CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR INDIAN MEDICINE VS KARNATAKA AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND OTHERS

CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR INDIAN  MEDICINE VS KARNATAKA AYURVEDA MEDICAL  COLLEGE AND OTHERS 

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2892  OF 2022

[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 4618 of 2021]

CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR INDIAN 

MEDICINE        ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

KARNATAKA AYURVEDA MEDICAL 

COLLEGE AND OTHERS    ...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2895   OF 2022

[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 4447 of 2021]

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  2894  OF 2022

[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 3742 of 2021]

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2893  OF 2022

[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 4346 of 2021]

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  2897  OF 2022

[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 20181 of 2021]

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2896   OF 2022

[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 20453 of 2021]

J U D G M E N T

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions. 

1

2. The present appeals challenge the following:

(i) judgment dated 21st December 2020 passed by

the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   of

Karnataka in Writ Appeal Nos. 541 of 2020

(EDN­REG)   and   542   of   2020   (EDN­REG),

thereby dismissing the writ appeals filed by the

present   appellant­Central   Council   for   Indian

Medicine, which was in turn filed, challenging

the order dated 24th  September 2020 passed

by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition

No.50772   of   2018   (EDN­REG­P),   thereby

allowing   the   writ   petition   filed   by   the

respondent   No.1   herein­Karnataka   Ayurveda

Medical College; and

(ii) judgment dated 24th  September 2020 passed

by the learned Single Judge of the High Court

of Karnataka in Writ Petition Nos. 50828 of

2018   (EDN­EX)   thereby   allowing   the   writ

petition filed by the petitioner therein and Writ

2

Petition   No.50772   of   2018   (EDN­REG­P),

thereby allowing the writ petition filed by the

respondent   No.1   herein­Karnataka   Ayurveda

Medical College.

3. For the sake of convenience, we refer to the facts as are

found in civil appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.4618 of 2021.

4. The respondent No.1 herein had applied to the respondent

No.4­State   Government,   respondent   No.3­Rajiv   Gandhi

University   of   Health   Sciences   and   the   appellant   herein   for

permission to start Post­Graduate course for the academic year

2014­15.   The appellant granted permission to start five new

Post  Graduate  Ayurvedic  disciplines  with   five  seats  each   in

accordance with the then prevalent Indian Medicine Central

Council (Post­Graduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2012

(hereinafter referred to as “2012 Regulations”).   These 2012

Regulations   came  to  be  superseded  by  the  Indian   Medicine

Central   Council   (Post­Graduate   Ayurveda   Education)

Regulations,   2016   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “2016

Regulations”).

3

5. 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   respondent   No.1   collaborated   with   Sri

Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara College of Ayurveda, Udupi,

which permitted respondent No.1 the usage of Animal House

set up by it.  As such, the appellant and the respondent No.2­

Union of India, continued permission to respondent No.1 for

the academic years 2016­17 and 2017­18.  The Union of India

directed the appellant to inspect the facilities available with the

respondent No.1 in accordance with the relevant Regulations

and submit its recommendations and the inspection report to

it.  This was to be done by the end of March 2018 so that the

matter pertaining to grant of permission for the academic year

2018­19   could   be   considered   before   the   start   of   the   next

academic year.  The appellant inspected the facilities available

with the respondent No.1 on 2nd February 2018 and again on

4

23rd­24th  May 2018.   On the basis of the said inspection, the

Union of India issued a notice dated 3rd  August 2018, which

was received by respondent No.1 on 16th August 2018.  Vide the

said notice dated 3rd  August 2018, certain deficiencies were

pointed out. The respondent No.1 was given an opportunity of

hearing on 24th  August 2018 before the designated Hearing

Committee.   After the hearing, the Union of India, vide order

dated   5th  September   2018,   rejected   the   permission   to

respondent   No.1   to   admit   students   to   the   Post   Graduate

courses for the academic year 2018­19 on the ground of nonavailability 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 2018­19 subject to it fulfilling

the deficiencies mentioned therein by 31st December 2018.

6. The respondent No.1 therefore filed a writ petition being

Writ   Petition   No.   50772   of   2018   (EDN­REG­P)   before   the

learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka. It is to be

5

noted   that   in   the   interregnum,   the   Union   of   India   granted

permission to the respondent No.1 to admit students for the

Post Graduate Course for the academic year 2019­20.   The

learned Single Judge, relying on the judgments of the Division

Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in the cases of Bahubali

Vidyapeeths JV Mandal Gramin Ayurvedic Medical College

v.   Union   of   India   and   Others1 and  Central   Council   of

Indian Medicine v. Union of India and Others2

, wherein the

Division Bench held that if the permission was granted for the

subsequent years, the benefit should enure in respect of the

previous year also, allowed the said writ petition.   The same

was carried in an appeal by the present appellant before the

Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, which was

dismissed vide the impugned judgment.  Hence, the appellant

approached this Court by way of the present appeals.

