2012 (12) TMI 1244 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Breach of time schedule and irregularities in admissions.
2. Failure of authorities to perform duties and obligations.
3. Initiation of proceedings u/s Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
4. Examination of apology tendered by contemnors.
5. Specific cases of contemnors and their defenses.

Summary:

Breach of Time Schedule and Irregularities in Admissions:
The Supreme Court in disposing of Civil Appeal No. 4318 of 2012 noticed breaches in the time schedule and various irregularities by stakeholders, leading to admissions of less meritorious candidates over more deserving ones. The Court identified this as a case of favouritism and arbitrariness, demonstrating calculated tampering with the admission schedule, thus jeopardizing the careers of higher merit students.

Failure of Authorities to Perform Duties and Obligations:
The Court found that all relevant stakeholders failed to perform their duties in accordance with the law, leading to nepotism and manipulation in the admission process. The authorities' stands were at variance, and none admitted fault, necessitating the Court's intervention to ensure proper implementation of its judgments and the Medical Council of India regulations.

Initiation of Proceedings u/s Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:
The Court directed initiation of contempt proceedings against several officials, including the Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, and members of the Selection Committee, for failing to comply with the Court's orders and manipulating the admission process. Notices were issued to these individuals to show cause why they should not be punished.

Examination of Apology Tendered by Contemnors:
The Court examined whether the apologies tendered by the contemnors were bona fide. It emphasized that an apology must be sincere, demonstrate genuine regret, and not be a means to escape consequences. The Court held that the apology by Dr. S.L. Adile was not bona fide, given his wilful and intentional violation of the Court's orders, and thus, could not be accepted.

Specific Cases of Contemnors and Their Defenses:
- Dr. S.L. Adile: Admitted to manipulating the admission process to benefit his daughter, tendered an unconditional apology, but the Court found his actions wilful and prejudicial, thus rejecting his apology and imposing a fine of Rs. 2,000.
- Contemnors (C) to (F): Members of the Selection Committee claimed they acted under the Dean's directions. The Court found their actions colluded with Dr. Adile's manipulations, thus holding them guilty and imposing a fine of Rs. 2,000 each.
- Mr. Keshav Desiraju and Dr. Jagdish Prasad: Although not directly responsible for violating the Court's orders, they were found lacking in proper supervision. The Court issued a warning and directed them to ensure adherence to the Court's judgments in future.

Conclusion:
The contemnors were punished with fines and directed to ensure compliance with the Court's orders. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the rule of law and the integrity of the judicial process.