2015 (7) TMI 1032 - SC - Indian Laws

Refusal to renew permission for admitting students for the academic year 2015-16 in the MBBS Course - Held that - From a bare reading of the provision contained in Article 19(1)(g) it is evidently clear that the citizens have been conferred with the right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business, but such right is subject to the restriction and imposition of condition as provided under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. - The Court held that imparting education cannot be treated as a trade or business. Trade or business normally connotes an activity carried on with a profit motive. This Court observed that education has never been nor can it be allowed to become commerce in this country. Education has always been treated in this country as religious and charitable activity and making it commercial is opposed to the ethos, tradition and sensibilities of this nation. A citizen of this country may have a right to establish an educational institution but no citizen, person or institution has a right much less of fundamental right to affiliation or recognition. From reading of Article 32, it is manifest that clause 1(i) of Article 32 guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court for an appropriate writ for the purpose of enforcing the Fundamental Rights included in Part-III of the Constitution. The sole object of Article 32 is the enforcement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It follows that no question other than relating to the Fundamental Right will be determined in a proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution. The difference between Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution is that while an application under Article 32 lies only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, the High Court under Article 226 has a wider power to exercise its jurisdiction not only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights but also ordinary legal right. Petitioners have challenged the decision of MCI and the Central Government refusing to grant permission or renewal to carry on their courses for the Academic Session 2015-16. The decisions are based on the inspection reports submitted by the teams of MCI. The jurisdiction of MCI or the Central Government to grant or refuse to grant permission has not been challenged. Hence, it is well within the jurisdiction of MCI which is statutory body to take a decision based on the inspection of the college to satisfy itself the compliance of various provisions of the acts, rules and regulations - Court is not supposed to go into finding of facts recorded by the authorities and to come to a different conclusion. Moreover, having regard to the law settled by Constitution Bench of this Court in number of decisions, in our considered opinion, the rights so claimed by the petitioners are not fundamental rights; hence the same cannot be agitated directly before this Court under Article 32 of the constitution - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
2. Refusal of the Medical Council of India (MCI) to recommend renewal of permission for admitting students.
3. Alleged deficiencies and procedural irregularities in the inspection process by MCI.
4. Rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Writ Petition under Article 32:
The primary issue addressed is whether the petitioners can directly approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 for enforcement of their claimed rights. The Court emphasized that Article 32 is specifically for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights included in Part-III of the Constitution. The Court noted that while Article 32 guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights, it does not extend to ordinary legal rights, which can be addressed under Article 226 by the High Courts. The Court cited multiple precedents, including the cases of Northern Corporation vs. Union of India, Kanubhai Brahmbhatt vs. State of Gujarat, and Ram Jawaya Kapur vs. State of Punjab, to underscore that the Supreme Court should not be the first instance for such petitions unless there is a clear breach of Fundamental Rights.

2. Refusal of MCI to Recommend Renewal of Permission:
The petitioners challenged the refusal of MCI to recommend the renewal of permission for admitting students for the academic year 2015-16. The Court noted that the decisions were based on inspection reports submitted by MCI teams. The petitioners argued that the inspections were procedurally flawed and that the refusal was unjustified. However, the Court found that the jurisdiction of MCI to grant or refuse permission based on compliance with statutory provisions was not in question, and therefore, the matter did not pertain to a Fundamental Right enforceable under Article 32.

3. Alleged Deficiencies and Procedural Irregularities in Inspection:
The petitioners claimed that the inspections conducted by MCI were flawed, citing instances where faculty members were absent due to lunch, Friday prayers, or other reasons, and that the inspection report was signed in protest by the Dean. Despite these claims, the Court held that it is not within its purview under Article 32 to delve into factual determinations made by statutory authorities like MCI. The Court reiterated that such factual disputes should be addressed through appropriate forums, including the High Courts.

4. Rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution:
The petitioners invoked their right under Article 19(1)(g) to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. The Court referred to the precedent set in Unni Krishnan's case, which clarified that while citizens have the right to establish educational institutions, this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6). The Court emphasized that the right to establish and run educational institutions does not equate to a Fundamental Right to recognition or affiliation, which is contingent upon compliance with statutory requirements and policies.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions filed under Article 32, concluding that the rights claimed by the petitioners are not Fundamental Rights and thus cannot be directly agitated before the Supreme Court. The Court advised the petitioners to seek redressal through appropriate forums, including the High Courts. This judgment reinforces the principle that the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 32 is confined to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and not for addressing ordinary legal grievances or factual disputes.