A batch of writ petitions was filed under Art. 226 of the Indian Constitution to challenge Section 10(1)(i) of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 [“the Act of 2019”] and the Office Memorandum dated 3.2.2022 issued in exercise of the power conferred under Section 10(1)(i) of the Act of 2019. The aforementioned Office Memorandum issued by the National Medical Commission provided that the fee of the 50% seats in the private medical colleges and deemed universities should be at par with the fee in the government medical colleges of the State and Union Territory and for the remaining 50% seats, guidelines are laid down for fixation of fee and other charges to cover the cost incurred by the institution.
Petitioner Contentions
Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgement in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others v. State of Karnataka and others, (2002) 8 SCC 481, the petitioners contended that such a scheme cannot be considered to be reasonable as it cross-subsidizes the fee of the students admitted against “free seats” by those admitted against “payment seats”, as the cost incurred by the institution to impart medical education has to be borne by and large by the students admitted against the “payment seat”. Further, it takes away the right of the private medical institutions to determine their own fee, under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution.
It was further submitted that even if Section 10(1)(i) of the Act of 2019 is held to be constitutionally valid, the power was only to frame the guidelines and not to determine the fee. However, in the case on hand, the Office Memorandum decides the fee of the 50% seats to be at par with the fee in the government medical colleges and for the remaining 50% seats, fee is to be determined by the State Fee Regulatory Authority. Thus, the petitioners submitted that the Office Memorandum determining rigid fee structure was going beyond the power conferred under Section 10(1)(i) of the Act of 2019 to frame guidelines, which are non-binding in nature.
Court Observation
The bench held that Section 10(1)(i) of the Act of 2019 does not take away the power of the medical colleges or, for that, even the university, rather they are having liberty to establish and administer the institution in the manner provided under law and otherwise Section 10(1)(i) of the Act of 2019 does not control the fee structure, but gives power to the National Medical Commission to frame guidelines. The judges relied on the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others v. State of Karnataka and other, (2002) 8 SCC 481, in which the Apex Court observed that the Government can provide regulations to control the charging of capitation fee and prevent profiteering by the institution.
It was held that every institution would be free to devise its own fee structure, but the same can be regulated to prevent profiteering and charging of capitation fee. Further, the bench relied on the case of Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (2016) 7 SCC 353, where the Supreme Court addressed the need for a regulatory mechanism when it comes to education, which cannot be treated as a purely economic activity, but is a welfare activity aimed at achieving a more egalitarian and prosperous society by empowering the people of this country by educating them.
However, the National Medical Council was directed to revisit the impugned provision and make appropriate amendments because if there would is a huge difference between the fee structures of two sets of students, then it may even result in sacrificing the merit of the candidates in view of the fact that after filling of first 50% of seats of government quota at par with the fee of the government medical colleges, the remaining would be offered to the next meritorious candidate and if the next meritorious candidate is not in a position to bear the burden of high fee, they would be unable to take admission in the medical college and then the seat would go to the next meritorious candidate, who may be below the calibre of the candidate who could not afford to pay high fee.
JUDGEMENT:
The writ petitions were disposed of and the National Medical Commission was directed to come out with a fresh Office Memorandum after giving a re-look to the Office Memorandum under challenge. Till the exercise aforesaid is undertaken, the fee structure was directed to be governed by the present system.
Case: THE HON'BLE MR. MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE N. MALA
Delivered on: 09.09.2022
Citation: W.P.No.10088 of 2022 etc.
Case: Education Promotion Society for India v. Union of India and ors.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