7. This Court, while issuing notice in the present matter,

recorded   the   statement   of   Smt.   Aishwarya   Bhati,   learned

Additional   Solicitor   General   (for   short   “ASG”),   appearing   on

1 Writ Petition No. 107076/2018 (EDN­ADM) dated 01.07.2019

2 Writ Appeal No. 736/2011

6

behalf   of   the   appellant   that   the   students   who   have   been

granted admission in the respondent No.1 college for the Post

Graduate Ayurveda courses for the academic year 2018­19, will

not be disturbed.   The learned ASG, however, requested that

the question of law arising in these matters needs consideration

by this Court.  As such, by the said order dated 19th April 2021,

this Court issued notice.

8. We   have   heard   Smt.   Aishwarya   Bhati,   learned   ASG

appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant,   Smt.   Madhavi   Divan,

learned ASG appearing on behalf of the Union of India and Shri

Chinmay Deshpande, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No.1.

9. Smt. Bhati submitted 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 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) with the

previous sanction of the Central Government.  She submitted

that   the   2016   Regulations   prescribe   the   requirements   of

minimum standard for grant of permission.  The learned ASG

7

submitted   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.   The learned ASG submitted 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.  It is therefore submitted 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.     She   submitted   that   though   a

judgment of this Court in the case of Ayurved Shastra Seva

Mandal  and   Another   v.   Union   of   India  and  Others3

, was

pointed out to the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench

3 (2013) 16 SCC 696

8

of the High Court of Karnataka, they have failed to apply the

law laid down in that judgment and as such, the judgment and

order of the Division Bench and the Single Judge are liable to

be set aside.

10. Smt. Divan, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the Union

of India, also supported the submissions made on behalf of the

present appellant.

11. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent   No.1,   on   the   contrary,   submitted   that   the   view

taken by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka is

taken on the basis of its earlier judgment and as such, no

interference is warranted in the present appeal.

12. For appreciating the rival submission, it will be necessary

to refer to the background in which the said Act came to be

enacted.  The Union of India, after noticing 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,   had   appointed   various

9

Committees to consider problems relating to the Indian system

of   medicine   and   Homoeopathy.     The   said   Committees   had

recommended that a statutory Central Council, on the lines of

the Medical Council of India for modern system of medicine,

was a pre­requisite for the proper development of these systems

of medicine.   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 all­India 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.  In June 1966, the Central Council of Health, in

its   13th  meeting,   while   discussing   the   policy   on   Ayurvedic

education,   has   recommended   the   setting   up   of   a   Central

Council   for   Indian   systems   of   Medicine   to   lay   down   and

10

regulate   standards   of   education   and   examinations,

qualifications   and   practice   in   these   systems.   In   this

background, the said Act came to be enacted on 21st December

1970.

13. As per the provisions of Section 3 of the said Act, the

Central Government was required to constitute, for the purpose

of the said Act, a Central Council consisting of the Members

specified   therein.   Chapter   IIA   of   the   said   Act   deals   with

“Permission for new Medical College, Course, etc.”.  The earlier

Chapter IIA of the said Act came to be substituted by new

Chapter   IIA   containing   Sections   13A   to   13C   by   the   Indian

Medicine Central Council (Amendment) Act, 2003 (Act No. 58 of

2003).  It will be relevant to refer to Sections 13A to 13C of the

said Act, which read thus:

“13A.   Permission   for   establishment   of   new

medical   college,   new   course   of   study,   etc.—(1)

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or

any other law for the time being in force,—

(a) no person shall establish a medical

college; or

(b) no medical college shall—

11

(i) open a new or higher course of

study or training, including a postgraduate course of study or training,

which   would   enable   a   student   of

such   course   or   training   to   qualify

himself   for   the   award   of   any

recognised medical qualification; or

(ii) increase its admission  capacity

in any course of study or training

including a postgraduate course of

study or training, 

except with the previous permission of the Central

Government   obtained   in   accordance   with   the

provisions of this section.

Explanation   1.—For  the  purposes of   this  section,

“person”   includes   any   University   or   a   trust,   but

does not include the Central Government.

Explanation   2.—For  the  purposes of   this  section,

“admission capacity”, in relation to any course of

study or training, including post­graduate course of

study or training, in a medical college, means the

maximum number of students as may be fixed by

the Central Government from time to time for being

admitted to such course or training.

