Essentiality certificate for medical college cannot be withheld over lack of environmental clearance: Madras HC
Madras High Court
Chennai: In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court bench clarified that while environmental compliances are mandatory for setting up a medical institute in Tamil Nadu, they are not qualifying criteria for an Essentiality Certificate.
"While environmental compliances (such as the Environmental Clearance Certificate and Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board approval) are mandatory before constructing or commissioning a medical institution under distinct environmental statutes, they are not qualifying criteria prescribed under Form 2 for evaluating the grant of an Essentiality Certificate. The lack of an environmental clearance at the threshold cannot serve as a ground for the State to withhold or defer the processing of an Essentiality Certificate," observed the Madras HC bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan.
With this observation, the High Court issued directions to the State Government to process the application of the Chettinad Institute of Medical Sciences for an Essentiality Certificate without insisting on the production of the environmental clearance certificate and approval from Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB).
Case Background:
The appeal before the High Court had been filed by Chettinad Academy of Research and Education, which had acquired a property earlier belonging to Ponnaiyah Ramajayam Institute of Science and Technology (PRIST Trust), which had been granted an Essentiality Certificate for setting up a medical college with an annual intake of 150 students on the said land.
The college ran for a few years, but recognition was declined for the academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19 because the institution had not met the norms prescribed by the Medical Council of India. The college then stopped functioning, and PRIST Trust did not apply for renewal in the years that followed.
After acquiring the said property, the Academy applied to the National Medical Commission (NMC) in 2025 seeking approval to admit 150 MBBS students for the academic year 2025-2026, under the name Chettinad Institute of Medical Sciences. However, NMC had asked the Academy to obtain a fresh Essentiality Certificate, and for the lack of same, the application was rejected.
When the Academy applied afresh for an Essentiality Certificate on 22.08.2025, the State Government asked it to produce an Environmental Clearance Certificate and a certificate from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board before the application could be taken further. Challenging this, the Academy approached the High Court.
Earlier, a single-judge bench had disposed of the plea, directing the institute to obtain the Environmental Clearance Certificate and the Pollution Control Board certificate before the State would issue the Essentiality Certificate. Then the Academy filed an appeal before the Division Bench.
It was argued by the appellant academy that the Essentiality Certificate granted to PRIST Trust in 2014 had never been withdrawn or cancelled, and since Section 13(6) of the SARFAESI Act carries all statutory approvals attached to an asset over to the auction purchaser, that certificate continued to hold good in the appellant's favour, a position said to be reinforced by Section 60(4) of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, which saves approvals granted under the earlier Medical Council of India regime.
Further, it contended that an Environmental Clearance Certificate and a Pollution Control Board certificate have nothing to do with the grant of an Essentiality Certificate, since neither finds a place among the requirements listed in Form 2 of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999, which sets out what an Essentiality Certificate must certify, nor does it mention either document.
The appellant's counsel submitted that an Essentiality Certificate was nothing more than the State Government's opinion on whether a medical college was needed in a given area, and it does not travel into questions of environmental compliance, which are the subject of entirely separate statutory regimes.
It was contended that the appellant never demanded that it should be exempted from these certificates altogether, but the case was only that their absence should not hold up the Essentiality Certificate, and that the said certificates could instead be furnished before the Commission at the stage of its own approval.
On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State supported the order under appeal and submitted that the Essentiality Certificate was not a mechanical formality, but called for the State Government's genuine satisfaction that a medical college was needed and could function properly at the proposed site and that this satisfaction cannot be divorced from statutory compliance such as environmental clearance. He further pointed out that the appellant's own building has a built-up area far in excess of the threshold that attracts this requirement and submitted that the State was justified in insisting on the two certificates.
Observations by High Court:
The Division bench of the High Court observed that the appellant was not entitled to a total exemption from the environmental clearance or the Pollution Control Board Certificate and it was not the plea of the appellant either before the Single Judge bench or the Division Bench.
Referring to the Single Judge's order, the Division Bench observed, "The consistent stand of the appellant is that it does not seek to avoid these requirements, but, at the present stage, the absence of the said two certificates, should not stand in the way of issuance of the Essentiality Certificate, since compliance can be demonstrated later, before the Commission while seeking final approval. The finding in paragraph 30 of the impugned judgment, that there is no escape for the appellant from these certificates, addresses a case the appellant was not making, and to that extent proceeds on a misunderstanding of the submissions advanced by the appellant."
The bench referred to Regulation 2(f) of the Establishment of New Medical Institutions, Starting of New Medical Courses, Increase of Seats for Existing Courses and Assessment and Rating Regulations, 2023, which defines Essentiality Certificate as "written permission from the central or concerned state government or the Union Territory administration as the case may be for the establishment of a new medical institution."
It also noted that Regulation 9(a) of the Regulations, 2023, prescribes that an Essentiality Certificate should be submitted at the applicable time. Further, the bench perused the details mentioned under Form 2.
At the outset, the bench held that the role of the State Government in issuing an Essentiality Certificate was well defined.
"Applying the statutory framework, we find that the role of the State Government in issuing an Essentiality Certificate is welldefined. The statutory delegation under Form-2 of the Regulations, 1999 limits the inquiry to be conducted by the State to assessing local medical manpower deficiencies, doctor-population ratios, public interest/desirability, site feasibility and the availability of adequate clinical material. The State Government should act within the delegated capacity to evaluate local needs and feasibility. It cannot act arbitrarily or insist upon parameters outside the scope of Form 2 or the governing Parliamentary legislation," observed the High Court.
The bench held that even though environmental compliances are mandatory before constructing or commissioning a medical institution under distinct environmental statutes, they are not qualifying criteria prescribed under Form 2 for evaluating the grant of an Essentiality Certificate.
"For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, the other issues raised in this appeal pale into insignificance and are left open to be decided in an appropriate case," held the bench.
"Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.12.2025 in W.P.No.39123 of 2025 is set aside. The first respondent is directed to process and consider the application of the appellant for grant of the Essentiality Certificate strictly within the parameters and criteria set forth in Form 2 of the 1999 Regulations and in accordance with law, without insisting on the prior production of an Environmental Clearance Certificate or TNPCB approval at this stage," it ordered.
To view the order, click on the link below:
