Supreme Court quashes MCI’s directive on NRI quota in Manipal University: Manipal University vs. Union of India (2017)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: July 3, 2017

Citation: (2017) INSC 593

Judges: S. A. Bobde, J., L. Nageswara Rao, J.

Can a regulatory body like the Medical Council of India (MCI) dictate the specific number of NRI students a deemed university can admit? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case involving Manipal University, clarifying the extent of the MCI’s powers. This judgment is significant for understanding the regulatory framework governing higher education and the limits of regulatory overreach. The Court examined whether the MCI could restrict Manipal University’s NRI admissions based on a perceived violation of previous court orders.

The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao, with the judgment authored by Justice L. Nageswara Rao.

Case Background

Manipal University, initially known as Manipal Academy of Higher Education, established two medical colleges in 1953 and 1955. In 1978, the University Grants Commission (UGC) recommended granting deemed university status to the Manipal Educational Complex, which included medical and engineering colleges. However, this was initially rejected due to a lack of funds.

The UGC later considered granting permission if the institution could admit foreign and Indian students in a 60:40 ratio and raise its own resources. Manipal University agreed to this condition and was granted permission on August 12, 1991, to admit 350 foreign students out of a total of 550 students.

Manipal University was declared a Deemed University on June 1, 1993, encompassing medical, dental, and nursing colleges. In 2002, the Medical Council of India (MCI) raised concerns about the university exceeding the permissible 15% NRI quota for admissions. The MCI directed the university to explain why action should not be taken. Subsequently, on September 27, 2002, the MCI requested the Union of India to withdraw recognition of the MBBS degree granted by the university.

On February 8, 2005, the MCI directed Manipal University not to admit students under the NRI quota for 37 seats in 2005-2006, 37 seats in 2006-2007, and 29 seats in 2007-2008 at Kasturba Medical College, Manipal. This action was taken to offset the alleged undue advantage gained by the university by admitting 103 students in excess of the 15% NRI quota. The MCI cited orders from the Supreme Court in *Islamic Academy v. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 697* and *R.L. Minority Profession Colleges Association v. State of Karnataka and Ors.*, which limited NRI admissions to 15% of the available seats.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Manipal University challenged the MCI’s directive of February 8, 2005, in the High Court of Karnataka via Writ Petition 12673 of 2005. The High Court ruled that Section 10-A of the Medical Council Act only empowers the MCI to determine intake capacity, not to regulate admissions to sub-categories like the NRI quota.

However, the High Court also noted that Manipal University had admitted NRI students beyond the 15% limit set by the Supreme Court. Citing the binding nature of the Supreme Court’s directions, the High Court denied relief to Manipal University, even though the MCI’s letter was issued before the Supreme Court’s judgment in *P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 6 SCC 537*. Manipal University subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court against this decision.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provisions relevant to this case include:

• Section 10-A of the Medical Council Act: This section deals with the permission for establishing new medical colleges, new courses of study, etc. The High Court interpreted that this section confers power on the MCI to determine the intake capacity of medical colleges.
• Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997: Regulation 5 mandates that the selection of students to medical colleges shall be based solely on the merit of the candidates.
• University Grants Commission (UGC) Act: The UGC Act governs Deemed Universities.

The Court considered how these provisions interact to regulate medical education and admissions, particularly concerning the powers of the MCI and the autonomy of Deemed Universities.

Arguments

Appellant (Manipal University) Arguments:

• The MCI lacked the jurisdiction to direct a reduction in NRI seats for the years 2005 to 2008. The MCI’s power is limited to determining intake capacity and does not extend to regulating sub-categories like NRI quotas.

• The High Court erred in applying the directions in *P.A. Inamdar’s* case retrospectively. The directions in *P.A. Inamdar* do not apply to Deemed Universities and cannot be applied retrospectively.

Respondent (Union of India & MCI) Arguments:

• The MCI does not have the power to fix quotas for reserved categories and NRIs.

• Regulation 5 of the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997, mandates that selection of students should be based on merit.

• Interim orders of the Supreme Court permitted admissions to NRI/foreign students to the extent of 15% of the total intake.

• Admissions to NRI seats in excess of 15% would reduce the quota for other categories and affect merit-based selection.

• The 1997 Regulations empower the MCI to issue directions to ensure merit-based selections. Therefore, the MCI was competent to restrict admissions to NRI seats for the years 2005 to 2008.