(2) Every person or medical college shall, for the

purpose of obtaining permission under sub­section

(1), submit to the Central Government a scheme in

accordance with the provisions of sub­section (3)

and the Central Government shall refer the scheme

to the Central Council for its recommendations.

(3) The scheme referred to in sub­section (2), shall

be in such form and contain such particulars and

be preferred in such manner and accompanied with

such fee, as may be prescribed.

12

(4)   On   receipt   of   a   scheme   from   the   Central

Government   under   sub­section   (2),   the   Central

Council may obtain such other particulars as may

be considered necessary by it from the person or the

medical college concerned, and thereafter, it may,—

(a) if the scheme is defective and does not

contain   necessary   particulars,   give   a

reasonable opportunity to the person or

medical college concerned for making a

written   representation   and   it   shall   be

open to such person or medical college to

rectify the defects, if any, specified by the

Central Council;

(b) consider the scheme, having regard to

the factors referred to in sub­section (8)

and submit it to the Central Government

together   with   its   recommendations

thereon within a period not exceeding six

months from the date of receipt of the

reference from the Central Government.

(5) The Central Government may, after considering

the  scheme  and recommendations  of the  Central

Council under sub­section (4) and after obtaining,

where necessary, such other particulars as may be

considered   necessary   by   it   from   the   person   or

medical college concerned and having regard to the

factors referred to in sub­section (8), either approve

the scheme with such conditions, if any, as it may

consider necessary or disapprove the scheme and

any such approval shall constitute as a permission

under sub­section (1):

Provided that no scheme shall be disapproved by

the   Central   Government   except   after   giving   the

person or medical college concerned a reasonable

opportunity of being heard:

13

Provided further that  nothing in this sub­section

shall prevent any person or medical college whose

scheme   has   not   been   approved   by   the   Central

Government   to   submit   a   fresh   scheme   and   the

provisions   of   this   section   shall   apply   to   such

scheme as if such scheme had been submitted for

the first time under sub­section (2).

(6) Where, within a period of one year from the date

of   submission   of   the   scheme   to   the   Central

Government   under   sub­section   (2),   no   order   is

communicated by the Central Government to the

person or medical college submitting the scheme,

such   scheme   shall   be   deemed   to   have   been

approved by the Central Government in the form in

which   it   was   submitted,   and,   accordingly,   the

permission   of   the   Central   Government   required

under sub­section (1) shall also be deemed to have

been granted.

(7)   In   computing   the   time­limit   specified   in   subsection (6), the time taken by the person or medical

college   concerned   submitting   the   scheme,   in

furnishing any particulars called for by the Central

Council,  or by the  Central  Government,  shall  be

excluded.

(8)   The   Central   Council   while   making   its

recommendations under clause (b) of sub­section (4)

and   the   Central   Government   while   passing   an

order, either approving or disapproving the scheme

under sub­section (5), shall have due regard to the

following factors, namely:—

(a) whether the proposed medical college

or the existing medical college seeking to

open a new or higher course of study or

training, would be in a position to offer

the   minimum   standards   of   medical

14

education as  prescribed by the  Central

Council under Section 22;

(b)   whether   the   person   seeking   to

establish a medical college or the existing

medical college seeking to open a new or

higher course of study or training or to

increase   its   admission   capacity   has

adequate financial resources;

(c) whether necessary facilities in respect

of   staff,   equipment,   accommodation,

training,   hospital   or   other   facilities   to

ensure proper functioning of the medical

college or conducting the new course of

study or training or accommodating the

increased admission capacity have been

provided or would be provided within the

time­limit specified in the scheme;

(d)   whether   adequate   hospital   facilities,

having regard to the number of students

likely to attend such medical college or

course   of   study   or   training   or   the

increased admission capacity have been

provided or would be provided within the

time­limit specified in the scheme;

(e)   whether   any   arrangement   has   been

made   or   programme   drawn   to   impart

proper   training   to   students   likely   to

attend such medical college or the course

of  study  or training  by  persons  having

recognised medical qualifications;

(f) the requirement of manpower in the

field of practice of Indian medicine in the

college;

(g)   any   other   factors   as   may   be

prescribed.

15

(9) Where the Central Government passes an order

either approving or disapproving a scheme under

this   section,   a   copy   of   the   order   shall   be

communicated   to   the   person   or   medical   college

concerned.

13B. Non­recognition of medical qualifications in

certain   cases.—(1)   Where   any   medical   college   is

established without the previous permission of the

Central   Government   in   accordance   with   the

provisions   of   Section   13­A,   medical   qualification

granted to any student of such medical college shall

not   be   deemed   to   be   a   recognised   medical

qualification for the purposes of this Act.

