Supreme Court directs compensation for MBBS student after admission cancellation: Riya George vs. Kannur Medical College (21 February 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 21 February 2019
Citation: Not Available
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Hemant Gupta, J
Can a student be compensated for the loss of an academic year due to a medical college’s admission irregularities? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case where a student’s admission to an MBBS program was cancelled due to the college’s non-compliance with admission regulations. The court considered whether the student, who had to seek admission elsewhere, was entitled to damages for the lost year. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Hemant Gupta, J.

Case Background

The petitioner, Riya George, a medical student, sought compensation from Kannur Medical College for losing an academic year. She had secured 97.16% in her 12th standard board exams and qualified for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) 2016-17 with a 94.36 percentile score. The Government of Kerala directed all medical colleges to admit students selected through common counseling by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations (CEE) on 20 August 2016. The High Court of Kerala issued interim directions on 26 August 2016, mandating that MBBS admissions for 2016-17 be based on NEET 2016, with online applications to ensure transparency. The Admission Supervisory Committee for Professional Colleges in Kerala (ASC) directed medical colleges that admissions violating these guidelines would not be registered by the Kerala University of Health Sciences on 3 September 2016.

On 15 September 2016, the ASC cancelled all admissions made by Kannur Medical College after finding that the college had not called for online applications and had not complied with the revised prospectus. The ASC reiterated its directions on 17 September 2016, asking colleges to publish details online. The petitioner applied for admission to the MBBS course at Kannur Medical College following this process. She submitted her documents and paid Rs 21.65 lakhs to the college on 26 September 2016, securing admission. The classes commenced on 1 October 2016.

However, on 2 October 2016, the ASC cancelled the MBBS admissions granted by Kannur Medical College due to non-compliance with its orders. The Government of Kerala was asked to direct CEE to conduct centralized admissions. The college challenged this cancellation in the Kerala High Court, and the petitioner registered for spot allotment with the college on 4 October 2016. The High Court directed the college to submit records for spot allotment to the CEE on 6 October 2016. The CEE submitted a report on 13 October 2016, noting the college’s lack of cooperation.

On 28 October 2016, the High Court imposed a cost of Rs one lakh on the college and directed the ASC to scrutinize all records of medical colleges regarding admissions. The college challenged this order before the Supreme Court, which declined to interfere with the High Court’s order on 22 March 2017. The Registrar of Kerala University of Health Sciences directed the college to discharge all 150 students admitted for the academic year 2016-17 on 31 March 2017. The petitioner and other students challenged the cancellation order in the Kerala High Court which was dismissed on 22 June 2017, and confirmed by the Supreme Court on 10 July 2017.

The Kerala Professional Colleges (Regulation of Admissions in Medical Colleges) Ordinance 2017, which sought to regularize MBBS admissions in certain medical colleges against a payment of Rs 3 lakhs per student, was held to be ultra vires by the Supreme Court in MCI v State of Kerala. The petitioner appeared for NEET 2017 and secured admission at the Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences. On 26 September 2017, the petitioner’s father requested a refund of the documents and fees from Kannur Medical College, as she had joined another college. The petitioner’s father also filed a complaint with the police and the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee for Medical Education in Kerala. The matter was settled with the college, and the petitioner received two demand drafts of Rs 10 lakhs each on 25 September 2017.

The Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee permitted the withdrawal of the complaint on 26 September 2017. Subsequently, the petitioner’s father filed another complaint for the remaining amount of Rs 1.65 lakhs and interest. The Committee allowed the claim for the balance of Rs 1.65 lakhs, rejecting the claim for interest. The college’s review petition was rejected. The Supreme Court passed a consent order on 29 August 2018, directing the college to return double the fees to each of the 150 students. The issue of refund was revisited on 4 October 2018, directing the ASC to conduct an inquiry and pass appropriate orders on the refund. The ASC issued a notice on 28 November 2018, for hearing the complaints of 12 students, including the petitioner.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The petitioner initially sought relief from the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking compensation for the loss of an academic year due to the cancellation of her admission. The Kerala High Court, in response to a challenge by medical colleges, had issued interim directions to conduct MBBS admissions based on NEET 2016. The Admission Supervisory Committee (ASC) had cancelled the admissions of Kannur Medical College for non-compliance with admission procedures. The High Court had imposed costs on the college and directed the ASC to scrutinize all admissions. The college’s challenge to this order was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The petitioner and other students challenged the cancellation order in the Kerala High Court, which was also dismissed and later confirmed by the Supreme Court. The Kerala Professional Colleges (Regulation of Admissions in Medical Colleges) Ordinance 2017 was held ultra vires by the Supreme Court. The petitioner then sought a refund of fees and documents from the college after securing admission elsewhere. The Supreme Court, in a separate proceeding, had ordered the college to refund double the fees to the affected students. The ASC was directed to conduct an inquiry on the refund. The petitioner, in the present case, sought damages for the loss of an academic year, which the Supreme Court addressed in this judgment.

