Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The bench comprising of Madan B. Lokur and N.V. Ramana JJ came down heavily on Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) for venturing adventurist litigation has directed the Medical Council of India to restrain it from increasing the intake of students from 100 students to 150 students for the course for the academic year 2016-17 and 2017-2018.

The Court while imposing costs of Rs. 5 crores on KIMS for playing with the future of its students said that there is something rotten in the state of medical colleges unless the concerned Ministries in the Government of India take a far more proactive role in ensuring that medical colleges have all the necessary facilities. The Court also quoted that “Quality in medical education is equally important, if not more, than quantity.”

The Court further observed that the High Court should have been more circumspect in passing interim orders directing the admission of students by its order directing Central Government to grant provisional permission to KIMS to conduct the course for the additional 50 students in the academic year 2015-16. The Supreme Court quashing the order of High Court said that under no circumstance High Court should examine the report as an appellate body. In the present case there was no ground made out at law for setting aside the report of the Inspection Team.

While disposing off the appeal, the Court issued certain directions for KIMS on observation that for the fault of the KIMS, students should not suffer but KIMS should not get away Scot Free.

  • The admission granted to the 50 students pursuant to the order of the High Court and the provisional permission granted by the Central Government shall not be disturbed.
  • The MCI or the Central Government will proceed to take action against KIMS under Clause 8(3) of the Medical Council of India Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 (as amended).

Observing that there is no fixed procedure prepared by the MCI for conducting an inspection, the Court further directed MCI and Central Government as follows:

  • MCI should in consultation with the Central Government prepare a Standard Operating Procedure for conducting an inspection.
  • To introduce transparency and accountability in the medical colleges, the report of the Inspection Team should be put up on the website of the concerned medical college as also on the website of the MCI. [Medical Council of India vs Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) 2016 SCC OnLine SC 439, decided on 06-5-2016]
Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Clearing the confusion over holding the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) in pursuance of Notifications dated 21.12.2010 issued by the Medical Council of India and the Dental Council of India, the Court held that NEET should be held and notwithstanding any order passed by any Court earlier with regard to not holding NEET, this order shall operate.

It was contended that in view of the judgment passed in Christian Medical College, Vellore Vs. Union of India, (2014) 2 SCC 305, it would not be proper to hold NEET and this order should not affect pending matters. The 3 judge bench of A.R. Dave, Shiva Kirti Singh and Adarsh K. Goel, JJ rejected the said contention and said that the said judgment has already been recalled in Medical Council of India v. Christian Medical College, Vellore, (2016) 4 SCC 342 and therefore, the Notifications dated 21.12.2010 are in operation as on today. [Sankalp Charitable Trust v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 366decided on 28.04.2016]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The Court allowed the petition filed by Centre & Medical Council of India (MCI) seeking review of its judgement scrapping the single common entrance test for medical courses. NEET is conducted for admission in MBBS, BDS and postgraduate courses in all medical colleges. The 3-judge bench headed by the then CJI Altamas Kabir along with A.R. Dave and Vikramajit Sen, JJ had scrapped the common entrance test in Christian Medical College, Vellore v. Union of India, (2013) 14 SCC 539. On 21st January, 2016, it was ordered that the review petition be heard by a 5-judge bench which led to the constitution of a bench comprising of A.R. Dave, Dr. A.K. Sikri, R.K. Agrawal, Adarsh K. Goel and R. Banumathi.
The Court was of the opinion that the aforesaid judgment needed reconsideration as the majority view had not taken into consideration some binding precedents and more particularly, there was no discussion among the members of the Bench before pronouncement of the judgment. [Medical Council of India v. Christian Medical College Vellore, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 305, decided on 11.04.2016]

High Courts

Karnataka High Court: Showing surprise on noticing how admissions in Kempegowda Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) against management quota are reduced to business transactions, the High Court directed Medical Council of India and the Central Government to take corrective measures to make the admission process transparent at all stages including applying for admission against management quota with the help of technology.


In the present case, four students applied for admission in KIMS against management quota for I year MBBS course for the academic year 2014-2015 along with fees and donations amounting to approximately eighty lakhs. The father of one of the student was also made to sign an undertaking that he understands that the admission given to his son was only provisional and subject to approval by RGUHS/MCI and in excess of the stipulated management seats. In case of non approval, the management and the college will not be responsible. Later, three of the students were discharged from the college on the ground that their admission to the course was in excess of the admission capacity fixed for the college. The college discharged them only after the expiry of the last date of taking admission in colleges for that academic year.

The Court found the conduct of the college of taking such an undertaking from the parents of the student along with huge amounts of donation disturbing and ordered the MCI and Central Government to take serious note of the matter and take measures to ensure transparency in the admission process even against management quota, especially by making it more technology based. The High Court also found the college’s act of not discharging the students with illegal admission and not refunding the amount received from them well before the last date for admission in colleges for that academic year as grossly irresponsible and as it resulted in them losing one academic year and unnecessary litigation causing unimaginable mental agony to them the High Court ordered the college to pay Rs. 1 crore each to all the three students as compensation along with refund of the amount paid by them to the college for the admission. Girish Rithvik K.R. v. Union of India,  2015 SCC OnLine Kar 2305decided on 08.07.2015

 

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: In one of the most sought cases , the Court, giving the ruling in favour of the unaided private schools regarding the autonomy in the nursery admissions, held  that private unaided recognized school managements have a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to maximum autonomy in the day-to-day administration including the right to admit students.The court presided by Justice Manmohan said that the concept of autonomy has also been recognized and conferred upon schools by the Delhi School Education(DSE) Act and Rules, 1973 and that Rule 145 of DSE Rules, 1973 states that the head of every recognised unaided school shall regulate admissions in its school.

The Lieutenant Governor of Delhi has directed that seventy five per cent nursery students, i.e., after excluding twenty five per cent seats reserved for economically weaker section, shall be admitted on the following basis:-

1) 70 marks for neighbourhood ;

2) 20 marks for siblings;

3) 5 marks for parent /alumni; and

4) 5 marks for inter-state transfers.

Sunil Gupta with Vedanta Varma, the counsel for the petitioner, argued that the executive order was arbitrary and against public interest and also contrary to the principles of autonomy laid down in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others vs.State of Karnataka. He further added that by a blind adherence to the neighbourhood rule and that too, for an exaggerated quantum of seventy points, the respondent in one stroke had destroyed the reasonableness and collective wisdom of all previous orders. 

P.P. Malhotra, who argued from respondant side, contended that under Section 3 and 45 of DSE Act, 1973, the administrator had wide powers to administer and regulate the education system but his argument was not accepted by the court. The court further added that children below six years have a fundamental right to education and health as also a right to choose a school under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution in which they wish to study. Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 prescribes duty upon the State to ensure availability of neighbourhood schools. It nowhere stipulates that children would have to take admission only in a neighbourhood school or that children cannot take admissions in schools situated beyond their neighbourhood. The court said that the power to choose  a school primarily vests in the parents and not in the administration.(Forum for Promotion of Quality Education for All vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 6650decided on 28.11.2014)