(2) Where any medical college opens a new or higher

course of study or training including a postgraduate

course  of   study   or  training   without   the  previous

permission   of   the   Central   Government   in

accordance   with   the   provisions   of   Section   13­A,

medical qualification granted to any student of such

medical   college   on   the   basis   of   such   study   or

training shall   not   be  deemed  to  be  a  recognised

medical qualification for the purposes of this Act.

(3)   Where   any   medical   college   increases   its

admission   capacity   in   any   course   of   study   or

training   without   the   previous   permission   of   the

Central   Government   in   accordance   with   the

provisions   of   Section   13­A,   medical   qualification

granted to any student of such medical college on

the basis of the increase in its admission capacity

shall   not   be   deemed   to   be   a   recognised   medical

qualification for the purposes of this Act.

13C.   Time   for   seeking   permission   for   certain

existing  medical  colleges.—(1) If any person has

established a medical college or any medical college

has   opened   a   new   or   higher   course   of   study   or

training or increased the admission capacity on or

16

before the commencement of the Indian Medicine

Central   Council   (Amendment)   Act,   2003,   such

person or medical college, as the case may be, shall

seek, within a period of three years from the said

commencement,   permission   of   the   Central

Government in accordance with the provisions of

Section 13­A.

(2) If any person or medical college, as the case may

be, fails to seek permission under sub­section (1),

the provisions of Section 13­B shall apply, so far as

may be, as if permission of the Central Government

under Section 13­A has been refused.”

14. The perusal of sub­section (1) of Section 13A of the said

Act, which is a non­obstante clause, would show that no person

is   entitled   to   establish   a   medical   college   except   with   the

previous   permission   of   the   Central   Government   obtained   in

accordance with the provisions of the said Section.  Similarly,

no medical college can open a new or higher course of study or

training, including a post­graduate course or training, which

would enable a student of such course or training to qualify

himself for the award of any recognized medical qualification

without the previous permission of the Central Government.

Likewise, there is also a prohibition for the medical colleges to

increase   its   admission   capacity   in   any   course   of   study   or

17

training, including a post­graduate course of study or training

except with the previous permission of the Central Government

obtained in accordance with the provisions of the said Section.

Explanation 1 to the said Section clarifies that the “person”

stated therein includes any University or a trust, but does not

include the Central Government.   Explanation 2 to the said

Section   clarifies   that   the   “admission   capacity”   means   the

maximum number of students as may be fixed by the Central

Government   from   time   to   time   for   being   admitted   to   such

course or training.

15. Sub­section (2) of Section 13A of the said Act provides that

a person or a medical college, who desires to seek permission

as provided under sub­section (1) of Section 13A of the said

Act,   shall   submit   a   scheme   to   the   Central   Government   in

accordance with the provisions of sub­section (3) of Section 13A

of the said Act.  It further provides that the Central Government

shall   refer   the   scheme   to   the   Central   Council   for   its

recommendations.  

18

16. Sub­section (3) of Section 13A of the said Act provides that

the scheme shall be in such form and contain such particulars

and be preferred in such manner and accompanied with such

fee, as may be prescribed.  

17. Sub­section (4) of Section 13A of the said Act provides that

on receipt of a scheme from the Central Government under

sub­section   (2)   of   Section   13A   of   the   said   Act,   the   Central

Council   may   obtain   such   other   particulars   as   may   be

considered   necessary   by   it   from   the   person   or   the   medical

college concerned.   It further provides that if the scheme is

defective and does not contain necessary particulars, it shall

give a reasonable opportunity to the person or medical college

concerned   for   making   a   written   representation.     It   further

provides that it shall be open to such person or medical college

to rectify the defects, if any, specified by the Central Council.  It

also requires the Central Council to consider the scheme with

regard to the factors referred to in sub­section (8) of Section

13A   of   the   said   Act   and   submit   the   same   to   the   Central

Government together with its recommendations thereon within

19

a period not exceeding six months from the date of receipt of

the reference from the Central Government.

18. It can be seen from perusal of sub­section (5) of Section

13A of the said Act, that the Central Government may, after

considering the scheme and recommendations of the Central

Council under sub­section (4) of Section 13A of the said Act

and after obtaining, where necessary, such other particulars as

may be considered necessary by it from the person or medical

college concerned and having regard to the factors referred to in

sub­section (8) of Section 13A of the said Act, either approve

the scheme with such conditions, if any, as it may consider

necessary or disapprove the scheme.   It further provides that

any such approval shall constitute as a permission under subsection (1) of Section 13A of the said Act.  The first proviso to

sub­section (5) of Section 13A of the said Act provides that no

scheme   shall   be   disapproved   by   the   Central   Government,

without   giving   the   person   or   medical   college   concerned,   a

reasonable opportunity of being heard.  The second proviso to

sub­section (5) of Section 13A of the said Act also enables the

20

person   or   medical   college,   whose   scheme   has   not   been

approved   by   the   Central   Government,   to   submit   a   fresh

scheme.   It further provides that the provisions of the said

Section shall apply to such scheme as if such scheme had been

submitted for the first time under sub­section (2) of Section 13A

of the said Act.

