Backdoor entry: SC junks plea challenging Medical Council order cancelling MBBS admission
New Delhi: While considering pleas by students whose admission had been cancelled by the erstwhile Medical Council of India (MCI), now National Medical Commission (NMC), the Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the matter holding that the MCI order does not merit interference by the Apex Court.
Those students had challenged the Delhi High Court order, which had upheld the discharge orders passed by MCI cancelling their admission for alleged backdoor entry in medical institutes.
Agreeing with the NMC counsel Mr. Gaurav Sharma, the top court bench comprising of Justices D.Y Chandrachud and Hima Kohli observed, "This is not a case for our interference."
Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that the top court had issued notices in this matter back in May 2022. However, while issuing the notice, the top court bench comprising of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai expressed their concern that admitting such petitions might encourage similarly situated students and also referred to the issue how institutes overlook the legal framework regarding admissions and later use the students as a shield to justify their actions before the Judiciary.
"Colleges keep admitting students, they don't follow order of the MCI asking them to be discharged, they go to court and say the matter is pending 4 -5 years, our hands are tied. We see almost half a dozen cases like this…We realise that we have to also take into account that 4.5 years have passed. That's the problem," noted the bench.
The matter concerned five students who had been granted admission in 2016 by L N Medical College and Research Centre, Bhopal. These students had been admitted without taking part in the centralised counseling conducted by the Department of Medical Education (DME). On the other hand, according to Supreme Court's direction, admissions in all government and private medical colleges in the country have to be done through the centralised counselling system on the basis of NEET examination result.
Also Read: Backdoor Entry in Medical Colleges: Supreme Court issues notice to NMC
Such observations had been made by the Apex Court in a contempt petition after the Association of Private Dental and Medical Colleges had issued its own advertisement and admitted students on the basis of its own counselling. During the Supreme Court proceedings an undertaking was also given that all seats of Government as well as private institutions shall be filled up and no seat shall remain vacant.
After taking part in the counselling process, 5 seats in the concerned college remained vacant on the last day of counselling on 07.10.2016. Following this, the college wrote to the DME and informed about the vacant seats. However, as no action was taken by the Government, the college took matter in its own hand and admitted the petitioner students.
Consequently, the Medical Council of India (MCI) issued letters of discharge regarding the five petitioners in April 2017 and thereafter, several more communications were sent but neither the students nor the medical college paid any heed to them. The college continued to treat the petitioners as their students and allowed them to attend the course, appear in the examinations and get promoted.
Eventually, the five petitioners filed a petition seeking quashing of the discharge communications issued by the MCI and for direction that they be permitted to continue their studies in the medical college as regular medical students, which was dismissed by the single judge.
Thereafter, they challenged the single judge's order. However, a bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh also dismissed the appeal saying there is no merit in it.
In the proceedings before the High Court, the petitioner students had put reliance upon the order in the case of Saraswati Educational Charitable Trust And Anr. v. Union of India And Ors., where the top court bench had considered the fact that the students were not at fault and set aside the order of MCI. However, the HC bench had not considered this argument as the top court had clarified in that order that the judgment shall not constitute a precedent.
Following the HC order, these students approached the Supreme Court seeking relief. As per the latest media report by Live Law, the counsel for the petitioner students, Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul submitted before the Court on Monday that the concerned students were NEET qualified and they had not been admitted outside the counselling process. He also stressed upon the fact that the admission had not been granted on the basis of college counselling but these students had participated in the Central Counselling.
He argued that admission had been granted to these students only when the vacancies had not been filled up by the State till the end. Besides, the counsel for the students also submitted that the petitioner students have already completed 4.5 years of medical education in the concerned college.
"They have done about 4.5 years. They want to know in what direction their life is heading. In our case, factually, the Central Counselling took place; these students are NEET qualified and on the last date there were 5 vacancies," submitted the counsel. Referring to the fact that similar situated students had been given relief by the NMC, the counsel for the students submitted, "5 identically situated students in some other medical college were discharged by the MCI. When in an identical situation you have absolved others…"
He argued that the Apex medical commission, NMC did not explain the reasons for treating similarly situated students in a different manner, when the law required that those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to similar and equal treatment.
Meanwhile, the counsel for the concerned medical college, Mr. Dhruv Mehta submitted that there were 5 vacancies at the end of the counselling and taking note of the fact that the court had suggested not to leave any seats vacant, the college had approached the Directorate of Medical Education (DME). However, no response had been received by the college and therefore, the students had been enrolled.
In this context, the counsel for the students, Mr. Kaul also submitted that up until 4th counselling, the concerned college only followed the common merit list and the common counselling as directed by the top court. After the completion of the four rounds, there were 127 seats and DME sent a list of 125 candidates. At that point, there were two vacancies and on the last date, 3 more students opted out, leaving altogether 5 vacancies behind. Thereafter, the college had written to the DME about the vacancies and even had asked the DME for suggesting the names of candidates. The petitioner students had been admitted since DME did not respond.
After taking note of the submissions, the top court bench comprising of Justice Chandrachud questioned, "How much have you paid to the college?"
When the counsel for the students submitted that the statutory fee is 7-8 lakhs/year, the top court bench noted, "Mr. Mehta, would you be willing to pay a penalty of Rs. 1 crore per student in order to regularise them."
Responding to this, the counsel for the college, Mr. Mehta submitted, "I will have to seek instructions, Rs. 1 crore is a very large amount."
Meanwhile. Justice Chandrachud opined, "This is not straight (admission) at all."
On the other hand, the counsel for NMC, Mr. Sharma contended that the admissions had not been made on the last date, but much later, in September. He also referred to the fact that in the top court order in the case of Saraswati Educational Charitable Trust And Anr. v. Union of India And Ors., which the petitioner students were relying upon, had an interim order permitting the students to continue with the course.
He emphasised on the fact that in the present case, the petitioner students and the college were sitting idly for around 5 years. Further, it was argued by the NMC counsel that the top court had earlier clarified in several judgments that no sympathy is to be shown to petitioners, especially when they approach the court with unclean hands.
Agreeing with his submission, the Supreme Court bench noted, "Everybody sat quietly for 5 years. The cancellation was in 2016 and you waited till 2018 and then filed Writ petition."
Although the counsel for the students claimed that the petitioner students had sought legal remedy within 3 months of intimation of the cancellation, the bench dismissed the plea as it noted, "We are not inclined to entertain the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution."
To read the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/supreme-court-order-nmc-188467.pdf
Also Read: Backdoor entry in medical colleges should stop: High Court
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.