{"id":117822,"date":"2001-08-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-08-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dental-council-of-india-anr-vs-hari-prakash-ors-on-29-august-2001"},"modified":"2018-09-05T03:46:42","modified_gmt":"2018-09-04T22:16:42","slug":"dental-council-of-india-anr-vs-hari-prakash-ors-on-29-august-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dental-council-of-india-anr-vs-hari-prakash-ors-on-29-august-2001","title":{"rendered":"Dental Council Of India & Anr vs Hari Prakash & Ors on 29 August, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Dental Council Of India & Anr vs Hari Prakash & Ors on 29 August, 2001<\/div>\n
Author: R Babu<\/div>\n
Bench: S. Rajendra Babu, Brijesh Kumar<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 14743  of  1996\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nDENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nHARI PRAKASH & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t29\/08\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nS. Rajendra Babu & Brijesh Kumar\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
RAJENDRA BABU, J. :\n<\/p>\n
1.1\tThe facts leading to this appeal are as follows :\n<\/p>\n
1.1\tDr. Sidhu, Professor & Head of the Department of Dental Surgery,
\nAll India Institute of Medical Sciences [for brevity  AIIMS] was a member
\nof the Dental Council [Council for brevity] under Section 3(d) of the
\nDentists Act, 1948 [the Act for brevity] for the period between 23.2.1991
\nto 22.3.1996.  He having retired from the services of the AIIMS in 1993,
\nto fill up the said vacancy respondent No.1 was stated to have been
\nelected by the Dental Faculty of the AIIMS, which was approved by the
\nChairman, Academic Committee and his name was forwarded to the
\nCouncil as member of the Council representing the AIIMS for the
\nunexpired period of Dr. Sidhus nomination. A communication was sent
\nby the Acting President of the Council that respondent No.1 has not been
\nelected by the members of the Senate or the Court and the AIIMS has no
\nSenate or Court and his membership to the Council as representative of
\nthe AIIMS was being terminated and his name would stand deleted and
\nthat AIIMS was not also eligible to send its elected representative to the
\nCouncil.   Aggrieved by that action, a writ petition was filed before the
\nHigh Court.  The stand of respondent No.1 is that the medical degrees
\ngranted by the AIIMS are recognised as medical qualifications for the
\npurpose of the Act and has been included in the Schedule to the Act as
\nrecognised dental qualification within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the
\nAct; that the provisions of Section 3(d) of the Act must be liberally
\nconstrued in such a manner as to treat AIIMS as a University and the
\nAcademic Committee of the AIIMS as the Senate of the University and the
\nGoverning Body as Court of the University within the meaning of the said
\nSection.  On behalf of the Council, contention put forth is that
\nrespondent No.1 could not be elected under the provisions of Section 3(d)
\nof the Act as  AIIMS cannot be treated to be a University established by
\nlaw in any State; that the language of Section 3(d) of the Act is clear and
\nunambiguous and there is no scope for  interpreting the same except as
\nit is stated therein. The High Court, on the contentions raised,
\nformulated the question as to whether AIIMS is a University and its
\nAcademic Committee a Senate or Governing Members a Court within
\nthe meaning of Section 3(d) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
1.2\tThe High Court noticed that the Act is a pre-constitutional Act and
\nwhen the Act came into force, there were hardly three institutions in the
\ncountry, one at Lucknow, the second at Amritsar and the third at
\nBombay, which imparted dental education.  It is only much later other
\ninstitutions took up dental education. The High Court, after making a
\ndetailed reference to the provisions of the AIIMS Act, held that if the
\nprovisions of Section 3(d) of the Act are applied as the language stands,
\nthe nomination of respondent No.1 to the Council cannot be stated to be
\nvalid because: (1) AIIMS cannot be said to have been established by law
\nas a University; and (2) respondent No.1 was not elected either by
\nmembers of the Senate or the Court from amongst the members of the
\nDental or Medical Faculty of the University.\n<\/p>\n
1.3\tThereafter, the High Court went on to state as to in what