19. Sub­section (6) of Section 13A of the said Act, which is a

deeming provision, provides that if no order is communicated

by the Central Government to the person or medical college

submitting the scheme, within a period of one year from the

date of submission of the scheme, such a scheme shall be

deemed to have been approved by the Central Government in

the form in which it was submitted.  It further provides that the

permission   of   the   Central   Government   required   under   subsection (1) of Section 13A of the said Act shall also be deemed

to have been granted.  

20. Sub­section (7) of Section 13A of the said Act provides that

in   computing   the   time­limit   specified   in   sub­section   (6)   of

Section 13A of the said Act, the time taken by the person or

21

medical college concerned submitting the scheme, in furnishing

any particulars called for by the Central Council, or by the

Central Government, shall be excluded.

21. The perusal of sub­section (8) of Section 13A of the said

Act   would   show   that   the   Central   Council   while   making   its

recommendations under clause (b) of sub­section (4) of Section

13A of the said Act and the Central Government while passing

an order, either approving or disapproving the scheme under

sub­section (5) of Section 13A of the said Act, shall have due

regard to the factors mentioned therein.  Various factors have

been mentioned in clauses (a) to (g) including as to whether the

proposed medical college or the existing medical college seeking

to open a new or higher course of study or training, would be in

a position to offer the minimum standards of medical education

as prescribed by the Central Council under Section 22 of the

said Act.  It could be seen that clauses (a) to (f) of sub­section

(8) of Section 13A of the said Act relate to specific factors to be

taken   into   consideration,   whereas   clause   (g)   thereof   is   a

residuary clause, which permits the Central Council and the

22

Central   Government   to   take   into   consideration   any   other

factors that may be prescribed.

22. Sub­section (9) of Section 13A of the said Act provides that

where   the   Central   Government   passes   an   order   either

approving or disapproving a scheme under the said Section, a

copy   of   the   order   shall   be   communicated   to   the   person   or

medical college concerned.  

23. At this stage, it will also be relevant to refer to Section 22

of the said Act, which reads thus:

“22. Minimum  standards  of education in Indian

medicine.—(1) The Central Council may prescribe

the   minimum   standards   of   education   in   Indian

medicine, required for granting recognised medical

qualifications   by   Universities,   Boards   or   medical

institutions in India.

(2)   Copies   of   the   draft   regulations   and   of   all

subsequent amendments thereof shall be furnished

by the Central Council to all State Governments and

the   Central   Council   shall,   before   submitting   the

regulations or any amendment thereof, as the case

may be, to the Central Government for sanction,

take into consideration the comments of any State

Government received within three months from the

furnishing of the copies as aforesaid.

(3) Each of the Committees referred to in clauses

(a), (b) and (c) of sub­section (1) of Section 9 shall,

from time to time, report to the Central Council on

the efficacy of the regulations and may recommend

23

to the Central Council such amendments thereof as

it may think fit.”

24. It can thus be seen that under sub­section (1) of Section

22 of the said Act, the Central Council is entitled to prescribe

the   minimum   standards   of   education   in   Indian   medicine,

required   for   granting   recognized   medical   qualifications   by

Universities,   Boards   or   medical   institutions   in   India.     Subsection (2) of Section 22 of the said Act would reveal that the

copies   of   the   draft   regulations   and   of   all   subsequent

amendments thereof shall be furnished by the Central Council

to   all   State   Governments.     It   further   provides   that   before

submitting the regulations or any amendment thereof, to the

Central   Government   for   sanction,   the   Central   Council   shall

take into consideration the comments of any State Government

received within three months from the furnishing of the copies

as aforesaid.   Sub­section (3) of Section 22 of the said Act

provides that each of the Committees referred to in clauses (a)

to (c) of sub­section (1) of Section 9 of the said Act, shall, from

time to time, report to the Central Council on the efficacy of the

24

regulations and may recommend to the Central Council such

amendments thereof as it may think fit.

25. Section 36 of the said Act empowers the Central Council

“to make regulations” to carry out the purposes of the said Act,

which reads thus:

“36. Power to make regulations.— (1) The Central

Council   may,   with   the   previous   sanction   of   the

Central Government, by notification in the Official

Gazette, make regulations generally to carry out the

purposes of this Act, and, without prejudice to the

generality   of   this   power,   such   regulations   may

provide for—

(a) ….……..

