LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Dental Council of India’s amended regulations mandating dental colleges to be affiliated with medical colleges are valid.
CASE TYPE: Regulatory and Education Law.
Case Name: Dental Council of India vs. Biyani Shikshan Samiti & Anr.
Judgment Date: April 12, 2022
Date of the Judgment: April 12, 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 384
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao J., B.R. Gavai J.
Can an expert regulatory body’s decision on educational standards be challenged by the courts? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the Dental Council of India’s (DCI) regulations for establishing new dental colleges. The core issue was whether the DCI could mandate that new dental colleges must be affiliated with existing medical colleges. This judgment clarifies the extent of the DCI’s regulatory powers and the limits of judicial intervention in expert bodies’ decisions. The judgment was authored by Justice B.R. Gavai, with Justice L. Nageswara Rao concurring.
Case Background
Biyani Shikshan Samiti (respondent No. 1) applied to the Government of India on September 24, 2011, to establish a new dental college for the academic year 2012-2013. This application followed a Letter of Intent issued by the State Government on September 23, 2011. The Union of India (respondent No. 2) identified deficiencies in the proposal and requested rectification by October 7, 2011. The application was returned on January 6, 2012, because the deficiencies were not addressed by the deadline of December 31, 2011. Despite the Government of Rajasthan issuing an Essentiality Certificate on January 11, 2012, the Union of India declined to reconsider the application on February 17, 2012.
Subsequently, on May 21, 2012, the Dental Council of India (appellant) issued a notification amending Regulation 6(2)(h) of the Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or Higher Course of Studies or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006. This amendment mandated that dental colleges must be attached to a medical college. Biyani Shikshan Samiti submitted a fresh application on September 28, 2012, for the academic year 2013-2014, which was rejected on December 31, 2012, for non-compliance with the amended regulations. The Samiti requested reconsideration under the unamended regulations on January 23, 2013, which was also rejected on March 5, 2013.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| September 23, 2011 | State Government issues Letter of Intent to Biyani Shikshan Samiti. |
| September 24, 2011 | Biyani Shikshan Samiti applies to the Government of India to establish a dental college. |
| October 7, 2011 | Union of India identifies deficiencies in Biyani Shikshan Samiti’s proposal. |
| January 6, 2012 | Union of India returns Biyani Shikshan Samiti’s application due to unrectified deficiencies. |
| January 11, 2012 | Government of Rajasthan issues Essentiality Certificate to Biyani Shikshan Samiti. |
| February 17, 2012 | Union of India declines to reconsider Biyani Shikshan Samiti’s application. |
| May 21, 2012 | Dental Council of India issues notification amending Regulation 6(2)(h). |
| September 28, 2012 | Biyani Shikshan Samiti submits a fresh application for the academic year 2013-2014. |
| December 31, 2012 | Union of India rejects Biyani Shikshan Samiti’s application for non-compliance with amended regulations. |
| January 23, 2013 | Biyani Shikshan Samiti requests reconsideration under unamended regulations. |
| March 5, 2013 | Union of India rejects Biyani Shikshan Samiti’s request for reconsideration. |
| November 3, 2016 | Single Judge of the High Court dismisses Biyani Shikshan Samiti’s writ petition. |
| March 1, 2017 | Biyani Shikshan Samiti files a writ petition before the Division Bench of the High Court. |
| April 24, 2018 | Division Bench of the High Court allows Biyani Shikshan Samiti’s writ petition, striking down the amended notification. |
| April 12, 2022 | Supreme Court allows the appeal of the Dental Council of India. |
Course of Proceedings
Biyani Shikshan Samiti first challenged the rejection of its application before a single judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15090 of 2016. The Samiti sought a direction to reconsider its application from September 24, 2011, for the establishment of a new dental college for the academic session 2017-2018. The single judge dismissed the writ petition on November 3, 2016, finding no merit in the case. Subsequently, the Samiti filed a writ petition before the Division Bench, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3260 of 2017, challenging the amended notification and seeking reconsideration of its application from September 28, 2012, for the academic session 2018-2019 and subsequent sessions. The Division Bench allowed the writ petition on April 24, 2018, striking down the amended notification and directing the respondent No. 2 to reconsider the Samiti’s case.
Legal Framework
The case revolves around the interpretation of the Dentists Act, 1948, and the regulations framed under it.
✓ Section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1948, mandates the Central Government to constitute the Dental Council of India.
✓ Section 10 deals with the recognition of dental qualifications.
