{"id":137202,"date":"2010-09-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deepa-thomas-vs-medical-council-of-india-on-16-september-2010"},"modified":"2016-04-16T02:36:31","modified_gmt":"2016-04-15T21:06:31","slug":"deepa-thomas-vs-medical-council-of-india-on-16-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deepa-thomas-vs-medical-council-of-india-on-16-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Deepa Thomas vs Medical Council Of India on 16 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Deepa Thomas vs Medical Council Of India on 16 September, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 34270 of 2009(C)\n\n\n1. DEEPA THOMAS, 2ND MBBS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. LAVEENA V.ANTONY, 2ND MBBS,\n3. JISHA JEEV K., 2ND MBBS,\n4. NIDHI GIRVASIS, 2ND MBBS,\n5. JOBBY JOSE, 2ND MBBS,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENJIPALAM,\n\n3. THE PRINCIPAL, JUBILEE MEDICAL MISSION\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN\n\n Dated :16\/09\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
            Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan<\/p>\n
                          &<\/p>\n
                P.Bhavadasan, JJ.\n<\/p>\n
  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
     W.P.(C).Nos.34270\/2009-C, 34278\/2009-D,<\/p>\n
          34285\/2009-E & 34343\/2009-K,<\/p>\n
    13810\/2010-A, 13817\/2010-B, 13818\/2010-B,<\/p>\n
           13819\/2010-B & 21534\/2010-N<\/p>\n
      and also 34389\/2009-P and 34941\/2009-K<\/p>\n
  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
     Dated this the 16th day of September, 2010.<\/p>\n
                     Judgment<\/p>\n
                                     “CR”\n<\/p>\n
  Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.All these writ petitions are filed by students<\/p>\n
 admitted  by  different    self  financing  Medical<\/p>\n
 Colleges for the MBBS Course for the year 2007-<\/p>\n
 08. WP(C).34270\/2009 is filed by five students of<\/p>\n
 Jubilee  Medical  Mission    College  and  Research<\/p>\n
 Institute. WP(C).34278\/2009 is filed by fifteen<\/p>\n
 students of Amala Institute of Medical Sciences.<\/p>\n
 WP(C).34285\/2009 is filed by eight students of<\/p>\n
WPC34270\/09 & con.cases     -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church Medical College<\/p>\n
 and   WP(C).34343\/2009        is   filed  by twenty-four<\/p>\n
 students      of     Pushpagiri    Institute of  Medical<\/p>\n
 Sciences and Research Centre. WP(C).Nos.13810 and<\/p>\n
 13819     of    2010   are    filed   by  two among the<\/p>\n
 petitioners in WP(C).34278\/2009(Malankara) on a<\/p>\n
 plea that they have a further ground peculiar to<\/p>\n
 the facts of the individual claims. On similar<\/p>\n
 grounds, WP(C).Nos.13817 and 21534 of 2010 are<\/p>\n
 filed by the 4th and 13th petitioners respectively<\/p>\n
 in     WP(C).34343\/2009(Pushpagiri)         and   WP(C).<\/p>\n
 Nos.13818\/2010 is filed by the 5th petitioner in<\/p>\n
 WP(C).34285\/2009(Malankara).           We   record   the<\/p>\n
 submission       that   the    5th petitioner in  WP(C).<\/p>\n
 34278\/09 has left the College, having obtained a<\/p>\n
 transfer certificate.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.WP(C).34389\/2009 is filed by nine students and WP<\/p>\n
 (C).34941\/2009 is filed by eighteen students of<\/p>\n
 M.E.S.Medical College.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.In so far as the self financing education sector<\/p>\n
WPC34270\/09 & con.cases      -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 in Kerala is concerned, Act 19 of 2006[the Kerala<\/p>\n
 Professional Colleges or Institutions(Prohibition<\/p>\n
 of   Capitation        Fee,    Regulation   of  Admission,<\/p>\n
 Fixation      of      Non-Exploitative    Fee  and   Other<\/p>\n
 Measures      to    Ensure    Equity   and  Excellence in<\/p>\n
 Professional Education) Act, 2006] provides for<\/p>\n
 the   constitution        of    an  Admission  Supervisory<\/p>\n
 Committee       and     a   Fee     Regulatory  Committee.<\/p>\n
 (Sections 4 and 6).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.The M.E.S.Medical College has entered into an<\/p>\n
 agreement with the Government. That is Ext.P2 in<\/p>\n
 WP(C).34389\/2009.         Clauses     6   and  7   thereof<\/p>\n
 regulate the modalities for admission. It is<\/p>\n
 pointed      out     that  the     said  agreement  stands<\/p>\n
 approved by the Admission Supervisory Committee.<\/p>\n
 Apart from that, the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
 M.E.S.Medical College also points out that his<\/p>\n
 client is a minority institution and would be<\/p>\n
 governed by the provisions of the decision of the<\/p>\n
 Apex     Court        in   P.A.Inamdar     v.   State  of<\/p>\n
 Maharashtra,<\/a> (2005) 6 SCC 537. He made particular<\/p>\n
WPC34270\/09 & con.cases     -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 reference to paragraph 137 of that judgment, at<\/p>\n
 page 604 of that reported version, to say that<\/p>\n
 the    required       bench   mark    is  only  that the<\/p>\n
 admission        procedure      adopted   by   a  private<\/p>\n
 institution or group of institutions ought to be<\/p>\n
 one     fulfilling       the      test  of   being  fair,<\/p>\n
 transparent and non-exploitative.<\/p>\n
5.With the aforesaid, we proceed to note that the<\/p>\n
 challenge in these writ petitions is against the<\/p>\n
 decision       of     the  Medical     Council  of  India<\/p>\n
 directing that the writ petitioners be discharged<\/p>\n
 on the ground that they do not satisfy the<\/p>\n
 eligibility conditions and selection conditions<\/p>\n