(b) …………

(c) …………

(d) …………

(e) …………

(f) …………

(g) …….......

(ga) ………..

(gb) any other factor under clause (g) of

sub­section (8) of Section 13­A; 

(h) the appointment, powers, duties and

procedure of inspectors and visitors;

(i) the courses and period of study and of

practical training to be undertaken, the

subjects   of   examination   and   the

standards   of   proficiency   therein   to   be

25

obtained,   in   any   University,   Board   or

medical   institutions   for   grant   of

recognised medical qualifications;

(j)   the   standards   of   staff,   equipment,

accommodation,   training   and   other

facilities   for   education   in   Indian

medicine;

(k) ………..

(l) …………

(m) ……….

(n) ………..

(o) ………..

(p) ………..

(2)   The   Central   Government   shall   cause   every

regulation made under this Act to be laid, as soon

as may be after it is made, before each House of

Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period

of   thirty   days   which   may   be   comprised   in   one

session or in two or more successive sessions, and

if,   before   the   expiry   of   the   session   immediately

following   the   session   or   the   successive   sessions

aforesaid,   both   Houses   agree   in   making   any

modification in the regulation or both Houses agree

that   the   regulation   should   not   be   made,   the

regulation shall thereafter have effect only in such

modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be;

so,   however,   not   any   such   modification   or

annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity

of anything previously done under that regulation.”

26. It can be seen that such regulations are to be made by the

Central   Council   with   the   previous   sanction   of   the   Central

26

Government. Clause (gb) of sub­section (1) of Section 36 of the

said Act enables the Central Council to make regulations with

regard to any other factor as provided under Clause (g) of subsection (8) of Section 13A of the said Act.   Clause (i) of subsection (1) of Section 36 of the said Act enables the Central

Council   to   make   regulations   providing   for   the   courses   and

period of study and of practical training to be undertaken, the

subjects   of   examination   and   the   standards   of   proficiency

therein etc.  It can further be seen from the perusal of Clause (j)

of sub­section (1) of Section 36 of the said Act that the Central

Council, with the previous sanction of the Central Government,

is entitled to make regulations prescribing for the standards of

staff, equipments, accommodation, training and other facilities

for education in Indian medicine. Sub­section (2) of Section 36

of the said Act requires the Central Government to cause every

regulation made under the said Act to be laid, as soon as after

it is made, before each House of Parliament.   It reserves the

power   of   both   the   Houses   of   Parliament   to   make   any

modification in the regulations.  

27

27. It could thus clearly be seen that Section 13A read with

Sections 22 and 36(1)(j) of the said Act provides a complete

scheme for establishment of medical college, opening a new or

higher course of study or training, including a post­graduate

course of study or training, and also increasing the admission

capacity.   From the perusal of the scheme of the aforesaid

provisions, it is clear that no person is entitled to establish a

medical   college   except   with   the   previous   permission   of   the

Central Government.  Similarly, no medical college can open a

new or higher course of study or training, including a postgraduate   course   of   study   or   training   without   the   previous

sanction   of   the   Central   Government.     Likewise,   no   medical

college can increase its admission capacity in any course of

study or training, including a post­graduate course of study or

training.  Sub­sections (2) to (5) of Section 13A of the said Act

prescribe a detailed procedure for submitting a scheme and

consideration thereof by the Central Council and the Central

Government.  It also provides for in­built safeguards inasmuch

as the principles of natural justice are provided at two stages,

28

one before the Central Council and another before the Central

Government.  The second proviso to sub­section (5) of Section

13A of the said Act also enables a person or medical college

whose   scheme   has   not   been   approved   by   the   Central

Government, to again submit a fresh scheme, which is required

to be considered as if the same is made for the first time under

sub­section (2) of Section 13A of the said Act.  Sub­section (6)

of Section 13A of the said Act provides that when no order is

communicated within a period of one year from the date of

submission   of   the   scheme,   by   a   deeming   provision,   such

scheme shall stand approved and it will be deemed that the

permission of the Central Government as required under subsection (1) of Section 13A of the said Act has been granted.

Sub­section   (7)   of  Section   13A   of  the  said  Act   provides  for

exclusion of the period for the time taken by the person or

medical college concerned to furnish any particulars called by

the   Central   Council,   or   by   the   Central   Government.     Subsection (8) of Section 13A of the said Act provides the factors to

be taken into consideration.  Sub­section (9) of Section 13A of

29

the   said   Act   provides   for   the   communication   of   the   order

approving or disapproving the scheme, to the person or medical

college concerned.

28. The statutory scheme is thus clear that no medical college

can open a new or higher course of study or training, including

a post­graduate course, except with the previous permission of

the Central Government.   Prior to such a permission being

granted, the procedure as prescribed under Section 13A has to

be followed.