Legal Framework

The judgment references Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which grants the Supreme Court the power to issue directions or orders for the enforcement of fundamental rights. The judgment also refers to the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET), which was mandated by the Supreme Court in Sankalp Charitable Trust v Union of India for admissions to MBBS/BDS courses. The case also references the directions issued by the Union government to conduct centralized counseling for MBBS admissions, consistent with the judgment in Modern Dental College and Research Centre v State of Madhya Pradesh. The Kerala Professional Colleges (Regulation of Admissions in Medical Colleges) Ordinance 2017 was also discussed, which was later held to be ultra vires by the Supreme Court in MCI v State of Kerala.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner argued that Kannur Medical College violated admission regulations, leading to the cancellation of her admission and the loss of an academic year.
• The petitioner contended that she should be compensated for the loss of a valuable academic year due to the college’s illegal actions.
• The petitioner requested the Supreme Court to award damages against the college, arguing that pursuing claims before the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee would cause further delays.
• The petitioner’s counsel argued that the withdrawal of the complaint by her father was under duress, as it was necessary to obtain a refund to secure her admission to another college.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the petitioner’s suppression of material facts.
• The respondent argued that the petitioner failed to disclose that her father had withdrawn the complaint against the college after receiving a refund of Rs 20 lakhs in full and final settlement.
• The respondent highlighted that the petitioner’s father had submitted an application to the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee to withdraw the complaint, and had also filed an affidavit withdrawing all claims.
• The respondent contended that the Chairperson of the Admission Fee Regulatory Committee had permitted the withdrawal of the complaint, which the petitioner did not disclose.

Innovativeness of the argument: The petitioner’s argument that the withdrawal of the complaint was under duress due to the urgent need for a refund to secure admission elsewhere was a novel approach to counter the respondent’s claim of suppression of facts. This argument sought to contextualize the actions of the petitioner’s father within the practical constraints faced by middle-class families.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the primary issues before the court were:

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to compensation for the loss of an academic year due to the cancellation of her admission by Kannur Medical College.
2. Whether the writ petition was maintainable given the petitioner’s alleged suppression of material facts, particularly the withdrawal of the complaint against the college after receiving a refund.
3. Whether the withdrawal of the complaint by the petitioner’s father was voluntary or under duress due to the urgent need for a refund to secure admission to another college.

The court also considered the issue of whether it should quantify damages in the present proceedings, given that a coordinate bench had already directed the college to refund double the fees to the affected students and had tasked the Admission Supervisory Committee with determining the exact amount in each case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Sankalp Charitable Trust v Union of India [(2016) 7 SCC 487]: This case established that admissions to MBBS/BDS courses shall be conducted through the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET). The court relied on this case to show the legal basis for NEET.
• Modern Dental College and Research Centre v State of Madhya Pradesh [(2016) 7 SCC 353]: This case was cited to support the Union government’s direction for centralized counseling for MBBS admissions. The court relied on this case to show the legal basis for centralized counseling.
• MCI v State of Kerala [(2018) SCC Online SC 1467]: The Supreme Court, in this case, held that the Kerala Professional Colleges (Regulation of Admissions in Medical Colleges) Ordinance 2017 was ultra vires. The court referred to this case to highlight the legal position of the ordinance which was intended to regularize the admission of the students.

Legal Provisions:

• Article 32 of the Constitution of India: This article was invoked by the petitioner to seek a direction from the Supreme Court for compensation. The court relied on this to show the legal basis of the writ petition.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was entitled to compensation for the loss of an academic year due to the misdemeanors of Kannur Medical College. However, the Court did not quantify the damages, deferring to the Admission Supervisory Committee (ASC), which was already seized of the matter. The Court noted that the petitioner had suppressed material facts, particularly the withdrawal of the complaint against the college after receiving a refund. Despite this, the Court did not dismiss the petition, considering the ongoing proceedings before the ASC and the need to ensure justice for the petitioner. The Court found that the withdrawal of the complaint by the petitioner’s father was not voluntary but under duress, due to the urgent need for a refund to secure admission to another college.

