Supreme court empowers Admission Supervisory Committee to initiate suo motu proceedings Against Private Medical Colleges

Such an observation came from the Supreme Court as it was considering a plea challenging the scope and ambit of the powers of the Committee under Sections 4(6) and 4(7) of the Kerala Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition Of Capitation Fee, Regulation Of Admission, Fixation Of NonExploitative Fee And Other Measures To Ensure Equity And Excellence in Professional Education) Act.

Observing that the High Court was right to appreciate those Sections of the Act, the Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Abhay S. Oka noted, "We are in agreement with the findings recorded by the High Court on the powers conferred on the Committee including the power of suo motu action that can be taken by the Committee in respect of admissions made by the self-financing colleges."

The plea was made by a Kerala-based Karuna medical college that was not granted approval for admitting MBBS students for the Academic year 2013-2014. Challenging the proceedings initiated by the Committee, the medical college had filed petitions before the High Court, which had stayed all the proceedings initiated against the medical college subject to the condition that the college would furnish all the details regarding admissions made for the academic year 2013-2014 within a period of one week.

Also Read: SC directs Kannur Medical College to Deposit Rs 40.7 crore with ASC to claim affiliation

The main contention of the medical college related to the scope and ambit of the powers of the Committee under Sections 4(6) and 4(7) of the Kerala Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition Of Capitation Fee, Regulation Of Admission, Fixation Of NonExploitative Fee And Other Measures To Ensure Equity And Excellence in Professional Education) Act.

It had been argued by the college that the Committee had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings suo motu and the powers of the Committee relating to admission process can be exercised only on a complaint.

However, opining that the legislature deliberately chose not to curtail or restrict the powers of the Committee, the High Court bench had interpreted Sections 4(6) and 4(7) of the Act and had noted in the order dated 10.04.2015, that supervision and guidance are powers that are conferred on the Committee and they include suo moto jurisdiction of the Committee.

At that time the HC bench had also decided against the medical college while considering the contentions related to the power of the Committee in exercising jurisdiction after the expiry of the last date for admissions and the lack of quorum before initiation of any proceedings.

Aggrieved by the HC order, the college had approached the top court which had stayed the operation of the judgment of the High Court by an order dated 05.05.2015. The counsel for the college submitted before the court that the power conferred on the Committee under Section 4(6) of the Act, though being supervisory, cannot be read in a manner that prior approval has to be sought from the Committee before admissions are made by the self-financing colleges. He referred to the Regulations of the MCI and the scheme for admission to medical colleges to buttress his submission that the Committee cannot be conferred such a power.

On the other hand, the learned senior counsel Mr. Jaideep Gupta argued that supervisory power that is conferred on the Committee is very wide in its amplitude and the Committee should have the jurisdiction to supervise the entire process of selection including insisting on prior approval before admissions are made by the private colleges.

After listening to the contentions, the top court observed, "we are of the considered view that the judgment of the High Court does not warrant any interference. We are in agreement with the findings recorded by the High Court on the powers conferred on the Committee including the power of suo motu action that can be taken by the Committee in respect of admissions made by the self-financing colleges."

Finally, referring to the students admitted during the Academic year 2015-2016, the Apex Court took note of the fact that the students have completed their studies and MBBS internship. The students, in separate petitions, sought for a direction to the University to give the permanent TCMC Registration and the final MBBS degree certificate.

At this outset, the court noted, "The students have prosecuted their studies on the strength of an interim order passed by this Court. They have completed their course and their CRRI as well. Subject to the verification of the completion of the course and CRRI by the students in the above IAs., the permanent TCMC Registration and final MBBS degree certificate shall be provided by the TCMC and the University, within a period of four weeks."

To read the court order, click on the link below.