• The judgment in *Mridul Dhar v. Union of India (2008) 17 SCC 435* allows for offsetting excess admissions in the management quota by reducing seats in succeeding years.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the MCI is the competent authority/justified to issue a direction disallowing the Appellant to make admissions in the NRI quota for three years?
2. Whether the decision in *P.A. Inamdar* operates retrospectively with respect to the letter dated 08.02.2005?
3. Whether the decision in *P.A. Inamdar* applies to Deemed Universities or only to private colleges?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The following authorities were considered by the Court:

Cases:

• *Islamic Academy v. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 697* – Supreme Court of India: This case was referred to by the MCI to justify its direction to limit NRI admissions to 15%.
• *R.L. Minority Profession Colleges Association v. State of Karnataka and Ors.* – Supreme Court of India: This case also dealt with the 15% limit for NRI admissions in minority unaided professional colleges.
• *P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 6 SCC 537* – Supreme Court of India: This case was referred to by the High Court in its judgment.
• *Mridul Dhar v. Union of India (2008) 17 SCC 435* – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited by the Respondent to argue that excess admissions can be offset by reducing seats in subsequent years.
• *State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. K. Shyam Sunder and Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 737* – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to support the principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.
• *Baroness Wenlock v. River Dee Co., (1885) 10 AC 354* – House of Lords: This case was cited to emphasize that a corporation’s powers must be expressly conferred or derived by reasonable implication from its provisions.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 10-A of the Medical Council Act: This section deals with the permission for establishing new medical colleges, new courses of study, etc.
• Regulation 5 of the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997: This regulation mandates that the selection of students to medical colleges shall be based solely on the merit of the candidates.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions made by both parties and the authorities cited.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that a regulatory body must act within the powers conferred upon it by the statute. The Court emphasized that the MCI’s actions were beyond its jurisdiction, as it did not have the express power to interfere with quotas for sub-categories like NRI admissions. The Court also considered the importance of merit-based selections but found that the MCI’s actions were not a valid way to achieve this goal.

The Court also noted that the MCI’s direction was not implemented either for the years 2005 to 2008 or thereafter.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal considerations, with a smaller emphasis on the factual aspects of the case, which is reflected in the following ratio:

Logical Reasoning

Judgment Analysis

The Supreme Court held that the MCI’s direction to Manipal University was illegal and without jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the MCI’s power is limited to determining the total intake capacity of medical colleges and does not extend to regulating sub-categories like NRI quotas.

The Court stated, “Determination of a quota for NRI seats is beyond the domain of the second Respondent.” The Court further clarified, “The direction issued by the second Respondent by its letter dated 08.02.2005 is ultra vires and is liable to be declared illegal.”

The Court also addressed the MCI’s argument that it had the power to issue directions to ensure merit-based selections under Regulation 5 of the 1997 Regulations. The Court rejected this argument, stating, “However, no direction can be issued by the second Respondent interfering with the regulation or supervision of sub categories.”

The Court cited the principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly, emphasizing that the MCI could not use its power to ensure merit-based selections as a guise for interfering with the NRI quota.

The Court did not find it necessary to address the other submissions made by the Appellant regarding the retrospective application of the *P.A. Inamdar* judgment or its applicability to Deemed Universities, as the MCI’s direction was held to be without jurisdiction.

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• The Medical Council of India (MCI) does not have the power to regulate or supervise the admissions to sub-categories like NRI quota.
• Regulatory bodies must act within the powers conferred upon them by the statute.
• The principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly was upheld.
• The judgment clarifies the limits of the MCI’s regulatory authority and reinforces the autonomy of Deemed Universities in certain aspects of admissions.
• The judgment has implications for how regulatory bodies approach the regulation of admissions in higher education, particularly concerning sub-categories and quotas.

Directions

The Supreme Court declared the direction issued by the MCI to Manipal University not to make admissions to the extent of 103 NRI seats for the years 2005 to 2008 as ultra vires and without jurisdiction.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Medical Council of India (MCI) does not have the power to interfere with the allocation of quotas for sub-categories within the total intake of medical colleges. This judgment reinforces the principle that regulatory bodies must operate within the confines of their statutory powers and cannot indirectly do what they are not expressly authorized to do. This case clarifies the extent of MCI’s regulatory authority, particularly concerning sub-categories and quotas, and reinforces the autonomy of Deemed Universities in certain aspects of admissions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the MCI’s directive to Manipal University. The Court held that the MCI exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the NRI quota. This judgment reinforces the principle that regulatory bodies must act within their statutory limits and clarifies the scope of the MCI’s authority in regulating admissions to medical colleges.

Category:

• Education Law
  • Medical Education
  • Deemed University
  • NRI Admissions
  • Section 10A, Medical
• Regulatory Law
  • Medical Council of India
  • University Grants Commission