2001 (8) TMI 1376 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether AIIMS qualifies as a "University established by law" u/s 3(d) of the Dentists Act, 1948.
2. Whether the High Court was justified in deciding the matter despite the term of respondent No.1 having ended.
3. Interpretation of the term "University established by law" in the context of the Dentists Act, 1948.

Summary:

Issue 1: Whether AIIMS qualifies as a "University established by law" u/s 3(d) of the Dentists Act, 1948.
The Supreme Court examined whether AIIMS could be considered a "University established by law" for the purposes of representation on the Dental Council u/s 3(d) of the Dentists Act, 1948. The High Court had previously held that AIIMS should be treated as a deemed University, equating its Academic Committee with the Senate of a University and its Governing Body with the Court of a University. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that AIIMS, while empowered to grant degrees and diplomas, does not meet the statutory definition of a University established by law. The Court emphasized that the term "University established by law" is a specific legal concept, which AIIMS does not fulfill, as it lacks the democratic structure of a traditional University (e.g., Senate, Court).

Issue 2: Whether the High Court was justified in deciding the matter despite the term of respondent No.1 having ended.
The appellant argued that the writ petition should have been dismissed as infructuous since the term of respondent No.1 had ended. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, noting that the issue of whether AIIMS could send a representative to the Council was likely to recur and thus warranted a decision.

Issue 3: Interpretation of the term "University established by law" in the context of the Dentists Act, 1948.
The Supreme Court held that the term "University established by law" must be interpreted literally and cannot be expanded to include institutions like AIIMS, which, although empowered to grant degrees, do not fit the statutory definition. The Court noted that the legislative intent was clear in distinguishing between different types of educational institutions and that the Act had been amended over time to address new needs. Therefore, the Court concluded that AIIMS does not qualify for representation on the Dental Council u/s 3(d) of the Dentists Act, 1948.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court's decision, and held that AIIMS does not qualify as a "University established by law" for the purposes of representation on the Dental Council u/s 3(d) of the Dentists Act, 1948. The Court emphasized the need for legislative clarity and refrained from adopting a purposive interpretation that would extend beyond the clear language of the statute. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.