✓ Section 10A restricts the establishment of new dental colleges, new courses of study, or increases in admission capacity without prior permission from the Central Government. Sub-section (7) of Section 10A outlines factors to be considered while granting permission, including minimum standards of education, adequate resources, necessary facilities, hospital facilities, training programs, manpower requirements, and any other prescribed factors.
✓ Section 20 empowers the Council to make regulations with the approval of the Central Government. Specifically, Section 20(2)(fb) allows the Council to prescribe any other factors under Section 10A(7)(g).
The Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or Higher Course of Studies or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006, particularly Regulation 6(2)(h), was amended by the impugned notification.
Prior to the amendment, Regulation 6(2)(h) allowed an applicant to establish a dental college if:
(h)the applicant owns and manages a General Hospital of not less than 100 beds…or the proposed dental college is located in the proximity of a Government Medical College or a Medical College recognized by the Medical Council of India…or where no Medical College is available in the proximity of the proposed dental college, the proposed dental college gets itself tied up at least for 5 years with a Government General Hospital having a provision of at least 100 beds and located within a radius of 10 K.M. of the proposed dental college…
The amended Regulation 6(2)(h) mandated:
(h) the applicant shall attach its proposed dental college with a Government/Private Medical College approved/recognised by the Medical Council of India which is located at the distance of 10 kms. by road from the proposed dental college…
This amendment removed the option of having a general hospital or a tie-up with a government hospital and made it mandatory to be attached to a medical college.
Arguments
Arguments by the Dental Council of India (Appellant):
- The Dental Council of India is an expert statutory body empowered to make regulations for dental education, including prescribing minimum standards.
- The amendment to Regulation 6(2)(h) was necessary to provide better teaching facilities and improve educational standards.
- The High Court erred in holding that the Council lacked the power to make delegated legislation.
- The amended regulation is not violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Arguments by the Union of India (Respondent No. 2):
- The Union of India supported the submissions made by the Dental Council of India.
- The High Court should not have interfered with the amended notification, as the regulations were made by an expert body in accordance with the Dentists Act, 1948.
Arguments by Biyani Shikshan Samiti (Respondent No. 1):
- The High Court rightly quashed the amended notification.
- The amended notification has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
- There is a huge shortage of dentists in the country and the object of legislation should be to encourage the establishment of more dental colleges, not restrict them.
- There is no medical college within 100 km of the proposed dental college location.
- The amended notification violates the fundamental rights of students to take dental education and the right of the respondent to establish an educational institution under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Dental Council of India (Appellant) |
✓ Expert body with power to regulate dental education. ✓ Amendment necessary for better teaching and standards. ✓ High Court erred in questioning delegated legislation. ✓ Regulation does not violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). |
| Union of India (Respondent No. 2) |
✓ Supported the Dental Council’s submissions. ✓ High Court should not interfere with expert body’s regulations. |
| Biyani Shikshan Samiti (Respondent No. 1) |
✓ High Court correctly quashed the notification. ✓ No nexus between the notification and the object. ✓ Legislation should encourage more dental colleges. ✓ No medical college nearby. ✓ Violates fundamental rights of students and institutions. |
Innovativeness of the argument: Biyani Shikshan Samiti argued that the amendment was counterproductive to the goal of increasing the number of dentists in the country, highlighting a potential unintended consequence of the regulation.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the amended Regulation 6(2)(h) of the Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or Higher Course of Studies or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006, is inconsistent with the provisions of the Dentists Act, 1948.
