S.T.Krishnamoothi v. Union of IndiaRep. by its Secretary to GovernmentMinistry of Human Resources

6.Sri Balaji Medical College & Trust HospitalRep. by its DeanNo.7 Works ColonyChormepetChennai – 447.Meenakshi Medical College & Research Institute(Deemed University)Rep. by its DeanEnathurKancheepuram8.Sri Ramachandra Medical College & Research Institute (Deemed University)Rep. by its DeanNo.1 Ramachandran NagarPorurChennai – 1169.Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research(Deemed University)Rep. by its Registrar173 Agaram RoadSelaiyurTambaramChennai – 7310.Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham(Deemed University)Rep. by its RegistrarEttimadaiCoimbatore – 641 10511.SRM Medical College Hospital & Research Institute (Deemed University)Rep. by its DeanSRM NagarPotheriKattankulathurKancheepuram12.Vinayaka Mission's Research Foundation (Deemed University)NH-47 Sankari Main RoadAriyanoorSalem https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

13.Christian Medical CollegeRep. by its DeanBagayamVellore – 632 00214.Raja Muthaiah Medical CollegeRep. by its DeanAnnamalai NagarChidambaram15.PSG Institute of Medical SciencesRep. by its DeanPeelameduCoimbatore16.Dr.MGR Educational and Research Institute(Deemed University)Rep. by its RegistrarE.V.R. Periyar Salai (NH4 Highway)MaduravoyalChennai17.Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences(Deemed University)Rep. by its RegistrarSaveetha NagarThandalam PostSriperumbudur TalukKancheepuram District18. Sri Chandrasekarendra Saraswathi Vishwa Mahavidyala, (Deemed University) Rep. by its Registrar, Enathur,Kancheepuram 631 561.19. Shanmuga Arts Science Technology and Research Academy (Deemed University) represented by its Registrar, Thirumalai Samudram, Thanjavur-613 402.20. Vellore Institute of Technology (Deemed University) represented by its Registrar, Vellore-632 104.21. Sathyabama Institute of Science and Technology (Deemed University) represented by its Registrar Jeppiar Nagar, Old Mamallapuram Road, IT High way, Chennai-600 119. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

22. Karunya Institute of Science and Technology (Deemed University) represented by its Registrar, Karynya Nagar, Coimbatore-641 114.23. Avinashilingam Institute for Home Science and Higher Education for Women (Deemed University) represented by its Registrar, Ayya Avinashilingam Nagar, Varapalayam, Coimbatore-641 108...Respondents.Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for theissuance of Writ of Mandamus commanding the first respondent to verify andpublish for the benefit of the students, the legal status (recognition /approval) of the institutions and courses run by respondents 5 to 23, andcause publication of the mandatory disclosures, cited in para 8 of theaffidavit, besides initiation of appropriate action, for Non-Compliance ofthe regulations / rules on the subject of technical and Medical / para-medical education.For Petitioner: Mr.V.Manikandan Vathan Chettiar For Respondent 4 : Mr.R.SingaravelanFor Respondent 5: Mr.S.K.SelvarajM/s.S.Udayakumar SCGSC : Respondent 1 and 2.M/s.Muralikumar: Respondent 3.M/s.B.Saraswathy: Respondent 7M/s.A.Jenasenan: Respondent 13Mr.G.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for M/s.G.R.Associates: Respondent 19.M/s.Sathish Parasaran: Respondents 12 and 16. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E RK. CHANDRU, J.This writ petition is filed in public interest seeking for a directionto the first respondent Union of India to verify and publish for thebenefit of the students, the legal status (recognition / approval) of theInstitutions and courses run by the respectfully 5 to 23, and causepublication of the mandatory disclosures cited in paragraph 8 of theaffidavit and also to initiate appropriate action for non-compliance ofthe regulations / rules on the subject of technical, medical and para-medical education.2.Excepting for the fifth respondent, the respondents 6 to 23 wereall granted the status of Deemed University by the second respondentUniversity Grants Commission [for short, 'UGC'] in terms of Section 3 ofthe University Grants Commission Act, 1956 [for short, 'UGC Act'] and theyare fully under the supervision and control of the second respondent.Therefore, we directed the writ petitioner to confine his petition onlywith reference to the prayer regarding the fifth respondent, which hasbeen shown as Rajendra Medical College Hospital and Research Institute. 3.We have heard Mr.V.Manikandan Vathan Chettiar, learned counselappearing for the writ petitioner, Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned counselappearing for the fourth respondent and Mr.S.K.Selvaraj, learned counselappearing for the fifth respondent and perused the records. 4.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner readily concededand we directed notice to be issued only to the fifth respondent apartfrom the other official respondents. The learned counsel also submittedthat the fifth respondent is not at all a Medical College eitherrecognised by the fourth respondent Medical Council of India [for short,'MCI'] or by the first respondent Union of India. It is neither deemedUniversity in terms of Section 3 of the UGC Act nor is it affiliated toany University in terms of the UGC Act. The learned counsel also drewthe attention of this Court to a newspaper advertisement given by thefifth respondent in the "Daily Thanthi", which is a leading TamilNewspaper dated 25.02.2006 as well as on 05.3.2006. The said twoadvertisements are reproduced below: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Advertisement dated 25.02.2006RAJENDRA MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL & RESEARCH INSTITUTECollege : Oragadam Village, Mathur P.O. Kanchi Dt. - 602 105 Ph:0416 –32003319, 32003480Extension Medical School of SOUTHERN MEDICAL UNIVERSITY, GOVT. OF CHINAOPENING TODAYAdmissionMBBSFew Seats 2005-06 OnlyEligibility:12th grade minimum 50% Marks in Physics, Chemistry, BiologyCourse : 5 Years. 