\ncircumstances liberal construction should be adopted and particularly
\nwhen the expression University had not been defined its etymological
\nmeaning could be adopted.  By analysing Section 3(d) of the Act and
\nvarious provisions of the AIIMS Act, the High Court concluded as follows:\n<\/p>\n
.one of the main objects being to develop patterns of
\nteaching in under-graduate and post-graduate medical education,
\nwhich includes establishment of dental college for the purpose of
\ndentistry and for the practical training of the students in those
\nbranches of medical education; and above all the recognition of
\nthe post-graduate decree awarded by the AIIMS as recognised
\ndental qualification as defined in Section 2(g) of the Act by its
\ninclusion in the Schedule tot he Act, we feel that it is a fit case
\nwhere the doctrine of reading down needs to be applied to
\ninterpret Section 3(d) of the Act to treat the AIIMS as a deemed
\nUniversity because, though not technically established as a
\nUniversity, it apparently has, for the purpose of the Act, all the
\ntrappings of a University, and to equate the Academic Committee
\nof the AIIMS with the Senate of a University and the Governing
\nBody as the Court of the University for the purpose of Section 3(d)
\nof the Act.  We are of the view that if Section 3(d) of the Act is
\ngiven literal and narrow interpretation it would be contrary to the
\napparent purpose for which the Act was enacted.\t There seems to
\nbe no reason why the expertise of the AIIMS, which imparts post-
\ngraduate training and degree in this branch of medical science,
\nduly recognised by the Council, could not be made use of by the
\nCouncil to advance the object of the legislation by its
\nrepresentation in the Council.\n<\/p>\n
1.4\tOn that basis, the High Court held that the action of the appellant
\nis wrong and allowed the writ petition..  Against this order this appeal is
\npreferred.\n<\/p>\n
1.5\tShri P.P.Rao, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant,
\nraised a preliminary point that the writ petition filed before the High
\nCourt was only in relation to nomination of respondent No.1 to the
\nCouncil and his term having come to an end on 3.1.1996, there was no
\noccasion for the High Court to decide the matter on July 23, 1996.  As
\nthe period for which respondent No.1 was nominated had lapsed, the
\npetition should have been disposed of as having become infructuous.  We
\ndo not think the High Court was not justified in deciding the contentions
\nraised in the case although the occasion to consider this question was in
\nthe context of election of respondent No.1 under Section 3(d) of the Act.
\nThe appellant objected to sending a representative from AIIMS to the
\nCouncil itself on grounds indicated earlier in the course of this order,
\ngoes to the root of the matter and is likely to recur often and on.
\nTherefore, that contention need not detain us any further and is rejected.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tShri P.P.Rao further contended as follows :\n<\/p>\n
2.1  The High Court did not apply its mind to the
\nvarious clauses in Section 3 but only looked at clause\n<\/p>\n
(d) thereof.   On a reading of the entire Section 3 it will
\nbe clear that there is a clear distinction between
\nStates\tand Union Territories.\t So  far as Union
\nTerritories are concerned a special provision is made
\nin clause (f) of Section 3 for the nomination of
\nmembers by the Central Government of whom at least
\none shall be a registered dentist duly qualified and
\npractising or holding an appointment in an institution
\nfor the training of Dentists in a Union Territory.
\n2.2  All India Institute of Medical Sciences is
\nestablished under Section 3 of the 1956 Act.   It is
\ndeclared to be an Institution of National Importance
\nbut not stated to be a University.   It does not have the
\ndemocratic structure of a University like the Academic
\ncouncil, the Executive Council and the Court or the
\nSenate,\t the Syndicate etc. vide Sections 4 and 10 of
\nthe Act.   It has the power to grant degrees and
\nmedical diplomas under Section 24 of the All India
\nInstitute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956 [for brevity
\nAIIMS Act].  The degrees and diplomas awarded by
\nthe Institute enjoy statutory recognition in view of
\nSection 23 of the AIIMS Act.\n<\/p>\n
2.3  The concept of deemed university was
\nincorporated in the UGC Act, 1956.   The AIIMS is not
\na deemed university within the meaning of (Section 3
\nof the UGC Act, 1956) and is not subject to the UGC.
