Supreme Court allows admissions for Apollo Medical College for 2017-18 session: Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences & Research vs. Union of India (2017) INSC 728 (31 August 2017)

Can a medical college, which has been granted conditional permission, be denied the opportunity to admit students for the next academic year despite fulfilling infrastructure and academic requirements? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical issue in a recent judgment. The Court examined the decision of the Central Government to bar Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences & Research from admitting students for the 2017-18 academic session. The bench, composed of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, and Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, delivered the judgment, with the opinion authored by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar.

Case Background

Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences & Research applied to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for permission to establish a new medical college in Andhra Pradesh for the 2016-17 academic year. The Ministry forwarded the application to the Medical Council of India (MCI) for evaluation. Initially, the Central Government declined to issue a letter of permission based on MCI’s negative recommendation. However, the Oversight Committee (OC) later approved the scheme, leading to a conditional Letter of Permission for the 2016-17 session.

Subsequently, the MCI submitted a report citing deficiencies, and the Ministry debarred the college from admitting students for two years. The college challenged this decision in the Supreme Court. The Court directed the Central Government to reconsider the matter. After a personal hearing, the Hearing Committee found no significant deficiencies but still recommended against admitting students for the 2017-18 session. The Ministry accepted this recommendation.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare rejected the application of Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences & Research based on a negative report from the MCI. The Oversight Committee (OC) then intervened, leading to a conditional Letter of Permission for the 2016-17 academic session. However, after a subsequent inspection, MCI again reported deficiencies. This led to the Ministry’s decision to debar the college from admitting students for two years. The college then approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court directed the Central Government to reconsider the matter.

Following the Supreme Court’s direction, a Hearing Committee was formed. The committee noted that the college had no major infrastructural deficiencies and that the faculty and resident deficiencies were marginal. However, the committee still recommended that no fresh batch be admitted for 2017-18. The Ministry accepted this recommendation. The college then again approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. This section deals with the establishment of new medical colleges, new courses of study, etc. It requires prior permission from the Central Government. The Medical Council of India (MCI) evaluates applications and makes recommendations to the government.

Section 10A(4) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 states:

“The Central Government may, after considering the scheme and the recommendations of the Council under sub-section (3) and after obtaining, where necessary, such other particulars as may be considered necessary from the person or college concerned, 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).”

Arguments

The petitioners argued that the Hearing Committee’s observations were favorable. They contended that there were no significant deficiencies to justify depriving the college of admitting students for the 2017-18 session. They highlighted that the college had a good reputation and aimed to provide quality education.

The respondents, on the other hand, supported the Hearing Committee and the Competent Authority’s decision. They argued that the court should not interfere with the subjective satisfaction of the expert body. They maintained that the decision was based on the MCI’s findings and the Hearing Committee’s recommendations.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues but the core issue was:

• Whether the decision to prohibit the petitioners’ college from admitting students for the 2017-18 academic session was justified, given the Hearing Committee’s favorable observations regarding infrastructure and academic requirements?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment refers to the judgment of Dr. Jagat Narain Subharti Charitable Trust and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors., delivered on 30th August, 2017. The court followed the directions issued in this case.

Judgment

The Supreme Court observed that the Hearing Committee and the Central Government had disregarded the fact that the college had met the infrastructure and academic requirements. The Court noted that the impugned order acknowledged the college as compliant in these aspects. The Court found no valid reason to prohibit the college from admitting students for the 2017-18 session. The Court stated that the statutory authorities had failed in their duty to reconsider the case based on the available material.

The Court emphasized that the college had been functioning since 2016-17 with a conditional Letter of Permission and had substantially fulfilled the conditions. Therefore, the Court allowed the petition and the application filed by the petitioners in the larger public interest. The Court quashed the decision to bar the college from admitting students for the 2017-18 session.

The Court directed the respondents to allow the college to participate in the ongoing counseling process. The cut-off date for admissions was extended to September 5, 2017. The Court also clarified that the MCI or the Central Government could inspect the college and take action if deficiencies were found, after giving the college an opportunity.

The Court stated:

“We have no hesitation in observing that the approach of the statutory authorities is bordering on abdication of their statutory duty and is against the letter and spirit of the direction given by this Court on the earlier occasion to reconsider the case of the petitioners’ college afresh on the basis of material available on record.”

The Court also stated:

“Infact, we find that the impugned order acknowledges the fact that the petitioners’ college is a compliant college in respect of infrastructure and academic matters. In such a situation, we are at a loss to discern as to what weighed with the Hearing Committee and Competent Authority of the Central Government to prohibit the petitioners’ college from admitting students in the MBBS course for the academic session 2017-18.”

The Court further stated:

“Considering the fact that the petitioners’ college has fulfilled the infrastructure and academic requirements and has already operated the college for the academic session 2016-17 by admitting the first batch of students in the MBBS course and further, even the Competent Authority has noticed that there are no major deficiencies, we allow this petition and the application filed by the petitioners in the larger public interest.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the fact that the Hearing Committee and the Central Government acknowledged that the college had met the necessary infrastructure and academic requirements. The Court found it illogical to deny the college permission to admit students for the 2017-18 session when no significant deficiencies were noted. The Court also emphasized that the college had already been operating since 2016-17, and the authorities had disregarded the material on record.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• A medical college that has been granted conditional permission and has fulfilled the necessary infrastructure and academic requirements should not be arbitrarily denied the opportunity to admit students.
• Statutory authorities must act reasonably and not disregard the facts on record.
• The Supreme Court can exercise its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice in the larger public interest.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioners’ college to take part in the current-year counseling process. The cut-off date for completing the admissions was extended till 5th September, 2017. The respondents were also directed to make available students willing to take admission in the petitioners’ college through central counseling, in order of their merit.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when a medical college has substantially complied with the conditions for a Letter of Permission, and no major deficiencies are found, it should not be arbitrarily denied the opportunity to admit students. This case reinforces the principle that statutory authorities must act reasonably and in accordance with the facts on record.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences & Research vs. Union of India is a significant one for medical colleges. The Court emphasized that once a college has fulfilled the necessary requirements, it should not be arbitrarily barred from admitting students. This judgment highlights the importance of fair and reasonable decision-making by statutory authorities and the role of the Supreme Court in ensuring justice.