Telangana High Court
Medicare Educational Trust vs The Union Of India on 29 August, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 23630 OF 2025
O R D E R:
Challenging the proceedings dated 18.07.2025
issued by the 4th respondent - Under Graduate Medical
Education Board (UGMEB), prohibiting petitioner Institute of
Medical Sciences from admitting students to the MBBS Course
for the Academic Year 2025-26, this Writ Petition is instituted.
Petitioners contend that the Impugned Order is in gross
violation of the principles of natural justice, suffers from non-
application of mind, prejudice, arbitrariness and violates the
Fundamental Rights of petitioners, including their Right to
Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
1.1 The 1st petitioner - Medicare Educational Trust was
established in 2001 with the objective of providing healthcare to
the poor and needy. In line with this, the Trust established a
hospital, medical college, B.Sc. Nursing College, B.Sc. Allied
Health Sciences and other paramedical programs. In 2002,
Medicare General Hospital was set up with an initial capacity of
150 beds at H.No. 19-3-159/B, Hunter Road, Rangasaipet,
Thimmapur (H), Warangal, on a 33-acre campus named Father
Colombo Health City. The hospital, one of the largest in
Warangal, expanded its capacity to 645 beds and offers a range
of super-specialties. Due to its reputation for providing
excellent, low-cost care, it attracts patients from various parts of
the state and neighbouring states.
1.2 Desirous of expanding its philanthropic activities,
the Trust sought to establish a medical college in Warangal.
Accordingly, the Government of Telangana issued an
Essentiality Certificate on 29.08.2022, permitting establishment
of the 2nd petitioner - Father Colombo Institute of Medical
Sciences with an annual intake of 150 MBBS seats for the
Academic Year 2023-24. The certificate noted that the Trust
owns and manages a 300-bedded hospital and possesses
Acs. 13.34 Guntas of land in Hunter Road, Rangasaipet,
Warangal. On 30.08.2022, the 6th petitioner - Kaloji Narayana
Rao University of Health Sciences (KNR University) granted a
Consent of Affiliation, subject to permission from the National
Medical Commission (NMC).
1.3 It is stated, based on these documents, the Trust
applied to NMC. A surprise inspection was conducted by a team
of assessors on 10.02.2023. Satisfied with the facilities, the
Medical Assessment & Rating Board (MARB) issued a Letter of
Intent (LoI) on 21.02.2023 for 150 MBBS seats, which was
followed by a Letter of Permission on 03.03.2023. Subsequently,
after inspection by the Principal of Kakatiya Medical College,
Hanamkonda, KNR University granted Provisional Affiliation on
26.06.2023 for the Academic Year 2023-24. Following all
necessary permissions, petitioner college was listed on the
Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) portal, and 150 students
were admitted for the Academic Year 2023-24.
1.4 Petitioners highlight significant change in Annual
MBBS Admission Regulations, 2020 (for short '2020
Regulations). At the time of initial permission, the college met all
the faculty requirements as per the Regulations. However, on
19.09.2023, the NMC notified the Amended Guidelines for
Under Graduate Courses under Establishment of New Medical
Institutions, Starting of New Medical Courses, Increase of Seats
for Existing Courses & Assessment and Rating Regulations,
2023 (for short, '2023 Regulations). These Regulations
significantly increased the faculty requirement for 150 seats
from 83 to 114. For the first time, a mandatory requirement of
additionally employing 3 Senior Residents in every department
(both Pre-Clinical and Para-Clinical) was introduced. The new
Regulations also introduced the Aadhar Enabled Biometric
Attendance System (AEBAS), requiring daily AEBAS of staff,
preferably with face recognition, to be made available to the
NMC and on the college website.
1.5 It is stated, in the State of Telangana, 11 new
Government Medical Colleges and three new Private Medical
Colleges were established in 2023 and 2024. This rapid increase
in the number of colleges, coupled with the enhanced faculty
requirements, led to a huge shortage of faculty across the State.
Petitioners annexed Newspaper articles illustrating this
situation by mentioning show-cause notices issued by the NMC
to 26 out of 34 Government Medical Colleges in Telangana, 34
out of 36 in Tamil Nadu, all 22 in Karnataka, 71 in West Bengal,
and 30 in Maharashtra. There was also a huge shortage of
eligible candidates for Senior Resident positions, as the 2023
Regulations require them to have a Post Graduate Qualification
(MD/MS). This affidavit details the total number of Post-
Graduate seats in various departments in Telangana, noting
that some seats remain unfilled and that 30% are reserved for
In-Service Quota students who must return to government
service, thereby reducing the available pool of candidates.
1.6 Recognizing these challenges, the Teachers
Eligibility Qualifications in Medical Institutions Regulations,
2025 (for short, '2025 Regulations') were notified. These
Regulations permitted candidates with MSc. and Ph.D. degrees
to be appointed as senior faculty, increased the upper age limit
for Senior Residents to 50 years and allowed parallel entry of
doctors from government hospitals without prior teaching
experience. Despite their best efforts to comply with the 2023
Regulations, petitioner college experienced some delay in
implementing the AEBAS. This led to the UGMEB issuing a
Show Cause Notice in January 2024 for an alleged violation.
The college replied via e-mail on 02.02.2024, explaining the
unexpected challenges and the steps taken to achieve
compliance. On 13.05.2024, a virtual personal hearing was held
where the college's explanation was accepted and renewal was
granted upon payment of a penalty of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The
UGMEB's letter dated 07.06.2024 granted renewal for Academic
Year 2024-25, subject to the fine and a re-assessment after two
months. Subsequently, KNR University granted provisional
affiliation for the second batch of 150 students for the Academic
Year 2024-25 on 03.08.2024.
1.7 For the Academic Year 2025-26, the UGMEB issued
Public Notice on 01.11.2024, calling on medical colleges to
submit their annual declarations, which the petitioner college
duly did. On 11.05.2025, the UGMEB issued a Show Cause
Notice to the college, received on 12.05.2025, pointing out
certain deficiencies. Petitioner college submitted a reply on
16.05.2025, addressing each deficiency; a personal hearing was
scheduled for 20.06.2025 at the NMC Office in New Delhi.
During and after the hearing, petitioners submitted Form 16
and Form 26AS for their faculty for the Financial Years 2023-24
and 2024-25, providing proof of having employed the requisite
faculty. The affidavit states that the petitioners are ready to
present the entire documents during the hearing.
1.8 While so, on 30.06.2025, FIR No. RC2182025A0014
was registered by the CBI under 61 (2) of BNS, 2023 and
Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, alleging irregularities involving public officials and
representatives of private medical colleges, specifically
concerning petitioner college alleging that Fr. Joseph
Kommareddy, a Member Trustee, paid Rs. 20,00,000/- and
Rs.46,00,000/- to intermediaries who, in turn, routed the
money to Dr. Hari Prasad to manage the college's regulatory
affairs which are vague and incorrect. The Trust and
management were unaware of the FIR till 14.07.2025, when the
MARB issued a Press Release referring to it. Shockingly, without
any prior notice or hearing on the matter, the NMC announced
that the Applications for renewal for the Academic Year 2025-26
for six medical colleges, including petitioner college would be
cancelled and not processed further. Finally, on 18.07.2025, the
UGMEB via the Impugned Order, resolved to stop admission of
MBBS Course for the Academic Year 2025-26 for the petitioner
college.