\nTherefore  the word  University\t used in the Dentists
\nAct, 1948 could not have been intended to cover an
\ninstitution like All India Institute of Medical Sciences
\nwhich was not in existence when the Act was made in
\n1948.\n<\/p>\n
2.4\tThe High Court erred in over looking the
\nrequirements of Section 3(d) viz. that the University
\nshould be one established by law in a State and it
\nshould have a Senate, or Court.\t  The AIIMS has no
\nSenate or a Court.   The person to be elected should be
\na member of the Dental Faculty of the University and if
\nthere is no Dental Faculty then he should be the
\nmember of the Medical Faculty.\t In the AIIMS there is
\nno Senate or Court but only a governing body and
\nother committees.   There is no Dental Faculty or a
\nMedical Faculty as such,  as in the AIIMS, the entire
\ninstitute being a medical institute, to attract clause (d)
\nof Section 3.\n<\/p>\n
2.5\tOn a correct interpretation of Section 3, the
\nAIIMS can secure representation in the Dental Council
\nonly under clause (f) as and when the Central
\nGovernment chooses to nominate a Member of the
\nDepartment of Dentistry of the AIIMS and not under
\nclause (d) of Section 3.\n<\/p>\n
2.6\tThe principle of  reading down\thas no
\napplication at all to this case.\n<\/p>\n
2.7\tShri R.N.Trivedi, learned Additional Solicitor General for India
\nappearing for AIIMS, submitted that the AIIMS Act had been enacted
\npursuant to Entry 63 or 64 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the
\nConstitution of India and took us through various provisions of the
\nAIIMS Act.  He contended that if we properly examine the scheme of
\nSection 3 of the Act, several classes of members are provided under the
\nsame and one of them is a University which can have representation
\nunder clause (d) of Section 3 of the Act.  There are members who are
\nnominated and there are members who are elected.  The object of the
\nsaid provisions is clear that there should be representation of all
\nteaching institutions covered by the Act and  it cannot be the intention of
\nexcluding member from an institution of\t national importance as AIIMS;
\nthat when one member from each University is brought in, it cannot be
\nsaid that the AIIMS would be excluded from the category arising under
\nSection 3(d) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
2.8\tShri Vikas Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1,
\nreiterated the contentions raised by him before the High Court to which
\nwe have already adverted to.  He also submitted that in terms of Section
\n3(58) of the General Clauses Act, State shall include Union Territory
\nand, therefore, under Section 3(d) of the Act one member from each
\nUniversity established by law in the State would include a Union
\nTerritory.  Shri Trivedi, supporting this contention, adverted to the
\ndecision of this Court in Ram Kishore Sen & Ors.   vs.\tUnion of India
\n& Ors.,<\/a> 1966 (1) SCR 430, wherein such an interpretation has been
\nadopted by using the General Clauses Act.  Both of them contended to
\nhave representation on the Council under Section 3(d) of the Act all that
\nis required is that it should be a University established by any law in the
\nState which would include Union Territory and grants a recognised
\ndental qualification elected either by members of the Senate or the Court
\nfrom amongst the members of the Dental or Medical Faculty of the
\nUniversity  (where there is no separate dental faculty members].  It was
\nalso brought to our notice that Explanation to Section 3(e) of the Act in
\ndefining the State, Union Territory is specifically excluded and,
\ntherefore, wherever the expression State is used would include Union
\nTerritory unless expressly excluded, so as to make it clear that the
\nmeaning attributed to the expression State in the General Clauses Act
\nwould not be applicable.  Therefore, it is submitted that, by implication,
\nit must be held that the expression State in Section 3(d) of the Act
\nwould include a Union Territory.  Shri Rao, however, contended that
\nthere has been a history to the formation of States in this country.