2 Years Clinical rotation in Southern Medical University– ChinaEligible to practice in India on Passing the MCI Screening Test.SMU is Listed in WHO World Directory of Medical SchoolsNO DONTIONS – ONLY FEES – Separate Hostel for Ladies & Gents-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Admin. Office:No.537, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai-600 106.INDIA.Ph: 044-24759172, 24754433, 42660063/64/65, Cell : 9444029172, 9884170777ADVERTISEMENT IN DAILY THANTHI Dt.05.3.2006RAJENDRA MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL & RESEARCH INSTITUTECollege : Oragadam Village, Mathur P.O. Kanchi Dt.-602 105. Ph:0416 –32003319, 32003480Joint Co-operation with Medical School of SOUTHERN MEDICAL UNIVERSITY,GOVT. OF CHINASouthern Medical University Government of China Admission 2005-06 NOW OPEN!|MBBSNo DonationsPay only the feesFew Seats Separate Hostel only for Ladies & Gents Eligibility:*Minimum.12th gradeAdmin. Office: No.537, Poonamallee *50% marks inPhysics High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai- Chemistry, Biology600106. INDIA. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Course:Ph : 044-24759172, 24754433,* Total 5 years.42660063/64/65.*2 years Clinical rotation Cell : 9444029172, 9884170777in Southern Medical University-China(SMU is listed in WHO's WORLD DIRECTORY OF MEDICAL SCHOOLS)5.Since the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thesaid institution is admitting students and collecting huge amounts, it isnecessary to injunct them from running the institution as they have noaffiliation with any University nor recognised by MCI. 6.This Court by an order dated 24.3.2006 directed the fifthrespondent not to start the admission process or admit students untilfurther orders. Thereafter, we also directed the Government Pleader totake the assistance of the Superintendent of Police of KancheepuramDistrict and to verify and inform about the status of the saidinstitution. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police, KancheepuramDistrict, sent a letter dated 27.4.2006 to the Government Pleader whichthe Government Pleader has also produced before us for the reference ofthis Court. It is convenient to reproduce the report verbatim."As per the above said reference, I visited the premiseswhere the Rajendra Medical College Hospital and ResearchInstitute is functioning and the following details arefurnished:1.The Rajendra Medical College Hospital and ResearchInstitute is functioning from the premises which wasleased for a period of 24 months from SakthiEducational Trust having address at Oragadam village(via) Padappai, Kanchipuram District. The M.B.B.S.Classes in this college started functioning from 25thFebruary 2006.2.There is no hospital and there is no research instituteas claimed by the college in the premises. Also thereis no lab for the students. Only a few class rooms areavailable.3.The name board in the college mentions that the collegeis affiliated to the University of Health SciencesAntiua, West Indies. However, the college broachers(sic. Brochures) show that the college is an extensionmedical school of Southern Medical University,Government of China. Preliminary enquiry reveal thatthe students are learning the syllabus of MGR Medical https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ University, Tamil Nadu and the Southern MedicalUniversity, Government of China is not providing coursematerials or syllabus to the students.4.The college is housed in an erstwhile EngineeringCollege and the building construction is yet to befully completed. No electricity connection is providedand the electricity demand is taken care of by agenerator. No proper road is available to reach thecollege.5.The Chairman and CEO of Rajendra Medical College &Research Institute Dr.Pappa Rajendran was recentlyarrested and remanded to Judicial custody on 11.4.2006by Chennai City Police in Central Crime Branch CrimeNo.307/06 under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468 and 471IPC.6.The qualification of the staff, the facilities offeredto the students, syllabus, course materials andacademic schedule, the nature of link between RajendraMedical College Hospital & Research Institute and theSouthern Medical University, Government of China, allneeds to be probed in detail."7.Thereafter, the fifth respondent entered appearance and alsosought to vacate the interim order granted by this Court. But, however,since the issue involves public importance, with the consent of theparties, it was decided to take up the main writ petition itself. In themeanwhile, the fourth respondent MCI also entered appearance and filed acounter affidavit regarding the status of the fifth respondent College.It is an admitted fact that the fifth respondent does not have anyaffiliation to any University or not recognised by the MCI. 8.The learned counsel for the fifth respondent has stated that theyhad entered into a joint collaboration with the Southern MedicalUniversity, China. The Southern Medical University agreed to cooperatewith the fifth respondent College for the MBBS programme.. As per theagreement, the first two years of pre-medical studies and basic sciencewould be in the fifth respondent College in India and two years clinicalrotation would be in Southern Medical University, China and the final yearstudy would be at the fifth respondent College. The examination will beconducted in China and the degree is also awarded by the Southern MedicalUniversity. It was also stated that there is no legal bar for theIndian citizen to get a medical qualification in any foreign country.It only requires that if a person requires such a foreign medical degree, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ he should give an undertaking that without obtaining the EligibilityCertificate, he shall not be eligible to appear in the screening test andthat the fifth respondent is functioning fully in accordance with theprovisions of Section 13(4-A) and 13 (4-B) of the Indian Medical CouncilAct [for short, 'IMC Act']. It was further stated that the fifthrespondent is a genuine institution and with the authority of the SouthernMedical University, they will be conducting the pre-clinical training inIndia and will send the students for clinical rotation in the SouthernMedical University for obtaining medical qualification. It was furtherstated that the students are fully aware of this condition and they arenot misled by the fifth respondent in any event. It is also pointed outthat there are some other institutions, which are preparing students inthe similar fashion and it is their understanding that MCI had granted theEligibility Certificate to those students to study in those MedicalColleges. It was further stated by them by an affidavit dated27.4.2006 that the petitioner College admitted 33 students on the date ofthe affidavit and six out of them have left the College and they are notattending the College.9.The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent thereafterdrew the attention of this Court to the decision of the Kerala High Courtand also the Andhra Pradesh High Court and stated that in view of thoseauthoritative pronouncements, no action can be taken against the fifthrespondent College for having entered into collaboration agreement withthe Southern Medical University, Republic of China. He also drew theattention of this Court to an interim order dated 11.9.1997 passed by thelearned single Judge of this Court in W.M.P.No.18290 of 1997 [R.Sethuramanv. Union of India and others] and other M.Ps. in W.P.No.11416 of 1997which was also referred to by the Kerala High Court. 10.We have directed the office to circulate the papers relating tothe said writ petition and it is found that the said writ petition isstill pending for final disposal and it is only an interim order passed bythe learned single Judge. We also found that in that writ petition,which was directed against various institutions running technicaleducation sponsored by some foreign University, the prayer was to takesuitable steps to prohibit foreign University conferring any degree inIndia either directly or by establishing centre through localestablishments or otherwise. As it is only an interim order and sincethe main writ petition is yet to be disposed of, we do not express anyfinal opinion on the said order. Even otherwise, the said order doesnot help the case of the petitioner. Further, in that case, there is noreference to IMC Act and the case did not deal with any medical education.We are also told that the All India Council of Technical Education [forshort, 'AICTE'] is already making regulations permitting the technicaleducation in India to have collaboration with foreign University or vice-versa. Since this case relates to medical education, we strictlyconfine our order only by interpreting the relevant legislation pertainingto medical education in India. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11.With reference to the Division Bench decision of the AndhraPradesh High Court dated 24.11.2002, the full text of the decision was notcirculated before us. However, a reference to the said order is foundin paragraph 47 of the judgment of the Kerala High Court made in W.P.(C)No.33104 of 2003 dated 27.01.2004. The passage extracted thereinclearly shows that there was no discussion with reference to the variousprovisions of the IMC Act and largely, the Court went by the fact thatthere is no provision of law under which the Government can interfere withthe conduct of classes by an institution, which is not affiliated eitherto any of the Universities in Andhra Pradesh or in India. 12.Turning to the decision of the learned single Judge of the KeralaHigh Court, we find that the Kerala High Court largely went by the factthat the institutions, which had similar claim as that of the fifthrespondent, are not demanding any recognition of the qualifications eitherby the Central Government or by the MCI and that Section 10-A of the IMCAct has to be addressed to in the context of Section 10-A, 10-B and 10-Cof the IMC Act and in terms of the said sections, the permission of theCentral Government is required only for the recognition for medicalqualifications. According to the Kerala High Court, a further readingof provisions of sub-section 4-A and 4-B of Section 13 of the IMC Act willclear the situation because those provisions provide that after undergoingconstant training in any country outside India recognised for enrolment asmedical practitioner, he shall not be enrolled by such Medical Council orIndian Medical Council unless the candidate is qualified in the screeningtest in India and by virtue of Section 13(3), a person who is an Indiancitizen is not eligible for admission in any foreign