2. The 3rd respondent - National Medical Commission
contends that against the impugned order, there exists an
alternate remedy of Appeal and petitioners without availing the
same, approached straight away this Court. It is further stated,
the impugned order was issued in full compliance with statutory
provisions; it afforded adequate opportunity to petitioner to
address persistent and grave deficiencies and that the decision
was also influenced by serious allegations of corruption and
manipulation under investigation by the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI). According to this respondent, petitioner
college has not approached this Court with clean hands, as they
have attempted to divert attention from the core issue by
suggesting the rejection was based solely on the CBI FIR dated
30.06.2025. It is stated, petitioner has been a repeated defaulter
in fulfilling the mandatory requirements of the Establishment of
New Medical Institutions, Starting of New Medical Courses,
Increase of Seats for Existing Courses & Assessment and Rating
Regulations, 2023. It is further stated, the NMC exercised its
inherent powers under these Regulations and issued a reasoned
and speaking order. Apart from the deficiencies, NMC received a
formal communication from the CBI regarding FIR No.
RC2182025A0014 dated 30.06.2025, which was filed against
assessors, college authorities and unknown persons on charges
of bribery and serious misconduct.
2.1 It is stated, as per the requirements of MSMER,
2023, notified on 19.09.2023, the Under Graduate Medical
Education Board (UGMEB) issued a Public Notice on
01.11.2024, directing medical colleges to submit their Annual
Disclosure Reports. An additional Public Notice on 25.04.2025
sought further information. Upon examination of the Annual
Declaration Report, video recordings of examinations, and
AEBAS (Aadhaar Enabled Biometric Attendance System) data
for the past year, several gross deficiencies were found in the
petitioner college. These deficiencies included: all departments
were found deficient in faculty/resident/tutor as per AEBAS
records; the Establishment LOP file was not attached; OPD
attendance was less than the recommended level; bed
occupancy was less than 80%; an MBBS student stated that
candidates were not uniformly examined; 08 out of 20
departments had faculty deficiencies as per self-declaration;
number of internal examiners in Physiology was only written in
the C form, which was deemed suboptimal; 19 out of 20
departments had a faculty deficiency in AEBAS; and 16 out of
20 departments had a senior resident deficiency in AEBAS.
2.2 It is further stated, a detailed Show Cause Notice
dated 11.05.2025 was issued to petitioner specifically listing
these deficiencies, for which, a compliance report was
submitted, but upon re-evaluation, most deficiencies persisted,
including faculty/resident/tutor deficiencies as per AEBAS data
and the unverified number of internal examiners in Physiology.
The NMC highlights that the college was previously cautioned
during the academic year 2024-25 that stringent action would
be taken if deficiencies continued and for the academic session
2024-25, the college was granted a conditional renewal, but the
assessment was conducted under the less stringent MSR 2020
Regulations and had it been assessed under MSR 2023, it
would not have received even the conditional grant. For the
academic year 2025-26, the college was again found deficient,
but a conditional renewal was granted by imposing a penalty of
Rs. 6,00,000/- under clause 8 of the MSMER, 2023. The NMC
argues that the institution has consistently failed to satisfy
mandatory criteria, indicating a pattern of non-compliance.
2.3 While the assessment process was underway, it is
stated, the NMC learnt of the CBI FIR dated 30.06.2025. The
FIR alleges that officials of the Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare and NMC assessors engaged in a criminal conspiracy
with intermediaries and representatives of various private
medical colleges. The FIR specifically claims that Dr. B. Hari
Prasad, acting as a consultant, facilitated the use of dummy
faculty and secured regulatory approvals in exchange for bribes.
Dr. Hari Prasad and Dr. Ankam Rambabu jointly managed the
regulatory affairs of petitioner institution and in return, Fr.
Joseph Kommareddy0 of the institution paid Rs. 20 lakhs and
Rs. 46 lakhs on two separate occasions via formal banking
channels to Dr. Hari Prasad through intermediaries.
2.4 The NMC contends that allegations in the FIR point
to illegal activities and manipulation of the inspection process
by the college to receive favourable renewal orders. It is asserted
that NMC would not tolerate corruption and states that its
decision to halt admissions for the academic year 2025-26 was
a well-considered action based on persistent deficiencies and
the gravity of the allegations, aimed at upholding the integrity of
medical education and protecting students' futures. The NMC
also mentions that it has blacklisted the assessors named in the
FIR. In view of the same, it is prayed that Writ Petition may be
dismissed.
3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri D. Prakash Reddy on
behalf of Sri P. Panduranga Reddy primarily argues that NMC
acted with pre-decisional bias. On 14.07.2025, prior to issuing
the Impugned Order, the Medical Assessment & Rating Board
(MARB) of the NMC released a press release announcing its
decision not to process and to cancel the renewal application.
This public pre-determination renders any subsequent hearing
a mere formality and it demonstrates a clear violation of the
principles of natural justice.
3.1 According to learned Senior Counsel, there is direct
breach of the principle of audi alteram partem. The Impugned
Order is based on a CBI FIR dated 30.06.2025. The Show Cause
Notice was dated 11.05.2025, and petitioners submitted reply
on 16.05.2025; personal hearing was held on 20.06.2025. Since
the FIR was registered after these events, the college had no
opportunity to address the new allegations; FIR, therefore,
cannot be the basis for passing the Impugned Order. He relied
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCE. v.
Shital International 1 in this regard wherein it has been held
that unless foundation of case is laid in show cause notice, the
department cannot be permitted to build up a new case nor
allowed to take contradictory stand.
3.2 Learned Senior Counsel cites key Supreme Court
judgments to support his arguments. Swamy Devi Dayal
Hospital & Dental College v. Union of India 2, which held
that Section 10A(4) of the Dentists Act, 1948 applies to renewal
cases and mandates an opportunity for a hearing. This case
established a two-stage process for natural justice: a first stage
at the council level (in this case, the DCI) to give a chance to
rectify deficiencies, and a second stage at the government level,
where a final hearing must be provided if the scheme is to be
disapproved. Royal Medical Trust v. Union of India 3, which
held that the principles from Swamy Devi Dayal case are fully
applicable to the medical council and its regulations.
3.3 It is argued by learned Senior Counsel that
allegations in CBI FIR are unfounded. The FIR alleges payments
were made to Dr. Hari Prasad and Dr. Ankam Rambabu to
manage regulatory affairs, but petitioners deny any connection
(2011) 1 SCC 109
(2014) 13 SCC 506
(2015) 10 SCC 19
with Dr. Hari Prasad. It is clarified that Dr. Ankam Rambabu
was a service provider and HR consultant engaged to identify
faculty and payments for these consultancy services were made
transparently through banking channels and were not for illegal
purposes.
3.4 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that there
is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, claiming
discriminatory treatment. NMC granted renewal to other
colleges in Telangana, such as Dr. Patnam Mahender Reddy
Institute of Medical Sciences, Deccan College of Medical
Sciences, and SVS Medical College, despite similar or more
severe deficiencies. By contrast, the NMC imposed a blanket
ban on the petitioner college and other institutions named in
the FIR without considering their individual circumstances. He
cites the case of Geethanjali University, Rajasthan, where the
NMC initially withdrew its renewal of permission on 17.07.2025
because its Registrar was named as Accused No. 1 in the FIR.
However, the Rajasthan High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.
14216 of 2025 stayed the withdrawal order on 30.07.2025 and
allowed the institution to participate in counselling. Petitioners
argue that their institution is in an even better position, as
neither the college nor its management is specifically named in
the FIR, and the Member Trustee named as Accused No. 33 has
not been served with a notice. It is contended that the Impugned
Order was passed by UGMEB, while the competent authority to
pass such orders is the Medical Assessment and Rating Board
(MARB).
