Supreme Court Orders Fresh Inspection for Medical College: Subharti Medical College vs. Union of India (2017)

Can a medical college be denied an increase in seats based on a single inspection report? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving Subharti Medical College. The court ordered a fresh inspection, highlighting the importance of thorough verification in such matters. This case falls under the ambit of medical education law.

This judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, and Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud. The majority opinion was authored by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar.

Case Background

Subharti Medical College applied to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for an increase in MBBS seats from 100 to 150. The Ministry forwarded the application to the Medical Council of India (MCI) for assessment. An MCI Inspection Team visited the college and submitted a report on March 27, 2017. The report noted several deficiencies, including low bed occupancy (55.27%) and other issues.

The MCI then submitted a negative recommendation to the Central Government. The college was given a hearing before a Hearing Committee on May 22, 2017. The Hearing Committee did not comment on the bed occupancy but noted that faculty and residents were within permissible limits.

Subsequently, the Central Government debarred the college from admitting students for two academic years (2017-18 and 2018-19) and authorized the MCI to encash the college’s bank guarantee. This order was passed on May 31, 2017. The Supreme Court directed the Central Government to provide a reasoned order, which resulted in a fresh order on August 29, 2017, based on the Hearing Committee’s report. The Hearing Committee stated that bed occupancy required physical verification. Despite this, the Central Government upheld its decision to debar the college.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Central Government initially debarred the college on May 31, 2017, without providing reasons. The Supreme Court, on August 1, 2017, directed the government to give the college another chance and pass a reasoned order. The matter was then placed before the Hearing Committee, which included a member of the Oversight Committee (OC). The Hearing Committee could not conclusively decide on the bed occupancy issue and recommended physical verification. Despite this, the Central Government issued an order on August 29, 2017, reiterating its decision to debar the college.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the process of granting recognition and increasing intake capacity for medical colleges as per the regulations of the Medical Council of India. The Medical Council of India Act, 1956 and the regulations framed thereunder provide the framework for the same.

Arguments

The petitioner, Subharti Medical College, argued that the bed occupancy was never in doubt and that the assessment report of March 2017 was unreliable. The college also contended that the Hearing Committee had already concluded the hearing on August 22, 2017, but submitted a second report on August 29, 2017, after the reconstitution of the OC.

The respondents, including the Medical Council of India and the Union of India, argued that the Hearing Committee’s second report was necessary due to the reconstitution of the OC. They also maintained that the deficiencies noted in the assessment report, particularly regarding bed occupancy, were valid grounds for denying the increase in seats.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a numbered list. However, the central issue was whether the Central Government’s decision to debar the college based on the available reports was justified, given the inconclusive findings of the Hearing Committee regarding bed occupancy.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment refers to another case decided on the same day, Melmaruvathur Adhiparasakthi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Vs. Union of India and Anr., where a similar situation regarding bed occupancy was observed. The court used this case to support its decision that a fresh inspection was necessary in the present case.

Judgment

The court observed that the Hearing Committee did not give a conclusive opinion regarding the bed occupancy deficiency. Therefore, the court directed the MCI to conduct a fresh inspection within three months. The college was given the option to remove deficiencies. The MCI would then verify the compliance and prepare a report for the Competent Authority. The final decision was to be taken within one month from the receipt of the MCI report.

The court stated that the inspection would be for the proposal to increase the intake capacity from 100 to 150 seats for the academic session 2018-19. The bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner was not to be encashed.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of conclusive findings from the Hearing Committee regarding the bed occupancy. The Court emphasized the need for a thorough physical verification of the facilities before making a decision on increasing the intake capacity.

The court stated, “The Hearing Committee is of the view that the bed occupancy as claimed by the college cannot be validated by this Committee and requires physical verification.” This highlighted the court’s concern about the lack of proper verification.

The court also noted, “even though the impugned order cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny, however, the appropriate course would be to direct the respondents, in particular the MCI, to send its Inspecting Team to the petitioner college within a period of three months.” This shows the court’s emphasis on due process.

Further, the court clarified, “The petitioner college shall then report its compliance and communicate the removal of deficiencies to MCI, whereafter it will be open to the MCI to verify the position and then prepare its report to be placed before the Competent Authority for being processed further in accordance with law.” This demonstrates the court’s intent to ensure a fair and transparent process.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Medical colleges seeking an increase in seats must undergo thorough inspections.
• ✓ Inconclusive findings by inspection committees necessitate further physical verification.
• ✓ Decisions affecting educational institutions must be based on reasoned orders.
• ✓ The court’s emphasis was on ensuring a fair and transparent process.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Medical Council of India (MCI) to conduct a fresh inspection of Subharti Medical College within three months. The college was given the option to remove any deficiencies identified during the inspection. The MCI was then to verify the compliance and submit a report to the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority was to make a final decision within one month of receiving the report.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when a committee’s findings are inconclusive, particularly on critical aspects like bed occupancy, a physical verification is essential before making a decision on increasing the intake capacity of a medical college. This case reinforces the importance of due process and thorough verification in regulatory matters concerning medical education.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Subharti Medical College case underscores the need for thorough and conclusive assessments when dealing with applications for increasing intake capacity in medical colleges. The court’s direction for a fresh inspection highlights the importance of physical verification and reasoned decision-making in regulatory processes.