The Court noted that a coordinate bench had already directed the college to refund double the fees to the affected students and had tasked the ASC with determining the exact amount in each case. Given this, the Court found it inappropriate to quantify damages in the present proceedings. The Court directed that the petitioner could pursue her claim before the ASC in terms of the previous orders and requested the Committee to take a decision expeditiously.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Sankalp Charitable Trust v Union of India [(2016) 7 SCC 487]: The Court relied on this case to establish the legal basis for NEET, underscoring the importance of a uniform entrance examination for medical admissions.
• Modern Dental College and Research Centre v State of Madhya Pradesh [(2016) 7 SCC 353]: The Court cited this case to support the Union government’s directive for centralized counseling, highlighting the need for a transparent and fair admission process.
• MCI v State of Kerala [(2018) SCC Online SC 1467]: The Court referred to this case to emphasize that the Kerala Professional Colleges (Regulation of Admissions in Medical Colleges) Ordinance 2017 was ultra vires, thereby clarifying that the regularization of admissions through the ordinance was not legally valid.
• Article 32 of the Constitution of India: The Court acknowledged that this article was the basis for the writ petition, recognizing its power to issue directions for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure justice for the petitioner, who had lost an academic year due to the irregularities of the medical college. The Court recognized that the petitioner’s father had withdrawn the complaint under duress, as the refund of fees was crucial for securing her admission to another college. The Court also took into account the fact that a coordinate bench had already directed the college to refund double the fees to the affected students and had tasked the ASC with determining the exact amount in each case. The Court was also mindful of the fact that the petitioner had suppressed material facts, but decided not to dismiss the petition, considering the ongoing proceedings before the ASC and the need to ensure justice for the petitioner. The Court’s decision was also influenced by the need to maintain judicial discipline and not interfere with the orders of a coordinate bench.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as dismissing the petition due to the suppression of facts, but rejected this view in favor of ensuring justice for the petitioner. The Court also considered quantifying damages itself but rejected this approach in favor of following the orders of a coordinate bench and deferring to the ASC.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principles of natural justice, the need to protect students from the consequences of the wrongdoings of educational institutions, and the importance of judicial discipline. The decision was reached by balancing the need to ensure transparency and fairness in legal proceedings with the need to provide relief to the petitioner who had suffered due to the college’s actions.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

• “A student who has been deprived of a valuable year in pursuing her studies, cannot be left in the lurch.”
• “Middle class parents do not have the luxury of resources. We must form a robust understanding of the circumstances in which the father of the petitioner withdrew his complaint.”
• “The Committee has in fact recorded a finding of fact that the withdrawal was not voluntary and was occasioned by the serious impediment in receiving a refund of fees.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The decision was unanimous.

The Court’s decision could have implications for future cases involving similar issues. It establishes that students who lose an academic year due to the fault of educational institutions are entitled to compensation. The decision also emphasizes the need for educational institutions to comply with admission regulations and the importance of judicial discipline.

No new doctrines or legal principles were introduced in this case. The Court’s decision was based on the existing principles of natural justice and the need to protect the rights of students.

Key Takeaways

• Students who lose an academic year due to the fault of educational institutions are entitled to compensation.
• Educational institutions must comply with admission regulations to avoid causing harm to students.
• The withdrawal of a complaint under duress does not necessarily bar a party from seeking relief.
• The Supreme Court will not dismiss a writ petition solely on the ground of suppression of facts if there are compelling reasons to ensure justice.
• The Supreme Court will maintain judicial discipline and not interfere with the orders of a coordinate bench.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the petitioner to pursue her claim before the Admission Supervisory Committee (ASC) in terms of the orders dated 29 August 2018 and 4 October 2018. The Court requested the ASC to take a decision expeditiously, within three months of the receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a student who loses an academic year due to the misdemeanors of an educational institution is entitled to compensation. The court clarified that even if a complaint is withdrawn, if it was done under duress, it will not bar a party from seeking relief. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the court has reinforced the existing principles of natural justice and the need to protect the rights of students.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pursue her claim for compensation before the Admission Supervisory Committee. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner was entitled to compensation for the loss of an academic year due to the irregularities of Kannur Medical College. While the Court noted the petitioner’s suppression of material facts, it did not dismiss the petition, recognizing the need to ensure justice for the petitioner. The Court also found that the withdrawal of the complaint by the petitioner’s father was not voluntary but under duress. The Court deferred to the Admission Supervisory Committee for the quantification of damages, following the orders of a coordinate bench.