SC junks Singhania University's plea seeking recusal of Judge in MBBS Recognition case
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi: The Supreme Court recently upheld an order passed by a Division bench of the Rajasthan High Court denying to grant relief to Singhania University, which had sought the recusal of the Single Judge adjudicating the issues of recognition of MBBS courses at the University on the ground of possible bias.
Accordingly, the Apex Court refused to interfere with the interim order passed by the HC Division bench, which had upheld the Single Judge's order refusing to recuse.
While the top court bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih did not find any error in the approach taken either by the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench of the High Court, it observed that "it is always said that justice should not only be done but also seen to be done."
The bench advised, "If any of the parties has an apprehension, normally the Courts themselves should recuse from hearing of the said matters."
"Though, we are not interfering with the interim impugned order, we only advise the learned Single Judge to follow the well established principle stated hereinabove," ordered the bench.
Also Read: NMC warns against illegal MBBS and other medical courses at Singhania University
Plea before Rajasthan High Court:
The issue arises from the plea before the Single Judge bench of the High Court, where MBBS students had approached as they were not being awarded provisional MBBS degrees and due to this, they were unable to register with the Rajasthan Medical Council. The students had sought a declaration that the inaction on the part of Singhania University in not awarding the provisional MBBS degree, be declared as illegal and arbitrary.
On the other hand, the University had arguedthat it enjoyed a legal and constitutional status of a recognised and autonomous university and having been established by an Act of legislature and recognised by the University Grants Commission (UGC) under Section 2(f) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, it had authority to award degree/diploma/certificate in any courses including courses in Medical Science. It was the University's stand that it was not required to seek any recognition from the erstwhile Medical Council of India, now the National Medical Commission (NMC).
Meanwhile, the MCI, now NMC, took a categorical stand that under the scheme of laws governing the medical education in India, any institute including the Singhania University, was required to be registered/affiliated appropriately in accordance with the provisions of the NMC Act and rules/regulations. It had also submitted that Singhania University did not have such registration/affiliation and despite various notices given and warning students and public at large, the University was not only giving admission but claiming to award degrees without any authority of law.
When the case was listed at an advance stage of final hearing, the University prayed the Single Judge to recuse from the matter on the submission that the learned Judge assigned the matter, had represented the income tax department as a standing counsel and the case involved the issue of entitlement of exemption as a charitable institute. As the issue revolved around the present case, it would be a case of conflict of interest as the learned Judge assigned the matter, argued in favour of the Revenue and against the University, submitted the Singhania University.
The counsel for the university contended that the test would be whether a reasonable man would, in the circumstances, infer that there is a real likelihood of bias in deciding the matter in hand. The learned Judge's decision may lead to promotion of a cause in which the Judge was involved together with one of the parties and therefore, would lead to automatic disqualification, the counsel argued.
Since the Single Judge had turned down the University's prayer for recusal, the latter approached a Division bench of the High Court, which had upheld the Single Judge's order.
"...we do not find that there is any whisper in the pleadings of the petitioners or of the National Medical Commission or of the Rajasthan Medical Council that under the scheme of any such enactment, a charitable institution entitled to exemption under the Income Tax laws, is exempted from the rigour of NMC Act, 2019 and its regulatory umbrella," the Division bench had observed.
"Irrespective of its claim for exemption under the tax laws, the issue which arises for consideration in the writ petition is whether the appellant-University, on the strength of it being a university established by an Act of legislature and recognised by University Grants Commission, can claim an autonomy beyond the purview of regulatory mechanisms of National Medical Commission Act, Rules & Regulations framed thereunder, the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 and Rules & Regulations framed under those enactments made by the Parliament," it had further noted.
The division bench had noted that the entire edifice of arguments stood on this misconceived notion of fact as well as law that in the course of adjudication of the issue involved in the matter, the writ Court was required to give its verdict of appellant's entitlement to certain kind of exemptions under the tax laws.
"However, on the facts of the present case and particularly taking into consideration the scope and ambit of the issue involved for determination in the writ petition, it cannot be held by any stretch of logic and reasoning that while examining the issue in hand as to whether the appellant-University is unconditionally empowered to run medical course and award MBBS degree without seeking affiliation/registration/recognition from the National Medical Commission (NMC) only on the strength of it being an autonomous university established by an Act of legislature and recognised by UGC, even peripherally, an issue whether it is entitled to exemption under the tax law would have any role to play," the Court had noted at this outset.
The Division bench noted that the prayer for recusal was made at the eleventh hour when the case was taken up for final hearing with a clear direction earlier that no further aadjournment would be granted.
Further, the Division bench noted, "To put records straight, though the learned Single Judge refused to recuse, yet the matter was directed to be placed for consideration for further orders before the Chief Justice and the case was again directed to be placed before the appropriate Bench as per the roster."
Accordingly, the Division bench had held that the learned Single Judge, while deciding on the prayer for recusal, "adopted correct approach and line of reasoning."
Singhania University's Plea Before Supreme Court:
Challenging the Division bench's order dated 06.08.2024, the University moved the Apex Court. Previously on 23.08.2024, the Apex Court bench had granted a stay on the proceedings before the Single Judge.
However, after considering the matter, the Apex Court held:
We do not find any error in the approach taken either by the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench of the High Court. However, it is always said that justice should not only be done but also seen to be done...If any of the parties has an apprehension, normally the Courts themselves should recuse from hearing of the said matters.Though, we are not interfering with the interim impugned order, we only advise the learned Single Judge to follow the well established principle stated .
However, noting that the proceedings initiated by the present petitioners have been prolonged for a long time before the High Court, the top court bench requested the learned Single Judge to whom the matter would be assigned to decide the proceedings expeditiously.
Needless to state that interim order passed by this Court stand vacated. However, since the proceedings initiated at the behest of the present petitioners have been prolonged for a long time before the High Court, we request the learned Single Judge to whom the matter would be assigned to decide the proceedings expeditiously. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Medical Dialogues has been reporting on the issue of the recognition of MBBS courses at Singhania University. Previously, taking note of the unpermitted MBBS and other medical courses being offered by Singhania University last year, NMC had issued an alert warning medical aspirants about the University's mischievous claim. The Commission had issued a warning after an advertisement the University published an advertisement and invited applications for MBBS and other medical courses.
Last year, the Rajasthan HC had taken cognisance of the State Government's failure to take action against Jhunjhunu's Singjania University after noting that it was offering MBBS admission despite not having the required approval from the National Medical Commission (NMC).
To view the Supreme Court's order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/supreme-court-order-282995.pdf
To view the High Court's order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/rajasthan-hc-282996.pdf