3.5 According to learned Senior Counsel, petitioners
complied with the 2020 Regulations, the new 2023 Regulations
drastically increased faculty requirements. Petitioners attribute
the temporary shortage to this change and the establishment of
14 new medical colleges in Telangana. They note that the 2025
Regulations were later introduced to address these challenges. It
is contended that despite having a full faculty strength,
technological issues with AEBAS system may have led to an
inaccurate reflection of faculty numbers.
3.6 Finally, learned Senior Counsel justifies
approaching the High Court directly bypassing the statutory
appeal remedy under Regulation 9 of the Maintenance of
Standards of Medical Education Regulations, 2023. He cites the
pre-decisional bias by the NMC, which, they argue, makes the
Appeal an empty formality. They also invoke the precedent set
in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks,
Mumbai 4, which established that a writ petition is maintainable
even with an alternate remedy when there is violation of
fundamental rights or natural justice. As the denial of renewal
would have serious civil consequences, preventing student
admissions for the Academic Year 2025-26 and counselling has
already commenced, learned Senior Counsel emphasizes
urgency in this Writ Petition.
4. Ms. Sri Ranga Pujitha Gorantla, learned Standing
Counsel for the 3rd respondent - NMC makes her submissions
point-wise. She, at the outset, denies the claim of violation of
principles of natural justice for NMC issued detailed Show
Cause Notice on 11.05.2025 and also granted physical hearing
on 01.07.2025, where college representatives appeared before
the UGMEB. The NMC found the college's clarifications
unconvincing and unsatisfactory, observing gross and
substantive deficiencies in faculty and clinical parameters. The
college also accepted the deficiencies and assured to fulfill them.
She emphasizes that decision was based on data from the
Annual Declaration Form, AEBAS analysis for AY 2024-25, and
verification of Form-16 and Form 26AS, in addition to the
allegations in the FIR.
(1998) 8 SCC 1
4.1 According to learned Standing Counsel, petitioners
have bypassed the prescribed appellate mechanism under
Regulation 9 of the MSMER, 2023. She relied on the judgment
of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 9057 of
2020 (M/s Srini Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. V. Union of India)
to contend that this Court should exercise its power under
Article 226 only in exceptional circumstances and in this case,
such circumstances are absent, hence, the Writ Petition is liable
to be dismissed at the threshold.
4.2 It is argued, Regulations of MCI are binding and
mandatory (see Medical Council of India v. S. R. Educational
and Charitable Trust 5). No interim relief can be granted to
admit students as a matter of course (Union of India v. Era
Educational Trust 6 and Medical Council of India v. Rajiv
Gandhi University of Health Sciences 7). Learned Standing
Counsel contends that the decision taken on the basis of
recommendation of an expert body regarding the inadequacy of
facilities in medial colleges cannot be interfered with lightly -
Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical
Sciences 8, Medical Council of India v. KMCT Medical
2018 SCC Online SC 2276
(2000) 5 SCC 57
(2004) 6 SCC 76
(2016) 11 SCC 530
College 9, Medical Council of India v. Vedantaa Institute of
Academic Excellence Pvt. Ltd. 10 and Medical Council of
India v. S.R. Educational and Charitable Trust 11.
4.3 Learned Standing Counsel further argues that the
scope of judicial review is extremely limited in matters relating
to decisions taken by the expert bodies where standards of
institutions are concerned. In support of her contention, relies
on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J&K State
Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik 12 and Medical
Council of India v. Sarang 13. She also relies on the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including Krishna
Priya Ganguly v. University of Lucknow 14, which holds that
Courts should not relax the rules and regulations of academic
bodies under Article 226. The NMC also references National
Medical Commission v. SSPM's Medical College & Lifetime
Hospital & Research Centre where the Supreme Court stayed
a Bombay High Court order and affirmed the NMC's express
statutory authority under Section 26(1)(f) of the NMC Act, 2019
to stop admissions. The affidavit also cites Rohilkhand
Medical College & Hospital, Bareilly v. Medical Council of
(2018) 9 SCC 766
(2018) 7 SCC 225
2018 SCC Online SC 2276
(2000) 3 SCC 59
(2001) 8 SCC 427
(1984) 1 SCC 307
India and Iq City Foundation v. Union of India to reinforce
that regulatory bodies can act on credible evidence of non-
compliance without waiting for criminal convictions.
5. Having heard learned counsel on either side at
length and having considered the material on record placed by
both the parties, the moot questions that require decision of this
Court are:
1) Whether existence of efficacious alternate remedy bars this
Court from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India?
2) Whether there is direct breach of the principle of audi alteram
partem.
3) Whether this Court can interfere with the decisions taken by
the expert bodies?
6. POINT No. 1: With regard to the existence of an
alternate remedy, petitioners themselves have acknowledged
that there is appellate remedy under Regulation 9 of the
Maintenance of Standards of Medical Education Regulations,
2023. In Gazette Notification dated 08.08.2017 whereunder the
National Medical Commission Act, 2019 was promulgated,
Section 22(3) says that subject to the provision of Section 28, a
person who is aggrieved by any decision of an Autonomous
Board may prefer an Appeal to the Commission against such
decision within sixty days of the communication of such
decision. In the Gazette Notification dated 21.09.2023
whereunder the Maintenance of Standards of Medical Education
Regulations, 2023 were published, Chapter II - Annual
Disclosure Report and its Evaluation Section 5(4) says that if
the applicant fails to submit such information or clarify or
provide additional documents etc., as mandated by the
respective Board within such prescribed time including any
additional time provided by the respective Board, shall be
deemed as non-compliance with the Regulations and shall
attract penalty. Chapter III deals with penalties. Section 8 says
that where the respective Board has reason to believe that a
medical institution has failed to comply with any statutory
provision, regulations framed thereunder, or has not complied
with the Minimum Standards of Requirements as prescribed by
their respective Boards, or has conducted themselves in any
manner which is not in accordance with the goals of medical
education and practice, the Board shall either penalise the
medical college or medical institution and / or conduct further
enquiry into such act and wherever needed provide an
opportunity to rectify the same. Clause 2(h) further says that
the imposition of penalty may include recommending to NMC for
withdrawal of permission. It is further provided that UGMEB,
PGMEB or the NMC may also initiate criminal proceedings for
furnishing false information, or fabrication of false documents
as per the criminal law in force at that time. Chapter IV,
Section 9 provides Appeal to NMC. A medical college or
medical institution or any such aggrieved person may file an
appeal before the Commissioner with an appropriate fee as
specified against any order, provided such an Appeal is filed
within sixty days of passing of such an order or lapse of time, as
the case may be. Section 10 provides Appeal to the Central
Government. Where an applicant / medical college or medical
institution is aggrieved by the decision of the Commission or
where the Commission fails to give its decision within forty-five
days from the date of receipt of such an Appeal, a second appeal
may be filed before the Central Government within thirty days
from the date of such order or lapse of time, as thecae may be.
The decision of the Central Government in this regard shall be
final. Hence, in the impugned order, in the penultimate
paragraph it is recorded that 'if you are not satisfied and
aggrieved with the decision of the Board, you are free to prefer an
Appeal before the Commission under Section 9, Chapter IV of the
Maintenance of Standards of Medical Education Regulations,
2023 (MSMER, 2023) within sixty days of the issue of this letter.'
7. However, petitioners contend that NMC had already
arrived at a conclusion, hence, filing an Appeal is nothing but
an empty formality. In that regard, learned Senior Counsel
citing the judgment in Whirlpool Corporation's case (supra)
contends that a writ petition is maintainable even with an
alternate remedy when there is a violation of fundamental rights
or natural justice. It is a well-established principle that
existence of statutory and efficacious alternate remedy is a
strong ground for a writ court to decline to exercise its
extraordinary jurisdiction. The said statement is supported by
the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.
9057 of 2020 (M/s Srini Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. V. Union
of India), relied upon by learned Standing Counsel for NMC. In
the said judgment, it was held that this Court should exercise
its power under Article 226 only in exceptional circumstances.
For better understanding, the relevant portion of the judgment
is extracted hereunder:
" The power under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is
couched in wide terms. Hence, it is not subject to any restrictions, except the
self-imposed ones.
The exercise of the jurisdiction is absolutely discretionary; it is
not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so.
The self-imposed restrictions are essentially a rule of policy,
convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law.
The self-imposed restrictions are: firstly, if there is an
efficacious alternative remedy available to the aggrieved party; secondly, if
the case involves disputed questions of facts, which would require elaborate
examination of evidence in order to establish the right which the aggrieved
party claims through the issuance of a writ; thirdly, if the writ petition is hit
by delay and latches. Since the writ jurisdiction is one of equity, delay would
defeat equity; fourthly, if a party comes to the court with unclean hands.
The existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar
on the power of writ jurisdiction of a High Court under Art. 226 of the
Constitution of India.
However, the said power is to be invoked only in exceptional
cases and under circumstances. The party invoking the writ jurisdiction
extraordinary has to establish not only that extraordinary circumstances do
exist, but also that the alternative remedy provided by the statute is "entirely
ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situation".
Since the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute
bar to the invoking of a writ jurisdiction, the said jurisdiction may be
exercised in circumstances: a) where the writ petition has been filed for
enforcement of fundamental rights; b) where the principles of natural justice
have been violated; c) where the order or proceedings are wholly without
jurisdiction; d) where the vires of an Act is under challenge. But even when
these grounds are made out, even then the exercise of the writ jurisdiction
continues to be discretionary.
Before exercising the writ jurisdiction in face of the existence
of the alternative remedy, the Court is duty bound to consider if the exercise
of writ power would defeat the purpose, aim or object of the statute which
provides the alternative remedy. For, the exercise of the extraordinary
jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution may defeat the very purpose
of the statute,
The High Court should also consider whether the exercise of
the writ jurisdiction is in the interest of the public or not? For, the
jurisdiction should not be so exercised as to adversely affect the public
interest. Therefore, the High Court should be circumspect while exercising
the writ jurisdiction when an alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved
party under a statute".
8. In the light of the said precedent, petitioners' claim
of pre-decisional bias by the NMC cannot be said to be a
sufficient ground to bypass the statutory appeal mechanism. An
appellate authority is fully capable of examining the issue of
bias and determining the validity of the Impugned Order on its
merits. Petitioners' assertion that the Appeal would be an empty
formality is a speculative claim and does not constitute an
exceptional circumstance that warrants bypassing of the
established legal procedure. The law is clear that writ
jurisdiction should not be a substitute for the statutory
appellate mechanism. In view of the foregoing discussion on
this aspect, the contentions of learned Senior Counsel does not
hold water.
9. POINT No. 2: On the second question, whether
there is a direct breach of the principle of audi alteram partem,
pleadings reveal that NMC issued a detailed Show Cause Notice
on 11.05.2025, which specifically listed a number of deficiencies
found in the college's Annual Declaration Report, video
recordings, and AEBAS data. Petitioners submitted reply on
16.05.2025, and personal hearing was held on 20.06.2025. The
NMC's affidavit states that during physical hearing on
01.07.2025, college representatives appeared before the
UGMEB. Hence, it is to be understood that petitioners had
ample opportunity to present their case and address the
deficiencies. In this connection, at the cost of repetition, it is to
be seen that some of the major defects pointed out by the NMC
are i) all the departments are deficient in faculty / resident /
tutor as per AEBAS record data; ii) establishment LOP file not
attached; iii) OPD attendance is less than the recommended; iv)
bed occupancy is less than 80%; v) one MBSS student has said
all candidates were not uniformly examined college may take
utmost care to ensure that in Renewal / UGMEB/2023-
24/1251/3785520/2025 future examination; vi) 08/20
Departments have a deficiency of faculty as per self-declaration;
vii) the number of internal examiners in Physiology was only
written in C form, which is suboptimal and it should be verified;
viii) 19/20 departments have faculty deficiency in AEBAS and
ix) 16/20 departments have senior resident deficiency in
AEBAS. It is also stated that point Nos. 1, 6, 8 and 9 are still
deficient and the number of internal examiners in physiology
was still not verified. The above deficiencies are found by the
verification of data / details submitted by the colleges in Annual
Declaration Form on the NMC Portal, AEBAS Analysis (Aadhar
Enabled Biometric Attendance System) for the AY 2024-25 and
Form-16 and Form 26AS as provided by the college authority.
Petitioners submitted their reply on 16.05.2025. Subsequently,
on 30.06.2025 CBI registered FIR alleging corruption and
manipulation of inspections. Thereafter, on 01.07.2025,
personal hearing was granted by NMC to petitioner college. The
NMC's actions, including the Show Cause Notice and the
personal hearing, indicate that principles of natural justice
were, in fact, complied with. The NMC is a statutory expert body
tasked with upholding the standards of medical education, and
it cannot be expected to ignore serious allegations of corruption
and misconduct simply because they emerged after the initial
show-cause notice.
10. Here, it is to be seen, the contention of petitioners is
that they came to know of registration of FIR only during press
release of NMC on 14.07.2025, hence, they do not have the
opportunity to make their submissions with regard to the said
case in the personal hearing provided to them on 01.07.2025.
Though petitioners' argument is that CBI FIR dated 30.06.2025
was the sole basis for the Impugned Order and that they had no
opportunity to address, as could be seen from the FIR registered
against Sri Joseph Kommareddy, the allegation of bribing
assessors of NMC is extremely serious in nature, as stated by
the NMC, the decision was based on a combination of persistent
deficiencies. In view of the same, this Court is not ready to
accept the contention that CBI FIR is the sole basis to pass the
impugned order. Petitioners' claim that the press release dated
14.07.2025 demonstrated pre-decisional bias is also not
convincing. The press release merely announced the NMC's
decision based on the information available to it at that time. It
does not negate the fact that a detailed show-cause notice was
given and hearings were conducted. Petitioners had the
opportunity to appeal the decision and present all their
arguments before a higher authority.
11. In the light of the above, it can be said that there is
no breach of the principles of natural justice in the case of
petitioners.
12. POINT No. 3: Finally, on the third question,
whether this Court can interfere with the decisions taken by
expert bodies, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
scope of judicial review in such matters is extremely limited. As
is well-settled, Regulations of the MCI are binding and
mandatory. It is to be seen that the Central Government had
rejected permission after obtaining recommendations from the
Medical Council twice, hence, such decision taken based on the
recommendation of the an expert body regarding inadequacy of
facilities in medical colleges cannot be interfered with lightly.
13. In this connection, it is relevant to see the
judgments relied on by the learned Standing Counsel.
In S.R. Educational and Charitable Trust's case
(supra), it has been held as under:
" 26. Considering the aforesaid provisions and the
deficiencies found in the case of the aforesaid three medical colleges, we
are of the considered opinion that the recommendations made by the
Hearing Committee to review and to consider the compliance could not
be said to be binding. The provisions of Regulations 8(3)(1)(a) and (b) are
binding upon the Hearing Committee/Government of India and MCI. It
is only in a case when a report of the assessors on the face of it, makes
out that the same is incorrect, a reconsideration or review is called for.
