Can Medical Colleges Across the Country file cases against NMC in Delhi High Court? Here is what the Court says
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court was recently considering the legal question of whether it has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain a plea against the National Medical Commission (NMC), having its headquarters in Delhi, or whether the petitioners should file the plea at the High Court having the jurisdiction of the place where the cause of action arose.
This question came for consideration before the Delhi HC bench while adjudicating a plea by a Uttar Pradesh-based medical college, which challenged the NMC's decision to deny increased intake capacity for the institute.
However, referring to the jurisprudential stream of forum conveniens, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the HC bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav dismissed the plea observing that the Delhi High Court was not the comparatively convenient forum for the parties to effectively ventilate their grievance. The bench, however, granted liberty to the petitioner college to approach the jurisdictional High Court (Allahabad High Court in this case).
Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Courts are authorised to issue writs for enforcing fundamental and non-fundamental rights. The Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution paved the way for the applicability of the concept of "cause of action"- allowing petitioners to seek relief against any Government, authority, or person for any action taken at the High Court within whose jurisdiction the "cause of action" arises. This amendment was introduced to lessen the hardships to litigants from distant places, as instead of approaching the High Courts where the headquarters of the authorities were situated, they could approach the Courts closer to the place of where the "cause of action" arose.
Filing the plea before the Delhi High Court, the petitioner institute sought direction upon the NMC to grant the college permission for 100 more MBBS seats i.e. 150 MBBS seats for the academic session 2024-2025.
However, the counsel for the NMC raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the plea, contending that the cause of action arose outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. He submitted that the college was located in the State of Uttar Pradesh and any relief granted by the Delhi High Court, specifically, for increasing the MBBS intake capacity will have direct implications in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens, the counsel argued that the petitioner college was beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court and therefore, the mere presence of the offices of the statutory authorities within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court does not suffice to confer jurisdiction for adjudicating the present controversy.
On the other hand, the counsel for the petitioner argued that under Article 226 of the Constitution, High Courts are empowered to issue writs in relation to controversies where the cause of action has arisen, either wholly or in part. He further argued that the grievance of the college was not against the State of Uttar Pradesh, its authorities or any functionaries located there.
He submitted that while the inspection was carried out in Uttar Pradesh the application, evaluation, and resultant decisions were all processed by the authorities situated in Delhi, specifically the MARB order and the decisions of the appellate forums.
Court's Observations:
Relying on several legal precedents, the HC bench observed that only because the NMC head office and the appellate authority are situated in Delhi, it cannot be a cogent reason to entertain the plea.
As per the court, recognition, affiliation, and permission are pivotal in the process of setting up a medical college, and while they may seem distinct, they are intimately connected and interdependent for the proper functioning and legitimacy of a medical institution.
"Each of these elements—recognition, affiliation, and permission—plays a specific role, yet they work in tandem to ensure the medical college can admit students, provide education, and confer degrees that are valid and recognized by the Government and relevant medical bodies. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that endeavours should be made to ensure that all the relevant stakeholders are cognizant of any proceedings which are being carried out in respect of the petitioner College. The said goal would have been best achieved if the present case was adjudicated in the State where the petitioner-College is located as it would give a convenient fora to the State, affiliating University, other relevant intervenors etc," the bench observed.
Testing the jurisdictional aspect on the touchstone of the comparative conveniens, the HC bench noted that except for the fact that the documents are present in Delhi and the order denying permission for seat increase has been passed in Delhi, nothing substantial, integral material facts to the list can be seen to be arising in Delhi.
On the other hand, the college is situated in Sambhal (Uttar Pradesh), the affiliating University is also located in Uttar Pradesh, the students would be granted admission in Sambhal (Uttar Pradesh), the infrastructure being the hallmark of quality education is situated in Sambhal (Uttar Pradesh) and the effect of the prayer sought for be ultimately felt in Uttar Pradesh, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad shall be a convenient forum to adjudicate upon the controversy at hand.
"Interestingly, the entire purpose of bringing the amendment to Article 226 of the Constitution of India was to curb the hardships faced by the litigants and therefore, if the jurisdictional issues are brushed aside without a due consideration and the petition is entertained because the parties are resourceful to approach the jurisdiction of this Court, the same would militate against the solemn objectives of the said amendment," the Court further observed at this outset.
The Court observed that Delhi being the national capital, is home to a major chunk of central regulatory bodies, central agencies, central Public Sector Undertakings etc., with their head offices/registered offices/regional offices located within the peripheral limits of the State and generally, the final decisions are either directly or indirectly taken by these authorities through their offices in Delhi.
"Assumingly, if all the orders passed by the authorities which have their head offices in Delhi would attract jurisdiction of this Court, as has been quixotically argued by the petitioner-College to some extent in the case at hand, the same would amount to a concentration of jurisdiction on one High Court. Undeniably, such a view cannot be countenanced by any prudent stretch of imagination and must be eschewed. The said practice would overshadow the judicial propriety which must be upheld at all times," observed the Court.
"Notwithstanding the fact that some of the litigants may be resourceful in approaching this Court to challenge the action taken by these authorities merely because of their situs in Delhi, their resourcefulness shall not determine the course of justice. Considering a situation where any student is aggrieved by a decision taken by the NMC regarding derecognition of his/her degree, if the said student is asked to approach this Court only because any adverse order is passed in Delhi, it would create an undue hardship, which is verily not the Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 226," it further noted.
Noting that numerous cases are being filed from across the length and breadth of the country and clogging the docket of the Court merely on the ground that the impugned action has been taken by an authority having the situs in Delhi, the Court observed,
"In all such cases, an argument is made that since the concerned authorities are located in Delhi, the same would constitute essential, integral and material facts to confer jurisdiction. However, accepting such an argument would lead to jurisdictional overreach by this Court, thereby, contradicting and diluting the purport of the constitutional scheme outlined in Article 226(2)."
However, while making these observations, the Court also reprimanded the inconsistent stand taken by the NMC in raising objection regarding the lack of territorial jurisdiction "as it seemingly adopts different stands in similar cases."
"Such a practice is not only highly depreciable in light of the NMC being State which is expected to act as a model litigant but at times, it also hampers the swift and efficient administration of justice," it observed.
Finally, dismissing the plea, the court noted, "Therefore, in light of the aforesaid, the Court deemed it apposite to analyse multifarious dimensions pertaining to the doctrine of forum nonconveniens and reaffirm the settled position of law regarding the same in the case at hand. Since our justice delivery system is already crippled with mounting pendency, it is necessary for the Courts to ensure that the judicial time and resources is used judiciously. Judicial time, in principle and in fact, is public‟s time and the principles discussed above are only meant to realise the goal that it goes to the deserving causes in an appropriate manner so that the constitutional promise of guaranteed protection of rights is fulfilled in a time-bound manner."
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/delhi-high-court-257680.pdf
