Supreme Court Upholds University Autonomy in Medical College Affiliation: Maharishi Markandeshwar Medical College & Hospital vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (28 April 2017)

Case Background

Maharishi Markandeshwar Medical College and Hospital (Appellant No. 1) is a private medical college. It was established by Maharishi Markandeshwar University Trust (Appellant No. 3) as a part of Maharishi Markandeshwar University (Appellant No. 2). The University was established under the Maharishi Markandeshwar University (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2010. The University Trust had submitted a project report in 2008 to establish a multi-faculty University. The State Government issued a letter of intent in August 2008 for setting up a private University. An “Essentiality Certificate” was also issued, allowing the Trust to purchase land for a medical college. The University was established in 2010.

In 2012, the University requested an “Essentiality Certificate” to establish a new medical college. The State Government approved this. The Medical Council of India (MCI) granted permission in 2013 for the medical college with an annual intake of 150 seats. The State Government then issued a notification regarding admission procedures and fee structure for the college. The State Government sought clarification from the MCI, stating that the college needed affiliation from Himachal Pradesh University. The MCI clarified that the college was affiliated with Maharishi Markandeshwar University. The State Government insisted that the college must be affiliated with the Himachal Pradesh University.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the writ petition filed by the Appellants. The High Court held that the grant of affiliation was a precondition for granting recognition. It stated that the authority to grant affiliation was vested in the affiliating body. The High Court concluded that the affiliating body must exercise its discretion fairly and transparently. It also stated that the functions of the affiliating body were complementary to the recognition given by the Medical Council of India. The High Court also stated that the State Government could always exercise its power to affiliate a private educational medical institute to a particular University within the State. The High Court relied on the Himachal Pradesh University Act, 1970, stating that it was the parent statute under which all the Universities in the State must be constituted.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the following Acts:

• The Himachal Pradesh Private Medical Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006 (referred to as “2006 Act”).
• The Maharishi Markandeshwar University (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2010 (referred to as “2010 Act”).
• The Himachal Pradesh University Act, 1970 (referred to as “1970 Act”).
• The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

The 2006 Act regulates admissions and fee fixation in private medical institutions in Himachal Pradesh. The 2010 Act provides for the establishment, incorporation, and regulation of Maharishi Markandeshwar University. The 1970 Act governs the establishment of universities in Himachal Pradesh. The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 deals with the establishment of Medical Council of India.

Section 3(6) of the 2006 Act, as amended, states that if the State Government is satisfied that an institution affiliated to the Himachal Pradesh University or any other University has violated the Act, it may recommend withdrawal of recognition or affiliation. Section 3(6a) states that the Himachal Pradesh University has the exclusive power to affiliate private medical institutions in the state. Section 3(6b) mandates that private medical institutions must comply with the rules and directions of the State Government. Section 7 of the 2010 Act prohibits the University from affiliating or extending its privileges to any other institution. Section 7 of the 1970 Act states that no educational institution within the territorial limits of the University shall be admitted to any privilege of any other University.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The Appellants argued that the Maharishi Markandeshwar University, established under the 2010 Act, is an autonomous university. It has the authority to start its own campus and study centers.
• They contended that the medical college, being a constituent of the University, cannot be forced to take affiliation from another university. This would impinge upon the autonomy of the University.
• The Appellants stated that the 2006 Act deals with admission and fee fixation, while the 2010 Act is a special legislation for the establishment and regulation of the University. The 2010 Act should prevail in matters of affiliation of its constituent colleges.
• The Appellants argued that Section 7 of the 2010 Act does not prohibit the University from starting its own constituent college.
• They submitted that the amended Section 3(6a) of the 2006 Act undermines the special legislation under which the University was established.
• The Appellants clarified that they are not challenging other stipulations regarding admission and fee fixation in the 2006 Act.

Respondents’ (State) Arguments:

• The State argued that the essentiality certificate was given to the Appellants on the condition that they would be governed by the 2006 Act.
• They stated that the role of the affiliating body is to ensure the quality of education. The State Legislature is competent to enact a law on those matters.
• The State contended that the University has no power to grant affiliation to any college. Section 7 of the 2010 Act prohibits the University from affiliating any other institution.
• The State relied on Section 7 of the 1970 Act, stating it is the parent statute for all Universities in the State.
• The State argued that there is no conflict between the 2010 Act and the 2006 Act. The 2006 Act is a special legislation for admissions to medical courses.
• The State submitted that the medical college must take affiliation from Himachal Pradesh University as per the amended provisions of the 2006 Act.

