot also provide for or regulate      admission to  postgraduate  courses      in any event."      The Court  then said  that the  Regulations made by the Medical  Council  speak  generally  of  students  for  post- graduate training  being selected  "strictly on merit judged on  the  basis  of  academic  record  in  the  undergraduate course". This,  the Court  said, was  more in  the nature of advice and  not in  binding direction and went to observe as under :-      "The Regulation  does not  say that      no  reservations  can  be  provided      under  Article   15(4).  The  power      conferred upon  the State by clause      (4)   of    Article   15    is    a      constitutional  power.   The   said      power obviously could not have been      overridden  or   superseded  by   a      Regulation  made   by  the   Indian      Medical Council  under the Act. The      Regulation must  be read consistent      with Article  15(4) and if so read,      it means that the students shall be      admitted to  postgraduate  training      strictly on  the basis  of merit in      each of  the  relevant  classes  or      categories, as the case may be. Any      other construction  seeking to give      an absolute  meaning  to  the  said      Regulation would  render it invalid      both on  the ground  of  travelling      beyond the  Act. It  may also  fall      foul of Article 15(4)."      The Court  also referred  to  an  earlier  decision  in Nivedita Jain’s  case (1981  (4) SCC 296) where, as noted in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 23 of 27  

that case,  this Court said that Regulation II was directory and did  not have  any mandatory force. Whether a Regulation is directory or mandatory will depend upon the language used in the  Regulation and  the object  of the  Act it  seeks to achieve.      Mr. Rama  Jois, appearing  for  J.N.  Medical  College, Belgaum, respondent  No. 16,  submitted that if the State or the University  has fixed  intake for  admission to  medical college as  on June 1, 1992 that would continue to hold good unless the  medical college  asks for increase. He said that even if  the Medical   Council  had passed production of the seats existing  on June  1, 1992  it could  do so only after notice and  after hearing  the medical college. He submitted that  in  the  letter  of  the  Central  Government  to  the Secretary, Medical Council, which is dated January 19, 1994, clarification  was   given  as  to  the  word  "established" mentioned in  Section 10-A  of the  Medical Council  Act, as amended. In  this letter the opinion of the Ministry of Law, Justice and  Company Affairs  (Department of  Legal Affairs) was communicated, which was to the following effect :-      "The provisions  of Section 10-A of      the IMC  (Amendment) Act, 1993 will      not apply  to  those  colleges  who      have   obtained    all    necessary      statutory/ administrative approvals      from the respective authorities and      where   admission   procedure   was      commenced prior  to 1st June, 1992.      This would  imply  that  all  those      Medical Colleges  who have  started      the admission  procedure  prior  to      1.6.1992,    after    taking    the      following   permission,   will   be      outside the  purview of ’Amendment’      Act;-      (i)  Permission  of  the  concerned      State Government.      (ii) Affiliation  of the  concerned      University.      This would  also apply  to cases of      increase in  admission capacity  in      Medical Colleges  and  starting  of      new Post Graduate Medical Courses."      He said there were further answers to queries raised by the Medical  Council  in  this  letter,  which  showed  that Section 10-A  would not  be  applicable  in  case  admission procedure was commenced prior to June 1, 1992. In support of his submission  that such a clarification will be binding on the Medical  Council Mr. Rama Jois referred to a decision of this  Court   in  K.P.  Varghese  vs.  Income  Tax  Officer, Ernakulam and  another (1981  (4) SCC  173).  In  this  case Central Board  of Direct  Taxes issued  two circulars  which were binding  on the  Tax  Department  in  administering  or executing a  certain provision  in the  Act. The  Court said that quite apart from the binding of the circulars "they are clearly in  the nature of contemporanea expositio furnishing legitimate aid  in the  construction of sub-section (2). The rule  of     construction   by  reference  to  contemporanea expositio is  a well  established rule  for  interpreting  a statute by  reference to the exposition it has received from contemporary authority,  though it  must give  way where the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous". We do not think that the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court under the  Income-tax   Act,  1961  would  be  applicable  to  the clarification issued by the Central Government in its letter