Otherwise, in the case of gross deficiency, the yardstick contained in
Regulation 8(3) (1)(a) or (b) has to be applied by the Hearing Committee,
Government of India or MCI, as the case may be. It is not open to the
Government of India/MCI or Hearing Committee to depart in a few cases
and in some other to take a different stand. They have to scrupulously
observe the provisions of regulations which are binding on them.
27. It is unfortunate that the High Court has made a
passing reference to the decision of this Court in Medical Council of
India v. Vedantaa Institute of Academic Excellence (P) Ltd. and Medical
Council of India v. KMCT Medical College. It was incumbent upon the
High Court in pith and substance to follow the mandate of Vedantaa
institute of Academic Excellence (P) Ltd. The High Court has relied upon
other judgments which were not based upon the consideration of the
amended provisions of Regulation 8(3)(1). It could not have relied upon
its own decision of the Division Bench in DM Education & Research
Foundation v. Union of India which was clearly contrary to the aforesaid
decisions of this Court.
28. It is high time for MCI to ensure its functions well and
eradicate all the loopholes and decide the case within a reasonable time
and not to lend the colleges in a situation with no legal remedy available
once case is decided at the fag end of the academic session on 31st May.
We are constrained to observe that it would be appropriate that MCI and
the Government of India take a decision in all the cases at an early date
and not by the end of May 2018. The next academic session has to
commence from first of July of the Gregorian calendar year as such at
least 3-4 months the should be available to seek judicial review of the
action or re-inspection, if any, so warranted by MCI or the Government
of India. We find that once a petition is filed and even if in some cases
we are inclined to grant a relief of re-inspection to a college, but due to
the lapse of the time schedule and the admissions having already been
made, it is not considered appropriate to disturb the uniform schedule
of various universities. In our opinion, it would be appropriate that MCI,
as well as the Government of India, should take a final decision after
inspection, by the end of February or latest by the end of March.
29. Now, we consider the submission raised by Mr C.S. Vaidyanathan in
the case of P.K. Dass Institute of Medical Scienc in regard to the
correctness of the report of the assessors as to the occupancy of the bed,
wherein bed occupancy had been found to be 40.60% at 10.00 am. on
the date of the inspection held on 31-10-2017 and 1-11-2017 for the
purpose of renewal of permission for admission of fifth batch of 150
seats in MBBS course or 2018-2019. The provisions contained in
Regulation 8(3)(1)(b) had been applied. The Executive Committee on 16-
1-2018 considered the representations dated 5-1-2018 submitted by the
college, forwarded to it by the Ministry. The Hearing Committee had
observed that attendance was counted till 2.00 p.m. the college has
explained the deficiency of faculty and deficiency of attendance in OPD,
however, it was observed that the submission of the college regarding
bed occupancy was not entirely satisfactory. The case was referred to
MCI for review including considering the imposition of Regulation
8(3)(1)(b). After considering the recommendation decision was taken by
MCI, as the aforesaid regulation was applicable, the decision was taken
not to renew the permission for admission of 5th batch of MBBS course.
30. It was further contended on behalf of the college that
the performance of the students and result of the examination was
extremely good and bed occupancy was more as shown on the college
website. With respect to the bed occupancy, it was reported by the
assessor that there were 262 patients out of 650 required beds at 10.00
am. on the first day. It was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel
that there were approximately 500 patients admitted as indoor patients
as apparent from the web portal of the college in question thus, the
report of the assessors was absolutely incorrect and this aspect should
be looked into by this Court. It was contended that the assessors had
counted patients available on the beds at that time. Assessors did not
count patients who were under investigation procedures and operation
theatre and those who were in the washrooms, pantry, etc. As per the
assessors, the bed occupancy was 40.30% i.e. 262 patients out of 650
patients which were required. Whereas college claimed that 493 indoor
patients were there at 10.00 am. oh 31-10-2017 There was 80% bed
occupancy on 30-10-2017 to 31-10-2017 and 1-11-2017. The learned
Senior Counsel has drawn support from the website portal.
31. We have no hesitation in rejecting the submission as it
has no legs to stand. Whatever college says is not a gospel truth. There
is no case wherein college does not dispute the report of the assessors
and contend that there were no such deficiencies. It is clearly a disputed
fact. Firstly, the report of the assessor cannot be lightly disbelieved. It is
not open to examining the case set up by the college as facts are found
by assessors are at great variance, secondly, in the judicial review, the
report cannot be discarded relying on data put up by the college on self
serving website portal. In our view, the High Court was right in
discarding the explanation offered by the colleges with respect to
deficiencies. Even the Hearing Committee with respect to P.K. Dass
Institute of Medical Sciences did not doubt the report of assessors as to
bed occupancy. This Court has considered the value of a website portal
and such objections in Medical Council of India v. N.C. Medical College
& Hospital in which the decision of Medical Council of India v. Kalinga
Institute of Medical Sciences has been referred to. The Court observed:
(N.C. Medical College case, SCC pp. 748-49, para 20)
"20. On the one hand, the High Court has doubted the report of
inspection and for that surprisingly relied on the self-serving contents of
the website of the college. There is nothing to vouch for the authenticity
of the website information, it is not what the institution asserts on
website but what is actually found on inspection, that has to be
considered by the court and while exercising judicial review it is settled
law that court cannot sit in appeal over the report of the assessors as
observed in Medical Council of India v. Kalinga institute of Medical
Sciences thus: (SCC p. 540, paras 21-22)
21. A perusal of the decision of the High Court clearly indicates
that it considered the latest report of the Inspection Team as if it was
hearing an appeal against the report. In doing so, the High Court went
into great details on issues relating to the number of teaching beds in
the hospital, the limitations in the OPD Department, the number of
units available in the subjects of General Medicine, Paediatrics, etc, bed
occupancy, number of Caesarean sections, discrepancy in data of major
and minor operations, computerisation in the institution, number of
patients in the ICLI number of static x-ray machines, deficiency of
examination halls, lecture theatres, library, students hostel, interns
hostel, playground, etc. etc. Surely, this was not within the domain of
the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
22. The High Court did not appreciate that the inspection was
carried out by eminent Professors from reputed media! institutions who
were experts in the field and the best persons to give an unbiased report
on the facilities in KIMS. The High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution was certainly not tasked to minutely examine the contents
of the inspection report and weigh them against the objections of KIMS
in respect of each of its 18 items. In our opinion, the High Court plainly
exceeded its jurisdiction in this regard in venturing into seriously
disputed factual issues.""
It was also observed that at the time of inspection faculty should be
present barring certain exceptions otherwise the very purpose of the
inspection would be defeated. The report of the assessors cannot be
lightly faulted and the court cannot sit in an appeal and go into
disputed facts. There were other deficiencies too but due to the aforesaid
gross deficiencies, the provisions of Regulation 8(3)(1)(b) were clearly
attracted.
32. In Medical Council of India v. KMCT Medical College it was
contended that the inspection was not properly conducted. The
submission had been rejected thus: (SCC p. 773, para 23)
"23. We do not deem it necessary to deal with the submission made
on behalf of the College regarding the inspection not being properly
conducted. This Court has repeatedly said that a decision taken by the
Union of India on the basis of a recommendation of an expert body
regarding the inadequacy of facilities in medical colleges cannot be
interfered with lightly. Interference is permissible only when the colleges
demonstrate jurisdictional errors, ex facie perversity or mala fide. [See
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of india and Medical Council of
India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences) As no case is made out by
the College for interference with the inspection report, we decline the
request of Mr Sibal for remand of the matter to the High Court."