country without theEligibility Certificate issued. Therefore, the Court was of the viewthat the apprehension raised by the authorities that the students will befleeced or they will be free from granting degree for under graduationshould be checked in the absence of any legal bar. In the absence oflegal prohibition, there was nothing wrong in the institution having suchcollaboration agreement with the Universities / Institutions.13.However, Mr.R.Singaravelu, learned counsel appearing for the MCIdrew the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit dated 29.9.2006filed on behalf of the fourth respondent MCI and in paragraph 20, it isstated as follows:"It is further respectfully submitted that there is nopermissibility under the provisions of the Act for anyarrangement where the entire teaching and training of thecandidate for a graduate medical course is not in themedical institution abroad. There is no permissibility forteaching and training partially in the foreign medicalinstitution. In any case, there is no permissibility of any https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ teaching/training of any candidate stated to be undertakinga medical course, in a medical institution in India whichhas not obtained the statutory prior permission u/s 10A ofthe Act. It is most humbly submitted that if any suchimpermissible arrangement has been placed before the Hon'bleCourt in the present proceedings, in the most humblysubmission of the MCI, it being not permissible in law,would deserve appropriate prohibitory orders by this Hon'bleCourt so as to protect the innocent and gullible students ofthis country."14.In elaborating the said contention, the learned counsel also drewthe attention of the communication dated 06.11.2006 sent by the fourthrespondent MCI to their counsel that the Council has not been informed bythe fifth respondent and no Eligibility Certificate was given by the MCIto the students of the fifth respondent College. MCI has given a publicnotice in the Times of India dated 16.8.2006 warning the students ingetting admission to such institutions without the EligibilityCertificate. He also drew the attention of this Court to thecommunication dated 14.8.2006 sent by the MCI to the Union of Indiawherein it was clearly stated that Section 10-A of the IMC Act is clearlyapplicable to any institution. 15.In the light of the rival submissions made by the parties, it isnecessary to examine the provisions of the UGC Act and IMC Act. Theright to confer a degree has been dealt with under Section 22 of the UGCAct, which reads as follows:"22. Right to confer degrees.-- (1) The right of conferringor granting degree shall be exercised by a Universityestablished or incorporated by or under a Central Act, aProvincial Act or a State Act or an institution deemed to bea University under Section 3 or an institution speciallyempowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grantdegrees.(2) Save as provided in sub-section (1), no person orauthority shall confer, or grant, or hold himself or itselfout as entitled to confer or grant, any degree.(3) For the purposes of this section, "degree" meansany such degree as may, with the previous approval of theCentral Government, be specified in this behalf by theCommission by notification in the Official Gazette."16.Further, the UGC Act also makes it an offence under Section 24imposing a penalty on any person, who contravenes the provisions ofSection 22 of the UGC Act. Once there is an obligation coupled with thepenalty, the Section will have to be construed as mandatory. Therefore, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ no institution in contravention of Section 22 can confer any degree. 17.With reference to the study in a foreign institution, Section 13of the IMC Act provides for recognition of medical qualification grantedby certain medical institutions whose qualifications are not included inthe first or second schedule. Section 13 (4-A) and (4-B) of the IMC Actare extracted below:"(4-A) A person who is a citizen of India and obtainsmedical qualification granted by any medical institution inany country outside India recognised for enrolment asmedical practitioner in that country after such date as maybe specified by the Central Government under sub-section(3), shall not be entitled to be enrolled on any MedicalRegister maintained by a State Medical Council or to havehis name entered in the Indian Medical Register unless hequalifies the screening test in India prescribed for suchpurpose and such foreign medical qualification after suchperson qualifies the said screening test shall be deemed tobe the recognised medical qualification for the purposes ofthis Act for that person.(4-B)A person who is a citizen of India shall not,after such date as may be specified by the CentralGovernment under sub-section (3), be eligible to getadmission to obtain medical qualification granted by anymedical institution in any foreign country without obtainingan eligibility certificate issued to him by the Council andin case any such person obtains such qualification withoutobtaining such eligibility certificate, he shall not beeligible to appear in the screening test referred to in sub-section (4-A) :Provided that an Indian citizen who has acquired themedical qualification from foreign medical institution orhas obtained admission in foreign medical institution beforethe commencement of the Indian Medical Council (Amendment)Act, 2001 shall not be required to obtain eligibilitycertificate under this sub-section but, if he is qualifiedfor admission to any medical course for recognised medicalqualification in any medical institution in India, he shallbe required to qualify only the screening test prescribedfor enrolment on any State Medical Register or for enteringhis name in the Indian Medical Register." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