- Whether the amended Regulation 6(2)(h) is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the amended Regulation 6(2)(h) is inconsistent with the Dentists Act, 1948. | No | The Court held that the Council is empowered under Section 10A(7)(g) and Section 20(2)(fb) of the Dentists Act, 1948, to prescribe additional factors, including the requirement for dental colleges to be attached to medical colleges. |
| Whether the amended Regulation 6(2)(h) is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. | No | The Court found that the classification between dental colleges established before and after the amendment is valid and has a nexus with the object of maintaining educational standards. It also held that the regulation is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(1)(g) to ensure proper academic standards. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
Cases
| Case Name | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Dental Council of India vs. Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust and Another [ (2001) 5 SCC 486 ] | Supreme Court of India | The Court relied on this case to support the view that High Courts should not interfere with regulations made by expert bodies. |
| Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. and others vs. Union of India and others [ (1985) 1 SCC 641 ] | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to explain the grounds on which subordinate legislation can be challenged, emphasizing that it must be manifestly arbitrary to be struck down. |
| Khoday Distilleries Ltd. and others vs. State of Karnataka and others [ (1996) 10 SCC 304 ] | Supreme Court of India | This case was used to reinforce the principle that delegated legislation must be manifestly arbitrary to be struck down under Article 14. |
| State of T.N. and another vs. P. Krishnamurthy and others [ (2006) 4 SCC 517 ] | Supreme Court of India | The Court used this case to outline the grounds on which subordinate legislation can be challenged, including lack of legislative competence, violation of fundamental rights, and manifest arbitrariness. |
| Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association. vs. Union of India and another [ (1989) 4 SCC 187 ] | Supreme Court of India | This case was considered as one of the authorities to outline the grounds on which subordinate legislation can be challenged. |
| Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limited and another vs. Union of India and others [ (1990) 3 SCC 223 ] | Supreme Court of India | This case was considered as one of the authorities to outline the grounds on which subordinate legislation can be challenged. |
| St. Johns Teachers Training Institute vs. Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education and another [ (2003) 3 SCC 321 ] | Supreme Court of India | This case was considered as one of the authorities to outline the grounds on which subordinate legislation can be challenged. |
| Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others [ (1981) 2 SCC 722 ] | Supreme Court of India | This case was considered as one of the authorities to outline the grounds on which subordinate legislation can be challenged. |
| Union of India and another vs. Cynamide India Ltd. and another [ (1987) 2 SCC 720 ] | Supreme Court of India | This case was considered as one of the authorities to outline the grounds on which subordinate legislation can be challenged. |
| State of Haryana vs. Ram Kishan and others [ (1988) 3 SCC 416 ] | Supreme Court of India | This case was considered as one of the authorities to outline the grounds on which subordinate legislation can be challenged. |
| Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others [ (1984) 4 SCC 27 ] | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to emphasize that courts should not substitute their opinion for that of the legislature or its delegate on policy matters. |
| All India Council for Technical Education vs. Surinder Kumar Dhawan and others [ (2009) 11 SCC 726 ] | Supreme Court of India | The Court relied on this case to highlight that courts should not interfere in academic matters involving standards and quality of technical education. |
| T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others vs. State of Karnataka and others [ (2002) 8 SCC 481 ] | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to clarify that while the right to establish educational institutions can be regulated, such measures must ensure proper academic standards and infrastructure. |
Legal Provisions
| Provision | Statute | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Section 3 | Dentists Act, 1948 | To establish the constitution of the Dental Council of India. |
| Section 10 | Dentists Act, 1948 | To explain the recognition of dental qualifications. |
| Section 10A | Dentists Act, 1948 | To explain the restrictions on establishing new dental colleges and the factors to be considered. |
| Section 20 | Dentists Act, 1948 | To explain the power of the Council to make regulations. |
| Article 14 | Constitution of India | To examine whether the amended regulation is discriminatory. |
| Article 19(1)(g) | Constitution of India | To examine whether the amended regulation violates the right to practice any profession. |
| Authority | How the Court Viewed It |
|---|---|
| Dental Council of India vs. Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust and Another [ (2001) 5 SCC 486 ] | Followed |
| Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. and others vs. Union of India and others [ (1985) 1 SCC 641 ] | Followed |
| Khoday Distilleries Ltd. and others vs. State of Karnataka and others [ (1996) 10 SCC 304 ] | Followed |
| State of T.N. and another vs. P. Krishnamurthy and others [ (2006) 4 SCC 517 ] | Followed |
| Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association. vs. Union of India and another [ (1989) 4 SCC 187 ] | Considered |
| Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limited and another vs. Union of India and others [ (1990) 3 SCC 223 ] | Considered |
| St. Johns Teachers Training Institute vs. Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education and another [ (2003) 3 SCC 321 ] | Considered |
| Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others [ (1981) 2 SCC 722 ] | Considered |
| Union of India and another vs. Cynamide India Ltd. and another [ (1987) 2 SCC 720 ] | Considered |
| State of Haryana vs. Ram Kishan and others [ (1988) 3 SCC 416 ] | Considered |
| Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others [ (1984) 4 SCC 27 ] | Followed |
| All India Council for Technical Education vs. Surinder Kumar Dhawan and others [ (2009) 11 SCC 726 ] | Followed |
| T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others vs. State of Karnataka and others [ (2002) 8 SCC 481 ] | Distinguished |
| Section 3, Dentists Act, 1948 | Explained |
| Section 10, Dentists Act, 1948 | Explained |
| Section 10A, Dentists Act, 1948 | Explained |
| Section 20, Dentists Act, 1948 | Explained |
| Article 14, Constitution of India | Explained |
| Article 19(1)(g), Constitution of India | Explained |
Judgment
| Submission | How the Court Treated It |
|---|---|
| The Dental Council of India’s argument that the amendment was necessary for better teaching and standards. | Accepted |
| The Union of India’s support for the Dental Council’s submissions. | Accepted |
| Biyani Shikshan Samiti’s argument that the amendment lacked nexus with the object and violated fundamental rights. | Rejected |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
✓ The Supreme Court relied on Dental Council of India vs. Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust and Another [ (2001) 5 SCC 486 ]* to emphasize that High Courts should not interfere with regulations made by expert bodies, underscoring the deference due to expert opinions.
