Ayurveda Colleges need to fulfil Requirements by 31st December for grant of permission for next academic year: Supreme Court
New Delhi: The Supreme Court division bench recently made it clear that in order to get permission for admitting students for a subsequent academic year cannot be considered as the permission granted for the earlier academic year, when the institute had deficiencies according to the rules.
In fact the top court also clarified that the Ayurveda colleges need to fulfill the basic requirements within 31st December, in order to be get nod for admission for the next academic session.
Referring to the Regulation 3(1) (a) of the Indian Medicine Central Council (PostÂGraduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2016 the bench noted, "It is thus clear that in order to be eligible for grant of permission for undertaking admissions in a particular academic session, the institution must fulfill the requirements of minimum standard as on 31st December of the earlier year."
Such observations came from the top court division bench comprising of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai while it was considering the appeals made by the Central Council for Indian Medicine, which had challenged the orders passed by the Karnataka High Court permitting Karnataka Ayurveda Medical College to admit students for the academic year 2018-19 in the view of the permission granted for the academic year 2019-2020.
Karnataka Ayurveda Medical college had applied before the State Government and the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS) seeking permission to start Post-graduate course for the academic year 2014-2015. Consequently, the Central Council for Indian Medicine granted permission to start five new Post Graduate Ayurvedic disciplines with five seats each in accordance with the then prevalent Indian Medicine Central Council (PostÂGraduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2012, which was later superseded by the Indian Medicine Central Council (PostÂGraduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2016.
As per 2016 Regulations, it was a requirement that an institution should possess a Central Research Laboratory and an Animal House. The 2016 Regulations provided that the Animal House could be either owned by the institution or it could be in collaboration with any other institution. Accordingly, the college collaborated with Sri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara College of Ayurveda, Udupi, which permitted the college the usage of Animal House set up by it.
Therefore, the Union of India continued permission to the college for the academic years 2016Â-17 and 2017-Â18 and directed the CCIM to inspect the facilities available at the college and submit the inspection report along with its recommendations. This was to be done by the end of March 2018 so that the matter pertaining to grant of permission for the academic year 2018Â19 could be considered before the start of the next academic year.
Consequently, the Central Council inspected the college on February 2, 2018 and again on May 23-May 24 , 2018. On the basis of the inspection report, the Union Government issued a notice to the college on August 3, 2018 and pointed out certain deficiencies. In fact, the College was given an opportunity of hearing on August 24, 2018 before the designated Hearing Committee. After the hearing, the Union of India rejected the permission to the college to admit students to the Post Graduate courses for the academic year 2018Â-19 on the ground of non-availability of Central Research Laboratory and Animal House.
However, vide the said order dated 5th September 2018, the Union of India granted permission to respondent No.1 to admit students to Under Graduate (BAMS) Course with an intake of 50 seats for the academic year 2018Â19 subject to it fulfilling the deficiencies mentioned therein by 31st December 2018.
Following this, the college approached the single judge bench of the High Court of Karnataka and later the matter reached the Supreme Court. Smt. Aishwarya Bhati, the ASG appearing for the Council that the said 2016 Regulations were made by the appellant in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (j) of Section 36 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 with the previous sanction of the Central Government. She submitted that the 2016 Regulations prescribe the requirements of minimum standard for grant of permission.
She also pointed out that unless the institution applying possess the required minimum standards, it would not be entitled for permission. It is submitted that the minimum standards, as required, are to be fulfilled for the particular academic year and in the event, such minimum standards are not fulfilled for the relevant academic year, the institution would not be entitled for permission.
It was further submitted by the ASG that merely because for the subsequent academic year, the requirements were fulfilled, it cannot efface the deficiencies that were found in the previous academic year. She argued that the view taken by the High Court of Karnataka, that if the permission is granted for a subsequent academic year, it would also be available for the previous year and such an institute would be entitled for permission even for the earlier year in which the deficiencies were found to have existed, does not lay down a correct proposition of law.
The college, on the contrary, supported the view taken by the Division bench of Karnataka High Court and argued that the HC order did not warrant any interference.
After taking note of the submissions, the top court bench took note of the fact that the minimum standards for admission, duration of courses of training, details of curricula and syllabi of studies and the title of the degree or diploma, vary from State to State and even from institution to institution in the same State.
It was noticed that though some States have constituted State Boards or Councils, either by legislation or by executive orders for the purpose of registration of practitioners in the various systems of Indian Medicine and Homoeopathy as well as recognition of qualifications, there was, however, no central legislation for the regulation of practice or for minimum standards of training and conduct of examinations in these systems of medicine on an all ÂIndia basis. It was also noticed that in the absence of such legislation, there was no effective control over the large number of unregistered practitioners in these systems.
At this outset, the top court bench referred to several relevant sections of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 for a better understanding of the rules. The Act was amended in 2003 including Section 13A of the Act in the amendment. As per this amendment the medical colleges cannot be established without the nod of the Central Government. On the other hand, the Centre had power under Section 1(5) of the Act for disapproving the scheme. The bench also referred to Section 22 which clarified that the Central Council could prescribe the minimum standards of education of Indian Medicine.
Therefore, the bench opined that the Karnataka High Court had erred in its judgment as it had not considered the scheme of Section 13A of the Act while passing the impugned judgment.
"We are at pains to say that though the judgment in the case of Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal (supra) was specifically relied on by the appellant herein, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka have chosen to rely on the earlier judgments of the Division Bench of the same High Court rather than a judgment of this Court...We are, therefore, of the considered view that the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench have grossly erred in not taking into consideration the scheme of the said Act so also the judgment of this Court in the case of Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal (supra). the bench noted in its order.
To read the court order, click on the link below.
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/supreme-court-ayurveda-174166.pdf