29. The legislative intent is further clarified by the provisions

made in Section 13B of the said Act.  Sub­section (1) of Section

13B of the said Act provides that where any medical college is

established   without   the   previous   permission   of   the   Central

Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 13A of

the said Act, medical qualification granted to any student of

such medical college shall not be deemed to be a recognized

medical qualification for the purposes of the said Act.  Likewise,

sub­section (2) of Section 13B of the said Act provides that

where any medical college opens a new or higher course of

30

study or training including a post­graduate course of study or

training   without   the   previous   permission   of   the   Central

Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 13A of

the said Act, medical qualification granted to any student of

such medical college on the basis of such study or training

shall not be deemed to be a recognised medical qualification for

the   purposes   of   the   said   Act.  Likewise,   sub­section   (3)   of

Section 13B of the said Act provides that where any medical

college increases its admission capacity in any course of study

or   training   without   the   previous   permission   of   the   Central

Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 13A of

the said Act, medical qualification granted to any student of

such   medical   college   on   the   basis   of   the   increase   in   its

admission capacity shall not be deemed to be a recognised

medical qualification for the purposes of the said Act.

30. It   could   further  be   seen   that  the   legislature   itself   has

taken care of a situation, where any person has established a

medical college or any medical college has opened a new or

higher course of study or training, or increased the admission

31

capacity prior to the commencement of the Indian Medicine

Central Council (Amendment) Act, 2003. It has provided that

such person or medical college, as the case may be, shall seek,

within a period of three years from the said commencement,

permission of the Central Government in accordance with the

provisions of Section 13A of the said Act. 

31. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench and the

Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, so also the other

judgments of the High Court of Karnataka, which are relied on

by   the   Division   Bench,   do   not   take   into   consideration   the

scheme of Section 13A of the said Act.  

32. It could further be relevant to notice Regulation 3(1)(a) of

the 2016 Regulations, which reads thus:

“3.  Requirements of Minimum Standard to grant

of permission­

(1)(a)   The   Ayurveda   colleges   established   under

Section 13A and existing under Section 13C of the

Act   and   their   attached   hospitals   shall   fulfill   the

requirements   of   minimum   standard   for

infrastructure and teaching and training facilities

referred to in the Regulations 4 to 11 up to the 31st

December of every year for consideration of grant of

permissions   for   undertaking   admissions   in   the

coming academic session.” 

32

33. It could thus clearly be seen, that Regulation 3(1)(a) of the

2016   Regulations   specifically   provides   that   the   Ayurveda

colleges   established   under   Section   13A   and   existing   under

Section 13C of the said Act and their attached hospitals shall

fulfill the requirements of minimum standard for infrastructure

and   teaching   and   training   facilities   referred   to   in   the

Regulations   4  to   11  up  to  31st  December   of  every  year  for

consideration   of   grant   of   permissions   for   undertaking

admissions in the coming academic session.   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.   For example, if the

institution   is   seeking   grant   of   permission   for   undertaking

admissions for the academic session 2022­23, it must have

fulfilled   the   requirements   of   minimum   standard   as   on   31st

December 2021.  It could thus be seen that the finding that the

permission granted for a subsequent academic year would also

enure to the benefit of earlier academic year though the said

33

institution was not fulfilling the criteria of minimum standard,

is totally erroneous.

34. We further find that the High Court has also erred in not

correctly applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of

Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal (supra).  In the said case, the

petitioner Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal had approached the

Bombay   High   Court   being   aggrieved   by   the   refusal   by   the

Government   of   India   to   grant   permission  to   the   colleges   to

admit   students   for   the   academic   year   2011­12.   Such

permission   was   refused   on   account   of   various   deficiencies

relating to infrastructure and teaching staff, which had not

been   rectified   and   brought   into   line   with   the   minimum

standard norms.

35. It is further to be noted that in paragraph (10) of the said

judgment,   this   Court   had   specifically   observed   that   the

petitioner therein tried to impress upon that the deficiencies

had already been removed and that is why permission was

specifically given for the admission of students for the academic

year 2012­13.  It was therefore urged that there was no reason

34

for withholding the permission for the academic year 2011­12.

This Court specifically noticed that a large number of students

had applied for admission for the academic year 2011­12 and

that too with the leave of this Court.  However, this Court found

that   the   privilege   granted   to   the   candidates   could   not   be

transformed into a right to be admitted in the course for which

they had applied.  While dismissing the petition and refusing to

interfere   with   the   judgment   of   the   High   Court,   this   Court

observed thus:

“17. It   is   not   for   us   to   judge   as   to   whether   a

particular institution fulfilled the necessary criteria

for being eligible to conduct classes in the discipline

concerned or not. That is for the experts to judge

and according to the experts the institutions were

not geared to conduct classes in respect of the year

2011–2012. It is also impractical to consider the

proposal of the colleges of providing extra classes to

the new entrants to bring them up to the level of

those who have completed the major part of the

course   for   the   first   year.   We   are   not,   therefore,

inclined   to   interfere   with   the   orders   of   the   High

Court impugned in these special leave petitions and

the same are, accordingly, dismissed.”

