LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the State government can be directed to take over the administration of a medical college or if the State can retain administrative oversight through a society.
CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation/Education Law
Case Name: Dr. Ashok Sinha vs. The State of Tripura & Ors.
Judgment Date: July 19, 2019
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: July 19, 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 704
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Indira Banerjee, J
Can a High Court direct a State government to take over the administration of a medical college, or can the State choose to oversee the college through a society? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning the Tripura Medical College. The Court examined whether the State government’s decision to manage the college through a society, rather than directly as a government institution, was a matter of policy that should not be interfered with by the judiciary. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Indira Banerjee.
Case Background
The case originated from a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Dr. Ashok Sinha concerning the administration of the Tripura Medical College. Initially, the college was managed by an NGO, “Global Educational Net,” starting from 2004. However, due to infrastructural deficiencies, the college faced issues with permissions, and the NGO eventually expressed its inability to continue managing the college in April 2009. To protect the interests of the students, the State government formed a society on May 22, 2009, chaired by the Principal Secretary in the Health and Family Welfare Department, to oversee the college’s affairs.
In a previous PIL, the High Court of Tripura had directed the State government to make an administrative decision within three months regarding the college’s management. The High Court had suggested that either the managing committee should be reconstituted to ensure actual administrative control lies with the Society, or the State should retain control with all consequences. Following this, the State reconstituted the Society for the Tripura Medical College, which has its own recruitment rules and pay structure.
Dissatisfied with the changes, Dr. Sinha filed a fresh writ petition, arguing that the college’s admission procedure and fees should be aligned with other government medical colleges in the North East. This writ petition was dismissed by the High Court, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| October 7, 2004 | Agreement between State Government and “Global Educational Net” for managing Tripura Medical College. |
| 2006-2007 | Tripura Medical College gets permission to admit first batch of 100 students. |
| 2008-2009 | Permission for admission not granted due to deficiency in infrastructure. |
| April 2009 | “Global Educational Net” expresses inability to manage the college. |
| May 22, 2009 | State government constitutes a society to manage the college. |
| April 30, 2015 | High Court directs State government to take administrative decision regarding the college’s management. |
| June 24, 2016 | High Court dismisses fresh writ petition challenging the college’s admission procedure and fees. |
| July 19, 2019 | Supreme Court dismisses appeal, upholding the State’s policy decision. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Tripura, in response to the initial PIL, directed the State government to decide whether to reconstitute the managing committee of the Tripura Medical College to place administrative control in the hands of the Society or to retain control with all its implications. The State government then reconstituted the Society.
Subsequently, the High Court dismissed the fresh writ petition filed by the appellant, which challenged the admission procedure and fees of the college. The High Court did not find merit in the argument that the college should be treated at par with other government medical colleges in the North East. This dismissal led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court considered the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly in matters of policy decisions made by the State government. The Court noted that the High Court had correctly refrained from issuing a mandamus to the State government to run the Tripura Medical College as a government institution, as such a direction would fall within the realm of policy.
The Court also examined the nature of societies formed or promoted by the government, clarifying that they are not necessarily government undertakings. The Court recognized that the State government’s objective was to ensure transparent management of the medical college to provide medical education and facilities to the people of Tripura.
Arguments
The appellant, Dr. Ashok Sinha, argued that despite the High Court’s earlier directions, the situation at Tripura Medical College had not improved. The appellant contended that the admission procedures and fees charged by the college should be equivalent to those of other government medical colleges in the North East.
