ON Tuesday, a bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R.Gavai of the Supreme Court held that the Union Government has the right to regulate dental or medical colleges to ensure the maintenance of proper academic standards and infrastructure, in Dental Council of India vs. Biyani Shikshan Samiti & Anr.
The court was hearing a Special Leave Petition against a judgment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, which had struck down a government notification dated May 21, 2012, that amended Regulation 6(2)(h) of the Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or Higher Course of Studies or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006, for violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, in 2018.
The amended Regulation required new dental colleges to be attached with a government or private medical college located within the distance of 10 km, under Section 10A of the Dentists Act, 1948. The distance was increased from 10 km to 30 km through an amendment in 2017. It was based on the reasoning that the available facilities in the Medical Colleges would help in providing a proper education to the students of the dental colleges.
According to the facts, the first respondent wanted to set up a dental college, but was not granted permission by the Government of India. It challenged the rejection on the grounds that the unamended provisions were not applicable to it, since it received an Essentiality Certificate from the Rajasthan government before the 2012 amendment. But a single judge bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the first respondent’s writ petition for lack of merit.
It then challenged the amendment notification before the Division Bench of the high court, which allowed its petition, struck down the impugned notification, and held that dental colleges cannot be compelled to be attached to medical colleges. It did so by relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2002). It also said that the Dental Council of India does not have the power to enact Regulations as the Dentists Act does not allow delegated legislation.
According to the Supreme Court in its instant judgment, the Division bench erred on all counts. Firstly, it noted that T.M.A Pai supports the case of the Council.
In T.M.A Pai, an eleven-judge Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court had observed:“The right to establish an educational institution can be regulated; but such regulatory measures must, in general, be to ensure the maintenance of proper academic standards, atmosphere and infrastructure (including qualified staff) and the prevention of maladministration by those in charge of management. The fixing of a rigid fee structure, dictating the formation and composition of a governing body, compulsory nomination of teachers and staff for appointment or nominating students for admissions would be unacceptable restrictions.” The purpose of the Regulations, as agreed by the court, was to provide adequate teaching and training facilities to students, which a medical college is already equipped with.
Further, it held that the Rajasthan High Court’s division bench entered into the area of experts by declaring that the unamended provisions should have been preferred over the amended ones. The court said, “If in the wisdom of the expert body, this can be done by attaching a Dental College to the already Medical College, it cannot be faulted with.” A reference was made to Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth & Ors. (1984), in which a two-judge division bench of the Supreme Court had held: “It would be wholly wrong for the Court to substitute its own opinion for that of the Legislature or its delegate as to what principle or policy would best serve the objects and purposes of the Act. It has been held that it is not permissible for the Court to sit in judgment over the wisdom and effectiveness or otherwise of the policy laid down by the regulation making body and declare a regulation to be ultra vires merely on the ground that, in the view of the Court, the impugned provisions will not help to serve the object and purpose of the Act.”
The Supreme Court also observed that the high court’s division bench failed to take a conjoint reading of Section 10A, that sets the permission criteria to establish dental colleges, with Section 20 of the Dentists Act, which gives power to the Council, with the approval of the union government, to make Regulations. Section 10A(g) would allow the Council to set out any ‘other criteria’ for the establishment of dental colleges, which is what the amended Regulation did.
Moreover, the Supreme Court observed that any challenge to delegated legislation must be hit by manifest arbitrariness, as it had held in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1984). But the first respondent failed to prove why the Dental Council of India could not regulate the permission criteria. The court stated: “We find that the respondent no.1 has failed to discharge the burden to show that the impugned Notification suffers from manifest arbitrariness. …We are, therefore, of the considered view that the amended Regulation cannot be said to be the one, which is manifestly arbitrary, so as to permit the Court to interfere with it. On the contrary, we find that the amended Regulation 6(2)(h) has a direct nexus with the object to be achieved, i.e., providing adequate teaching and training facilities to the student.”
The Supreme Court also made note that the high court’s division bench ought not to have entertained the first respondent’s writ petition on grounds of judicial propriety, since the prayer for reconsideration of the proposal submitted by the respondent, which was already rejected by the single judge bench of the high court, had been renewed in the fresh writ petition filed by the respondent and granted by the Division Bench of the High Court. The petition before the single judge bench of the high court did not challenge the amendment notification, even though it could have. On the other hand, the petition before the division bench of the high court challenges the validity of the impugned notification as well as claims for reconsideration of the respondent’s proposal.
Click here to view the Supreme Court’s judgment.