In our opinion, in view of the aforesaid legal position, it is not open to
the court in judicial review to accept tenuous objections as to bed
occupancy in the absence of mala fides.
33. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered
opinion that the High Court has gravely erred in law while passing the
impugned judgment and order in quashing Government's order, allowing
the admissions for the academic session 2018-2019 without there being
Government of India's permission and the recommendation of MCI. The
High Court has issued direction for fresh inspection and thereafter MCI
to consider the report after the grant of opportunity to remove defects, if
any. Firstly, it could not have issued such a direction in view of
regulations and also the blanket direction that college should be
permitted to remove the deficiencies, if any found. Deficiencies can be
removed, if found, within the permissible limits as provided in regulation
8(3), not in a case Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) or (b) is attracted. Thus, such
kind of general direction issued without considering the provisions of
the Regulations are wholly illegal and unwarranted and on Inspection,
the decision has to be taken in accordance with law as per the
Regulations. Obviously, the Regulations would come into play as per
outcome of an assessment. It cannot be predicted in advance what
would be the outcome of inspection to decide in advance opportunity of
removal of deficiencies. There may be a case where deficiencies are
found by assessors to be gross as contemplated in the proviso to
Regulation 8(3)(1), they cannot be removed in that year. Even otherwise,
the Court could not have at all ordered the admissions, as directed in
the instant matter. The High Court at the same time has ordered
inspection and if the deficiencies are found to exist then MCI and the
Government of India have been given liberty to take appropriate
decision. Such orders may ruin the entire career of the students. Once
permission to admit students is granted, it should not be such
conditional one. Considering the deficiencies, it would be against the
efficacious medical education and would amount to permit the
unequipped medical college to impart medical education without proper
infrastructure and faculty, patients serve as the object of teaching by
such an approach ultimately interest of the society would suffer and
half-baked doctors cannot be left loose on society like drones and
parasites to deal with the life of patients in the absence of proper
educational training. It would be dangerous and against the right to life
itself, in case unequipped medical colleges are permitted to impart
substandard medical education without proper facilities and
infrastructure.
In re: D.M. Education and Research Institute of Medical Sciences
34. Coming to the case of recognition of and admission in D.M.
Education and Research Institute of Medical Science established by
D.M. Education Research Foundation Trust, it was a case of recognition
and admission. In the inspection dated 27-2-2018 and 14-3-2018/15-3-
2018 various deficiencies were found supported by photographs,
videography, etc. The deficiencies which were found as mentioned in the
Government of India Order dated 31-5-2018 are extracted hereunder:
"The Executive Committee of the Council considered the
assessment report (27-2-2018 and 14-3-2018 & 15-3-2018) along with
photographs/videography and letters/representation dated 15-3-2018
from Dean of the Institute with regard to recognition/approval of D.M.
Wayanad Institute of Medical Sciences, Kerala and noted the following:
1. Deficiency of faculty is 18.93% as detailed in the report.
2. OPD: On both days, at 09.40 am, most of the faculty and
residents were not available.
3. Bed occupancy at 10 am. on the day of assessment was 61.69%
however, about 15% of the patients were not genuine reducing bed
occupancy to 46%. Out of these, most of the patients were admitted on a
day prior to assessment
4. Patients: On verification of the patients on the beds (from among
the 4011, the following patients were notified in most of the wards,
indicating the non-genuine patients. For example
1. Mini C.K. WIMS No. 258951. Gen. Med-3. was admitted on 14-3-2018
at 9:40 pm, when the institution was inspecting at 9.30 am. on 14-3-
2018. Nurses clinical chart was entered even for 13th doctors notes too,
thereby indicating that case sheets with non- genuine patients are
prepared in advice.
11. Raimanath- WIMS No. 310182, OBG Ward, was admitted twice
on 13-3-2018 and 14-3-2018. No case notes of the patient in the case
sheet and no treatment.
18. Mr Sivan WIMS No. 212033-Gen Medicine only admission
request form names blank. entire Inpatient case records including
IV. Prabhashini WIMS No. 319575, OBG Ward 2-admitted with
complaints of excessive bleeding PV, on enquiry, she gives a history of
no bleeding at all, but only pain in abdomen. The same was endorsed by
the resident in the ward on the case sheet. No investigations and
treatment were given. Taking this into account in the wards, around
15% of the patients were non-genuine, taking the effective bed
occupancy to around 46%.
Also apart from this, in the wards, more than 50% of the patients were
admitted on 13-3-2018, the day before the assessment
5. Data of radiological and laboratory investigations given by the
institute include data of private patients and super special patients
which is not permissible.
6. Wards: There is no signage of unit-wise bed distribution, no faculty
and residents were available inwards during the round.
7. ICUs: There was only 1 patient in PICU on the day of assessment.
8.4 mobile x-ray machines are available against the requirement of 6.
9. Microbiology Department: 6 service laboratories are available against
requirement of 7.
10. Pharmacology Department: There are nil Specimen & nil Model in
the Museum.
11. Forensic Medicine Department: Cold Storage is not available.
12. RHTC: Cold chain equipment is not available.
13. Residents hostel: On verification, about 15-20% of residents are
found to be not staying in the campus. Rooms allotted them were closed
on inspection by the assessors."
35. The background facts indicate that the college was granted
permission for the academic sessions 2013-2014 an 2015-2016. For the
academic year 2016-2017, it was granted conditional permission on the
recommendation of the Oversight Committee to the effect that in case of
failure to remove the deficiencies, it would be debarred for two academi
years. Thereafter, on inspection assessment that was made on 5-12-
2016 and 6-12-2016, gross deficiencies were found ans due to that MCI
on 28-1-2017 recommended the Central Government to debar the
college for two academic years and to encash the bank guarantee. On
31-5-2017, the Government of India accepted the recommendations of
MCI. As the firs batch admitted in the college reached the final year, the
application was filed by the college for grant of recognition. The college,
aggrieved by the Government of India's decision on 31-5-2017 filed Writ
Petition (C) No. 19753 of 2017 fom permission to admit fresh batch of
150 MBBS students for the academic year 2017-2018. The writ petition
was decided by the order dated 2-8-2017, and the High Court directed
the Government of india to give a personal hearing to the college and
thereafter to pass a fresh reasoned order. The Government of India after
considering the recommendation of the Hearing Committee decided on
14-8-2017 to confirm the conditional renewal of permission for the
academic year 2016-2017 and that no fresh batch for 2017-2018 may
be allowed.
36. Writ Petition No. 19753 of 2017 came to be filed for grant of
admission in 2017-18 in which interim order was granted by the High
Court on 25-8-201721, This Court set aside the interim order of the
High Court on 6-9-2017, however, permitted the college to approach this
Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Thereafter, Writ
Petition (C) No. 838 of 2017 was filed in this Court. This Court vide
order dated 22-9-2017 while permitting the students admitted for the
academic year 2017-2018 to continue, directed the college to remove the
deficiencies. The order was passed to safeguard the interest of the
students already admitted pursuant to the interim order dated 25-8-
2017,
37. In order to consider the case of the respondent medical college for
recognition, an inspection was carried out on 27-2-2018 and 14-3-
2018/15-3-2018. In the assessment report, various deficiencies as
noted above were found. The Executive Committee decided not to
recommend the recognition in regard to MBBS degree. It was also
recommended to the Central Government not to grant renewal of
permission for the admission of a fresh batch of 150 MBBS students for
the academic year 2018-19. The decision of the Executive Committee
was communicated to the Oversight Committee, which in turn vide order
dated 28-3-2018 approved the same.