\nOriginally there were Part A, B and C States and on the State
\nReorganisation Act coming into force by the Adaptation of Orders, certain
\nchanges in the Act were made and, therefore, when the expression State
\nhas been used in Section 3(d) of the Act, that background should not be
\nforgotten and the same has to be borne in mind and interpreted
\nappropriately.\tSo done, he submitted that, the expression State in
\nSection 3(d) of the Act would not cover a Union Territory like Delhi
\nwhere AIIMS is located.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tFor purposes of proper appreciation of the rival contentions,  we
\nmay set out Section 3 of the Act :\n<\/p>\n
Section 3.  The Central Government shall, as soon as may be,
\nconstitute a Council consisting of the following members, namely:-\n<\/p>\n
(a) one registered dentist possessing a recognised dental
\nqualification elected by the dentists registered in Part A of each
\nState register;\n<\/p>\n
(b)  one member elected from amongst themselves by the members
\nof the Medical Council of India;\n<\/p>\n
(c) not more than four members elected from among themselves
\nby-\n<\/p>\n
(a) Principals, Deans, Directors and Vice-Principals of
\ndental colleges in the States training students for
\nrecognised dental qualifications:\n<\/p>\n
Provided that not more than one member shall be elected
\nfrom the same dental college;\n<\/p>\n
(b) Heads of dental wings of medical colleges in the States
\ntraining students for recognised dental qualifications;\n<\/p>\n
(d) one member from each University established by law in the
\nStates which grants a recognised dental qualification, to be elected
\nby the members of the Senate of the University, or in case the
\nUniversity has no Senate, by the members of the court, from
\namongst the members of the Dental Faculty of the University or in
\ncase the University has no Dental Faculty, from amongst the
\nmembers of the Medical Faculty thereof;\n<\/p>\n
(e) one member to represent each State nominated by the
\nGovernment of each State from among persons registered either in
\na medical register or a dental register of the State;\n<\/p>\n
Explanation.- In this clause,  State does not include a Union
\nterritory;\n<\/p>\n
(f) six members nominated by the Central Government, of whom at
\nleast one shall be a registered dentist possessing a recognised
\ndental qualification and practising or holding an appointment in
\nan institution for the training of dentists in a Union terrirory, and
\nat least two shall be dentists registered in Part B of a State
\nregister;\n<\/p>\n
(g) the Director General of Health Services, ex officio :\n<\/p>\n
Provided that pending the preparation of registers the State
\nGovernment may nominate to the first Council members referred
\nto in parts (a) and (e) and the Central Government members
\nreferred to in part (f) out of persons who are eligible for registration
\nin the respective registers and such persons shall hold office for
\nsuch period as the State or Central Government may, by
\nnotification in the Official Gazette, specify.\n<\/p>\n
3.1\tThe Act is a pre-constitutional enactment but it has application in
\nthe post-constitutional era also.  When interpreting such an enactment,
\nwe have not only to bear in mind the historical background leading to the
\nlegislation and the amendments effected therein, but also various
\naspects covered by it.\tTo our mind, reading of Section 3(d) of the Act
\nwould make it clear that the expression state has been used in the
\nlarger sense as defined in the General Clauses Act to include Union
\nTerritory.  This position becomes further clear when we read Section 3(e)
\nof the Act wherein it is stated that nomination can be made from
\namongst the members of each State.  By explanation thereto, it is stated,
\nthe State would not include a Union Territory.\tIn respect of Union
\nTerritory a separate provision has been made in Section 3(f).  The
\nGeneral Clauses Act read with the scheme of the enactment will make it
\nclear that the expression State used in Section 3(d) of the Act would
\ninclude a Union Territory also.\n<\/p>\n
3.2\tThe scheme of Section 3(d) of the Act will indicate that there are
\ndifferent constituencies for representation on the Council; first,
\nconstituency is from amongst the registered dentists in Part A of each
\nState register; second,\t from amongst the members of the Medical
\nCouncil of India; third, from the teaching faculty of different dental
\ncolleges such as the Principals, Deans, Directors and Vice-Principals of
\ndental colleges or Heads of dental wings of medical colleges in the States
\ntraining students for recognised dental qualifications; fourth, from each
\nUniversity established by law in the States which grants a recognised
\ndental qualification; fifth, nominated members from States other than a
\nUnion Territory; sixth, from nominated members from the Union
\nTerritory and those dentists registered in Part B of a State register; and
\nlastly, the Director General of Health Services. The Act covers the various
\ninstitutions and Universities over which it has control\t under the various
\nprovisions in relation to qualification and  discipline as well as those who
\npractise after obtaining the necessary qualification in the dentistry.\tThe
\nobject of Section 3 is to provide a wide representation to the Council,
\nwhich is a professional body.  Therefore, appropriate meaning will have
\nto be given to the expressions used in the enactment bearing in mind the
\nhistorical background and purpose of the legislation.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tNow, we may briefly glean into provisions of the AIIMS Act.   The