36. It   can   be   seen   from   the   conjoint   reading   of   various

paragraphs of the said judgment that the contention that since

the   deficiencies   stood   already   removed   and   the   permission

35

granted for the academic year 2012­13, the said permission

should   also   be   construed   as   having   been   granted   for   the

academic year 2011­12, was not accepted by this Court.

37. 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.  

38. It will further be relevant to note that this Court in the

case   of  Ayurved   Shastra   Seva   Mandal  (supra)   has   also

referred to the amended provisions of the said Act.  It will be

relevant to refer to paragraphs (5) to (9) of the said judgment,

which read thus:

“5. As far as medical institutions are concerned, the

procedure   relating   to   the   recognition   of   medical

colleges as well as admission therein was governed

by the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970

(hereinafter referred to as “the 1970 Act”), which

was amended in 2003, to incorporate Sections 13­A,

13­B and 13­C, which provided the procedure for

establishing new colleges and making provision for

seeking prior permission of the Central Government

36

in   respect   of   the   same.   The   amendment   also

attempted   to   bring   in   reforms   in   the   existing

colleges by making it mandatory for them to seek

permission from the Central Government within a

period of three years from their establishment.

6. Having   regard   to   the   said   amendments,   the

Central   Council   of   Indian   Medicine,   with   the

previous   sanction   of   the   Central   Government,

framed   Regulations,   in   exercise   of   the   powers

conferred on it by Section 36 of the 1970 Act. The

said Regulations were named as the Establishment

of New Medical College, Opening of New or Higher

Course   of   Study   or   Training   and   Increase   of

Admission   Capacity   by   a   Medical   College

Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the

2003 Regulations”). Regulation 6(1)(e) of the 2003

Regulations provides for applications to be made by

a medical college owning and managing a hospital

in  Indian  medicine containing not less than  100

beds with necessary facilities and infrastructure.

7. The Central Council of Indian Medicine further

framed Regulations in 2006 called as the Indian

Medicine   Central   Council   (Permission   to   Existing

Medical   Colleges)   Regulations,   2006   (hereinafter

referred to as “the 2006 Regulations”). Regulation

5(1)(d) of the 2006 Regulations provides that the

applicant   College   would   have   to   be   owning   and

managing   a   minimum   of   100   beds   for

undergraduate   courses   and   150   beds   for

postgraduate courses, which conforms to the norms

relating   to   minimum   bed   strength   and   bed

occupancy for in­patients and the number of outpatients.

8. When the 2003 Amendment was effected to the

1970 Act, three years' time was given to the existing

colleges   to   remove   the   deficiencies.   The   2006

37

Regulations provided a further period of two years

to   remove   the   deficiencies   and   even   relaxed   the

minimum standards in that regard. Even after the

expiry of two years, the colleges were given further

opportunities   to   remove   the   shortcomings   by

granting   them   conditional   permission   for   their

students for the academic years 2008–2009, 2009–

2010 and 2010–2011. It is only obvious that the

minimum   standards   were   insisted   upon   by   the

Council   to   ensure  that   the   colleges   achieved   the

minimum standards gradually.

9. It   may   be   noted   that   there   was   little   or   no

response from the institutions concerned in regard

to   removal   of   the   deficiencies   in   their   respective

institutions and it is only when the notices were

given to shut down the institutions that they woke

up from their slumber and approached the courts

for relief. In many of these cases, permission was

given by the courts to the institutions concerned to

accept admission forms, but they were directed not

to pass any orders thereupon till the decision of this

Court in these special leave petitions.”

39. 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).

38

40. In   the   result,   the   appeals   are   allowed.     The   common

judgment and order dated 21st December 2020, delivered by the

Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal

No. 542 of 2020 (EDN­REG) and Writ Appeal No.541 of 2020

(EDN­REG), and the judgment and order dated 24th September

2020 passed by the Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 50772 of

2018 (EDN­REG­P) and Writ Petition No. 50828 of 2018 (EDNEX) are quashed and set aside.  The writ petitions filed by the

original writ petitioners in the High Court are dismissed.  

41. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of in

the above terms.  No order as to costs. 

……..….......................J.

[L. NAGESWARA RAO]

…….........................J.

[B.R. GAVAI]

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 11, 2022.

39