Medical colleges cannot start new course without permission from Central government: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday held that under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, no medical college can open a new course, or postgraduate course, or course of study or training without the prior approval of the Central government [Central Council for Indian Medicine v. Karnataka Ayurveda Medical College]..A Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai also held that before the permission of the Central government is sought by the medical college, the procedure under Section 13A of the Act regarding the permission for establishment of new college, new course of study etc has to be complied with."The statutory scheme is thus clear that no medical college can open a new or higher course of study or training, including a postgraduate course, except with the previous permission of the Central Government. Prior to such a permission being granted, the procedure as prescribed under Section 13A has to be followed," the Court held..In this case, the respondent had sought permission from the State government, the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and the appellant to start a post-graduate (PG) course in the year 2014-15.Permission was granted to the respondent by the appellant to start five new post-graduate ayurvedic disciplines with five seats each under the Indian Medicine Central Council (Post-Graduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations of 2012. These regulations were superseded by the 2016 Regulations. As per 2016 Regulations, it was a requirement that an institution should possess a Central Research Laboratory and an Animal House.In the year 2018, the Central government directed the appellant to conduct inspections in the medical college. Certain deficiencies were pointed out and notice was issued to the respondent to reply. Thereafter, the Central government rejected the permission of the medical college to admit students for the year 2018-19 on the ground of non-availability of Central Research Laboratory and Animal House. However, permission was granted to the respondent to induct 50 students to the undergraduate (BAMS) course for 2018-19. The permission was granted subject to fulfillment of deficiencies that were pointed out earlier and the students were admitted. In the interregnum, the Central government granted permission to the college to admit students for the post-graduate course for the academic year 2019-20..As for the 2018-19 academic year, the respondent approached the Karnataka High Court. The writ petition was allowed relying on the previous cases of the Karnataka High Court Division Bench stating that, "if the permission was granted for the subsequent years, the benefit should enure in respect of the previous year also". The appellant approached the Division Bench in appeal, which was dismissed. Then, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. .Before deciding the questions of law in this case regarding the requirement of permission and procedure under Section 13A of the Act, the Supreme Court noted that Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati appearing for the appellant had stated that the students who were admitted in 2018-19 will not be disturbed. On the question of law, the apex court noted that Section 13A, sub-section (1) states that no medical college can start a new course/training/post-graduate course, admit increased number of students etc without the permission of the Central Government. Further, the apex court held that sub-section (6) of Section 13A is a 'deeming provision' which states that, "If no order is communicated by the Central Government to the person or medical college submitting the scheme, within a period of one year from the date of submission of the scheme, such a scheme shall be deemed to have been approved by the Central Government in the form in which it was submitted. It further provides that the permission of the Central Government required under subsection (1) of Section 13A of the said Act shall also be deemed to have been granted," the apex court observed..The Court noted that there shall be prescribed minimum standards of medical education in India "for granting recognised medical qualifications by Universities, Boards or medical institutions" which shall be decided by the Central Council under Section 22 of the Act. Furthermore, Section 36(1)(j) of the Act gives power to the Central Council to make rules and regulations regarding the "the standards of staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities for education in Indian medicine". .Therefore, the top court held that, "it could thus clearly be seen that Section 13A read with Sections 22 and 36(1)(j) of the said Act provides a complete scheme for establishment of medical college, opening a new or higher course of study or training, including a postgraduate course of study or training, and also increasing the admission capacity.".The Court observed that if a person has established a medical college prior to the insertion of Section 13A in the Act, then, it is provided in the Act by the legislature that such college should seek permission from the Central government within 3 years. .Regarding the medical colleges for Ayurveda, the Court further clarified that according to the 2016 Regulations, "in order to be eligible for grant of permission for undertaking admissions in a particular academic session, the institution must fulfill the requirements of minimum standard as on 31st December of the earlier year"..The Supreme Court, therefore, rejected the reasoning adopted by the Karnataka High Court regarding the permission granted for subsequent years as automatically fulfilling the criteria of previous years. "It could thus be seen that the finding that the permission granted for a subsequent academic year would also enure to the benefit of earlier academic year though the said institution was not fulfilling the criteria of minimum standard, is totally erroneous," the judgment said..The Supreme Court also took exception to the High Court not applying the apex court's decision in Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal & Anr v. Union Of India, which was delivered regarding the similar point of law. "We are at pains to say that though the judgment in the case of Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal (supra) was specifically relied on by the appellant herein, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka have chosen to rely on the earlier judgments of the Division Bench of the same High Court rather than a judgment of this Court", the Court said..The Court, therefore, allowed the appeals and quashed the judgment of the Karnataka High Court..Additional Solicitor General Madhavi Divan appeared for the Union of India. Advocate Chinmay Deshpande appeared for the respondent. .[Read Judgment]