38. The Executive Committee then vide letter dated 20-4-2018
communicated to the Government of India. At the same time, MCI vide
letter dated 20-4-2018 requested the respondent Medical College to
rectify the deficiencies and submit compliance within one month for
further consideration of its case for grant of recognition. As against
recommendation made by MCI, the college filed Writ Petition (C) No.
15171 of 2017 before the High Court of Kerala. The High Court directed
the Government of India to grant a hearing and to pass final order on or
before 31-5-2018. The Government of India granted hearing opportunity
on 21-5-2018. The college reported compliance on 22-5-2018. MCI vide
letter dated 25-5-2018 requested the Oversight Committee to consider
the matter. The Oversight Committee on 28-5-2018 directed MCI to
follow the Regulations. The Government of India was informed by MCI
on 28-5-2018 that last date to send recommendation".
In Krishna Priya Ganguly v. University of
Lucknow 15, it has been held as under:
" 17. The counsel for the State further agreed to
passing an order that those candidates who were refused admission but
granted provisional admissions under the orders of the Court may be
deemed to be admitted to complete the course according to the
provisions of the Rules. We might mention that this concession was
(1984) 1 SCC 307
made because the candidates concerned had secured pretty high
percentage and since they had completed the course in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case. As far as CA No. 3045/82 filed by
the State against the decision of the High Court is concerned, the view
taken by the High Court is unsustainable. The High Court could not
have given a go-by to the rules framed by Admission Committee. It was a
matter for decision of the academic body and since the academic body
had applied the rules in a bona fide manner to all the students equally,
there was no jurisdiction whatsoever on the part of the High Court to
interfere with the internal working of an academic institution concerned
with imparting higher education in the field of postgraduate course in
medicine. The Rule prescribing that housemanship must be in the same
subject is not inconsistent with the Ordinance. It is supplementary to
the Ordinance and amplifies the same. Hence there is no inconsistency
and the High Court was therefore clearly wrong. However, as the counsel
for the State has agreed to declare his result we do not pass any order
for reversing the directive issued by the High Court as far as Dr Hari Om
Gupta is concerned though the High Court was wrong".
In Medical Council of India v. Rajiv Gandhi
University of Health Sciences (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that:
" In the normal circumstances, the High Court ought
not to issue an interim order when for the earlier year itself permission
had not been granted by the Council. Indeed, by grant of such interim
orders students who have been admitted in such institutions would be
put to serious jeopardy, apart from the fact whether such institutions
could run the medical college without following the law. Therefore, we
make it clear that the High Court ought not to grant such interim orders
in any of the cases where the Council has not granted permission in
terms of Section 10-A of the Medical Council Act. If interim orders are
granted to those institutions which have been established without
fulfilling the prescribed conditions to admit students, it will lead to
serious jeopardy to the students admitted in these institutions".
In Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute
of Medical Sciences (supra), it is observed thus:
" 24. The High Court did not appreciate that the inspection
was carried out by eminent Professors from reputed medical institutions
who were experts in the field and the best persons to give an unbiased
report on the facilities in KIMS. The High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution was certainly not tasked to minutely examine the contents
of the inspection report and weigh them against the objections of KIMS
in respect of each of its 18 items. In our opinion, the High Court plainly
exceeded its jurisdiction in this regard in venturing into seriously
disputed factual issues.
27. The High Court was of opinion that the Inspection Team was
required to conduct the inspection with reference to the academic year
2015-16 but the report pertains to the academic year 2016-2017. If that
was so, the High Court could have passed an appropriate order in this
regard rather than examine and scrutinize the inspection report
prepared for the academic year 2016-17 which academic year was not at
all the subject matter of consideration or discussion before it. Moreover,
invalidation of the inspection report for the academic year 2016-17
would not automatically invalidate the inspection report for the
academic year 2015-16. Unfortunately, the High Court spent its energy
on adjudicating a non-issue.
In Medical Council of India v. Principal, KMCT
Medical College (supra), it is held as under:
" 23. We do not deem it necessary to deal with the
submission made on behalf of the College regarding the inspection not
being properly conducted. This Court has repeatedly said that a decision
taken by the Union of India on the basis of a recommendation of an
expert body regarding the inadequacy of facilities in medical colleges
cannot be interfered with lightly. Interference is permissible only when
the colleges demonstrate jurisdictional errors, ex facie perversity or mala
fide. [See: Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India and Medical
Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS)). As no
case is made out by the College for interference with the inspection
report, we decline the request of Mr Sibal for remand of the matter to the
High Court.
In Medical Council of India v. Vedantaa
Institute of Academic Excellence (supra), it is recorded as
under:
"11. On perusal of the material on record, we are of the
opinion that the conclusion reached by the High Court regarding the
manner in which inspection was conducted is also not correct. Bed
occupancy at 45.30% on random verification was the claim of
Respondents 1 and 2. However, the inspection report shows that out of
required minimum of 300 patients only 3 were available at 10.00 am. on
25-9-2017. This Court in Kalinga has held that medical education must
be taken very seriously and when an expert body certifies that the
facilities in a medical college are inadequate, it is not for the courts to
interfere with the assessment, except for very cogent jurisdictional
reasons such as mala fides of the inspection team, ex facie perversity in
the inspection, jurisdictional error on the part of MCI, etc. The
submission relating to the cyclone being a reason for the number of
patients being less is not acceptable. We are in agreement with the
submission made on behalf of the appellant that the resident doctors
are required to be in the hospital at all points of time".
In J&K State Board of Education v. Feyaz
Ahmed Malik (supra), it is held thus:
" 18. While judging the authority or otherwise all steps taken
by authorities of the Board to take action against candidates taking
resort to mass malpractice it should be borne in mind that the Board is
entrusted with the duty of maintaining high standards of education and
proper conduct of examinations. It is an expert body consisting of
persons coming from different walks of life who are engaged in or
interested in the field of education and have wide experience. The
decision of such an expert body should be given due weightage by
courts. This Court in the case of Bihar School Examination Board v.
Subhas Chandra Sinhal observed. (SCC pp. 652-53, para 14)
"The universities are responsible for their standards and the
conduct of examinations. The essence of the examinations is that the
worth of every person is appraised without any assistance from an
outside source. If at a centre the whole body of students receive
assistance and manage to secure success in the neighbourhood of 100%
when others at other centres are successful only at an average of 50%, it
is obvious that the University or the Board must do something in the
matter. It cannot hold a detailed quasi-judicial inquiry with a right to its
alumni to plead and lead evidence etc. before the results are withheld or
the examinations cancelled. If there is sufficient material on which it can
be demonstrated that the university was right in its conclusion that the
examinations ought to be cancelled then academic standards require
that the university's appreciation of the problem must be respected. It
would not do for the Court to say that you should have examined all the
candidates or even their representatives with a view to ascertaining
whether they had received assistance or not. To do this would encourage
indiscipline if not also perjury."
19. The Allahabad High Court in Rajiv Ratna Shukla v. University
of Allahabad made the following observations:
Even otherwise the statute and ordinances provide for an
authority known as Examination Committee to look into and decide
such matter. As the Examination Committee after looking into the report
was satisfied that the examinations were not conducted fairly it would
be unfair for this Court to interfere in writ jurisdiction. It need not be
mentioned that a finding recorded by a tribunal, administrative or
quasi-judicial body, is a finding of fact if it is based on consideration of
evidence howsoever meagre and insufficient it may be. The report of the
Flying Squad coupled with the statement of Centre Superintendent was
available with the Examination Committees. Even if another committee
or this Court on the same material could have come to a different
conclusion it could not furnish ground for interference. This Court
cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the Committee. It could
quash the order only if it finds that it was based on no material or the
Committee ignored some material which if considered could have
resulted in a different conclusion. Since the decision of the Examination
Committee does not suffer from any such error it is difficult to grant
relief to petitioners.