\nAIIMS Act provides for constitution of a governing body [Section 10] and
\nthe objects of the AIIMS include developing the pattern of teaching in
\nunder-graduate and post-graduate medical education and attain self
\nsufficiency in post-graduate medical education [Section 13].  In terms of
\nSection 23 of the AIIMS Act, AIIMS stands outside the scope of the
\nMedical Council in the conferment of medical degrees and diplomas
\ngranted under the AIIMS Act, which shall be recognised medical degrees
\nfor the purpose of that Act and shall be deemed to be included in the
\nFirst Schedule of the Act.  Under Section 24 of the AIIMS Act, it is
\nprovided that the AIIMS shall have the power to grant medical degrees
\nand diplomas and other academic distinctions and titles irrespective of
\nwhat may be contained in other enactments.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tThe thrust of the submission made by Shri Rao is that the
\neminence of the AIIMS in the field of medical education is undisputed
\nbut the fact remains that the language of Section 3(d) of the Act requires
\nthat representation under that clause is available only to a University
\nestablished by law and not any other institution though established by
\nlaw imparting dental education and conferring degrees.\t In this context,
\nthe High Court placed very heavy reliance upon the provisions of the
\nAIIMS Act which enacted that AIIMS imparts dental education and
\nconfers or grants degrees, which is normally the function of a University
\nand, therefore, in a general sense by adopting the dictionary meaning, it
\nshould be stated that it is a University, while the contention on behalf of
\nthe appellant is that it must be a University established by law.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tWe may in this context notice the provisions of Section 22 of the
\nUniversity Grants Commission Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as the
\nUGC Act].  Section 22 of the UGC Act provides that the right of
\nconferring or granting degree shall be exercised by three categories of
\ninstitutions, namely,-\n<\/p>\n
(1) a University established or incorporated by a Central or a
\nState Act;\n<\/p>\n
(2) an institution deemed to be a University under Section 3
\nof the UGC Act; and<\/p>\n
(3) an institution specially empowered by an Act of
\nParliament to confer or grant degrees.\n<\/p>\n
6.1\tThe fact that there are three kinds of authorities empowered to
\ngrant degrees or diplomas is too well known in educational field and is
\nlegislatively taken note of as aforesaid.  Thus it is clear that there are
\nvarious institutions in India other than Universities which are
\nempowered to confer or grant degrees and diplomas and AIIMS is one
\nsuch institution.  Therefore, it cannot be said that mere fact of being
\nempowered under the AIIMS Act to confer degrees or diplomas, would
\nconvert it into a University established by law.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tThe intention of the legislature is primarily to be gathered from the
\nlanguage used in the statute, thus paying attention to what has been
\nsaid as also to what has not been said.\t  When the words used are not
\nambiguous, literal  meaning has to be applied, which is the golden rule of
\ninterpretation.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tTo interpret the meaning of the expression University  the  High
\nCourt proceeded to examine various dictionaries. That exercise could not
\nhave been undertaken by the High Court in view of the fact that the
\nexpression used in Section 3(d) of the Act is a University established by
\nlaw. The expression used is not just a University  but University
\nestablished by law  and the expression\tUniversity  cannot be divorced
\nfrom the following words established by law.  Entire expression
\nUniversity established by law  constitutes one concept and is well
\nknown in law as indicated in Section 22 of the UGC Act.\t Hence,
\nconstruction of the expression used in the Act with reference to
\ndictionaries is not called for.\t Such a course will result in either omission
\nof words in the Act such as established by law\tor to add different words
\nwhich is not permissible in the language of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tThe learned counsel for respondents referred to large number of
\ndecisions where the meaning of the expression used in an enactment has
\nbeen given a wider meaning or even to cover a situation which could not
\nhave arisen when the law was enacted. But we are afraid, these
\nprinciples cannot be applied in the present context, for the Parliament is
\nwell aware of the situation of University,  deemed University and the
\ninstitutions constituted and empowered under relevant enactments to
\nconfer degrees and the Act has been amended from time to time, to suit
\nfresh needs as and when they arose.  Thus,  the Act has not remained
\nstatic but is catching up with times.  Therefore,  what is not included by
\nthe legislature cannot be undone by us by adopting the principle of
\npurposive interpretation.\n<\/p>\n
\tAIIMS is an institution, which is specially empowered by Act of
\nParliament to confer or grant degrees. As a result thereof AIIMS may
\nimpart education in dentistry and also confer degrees or diplomas as
\nprovided under the AIIMS Act but that circumstance would not itself
\nconvert such an institution into a University established by law.  If
\nParliament had intended that all categories of institutions which impart
\ndental education will also be covered by Section 3(d) of the Act, it would
\nnot have provided that it is only a University established by law
\nimparting dental education could send its representative to the Council.