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 24 of 27  

dated January  19, 1994.  Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 empowers  the Central  Board of  Direct Taxes  to issue such orders, instructions and directions to other Income-tax authorities as it may deem fit for the proper administration of that  Act. The  powers which  the Central Board of Direct Tax exercise  under Section  119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are statutory  in nature.  A court is, however, not bound by any  clarification   that  may  be  issued  by  the  Central Government or  any other  authority interpreting  a  certain provision of  law. We may, however, note that in the case of J.N. Medical  College, we are told, that certain proceedings are pending either in the Karnataka High Court or before the Medical Council  regarding the number of seats for admission to the  College. It  is not  necessary for  us to comment on those proceedings.      The Indian Medical Council Act is relatable to Entry 66 of List I (Union List). It prevails over any state enactment to the  extent the  State  enactment  is  repugnant  to  the provision of  the Act  even though  the State  Acts  may  be relatable to Entries 25 or 26 of List III (Concurrent List). Regulations framed  under Section  33 of the Medical Council Act with  the previous  sanctions of  the Central Government are statutory. These regulations are framed to carry out the purposes of the Medical Council Act and for various purposes mentioned in  Section 33.  If a  regulation falls within the purposes referred  under Section  33 of  the Medical Council At, it  will have  mandatory force.  Regulations  have  been framed with  reference to clauses (fa), (fb) and (fc) (which have been  introduced by  the Amendment  Act of  1993 w.e.f. August 27, 1992) and clauses (j), (k) and (l) of Section 33.      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 re integra.      Proceedings before  the learned single Judge started on a complaint  received through  post wherein  it was  alleged that Medical  Colleges in  the State  of Karnataka  had been permitted by  the State  Government to admit students far in excess of  the admission  capacities fixed  by  the  Medical Council and  that this  was so despite the directions issued by the Medical Council in its letter dated November 21, 1994 to the  State Government,  copied of which were also sent to the Director of Medical Education  and to the Principals and Deans of  the Medical  colleges inviting  their attention to the provisions  of Sections  10A,10B, and 10c of the Medical Council Act which amendment came into effect from August 27, 1992. In this letter of the Medical colleges in the State of Karnataka were admitting students in excess of the number of students fixed  by the Medical Council because of the orders of the  Karnataka Government. The letter gave details of the admission capacity  fixed by  the Medical  Council and their sanction by  the State  and yet the admission of students in some colleges was over and above the strength that was fixed by the  State Government. A direction, therefore, was issued to take  corrective steps and to reduce the excess number of admissions being  made in  the medical colleges in the State to the  number as approved by the Medical Council. By letter dated August  24, 1995,  the Central Government informed the State Government  that if there was any proposal to increase the admission  capacity in medical colleges, it was required to be  submitted to the Central Government in the prescribed format. The  State Government  was, therefore,  requested to submit the  proposal  to  increase  the  admission  capacity college-wise to  the Central  Government. Since there was no response to  the request  made by  the  Medical  Council  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 25 of 27  

reduce the  admission capacity  to that fixed by the Medical Council, it  requested the  Central Government by its letter dated August  20, 1996 for taking penal action under Section 19  of   the  Medical   Council  Act   for  the  purpose  of derecognising the  medical  qualifications  granted  by  the universities in the State. Pleas of the State Government and colleges in  the State  were that  the Medical Council had n statutory authority  under the  Medical Council  Act or  any other existing  law to  fix the  admission capacity  of  the medical colleges  in the  State and  that even Sections 10A, 10B and  10c did  not vest  any such  power in  the  Medical Council and further that even after June 1, 1992 or for that matter August  27, 1992,  the power  to  fix  the  admission capacity of  a medical  college could  be traced only to the State Government  under  Section  53(10)  of  the  Karnataka Universities Act,  1976 read  with Section  4(1) (b)  of the Capitation Fee  Act. Learned  single Judge  did not find any merit in   any  of these pleas raised by the respondents and allowed the  writ petition  as aforesaid.  As noted above on appeal by  the State of karnataka, the Division Bench in its impugned judgment partly allowed the same.      The State  Acts, namely, Karnataka Universities Act and Karnataka Capitation  Fee Act  must give  way to the central Act, namely, the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Karnataka Capitation Fee  Act was  enacted for  the  sole  purpose  of regulation in  collection of  capitation is empowered to fix the maximum   number  of students  that can  be admitted but that number  cannot be  over and  above that  fixed  by  the Medial Council  as per  the Regulations.  Chapter IX  f  the Karnataka Universities  Act, which  contains  provision  for affiliation of  colleges and  recognition  of  institutions, applies to  all types  of colleges  and not  necessarily  to professional colleges  like  medical  colleges.  Sub-section (10) of  Section 53,  falling in  Chapter IX  of  this  Act, provides for  maximum number  of students  to be admitted to course for  studies in  a college  and that number shall not exceed the intake fixed by the University or the Government. But this  provision has  again to  be read  subject  to  the intake fixed  by the  Medical Council under its Regulations. It is the Medical Council which is primarily responsible for fixing standards  of medical  education and over-seeing that these standards  are maintained.  It is  the Medical Council which is  the principal  body to  lay  down  conditions  for recognition of  medical colleges  which  would  include  the fixing of intake for admission to a medical college. We have already seen  in the  beginning  of  this  judgment  various provisions of the Medical Council Act.  It is, therefore, the Medical Council which in effect grants  recognition  and  also  withdraws  the  same. Regulations under  Section 33  of the  Medical Council  Act, which were  made in 1977, prescribe the accommodation in the College and  its associated  teaching hospitals and teaching and technical  staff and equipment in various departments in the college  and in  the hospitals. These Regulations are in considerable details. Teacher-student ratio prescribed  is 1 to 10 exclusive of the professor or head of the  department. Regulations further prescribe, apart from other things, that number of  teaching beds in the attached hospitals will have to  be  in  the  ratio  of  7  beds  per  student  admitted. Regulations of  the Medical  Council, which were approved by the  Central   Government   in   1971,   provide   for   the qualification requirements  for appointments  of persons  to the posts  of teachers  and visiting  Physician/Surgeons  of medical colleges and attached hospitals.      In the colleges in  the State of Karnataka, the Medical

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 26 of 27  

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 through   out the  country. Seats in medical colleges cannot be  increased  indiscriminately  without  regard  to  proper infrastructure  as   per  the  Regulations  of  the  Medical Council.      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 being 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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 27 of 27  

    Having thus  held that  it is the Medical Council which can prescribe  the number  of  student  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  Government 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 our 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 Jain’s case  does not say that all the regulations framed by the Medical  Council  with  the  previous  approval  of  the Central Government  are directory or more 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.      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.      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.