18.With reference to the application of this provisions, the MCI hasissued instructions and also prescribed a format and the finality of theformat prescribed is pending consideration by the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No.12792 to 12797 of 2006 in the case of Ishan Kaul and others.Therefore, suffice to say that we are not concerned with a case of thestudent or any parent coming on his behalf to this Court for EligibilityCertificate so as to enable them to join in any foreign University. 19.The present case stands on a completely different footing. Evenas per the admission of the fifth respondent, which is referred toearlier, that the collaboration agreement they had allegedly signed withthe Southern Medical University, Republic of China, the two years of pre-clinical and basic studies will be imparted in India and also final yearstudy will be in the fifth respondent College. This position has beenreiterated in more than one place in the counter affidavit. It hasalso been referred to in the advertisement extracted above.20.Apart from that, the advertisement also shows that the fifthrespondent College is an extension Medical School of the Southern MedicalUniversity, Republic of China and it is further advertised that thestudents who are undergoing the Course are eligible to practice in Indiaafter passing screening test in India. Even though it is claimed thattwo years study would be imparted in Southern Medial University, China,the first two years and the last year will be imparted in the fifthrespondent College at Kancheepuram, the report submitted by theSuperintendent of Police clearly shows that there is not even anylaboratory facility and only a few class rooms are available and no coursematerial or syllabus of the Southern Medical University are provided tothe students. Even the electricity facility is lacking and the place iselectrified with a generator. Since the MCI has taken a stand thatunder Section 10-A of the IMC Act, there is a total prohibition for anyperson to run an institution in India, it is relevant to extract Section10-A 1 of the IMC Act."10-A. Permission for establishment of new medical college,new course of study, etc. – (1) Notwithstanding anythingcontained in this Act or any other law for the time being inforce-(a)no person shall establish a medical college; or(b)no medical college shall(i)open a new or higher course of study or training(including a post-graduate course of study or training)which would enable a student of such course or training toqualify himself for the award of any recognised medicalqualification" https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

21.It is important to note that Section 10-A of the IMC Act wasintroduced by an Amending Act 31 of 1993 with effect from 27.8.1992. Theobjects and reasons which was appended to the Bill when it was introducedin the Parliament, is also relevant and so far as the purpose for Section10-A as found in paragraphs 3 and 4, is extracted below:"3.Meanwhile, it had been noticed that some StateGovernments were giving approvals for the opening of newmedical colleges on their own, without insisting on theprovision of basic prerequisites of hospital, equipment,laboratories or qualified faculty members, etc. In certaincases, after the colleges gave admission to students, theybegan exercising the combined pressure of the managementstudents and their families for grant of approval to themedical colleges by the Medical Council of India.4.In order to curb such mushroom growth of medicalcolleges, the President promulgated the Indian MedicalCouncil (Amendment) Ordinance 1992 (Ord 13 of 1992) on the27th August, 1992 to amend the Indian-Medical Council Act,1956 by incorporating therein provisions for priorpermission of the Central Government for establishing anynew medical college and for starting any new or highercourses of study or increasing admission/capacity in anycourse of study or training including, post graduate courseof study in any existing medical college."22.Once the objects and reasons are kept in mind, the import ofSection 10-A can be clearly understood. Though the Kerala High Courtreferred to the objects and reasons behind the amendment, it did not takeit into consideration by stating that the objects and reasons can onlygive background of the history of legislation and it cannot be pressed forinterpreting the provision. The said amendment has been brought intoeffect by the Parliament fully conscious of the fact that there has beenunauthorised entry of institutions and the State Governments are alsogranting approvals without insisting on basic pre-requisites which arerequired for any Medical College, the Central Government itself has takenupon the task of granting prior permission. 