✓ The Court followed Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. and others vs. Union of India and others [ (1985) 1 SCC 641 ]* to explain that subordinate legislation can only be challenged if it is manifestly arbitrary, thereby setting a high bar for judicial intervention.
✓ The Court also followed Khoday Distilleries Ltd. and others vs. State of Karnataka and others [ (1996) 10 SCC 304 ]* to reinforce that delegated legislation must be manifestly arbitrary to be struck down under Article 14, highlighting the need for clear and egregious violations.
✓ State of T.N. and another vs. P. Krishnamurthy and others [ (2006) 4 SCC 517 ]* was used to outline the grounds for challenging subordinate legislation, including lack of legislative competence, violation of fundamental rights, and manifest arbitrariness, providing a comprehensive framework for review.
✓ The Court considered Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association. vs. Union of India and another [ (1989) 4 SCC 187 ]*, Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limited and another vs. Union of India and others [ (1990) 3 SCC 223 ]*, St. Johns Teachers Training Institute vs. Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education and another [ (2003) 3 SCC 321 ]*, Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others [ (1981) 2 SCC 722 ]*, Union of India and another vs. Cynamide India Ltd. and another [ (1987) 2 SCC 720 ]* and State of Haryana vs. Ram Kishan and others [ (1988) 3 SCC 416 ]* as authorities to outline the grounds on which subordinate legislation can be challenged.
✓ The Supreme Court followed Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others [ (1984) 4 SCC 27 ]* to emphasize that courts should not substitute their opinion for that of the legislature or its delegate on policy matters, emphasizing the importance of respecting the expertise of regulatory bodies.
✓ The Court relied on All India Council for Technical Education vs. Surinder Kumar Dhawan and others [ (2009) 11 SCC 726 ]* to highlight that courts should not interfere in academic matters involving standards and quality of technical education, reinforcing the principle of judicial restraint in specialized domains.
✓ The Court distinguished T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others vs. State of Karnataka and others [ (2002) 8 SCC 481 ]*, clarifying that while the right to establish educational institutions can be regulated, such measures must ensure proper academic standards and infrastructure, thereby supporting the validity of the DCI’s regulations.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to maintain and improve the standards of dental education. The Court emphasized the importance of expert bodies like the Dental Council of India in setting educational standards and the need for judicial restraint in interfering with their decisions. The Court was convinced that the amended regulation was aimed at ensuring better training facilities for dental students by mandating affiliations with medical colleges, which have the necessary infrastructure and expertise.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Maintenance of educational standards | 40% |
| Deference to expert bodies | 30% |
| Need for better training facilities | 20% |
| Judicial restraint | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning:
Final Order
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Dental Council of India, thereby setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. The Court upheld the validity of the amended Regulation 6(2)(h) of the Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or Higher Course of Studies or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006. The Court held that the Dental Council of India has the power to make such regulations, and the amendment is not violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Implications
The Supreme Court’s judgment has significant implications for the establishment of new dental colleges in India.
- Mandatory Affiliation: New dental colleges must now be affiliated with existing medical colleges, ensuring better infrastructure and training.
- Regulatory Power: The judgment reinforces the regulatory powers of the Dental Council of India in setting educational standards.
- Judicial Restraint: The decision emphasizes the need for judicial restraint in interfering with the decisions of expert bodies.
- Educational Standards: The focus is on maintaining and improving the standards of dental education.
Impact: This decision will likely lead to a more structured and standardized approach to dental education, potentially improving the quality of dental professionals in the country. However, it might also pose challenges for institutions seeking to establish new dental colleges, especially in areas where medical colleges are not readily available.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Dental Council of India vs. Biyani Shikshan Samiti (2022) is a landmark decision that reaffirms the authority of expert regulatory bodies in setting educational standards. The Court upheld the Dental Council of India’s amended regulations mandating that new dental colleges must be affiliated with medical colleges, emphasizing the need for better infrastructure and training facilities. This judgment underscores the importance of maintaining high educational standards in dental education and the need for judicial restraint when reviewing expert bodies’ decisions. The decision will have a lasting impact on the way dental colleges are established and regulated in India, ensuring a more structured and standardized approach to dental education.