Respondents’ (MCI and Union of India) Arguments:

• The Medical Council of India (MCI) and the Union of India supported the Appellants’ claim. They reiterated that the medical college, being a constituent of the University, did not need affiliation from Himachal Pradesh University.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues:

1. Whether the amended provisions of the 2006 Act, particularly Section 3(6a), impinge upon the autonomy of the Maharishi Markandeshwar University established under the 2010 Act?
2. Whether a constituent college of a private university can be compelled to seek affiliation from another university?
3. Whether the 2006 Act can override the special legislation under which the University has been established?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Modern Dental College and Research Centre and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, (2016) 7 SCC 353 – Supreme Court of India
• Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti, Sardarshahar and another Vs. Union of India and others, (2010) 12 SCC 609 – Supreme Court of India
• Bhartia Education Society and Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, (2011) 4 SCC 527 – Supreme Court of India
• State of Madhya Pradesh and Another Vs. Kumari Nivedita Jain and Others, (1981) 4 SCC 296 – Supreme Court of India
• H-Private Universities Management Association (H-PUMA) Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, writ petition No.7688 of 2013 decided on 23.07.2014 – High Court of Himachal Pradesh

Legal Provisions:

• Section 3(6), 3(6a), 3(6b) of the Himachal Pradesh Private Medical Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006.
• Section 2(j) of the Himachal Pradesh Private Medical Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006.
• Section 7 of the Maharishi Markandeshwar University (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2010.
• Section 2(b), 2(k), 2(t), 2(v), 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 35, 36, 37, 40, 42, 44 of the Maharishi Markandeshwar University (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2010.
• Section 7 of the Himachal Pradesh University Act, 1970.
• Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

Authority Analysis Table

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on Modern Dental College and Research Centre and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, (2016) 7 SCC 353* and other cases to distinguish between “recognition” and “affiliation.” The court emphasized that affiliation is a matter within the prerogative of the examining body. The court considered Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti, Sardarshahar and another Vs. Union of India and others, (2010) 12 SCC 609* and Bhartia Education Society and Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, (2011) 4 SCC 527* for the same purpose. The court considered State of Madhya Pradesh and Another Vs. Kumari Nivedita Jain and Others, (1981) 4 SCC 296* for the powers of the Medical Council of India. The court also referred to H-Private Universities Management Association (H-PUMA) Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others* for the extent of freedom under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The court examined the various provisions of the 2010 Act, including Section 7, to determine the powers and functions of the University. The court also considered Section 7 of the 1970 Act, but held that it did not apply to the present case. The court struck down Section 3(6a) of the 2006 Act as unconstitutional.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold the autonomy of private universities established under special state legislations. The court emphasized that forcing a constituent college of a university to seek affiliation from another university would undermine this autonomy. The Court also noted that the 2006 Act was primarily for regulating admissions and fees, and not for determining matters of affiliation. The court was also influenced by the fact that the Medical Council of India and the Union of India supported the appellants’ position. The court also considered the legislative intent of the 2010 Act, which was to establish an independent and autonomous university.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s decision was primarily based on legal considerations (70%), with a lesser emphasis on the factual aspects of the case (30%).

Logical Reasoning

Judgment Analysis

The Supreme Court analyzed the legislative framework of both the 2010 Act and the 2006 Act. The court emphasized that the 2010 Act establishes an independent and autonomous university. The court noted that the 2006 Act is primarily concerned with regulating admissions and fees in private medical colleges. The court stated that the 2006 Act cannot override the special legislation under which the Maharishi Markandeshwar University was established. The court also observed that Section 7 of the 2010 Act does not prohibit the University from establishing its own constituent colleges. The court found that the amended Section 3(6a) of the 2006 Act, which mandates affiliation with Himachal Pradesh University, was an unreasonable restriction on the autonomy of the private university. The court held that a constituent college of a private university cannot be forced to take affiliation from another university. The court also noted that the Medical Council of India and the Union of India supported the appellants’ position. The court concluded that the amended provisions of the 2006 Act, particularly Section 3(6a), were unconstitutional.

The court reasoned that the requirement for a constituent college to seek affiliation from another university was not only illogical but also impinged upon the autonomy of the University. The court also observed that the State Government’s insistence on affiliation from Himachal Pradesh University was not supported by the legislative framework of either the 2010 Act or the 1970 Act. The court noted that the Medical Council of India and the Union Government also supported the position of the Appellants, which further strengthened the case for upholding the autonomy of the private university.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Maharishi Markandeshwar Medical College & Hospital vs. State of Himachal Pradesh is a landmark decision that upholds the autonomy of private universities in India. The court ruled that a constituent college of a private university does not need to seek affiliation from another university. The court also held that a general legislation, such as the 2006 Act, cannot override the special legislation under which a private university is established. The judgment has significant implications for the regulation of private universities and their constituent colleges in India. The court’s decision has established that private universities, established under special state legislations, have the autonomy to establish their own constituent colleges without the need for affiliation from another university. The judgment has clarified the distinction between “recognition” and “affiliation” and has emphasized that affiliation is a matter within the prerogative of the examining body. The court’s decision has also reinforced the principle that special legislations prevail over general legislations. This judgment has provided a clear legal framework for the regulation of private universities and their constituent colleges in India.