LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Central Government’s decision to debar a medical college from admitting students was justified.
CASE TYPE: Medical Education Law
Case Name: Krishna Mohan Medical College and Hospital & Anr. vs. Union of India and Another
[Judgment Date]: 1 September 2017
Introduction
Can a medical college be debarred from admitting students without a fair hearing and proper consideration of all relevant factors? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Krishna Mohan Medical College and Hospital & Anr. vs. Union of India and Another. This case highlights the importance of procedural fairness in administrative decisions, especially those impacting educational institutions.
The Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Amitava Roy and A.M. Khanwilkar, delivered the judgment. Justice Amitava Roy authored the opinion. The court examined the Central Government’s decision to debar Krishna Mohan Medical College from admitting students.
Case Background
Krishna Mohan Medical College applied to establish a new medical college in Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, for the academic year 2016-17. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare forwarded the application to the Medical Council of India (MCI) for evaluation. The MCI conducted an inspection on December 18th and 19th, 2015. It recommended against granting a Letter of Permission (LOP) due to several deficiencies.
The Central Government, after a hearing, initially disapproved the application. However, the Oversight Committee, constituted by the Supreme Court, recommended issuing a conditional LOP. This LOP allowed the college to admit 150 MBBS students for the 2016-17 academic year, subject to certain conditions. These conditions included an affidavit affirming the fulfillment of all deficiencies and a bank guarantee of Rs. 2 crores.
The college admitted students for the 2016-17 academic year and provided the required bank guarantee. The MCI conducted another inspection on November 18th and 19th, 2016. The MCI reported deficiencies, particularly in faculty and resident doctors. The college disputed these findings and submitted a representation on November 19, 2016.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-12-18 & 19 | MCI inspects Krishna Mohan Medical College and finds deficiencies. |
| 2016-02-05 | Supreme Court constitutes Oversight Committee. |
| 2016-08-29 | Oversight Committee recommends conditional LOP. |
| 2016-09-12 | Conditional LOP granted to the college. |
| 2016-11-18 & 19 | MCI conducts another inspection, finds deficiencies. |
| 2016-11-19 | College submits representation against MCI findings. |
| 2016-12-09 | MCI attempts a surprise inspection, college refuses. |
| 2016-12-22 | MCI recommends debarment of the college. |
| 2017-01-17 | Hearing Committee provides a hearing to the college. |
| 2017-05-14 | Oversight Committee recommends confirmation of LOP. |
| 2017-05-31 | Central Government debars the college. |
| 2017-08-01 | Supreme Court remands the matter to the Central Government. |
| 2017-08-03 | Hearing Committee provides a hearing to the college. |
| 2017-08-10 | Central Government reiterates debarment. |
| 2017-09-01 | Supreme Court upholds the conditional LOP. |
Course of Proceedings
Initially, the Central Government disapproved the college’s application. However, the Oversight Committee intervened and recommended a conditional LOP. After the MCI’s second inspection, the college was debarred from admitting students for two academic years.
The college challenged this debarment order in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court initially set aside the debarment order. It directed the Central Government to reconsider the matter. The Central Government was to evaluate the recommendations of the MCI, the Hearing Committee, the Director General of Health Services (DGHS), and the Oversight Committee.
Legal Framework
The case is governed by the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999. Section 10A(4) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, is particularly relevant. It states that the Central Government may approve or disapprove a scheme for establishing a medical college. However, the Central Government must provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard before disapproving a scheme.
The relevant excerpt of Section 10A(4) of the Act is as follows:
“(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 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:”
This provision ensures that colleges are given a fair chance to present their case before any adverse decision is taken.
Arguments
The petitioners argued that the second inspection was unwarranted. They also argued that the Hearing Committee did not properly re-evaluate the evidence. The college had already submitted a detailed representation against the deficiencies noted in the first inspection. Furthermore, the Oversight Committee had recommended confirming the conditional LOP.
The college contended that the Central Government’s decision was based on a truncated version of the proceedings. It also ignored the observations of the DGHS and the Oversight Committee.
The respondents argued that the MCI could conduct successive inspections. They also argued that the college’s refusal to cooperate with the second inspection was a sign of withholding the correct state of affairs. They maintained that the deficiencies in faculty and resident doctors justified the debarment.