The respondents, including the Society and the Principal of the Tripura Medical College, submitted that the Society was reconstituted as per the High Court’s directions. They clarified that while there are government nominees, the Society also includes non-governmental members. They emphasized that the government’s representation ensures the proper channeling of finances. The respondents also stated that the college operates on a self-sustaining model, relying on revenue from tuition fees and medical services. They also mentioned that the government has taken a policy decision not to transform the college into a State-run medical college and that the government funds are treated as interest-free loans.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Admission procedures and fees should be at par with other government medical colleges in the North East. |
✓ The college is not being run as per the earlier directions of the High Court. ✓ The fees charged are excessive and not in line with government standards. |
Appellant |
| The State’s decision to manage the college through a society is a valid policy decision. |
✓ The Society was reconstituted as per the High Court’s directions. ✓ The Society includes both government and non-government members. ✓ The college operates on a self-sustaining model. ✓ Government funds are treated as interest-free loans, not grants. ✓ The government has a policy decision not to transform the college into a State-run medical college. |
Respondents |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the Court was:
- Whether the High Court was correct in not directing the State government to take over the running of the Tripura Medical College as a government institution.
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 High Court was correct in not directing the State government to take over the running of the Tripura Medical College as a government institution. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court was correct in not issuing such a direction. The Court stated that it is a matter of policy for the State government to determine how it retains administrative oversight of the college. The Court also noted that the State government’s decision to constitute a society for managing the college is a valid policy choice and does not warrant judicial interference. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any cases or books in its judgment. However, the Court did consider the earlier order of the High Court of Tripura, which had directed the State government to take an administrative decision regarding the management of the Tripura Medical College.
| Authority | How it was used by the Court | Court |
|---|---|---|
| Order of the High Court of Tripura dated 30 April 2015 | The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had correctly refrained from issuing a mandamus to the State government to run the Tripura Medical College as a government institution, as such a direction would fall within the realm of policy. | High Court of Tripura |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| The college should be run as a government institution with fees and procedures at par with other government medical colleges. | The Court rejected this submission, stating that it is a matter of policy for the State government to decide how to manage the college. The Court held that the government’s decision to manage the college through a society is a valid policy choice. |
The Supreme Court upheld the State government’s policy decision to manage the Tripura Medical College through a society. The Court emphasized that it is not within the purview of the judiciary to interfere with policy decisions made by the government, especially when they pertain to the allocation of resources and the manner of administration.
The Court stated that the grievance regarding the fees charged by the college could be addressed by the regulatory committee constituted in the State, if any student were to make a grievance.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle of judicial restraint in matters of policy. The Court recognized that the State government is best positioned to make decisions regarding the administration of educational institutions, considering the availability of resources and the specific needs of the region. The Court also emphasized that the State government’s decision to manage the college through a society was a valid policy choice, and the judiciary should not interfere with such decisions unless they are manifestly arbitrary or illegal.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Policy decision of the State Government | 60% |
| Judicial restraint in policy matters | 40% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment, “In our view, it is a matter of policy for the State government to determine the manner in which it should retain administrative oversight so as to ensure that its interest in the proper functioning of the Tripura Medical College is duly observed.”
The Court further stated, “Essentially, the appellant raised an issue of policy and it would not have been appropriate or proper for the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution either to direct the State government to take over running of the Medical College as a government college or, for that matter, to hand it over entirely to the private sector.”
The Court also observed, “If the government has chosen a hybrid model in which a society has been constituted for the purpose of running the Tripura Medical College while, at the same time, allowing the government some voice in important policy decisions, this is not an arrangement which can be questioned in the exercise of judicial review.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ The Supreme Court upheld the State government’s policy decision to manage the Tripura Medical College through a society.
- ✓ The judiciary should not interfere with policy decisions made by the government unless they are manifestly arbitrary or illegal.
- ✓ Societies formed or promoted by the government are not necessarily government undertakings.
- ✓ Grievances regarding fees charged by the college can be addressed by the regulatory committee constituted in the State.
Directions
The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this case.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the State government has the authority to make policy decisions regarding the administration of educational institutions, and the judiciary should not interfere with such decisions unless they are manifestly arbitrary or illegal. This judgment reinforces the principle of judicial restraint in matters of policy and clarifies that societies formed by the government are not necessarily government undertakings. There is no change in the previous position of law.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s decision and upholding the State government’s policy to manage the Tripura Medical College through a society. The Court emphasized that such policy decisions are within the government’s purview and should not be subject to judicial interference unless they are proven to be arbitrary or illegal. The Court also noted that the issue of fees could be addressed by the regulatory committee.