23.In fact, the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider thesituation created by a bogus Medical College vide its decision reported in1986 (2) SCC 667 [A.P. CHRISTIANS MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY V.GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER] and the relevant passage isfound in paragraph 7, which is extracted below:"As we had already mentioned the petitioner had thetemerity to admit or pretend to admit students in the firstyear MBBS course without any permission being granted bythe government for the starting of the medical college and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ without any affiliation being granted by the University.The society did this despite the strong protest voiced bythe University and the several warnings issued by theUniversity. The society acted in defiance of theUniversity and the Government, in disregard of theprovisions of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, the OsmaniaUniversity Act and the regulations of the OsmaniaUniversity and with total indifference to the interest andwelfare of the students. The society has played havoc withthe careers of several score students and jeopardised theirfuture irretrievably. Obviously the so-calledestablishment of a medical college was in the nature of afinancial adventure for the so-called society and itsoffice bearers, but an educational misadventure for thestudents. Many, many conditions had to be fulfilled beforeaffiliation could be granted by the University. Yet thesociety launched into the venture without fulfilling asingle condition beyond appointing someone as Principal.No one could have imagined that a medical college couldfunction without a teaching hospital, without the necessaryscientific equipment, without the necessary staff, withoutthe necessary buildings and without the necessary funds.Yet that is what the society did or pretended to do. We donot have any doubt that the society and the so-calledinstitutions were started as business ventures with a viewto make money from gullible individuals anxious to obtainadmission to professional colleges. It was nothing but adaring imposture and sculduggery. By no stretch ofimagination, can we confer on it the status and dignity ofa minority institution."24.The Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2005) 1 SCC 45[SANJEEV GUPTA AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER AND BACTCHCASES] in paragraph 48 observed as follows:"MCI is the expert body which can lay down the criteria forgrant of permanent registration to person to practicemedicine and involving himself in the patient care andmanagement. Otherwise also we are not inclined to permitthe petitioners to practice medicine overriding theprovisions of the Act as the Court has to take intoconsideration the interest of the public at large as well.A person who is not duly qualified as prescribed by MCIcannot be permitted to involve himself in public healthcare and play with the lives of human beings. It is notfor this Court to decide as to who is duly qualified topractice medicine. MCI being the expert body is the bestjudge to do so..." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

25.Further, while dealing with a private University establishedunder a State Act, the Supreme Court has held in its decision reported in(2005) 5 SCC 420 [PROF. YASHPAL AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARHAND OTHERS] in paragraph 23 as follows:"23.Shortly after Independence on 4.11.1948, the Governmentof India constituted a Commission known as "UniversityEducation Commission" of which Dr.S.Radhakrishnan was theChairman. Dr.Tara Chand, former Vice-Chancellor, AllahabadUniversity, Dr.Zakir Hussain, Vice-Chancellor, AligarhMuslim University, Dr.A.Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar, Vice-Chancellor, Madras University, Dr.Meghnan Saha, Dean,Faculty of Science, Calcutta University and 5 other eminentpersonalities in the field of education were its members.The Commission gave a very long and exhaustive report.Chapter II of the report deals with the aims of universityeducation and para 2 of Part I is illustrative and the sameis being reproduced below :"2. Universities as the organs of civilisation – Heindeed must be blind who does not see that, mighty as arethe political changes, far deeper are the fundamentalquestions which will be decided by what happens in theuniversities. Everything is being brought to the test ofreason, venerable theologies, ancient politicalinstitutions, time-honoured social arrangements, a thousandthings which a generation ago looked as fixed as the hills.If India is to confront the confusion of our time, she mustturn for guidance, not to those who are lost in the mereexigencies of the passing hour, but to her men of lettersand men of science, to her poets and artists, to herdiscoverers and inventors. These intellectual pioneers ofcivilisation are to be found and trained in theuniversities, which are the sanctuaries of the inner life ofthe nation."24.In the introductory paragraph of Chapter IVdealing with standards of a teaching, the Commissionrecorded its views in the following words: The need for high standardsIntroduction : It is the primary duty of a universityto maintain the highest standards of its teaching andexaminations. A university is a place of higher educationwhere the personality and capacities of the students aredeveloped to the utmost by teachers who should themselves beat work at the frontiers of knowledge in their respectivefields. The success of a university is to be judged as muchby the type of graduates it turns out as by the amount and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ quality of research contributed by its teachers and researchstudents. It must be clearly recognised that there is noconflict involved between the twofold function of auniversity to educate its members and to advance thefrontiers of knowledge – the two functions are, in fact,complementary. Unless high standards of teaching andexaminations are maintained, research will suffer, sinceresearch can continue uninterruptedly