| Petitioner’s Submissions | Respondent’s Submissions |
|---|---|
| ✓ The second inspection on 09.12.2016 was impermissible and lacked bona fides. | ✓ Successive inspections can be conducted by the MCI if warranted. |
| ✓ The Hearing Committee did not re-examine the materials as directed by the Supreme Court. | ✓ The college did not cooperate in the inspection on 09.12.2016. |
| ✓ The deficiencies referred to in the order do not exist. | ✓ Deficiencies relating to faculty and residents were in excess of 30%. |
| ✓ The representation of the petitioners dated 19.11.2016 was disregarded without reason. | |
| ✓ The proposed inspection of 09.12.2016 was an act of selective victimization. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issue:
- Whether the Central Government’s decision to debar the petitioner college from admitting students was valid, considering the principles of natural justice and the directions of the Supreme Court.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the Central Government’s decision to debar the petitioner college from admitting students was valid, considering the principles of natural justice and the directions of the Supreme Court. | The Court held that the Central Government’s decision was not valid. The Court found that the Central Government did not properly re-evaluate the materials on record and did not give due consideration to the recommendations of the Oversight Committee and the DGHS. The Court also noted that the college’s representation against the deficiencies was not considered. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Section 10A(4) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 | – | The Court emphasized the proviso to this section, which mandates a reasonable opportunity of hearing before disapproving a scheme for establishing a medical college. |
| Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others [(2016) 7 SCC 353] | Supreme Court of India | This case was referenced for the constitution of the Oversight Committee by the Supreme Court, which was tasked to oversee all statutory functions under the Act. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court analyzed the Central Government’s order and found it to be deficient. The Court emphasized that the Central Government did not undertake a dispassionate and objective analysis of the materials on record. The Court noted that the Central Government had focused on the college’s non-cooperation with the second inspection and the alleged deficiencies, without considering the college’s representation and the Oversight Committee’s recommendations.
The Court also observed that the Central Government did not comply with the principles of natural justice and the directions of the Supreme Court’s previous order. The Court held that the Central Government did not provide a fair hearing to the college.
The following table shows how each submission made by the parties was treated by the Court:
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| The college did not allow inspection on 09.12.2016. | The Court noted that this fact was already available when the Supreme Court passed the order dated 01.08.2017, and thus, it could not be used as a decisive factor. |
| Deficiencies relating to faculty and residents were in excess of 30%. | The Court observed that the college had controverted these deficiencies with supporting materials, which the Central Government did not consider. |
| MCI can conduct successive inspections. | The Court did not explicitly rule on this, but emphasized that all materials must be considered in the decision-making process. |
| The Hearing Committee agreed with the decision of the Ministry conveyed by letter dated 31.05.2017. | The Court held that the Hearing Committee did not independently re-evaluate the materials on record, as directed by the Supreme Court. |
The following table shows how each authority was viewed by the Court:
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Section 10A(4) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 | The Court emphasized the importance of the proviso, which mandates a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Court held that the Central Government did not comply with this requirement. |
| Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others [(2016) 7 SCC 353] | The Court referred to this case to highlight the role and importance of the Oversight Committee, whose recommendations were not given due consideration by the Central Government. |
The court stated, “Reasonable opportunity of hearing which is synonymous to ‘fair hearing’, it is not longer res integra, is an important ingredient of audi alteram partem rule and embraces almost every facet of fair procedure.”
The court further stated, “The rule of ‘fair hearing’ requires that the affected party should be given an opportunity to meet the case against him effectively and the right to fair hearing takes within its fold a just decision supplemented by reasons and rationale.”
The court also stated, “Every executive authority empowered to take an administrative action having the potential of visiting any person with civil consequences must take care to ensure that justice is not only done but also manifestly appears to have been done.”
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of procedural fairness in the Central Government’s decision-making process. The Court emphasized the importance of a fair hearing and the need for a thorough evaluation of all relevant materials. The Court also highlighted that the Central Government had disregarded the recommendations of the Oversight Committee and the DGHS.
The Court was also concerned about the fact that the Central Government had not given due consideration to the college’s representation against the alleged deficiencies. The Court was of the view that the Central Government had not undertaken a dispassionate, objective, cautious, and rational analysis of the materials on record.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Lack of procedural fairness | 40% |
| Failure to consider all relevant materials | 30% |
| Disregard for the Oversight Committee and DGHS recommendations | 20% |
| Failure to consider the college’s representation | 10% |
The ratio of fact to law that influenced the court to decide is as follows:
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Logical Reasoning
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Administrative decisions impacting educational institutions must adhere to the principles of natural justice.
- ✓ A reasonable opportunity of hearing is mandatory before disapproving a scheme for establishing a medical college.
- ✓ Decision-making bodies must thoroughly evaluate all relevant materials, including representations from the affected parties and recommendations from expert bodies.
- ✓ The Oversight Committee’s recommendations, constituted by the Supreme Court, cannot be disregarded.
- ✓ The Central Government/MCI would not encash the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner college/institution.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the Central Government and the MCI to conduct a fresh inspection of the petitioner college for the academic year 2018-19 and submit a report to the Court within eight weeks. The Court also directed that a copy of the report be furnished to the college.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that any decision by the Central Government to disapprove a scheme for establishing a medical college must be based on a fair hearing and a thorough evaluation of all relevant materials. This case reinforces the importance of procedural fairness in administrative decision-making, especially when it affects educational institutions. There was no change in the previous position of law, but the court emphasized the importance of following the existing law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the conditional Letter of Permission granted to Krishna Mohan Medical College. The Court found that the Central Government’s decision to debar the college was flawed due to procedural unfairness and inadequate consideration of all relevant materials. The Court emphasized the importance of a fair hearing and thorough evaluation of all facts and recommendations.