Surprised: Supreme Court pulls up MP High Court for hearing case despite SC stay

The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed surprise over the Madhya Pradesh High Court continuing to hear a case concerning alleged irregularities in the recognition and admissions of paramedical colleges, despite the apex court staying the High Court’s earlier order in the same matter [Registrar, M. P. Paramedical Council Vs. Law Students Association].

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justice Vinod K Chandran was hearing an appeal filed by the Madhya Pradesh Paramedical Council against a July 16 order passed by the High Court on a petition by the Law Students Association.

The High Court had halted recognition and admissions in several paramedical institutions, and directed the university to conduct inspections.

The controversy stemmed from allegations that the Council granted retrospective recognition to numerous paramedical colleges for 2023–24 and 2024–25, permitting admissions before formal recognition.

This was flagged after a wider “nursing college scam” probe, in which hundreds of nursing institutions were found unfit; yet paramedical colleges continued to function from the same premises.

In an earlier round of the case, the Supreme Court on August 1 stayed the High Court’s order, allowing admissions to continue and questioning how law students could file such a petition without direct involvement.

During the hearing today, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Council, said the High Court had disregarded the Supreme Court’s stay and continued to pass fresh orders in the same matter. He argued that the proceedings were being driven by petitioners with no real stake and that such conduct disrespected the authority of the apex court.

"Your lordships stayed the main order by the high court still proceeds. It is passing fresh orders. The impugned order today is a new order in the same matter proceeding further and further. At the instance of these law students. They have no concern. This is disrespect to the honour of this Court. This is not how the high court should function," argued Rohatgi.

Rohatgi said the High Court had even recorded in its order that the Supreme Court had granted a stay, yet proceeded to hear the matter.

"They have recorded in the order that the Supreme Court has granted a stay. But they say “no harm in proceeding” and proceed. I am shocked. This is not the way...I am at a loss of words."

The Court recorded that it was troubled by the High Court’s approach. It said this was not in keeping with the constitutional arrangement that governs the functioning of superior courts.

“We are surprised at the manner in which the High Court has proceeded to pass the impugned order. Even after noticing that this Court is seized of the matter, and has stayed the order of the High Court in the said proceedings, the High Court has proceeded further to hear the matter,” the Court remarked.

The Bench underscored that while the High Courts are not subordinate to the Supreme Court administratively, judicial propriety requires restraint when the apex court is already examining the matter and has stayed an earlier order.

“Both the High Courts and the Supreme Court are organs of the Constitution. However, as a matter of judicial propriety it is expected of the High Court that when this Court is seized of a matter and has stayed an earlier order of the High Court, it should not have proceeded with the hearing of the matter,” it noted in the order.

The Court ultimately ordered a stay on the High Court order as well as further proceedings in the matter. When the respondent sought time to file a counter affidavit, the Chief Justice asked how such conduct of the High Court could be supported.

[Read Live Coverage]