only if there is aregular supply of graduates well prepared by generaleducation for specialised research work. On the otherhand, if research is neglected by teachers, their teachingwill lack vitality and will rapidly become stale. A degreemust always be what a university makes it by the kind ofteaching it imparts and the type of intellectual and sociallife it provides for its members. If our universities areto be the makers of future leaders of thought and action inthe country, as they should be, our degrees must connote ahigh standard of scholarly achievement in our graduates."26.The Supreme Court further held that the nature of the Universityas contemplated in terms of UGC Act in paragraph 33 is follows:"33.The consistent and settled view of this Court,therefore, is that in spite of incorporation of universitiesas a legislative head being in the State List, the wholegamut of the university which will include teaching, qualityof education being imparted, curriculum, standard ofexamination and evaluation and also research activity beingcarried on will not come within the purview of the StateLegislature on account of a specific entry on coordinationand determination of standards in institutions for highereducation or research and scientific and technical educationbeing in the Union List for which Parliament alone iscompetent. It is the responsibility of Parliament to ensurethat proper standards are maintained in institutions forhigher education or research throughout the country and alsouniformity in standards is maintained."27.In interpreting Section 22 of the UGC Act, the Court held inparagraphs 37 to 39 of the judgment as follows:"37.It is important to note that in view of Section 22of the UGC Act, the right of conferring or granting degreecan be exercised only by a university or an institutiondeemed to be university under Section 3 of the aforesaid Actor institution especially empowered by an Act of Parliamentto confer or grant degrees. What is a 'degree' and what itconnotes is not given in the UGC Act but the meaning of theword as given in dictionaries and standard books is asunder: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ............... Omitted ...38.A degree conferred by a university is a proof ofthe fact that a person has studied a course of a particularhigher level and has successfully passed the examinationcertifying his proficiency in the said subject of study tosuch level. In the case of a doctorate degree, it certifiesthat the holder of the degree has attained a high level ofknowledge and study in the subject concerned by doing someoriginal research work. A university degree confers a kindof status upon a person like a graduate or a postgraduate.Those who have done research work and have obtained a PhD,DLitt or DSC degree become entitled to write the word"Doctor" before their names and command certain amount ofrespect in society as educated and knowledgeable persons.That apart, the principal advantage of holding a universitydegree is in the matter of employment, where a minimumqualification like a graduate, postgraduate or aprofessional degree from a recognised institute isprescribed. Even for those who do not want to take up a joband want to remain in a private profession like a doctor orlawyer, registration with the Medical Council or the BarCouncil is necessary for which purpose a degree in medicineor law, as the case may be, from an institution recognisedby the said bodies is essential. An academic degree is,therefore, of great significance and value for the holderthereof and goes a long way in shaping his future. Theinterest of society also requires that the holder of anacademic degree must possess the requisite proficiency andexpertise in the subject which the degree certifies.39.Mere conferment of degree is not enough. Whatnecessary is that the degree should be recognised. It isfor this purpose that the right to confer degree has beengiven under Section 22 of the UGC Act only to a universityestablished or incorporated by or under a Central Act,Provincial Act or State Act or an institution deemed to be auniversity under Section 3 or an institution speciallyempowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grantdegrees. Sub-section (3) of this section provides that'degree' means any such degree as may, with the previousapproval of the Central Government, be specified in thisbehalf by the Commission by notification in the OfficialGazette. The value and importance of such degrees which arerecognised by the Government was pointed out by aConstitution Bench in S.Azeez Basha v. Union of India." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

28.After analysing the various provisions of the UGC Act and otheranalogus provisions, the Court held the 2002 enactment passed by theChattisgarh State as ultravires and the same was struck down.29.Section 2(e) of the IMC Act defines Medical Institution, whichreads as follows:"medical institution" means any institution, within orwithout India, which grants degrees, diplomas or licences inmedicine"30.Even as per the admission of the fifth respondent, they haveproposed to run two years pre-medical course in India and also the fifthyear course in India and only a clinical rotation has to be done abroad asalleged by them. Therefore, it is a clear case of the fifth respondentstarting a medical institution without the prior permission of the CentralGovernment under Section 10-A of the IMC Act. While on one hand anyperson can start medical College subject to the provisions of the IMC Actin India and also get affiliation to an University or, in the alternative,students, who want to study in Colleges abroad, shall, after getting theEligibility Certificate as provided under Section 13 (4-A) and (4-B) ofthe IMC Act, the case of the fifth respondent does not fall withinthese two permissible limits provided under the IMC Act. On the contrary,the fifth respondent wants to establish a medical institution as definedunder Section 2(e) of the IMC Act without the prior permission of theUnion of India and without the approval by the MCI. Without beingaffiliated to any of the Universities established as per the UGC Act,wants to conduct courses in India ostensibly as per the agreement with aforeign University. That type of a situation was never contemplated inany of the decisions relied on by the fifth respondent College. TheMCI has not come up with any regulation providing for any collaborativearrangement with a foreign University by an Indian Institution or viceversa. 31.Since the case of the fifth respondent does not fall under thecategories provided in terms of Section 13 and they have also not obtainedany permission in terms of Section 10-A, the institution started by themand also advertised by them and pursuant to that, admitting of students,is clearly illegal and they are also liable for penal action in terms ofthe IMC Act as well as UGC Act. Since the very starting of theinstitution without prior permission of the first respondent Union ofIndia itself is illegal, we are not going into the question as to whetherthe fifth respondent is having any infrastructural facilities as contendedby them. We have only put it on record the report submitted by theSuperintendent of Police regarding the lack of infrastructural facilitiesavailable with the fifth respondent. Even as per the admission of thefifth respondent College, they have proposed to run pre-medical coursesfor two years and they will be giving training for the students allegedly https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on behalf of the Southern Medical University, Republic of China. 32.It is the endeavour of this Court to prevent the fifth respondentplaying a role with the careers of the students and jeopardise theirfuture irretrievably and we cannot allow the fifth respondent to functionwithout legal sanction and without any infrastructural facilities and torun it as a business venture with a veiw to make money from gullibleindividuals anxious to obtain admission to professional Colleges. Aspointed out by the Supreme Court in A.P.Christians Medical EducationalSociety case (cited supra), this is nothing but a daring imposture andsculduggery.But for entertainment of the public interest litigationfiled by the petitioner, the fifth respondent would have admitted thegullible students and would have gone ahead with their business venure.33.As was held in the Prof. Yashpal's case (cited supra), theSupreme Court emphasised the need for a quality education in paragraph 63as follows:"63.The impugned Act which enables only a proposal of asponsoring body to be notified as a university is not likelyto attract private capital and a university so notifiedcannot provide education of any kind much less of goodquality to a large body of students. What is necessary isactual establishment of institutions having all theinfrastructural facilities and qualified teachers to teachthere. Only such colleges or institutions which impartquality education allure the best students. Until suchinstitutions are established which provide a high level ofteaching and other facilities like well-equipped librariesand laboratories and a good academic atmosphere, goodstudents would not be attracted. In the current scenario,students are prepared to go to any corner of the country forgetting good education. What is necessary is a large numberof good colleges and institutions and not universitieswithout any teaching facility but having the authority toconfer degrees."34.In the light of the above, we have no hesitation in holding thatthe fifth respondent has no legal right to run an institution of thiskind, which has been advertised by them in the newspapers, and they arehereby permanently injuncted from running the institution withoutcomplying with the provisions of the IMC Act and UGC Act referred toabove. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

35.The writ petition shall stand allowed to the extent indicatedabove. It is open to the authorities especially respondents 1 and 4 totake appropriate action against the fifth respondent in accordance withlaw. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently,W.P.M.P.Nos.709 of 2006, 8932 of 2006 and 11027 of 2006 will stand closed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.griTo1.The Secretary, Union of India,Ministry of Human Resources & DevelopmentShastri BhavanNew Delhi – 110 0012.The Secretary, University Grants Commission,Bahadur Shah Zafar marg,New Delhi – 110 0023.The Member Secretary All India Council for Technical EducationIndira Gandhi Sports ComplexI.P. EstateNew Delhi – 110 0024.The Acting President, Medical Council of IndiaDr.P.C.Kesavan Kutty NairPocket – 14, Sector – 8Dwarka Phase – 1New Delhi – 110 075+ 1 CC To Mr.N. Muralikumar, ACGSC SR NO.10200+ 1 CC To M/S.G.R.Associates, Advocate SR NO. 10212+ 1 CC To M/s.S.Udayakumar, SCGSC, SR NO. 9994 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ + 1 CC To M/s.A.Jenasenan, Advocate SR NO. 9789+ 1 CC To M/s.K.Selvaraj, Advocate SR NO.9802+ 1 CC To M/s.B.Saraswathi, Advocate SR NO.9773+ 1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO 10048W.P.No. 8029 of 200620..02..2007gk[co]gp/26.2.