We are not unconscious or oblivious of grave injustice which might be
done to some of the students, maybe even majority, because of refusal
by this Court to interfere but we cannot ignore the deterioration in the
standard of discipline of academic institutions. How this should be
regulated or controlled should best be left to the discretion of those who
are entrusted with this responsibility. If this Court starts substituting its
own opinion in place of opinion expressed by authorities it shall result
in chaos.. It is well known that due to conduct of others even innocent
persons suffer but the sufferings of few has to be tolerated in the larger
interest of the society. As is usual in such matters it is only the few who
are responsible but to protect the bona fide or the genuine if a decision
is given which erodes the discipline and vitiates the atmosphere of the
academic institutions then it is better to restrain and refuse.
As regards demand for inquiry and violation of principle of natural
justice, suffice it to say, that on academic disciplinary proceedings
exception is made where proceedings are substantially fair or it is
impossible to hold inquiry. Cases of mass copying resulting in
cancellation of the examination fall in this exception. By its very nature
no inquiry could have been made. Decision in Madhulika. Mathur case
has absolutely no relevance. Concept of reasonable opportunity assumes
primacy where penal action is proposed to individual. Direction to hold
re-examination cannot be put in that category. It was not like what had
happened in Gorakhpur University where examination was not treated
as Ineffective or vitiated. Ratio of that decision is that what was invalid
could not be treated as valid for punishment without affording
opportunity."
20. Coming to the case on hand, as noted earlier, the High Court has
quashed the notification issued by the Board as ultra vires Article 14 of
the Constitution and ultra vires the Act. Further the High Court has
discussed at length how the Board should proceed in the matter and
has issued directions regarding the principles to be followed and matters
to be bome in mind by the Board while framing Rules and has even
issued directions as to what some of the provisions of the Rules should
be. From the discussions in the impugned judgment it is clear that the
High Court has taken upon itself the task of finding out a scheme to
tackle the problem of mass malpractice in examination. In our
considered view the approach of the High Court in the matter is
erroneous and this has vitiated the judgment. In matters concerning
campus discipline of educational institutions and conduct of
examinations the duty is primarily vested in the authorities in charge of
the Institutions. In such matters the court should not try to substitute
its own views in place of the authorities concerned nor thrust its views
on them. That is not to say that the court cannot at all interfere with the
decisions of the authorities in such matters. The court has undoubtedly
the power to intervene to correct any error in complying with the
provisions of the rules, regulations or notifications and to remedy any
manifest injustice being perpetrated on the candidates. In judging the
validity of a notification containing provisions regarding steps to be
taken when a report of mass malpractice is received it is to be kept in
mind whether the provisions contained in the notification are relevant
for achieving the purpose for which the notification is issued and if it is
found that the notification is relevant for and has a nexus with the
purpose to be achieved then the notification cannot be said to be
arbitrary and discriminatory. The High Court has failed to keep this
principle in view while considering the validity of the notification in
question. A notification cannot be struck down as discriminatory merely
because in implementing the same injustice is likely to be suffered by
some candidates. The impugned judgment does not show that the
decision to strike down the two notifications is based on grounds sound
in law and justified on facts. It is our considered view that the judgment
of the High Court is unsustainable and has to be quashed".
In Medical Council of India v. Sarang (supra),
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
" 6. In matters of academic standards, courts should not
normally interfere or interpret the rules and such matters should be left
to the experts in the field. This position has been made clear by this
Court in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, State of Kerala v.
Kumari T.P. Roshana and Shirish Govind Prabhudesai v. State of
Maharashtra. The object of the said Regulation appears to be that
although the course of study leading to the IInd professional
examination is common to all medical colleges, the sequence of coverage
of subjects varies from college to college. Therefore, the requirement of
18 months of study in the college from which the student wants to
appear in the examination is appropriately insisted upon. Migration is
not normally allowed and has got to be given in exceptional
circumstances, in the absence of such a stipulation as contained in
Regulation 6(5), it is clear that the migrated student is likely to miss
instruction and study in some of the subjects, which will ultimately
affect his academic attainments. Therefore, the strained meaning given
by the High Court, which actually changes the language of Regulation
6(5), is not permissible. Thus we disagree with the view taken by the
High Court and state that the correct interpretation is as given by the
Medical Council of India, set forth above by us".
14. The sum and substance of the above precedents is
that decisions of expert bodies regarding the standards of
medical education should not be interfered with. The NMC is the
apex body responsible for maintaining the quality and integrity
of medical education in the country. Its decisions, which are
based on a meticulous assessment of compliance with stringent
regulations, must be given due deference.
15. The deficiencies found in the petitioner college, as
detailed above are not merely minor or technical in nature. Even
according to petitioners, on 13.05.2024, a virtual personal
hearing was held where the college's explanation was accepted
and renewal was granted upon payment of a penalty of
Rs. 6,00,000/-. The UGMEB's letter dated 07.06.2024 granted
renewal for Academic Year 2024-25, subject to the fine and re-
assessment after two months. The NMC also in their counter
stated that petitioner has been a repeated defaulter in fulfilling
the mandatory requirements of the 2023 Regulations. Apart
from the deficiencies, NMC received a formal communication
from the CBI regarding FIR dated 30.06.2025, which was filed
against assessors, college authorities and unknown persons on
charges of bribery and serious misconduct. The college was
previously cautioned during the academic year 2024-25 that
stringent action would be taken if deficiencies continued and for
the academic session 2024-25, the college was granted a
conditional renewal, but the assessment was conducted under
the less stringent MSR 2020 Regulations and had it been
assessed under MSR 2023, it would not have received even the
conditional grant. For the academic year 2025-26, the college
was again found deficient, but a conditional renewal was
granted by imposing a penalty of Rs. 6,00,000/- under clause 8
of the MSMER, 2023.
16. The findings of faculty and senior resident
deficiencies as per AEBAS data in 19 out of 20 and 16 out of 20
departments respectively, along with low bed occupancy and
OPD attendance, point to a systemic failure to meet the
mandatory standards under the MSR 2023 Regulations. The
allegations in the CBI FIR, as mentioned in the NMC's affidavit,
are extremely serious and directly pertain to the manipulation of
the regulatory process. While petitioners denied any
wrongdoing, these are grave allegations that cannot be ignored.
The NMC's decision to halt admissions for the academic year
2025-26, in the opinion of this Court, was a well-considered
action based on persistent deficiencies and the gravity of the
allegations and aimed at upholding the integrity of medical
education and protecting the future of prospective students. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Medical Commission v.
SSPM's Medical College & Lifetime Hospital & Research
Centre. (Order dated 12.04.2022) affirmed the NMC's express
statutory authority under Section 26(1)(f) of the NMC Act, 2019
to stop admissions. Hence, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the decision taken on the basis of
recommendation of an expert body.
17. For all the reasons stated supra, this Court finds no
merit in the contentions raised by petitioners. The Writ Petition
is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
18. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. Liberty
is given to petitioners to pursue the alternate remedy of appeal
as provided under the relevant Regulations. No costs.
19. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any
shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
29th August 2025
ksld
