9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 1484 - SC - Indian LawsConstitutional Validity of Notification dated 21st May 2012 vide which the Appellant-Dental Council of India had substituted 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 - HELD THAT - One of the grounds on which the impugned Notification has been struck down is that it is beyond the scope of powers of the Council Under Section 10A(7)(d) of the said Act. The Division Bench of the High Court has relied on Clause (d) of Sub-section (7) of Section 10A of the said Act to come to a conclusion that Clause (d) refers to adequate hospital facilities having regard to the number of students likely to attend the institution. It has held that a requirement of hospital was already fulfilled in the pre-amended Regulation 6(2)(h) of the Regulations. It has further held that Clause (d) does not refer to Medical College. It was therefore held that the impugned Notification requiring the Dental Colleges to be attached with the Government/Private Medical College was beyond the scope of Sub-section (7) of Section 10A of the said Act and therefore inconsistent with the said Act. The Division Bench of the High Court found the impugned Notification dated 21st May 2012 to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution on the ground that the Dental Colleges established prior to impugned Notification would not be required to be attached with the Medical Colleges whereas the Dental Colleges established after the impugned Notification will be compelled to be attached to such Medical Colleges - It cannot be said that the Council has taken into consideration the factors which are not relevant or germane for the purpose to be achieved. The object to be achieved is to provide adequate teaching and training facilities to the students. If in the wisdom of the expert body this can be done by attaching a Dental College to the already existing Medical College it cannot be faulted with. The amended Regulation cannot be said to be 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 students. On the ground of judicial propriety also the Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition for a prayer which already stood rejected. In that view of the matter the impugned judgment and order dated 24th April 2018 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is not sustainable - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the impugned Notification dated 21st May, 2012. 2. Violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 3. Scope of powers of the Dental Council of India (DCI) to make delegated legislation under the Dentists Act, 1948. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Impugned Notification: The impugned Notification dated 21st May, 2012, 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. The amendment mandated that a proposed dental college must be attached to a Government/Private Medical College approved/recognized by the Medical Council of India within a distance of 10 kilometers (later increased to 30 kilometers). The Division Bench of the High Court struck down the Notification on grounds of it being beyond the powers of the DCI under Section 10A(7)(d) of the Dentists Act, 1948, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench erred in its judgment. It emphasized that the DCI has the authority to make regulations considering "any other factors" under Clause (g) of Sub-section (7) of Section 10A and Clause (fb) of Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Dentists Act, 1948. The Court concluded that the DCI’s regulation was within its competence and did not suffer from manifest arbitrariness. 2. Violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution: The Division Bench found the Notification violative of Article 14, arguing that it created an unreasonable classification between dental colleges established before and after the Notification. The Supreme Court rejected this reasoning, stating that the classification had a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved—providing adequate teaching and training facilities to students. The Court noted that existing recognized medical colleges already have the necessary infrastructure and faculty to provide comprehensive education to dental students, which private hospitals might lack. Regarding Article 19(1)(g), the Supreme Court referred to the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case, which allows regulation of educational institutions to ensure proper academic standards. The Court held that the impugned Notification was a regulatory measure to maintain academic standards and was therefore not violative of Article 19(1)(g). 3. Scope of Powers of the DCI to Make Delegated Legislation: The Division Bench held that the DCI exceeded its powers by mandating the attachment of dental colleges to medical colleges. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the DCI is empowered to prescribe additional conditions under Clause (g) of Sub-section (7) of Section 10A and Clause (fb) of Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Dentists Act. The Court emphasized that the presumption is always in favor of the validity of a provision, and the burden of proving manifest arbitrariness lies on the challenger. The Respondent No. 1 failed to discharge this burden. Judicial Propriety: The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of judicial propriety. The Respondent No. 1 had previously challenged the rejection of its application in a writ petition dismissed by a Single Judge. Subsequently, the Respondent No. 1 filed a new writ petition before the Division Bench, which granted the same prayer. The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench should not have entertained the writ petition on grounds already adjudicated by the Single Judge. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the Division Bench’s judgment and dismissing the writ petition filed by the Respondent No. 1. The Court upheld the validity of the impugned Notification, affirming the DCI’s regulatory powers and the constitutionality of the amended Regulation 6(2)(h).
|