\nThe object of Section 3(d) of the Act being to provide representation to the
\nUniversity established by law, to give any other meaning would strain the
\nmeaning of the expression University established by law so as to treat
\nany other  institution empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or
\ngrant degrees at par with University established by law for the purpose of
\nrepresentation on the Council.\tMay be Parliament found that such an
\ninstitution  to be merely covered by Section 3(c) of the Act so that the
\ninstitution is merely treated as a dental college in a State training
\nstudents for recognised dental qualifications from whom the Principals,
\nDeans, Directors and Vice Principals or Head of the Dental Wing would
\nalso be elected, if found fit.\tAgain, it is for the Parliament to amend the
\nlaw to give representation appropriately in the Council to the AIIMS and
\nthe High Court ought not to have proceeded to consider other modes of
\ninterpretation when the language of the provision itself is absolutely
\nclear.\tTherefore,  we think the view taken by the High Court cannot be
\nsustained. The other question whether the  Governing Body or the
\nAcademic Committee of the AIIMS is equivalent to a Senate or a Court in
\na University does not arise for consideration in the view we have taken in
\nthe matter.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tInsofar as respondent No.1 is concerned, inasmuch as his term on
\nthe Council came to an end in 1996 his petition had become infructuous
\nby the time it was disposed off and hence nothing need be said on that
\naspect of the matter.  Appeal is allowed accordingly.  No order as to
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t    …J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t[ S. RAJENDRA BABU ]<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t   …J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t    [BRIJESH KUMAR]
\nAUGUST\t29, 2001.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Dental Council Of India & Anr vs Hari Prakash & Ors on 29 August, 2001 Author: R Babu Bench: S. Rajendra Babu, Brijesh Kumar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 14743 of 1996 PETITIONER: DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: HARI PRAKASH & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/08\/2001 BENCH: S. Rajendra […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-117822","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDental Council Of India & Anr vs Hari Prakash & Ors on 29 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dental-council-of-india-anr-vs-hari-prakash-ors-on-29-august-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dental Council Of India & Anr vs Hari Prakash & Ors on 29 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dental-council-of-india-anr-vs-hari-prakash-ors-on-29-august-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2001-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-04T22:16:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dental-council-of-india-anr-vs-hari-prakash-ors-on-29-august-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dental-council-of-india-anr-vs-hari-prakash-ors-on-29-august-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dental Council Of India & Anr vs Hari Prakash & Ors on 29 August, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-04T22:16:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dental-council-of-india-anr-vs-hari-prakash-ors-on-29-august-2001\"},\"wordCount\":4051,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dental-council-of-india-anr-vs-hari-prakash-ors-on-29-august-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dental-council-of-india-anr-vs-hari-prakash-ors-on-29-august-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dental-council-of-india-anr-vs-hari-prakash-ors-on-29-august-2001\",\"name\":\"Dental Council Of India & Anr vs Hari Prakash & Ors on 29 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-04T22:16:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dental-council-of-india-anr-vs-hari-prakash-ors-on-29-august-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dental-council-of-india-anr-vs-hari-prakash-ors-on-29-august-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dental-council-of-india-anr-vs-hari-prakash-ors-on-29-august-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dental Council Of India & Anr vs Hari Prakash & Ors on 29 August, 2001\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dental Council Of India & Anr vs Hari Prakash & Ors on 29 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dental-council-of-india-anr-vs-hari-prakash-ors-on-29-august-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dental Council Of India & Anr vs Hari Prakash & Ors on 29 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dental-council-of-india-anr-vs-hari-prakash-ors-on-29-august-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-04T22:16:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dental-council-of-india-anr-vs-hari-prakash-ors-on-29-august-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dental-council-of-india-anr-vs-hari-prakash-ors-on-29-august-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dental Council Of India & Anr vs Hari Prakash & Ors on 29 August, 2001","datePublished":"2001-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-04T22:16:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dental-council-of-india-anr-vs-hari-prakash-ors-on-29-august-2001"},"wordCount":4051,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dental-council-of-india-anr-vs-hari-prakash-ors-on-29-august-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dental-council-of-india-anr-vs-hari-prakash-ors-on-29-august-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dental-council-of-india-anr-vs-hari-prakash-ors-on-29-august-2001","name":"Dental Council Of India & Anr vs Hari Prakash & Ors on 29 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-04T22:16:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dental-council-of-india-anr-vs-hari-prakash-ors-on-29-august-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dental-council-of-india-anr-vs-hari-prakash-ors-on-29-august-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dental-council-of-india-anr-vs-hari-prakash-ors-on-29-august-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dental Council Of India & Anr vs Hari Prakash & Ors on 29 August, 2001"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117822","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=117822"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117822\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=117822"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=117822"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=117822"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}