 prescribed by Regulations 5(2) and 5(5)(ii) of<\/p>\n
 the MCI(Graduate Medical Education) Regulations,<\/p>\n
 1997,     hereinafter      referred     to  as  the “MCI<\/p>\n
 Regulations”, which, among other things, enjoin<\/p>\n
 that      in      States     having     more   than  one<\/p>\n
 university\/board\/examining           body conducting  the<\/p>\n
 qualifying examination(or where there is more<\/p>\n
 than one medical college under the administrative<\/p>\n
WPC34270\/09 & con.cases     -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 control of one authority), a competitive entrance<\/p>\n
 examination should be held so as to achieve a<\/p>\n
 uniform evaluation and in case of admission on<\/p>\n
 the basis of competitive entrance examination in<\/p>\n
 terms of that clause, a candidate must have<\/p>\n
 passed in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry,<\/p>\n
 Biology and English individually and must have<\/p>\n
 obtained a minimum of 50% of marks taken together<\/p>\n
 in    Physics,        Chemistry    and Biology  at  the<\/p>\n
 qualifying examination and in addition, must have<\/p>\n
 come in the merit list prepared as a result of<\/p>\n
 such competitive entrance examination by securing<\/p>\n
 not less than 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and<\/p>\n
 Biology      taken      together    in the   competitive<\/p>\n
 examination. To put it pithily, a competitive<\/p>\n
 examination should be held to achieve a uniform<\/p>\n
 evaluation and the candidate should have obtained<\/p>\n
 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology at<\/p>\n
 the qualifying examination and also not less than<\/p>\n
 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology,<\/p>\n
 taken together, in the competitive examination.<\/p>\n
 The dual requirement in terms of the Regulations<\/p>\n
WPC34270\/09 & con.cases     -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 is that the candidate should have 50% marks in<\/p>\n
 the qualifying examination and also 50% marks in<\/p>\n
 the competitive examination.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.It is not in dispute that none of the petitioners<\/p>\n
 has    secured        50%  marks    in  the  competitive<\/p>\n
 examination. This is the ground on which the<\/p>\n
 Medical Council of India has found them to be<\/p>\n
 ineligible to continue with the MBBS Course.<\/p>\n
7.We may immediately notice that the learned senior<\/p>\n
 counsel      for      Jubilee,    Amala,  Malankara  and<\/p>\n
 Pushpagiri       Medical   Colleges    has addressed an<\/p>\n
 argument that on the basis of the prospectus and<\/p>\n
 the modality adopted by them for selection, they<\/p>\n
 have a procedure whereby they considered the<\/p>\n
 marks      obtained      by     the  candidate  in  the<\/p>\n
 competitive examination and in the qualifying<\/p>\n
 examination by scaling down the total to 50% and<\/p>\n
 therefore, that is a methodology which cannot be<\/p>\n
 treated as contradicting the MCI Regulations. We<\/p>\n
 would also note that the petitioners in WP(C).<\/p>\n
WPC34270\/09 & con.cases    -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 Nos.13810, 13817, 13818, 13819 and 21534 of 2010<\/p>\n
 contend that though they had not obtained 50% in<\/p>\n
 the examination conducted for admission, by the<\/p>\n
 self financing Medical Colleges in the State,<\/p>\n
 they     had     obtained    more    than  50%   in  the<\/p>\n
 competitive         entrance     examinations   conducted<\/p>\n
 elsewhere,         that   is,    for    different  other<\/p>\n
 institutions and therefore, could be considered<\/p>\n
 to be eligible at par with those who had obtained<\/p>\n
 50% in the entrance examination conducted for the<\/p>\n
 self     financing       colleges    in    Kerala.  They<\/p>\n
 respectively claim to have achieved such merit in<\/p>\n
 the entrance test for CMC Ludhiana, in Karnataka<\/p>\n
 Common Entrance Examination for private colleges<\/p>\n
 or in the Common Entrance Examination conducted<\/p>\n
 by    Government       of  Kerala’s    Commissioner  for<\/p>\n
 Entrance Examinations. We also note that the<\/p>\n
 common admission tests for the self financing<\/p>\n
 colleges were conducted under the control of the<\/p>\n
 Admission Supervisory Committee constituted under<\/p>\n
 Act 19\/2006.\n<\/p>\n
8.In the light of the what is noted above, the fact<\/p>\n
WPC34270\/09 & con.cases    -: 8 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 remains that the competitive entrance examination<\/p>\n
 for admission to the self financing colleges was<\/p>\n
 conducted under the control of the Admission<\/p>\n
 Supervisory        Committee     constituted  under Act<\/p>\n
 19\/2006. However, by any means, none among the<\/p>\n
 petitioners        had  obtained    50%   marks  in the<\/p>\n
 competitive entrance examination. The Articles of<\/p>\n
 Agreement between the Government and the self<\/p>\n
 financing medical colleges provides clauses 6 and<\/p>\n
 7 regarding filling up of seats. 20% of the seats<\/p>\n
 shall be filled up by the educational agency on<\/p>\n
 the basis of inter se merit and eligibility from<\/p>\n
 the    list      published    by   the  Commissioner of<\/p>\n
 Entrance Examinations from among the applications<\/p>\n
 received by the educational agency or on the<\/p>\n
 basis      of     qualifying     marks   of  eligibility<\/p>\n
 examinations as fixed by the Medical Council of<\/p>\n
 India or from the list prepared on the basis of<\/p>\n
 any admission test. 15% of the seats shall be<\/p>\n
 filled up by the educational agency from the list<\/p>\n
 published       by    the   Commissioner    of  Entrance<\/p>\n
 Examinations from the applications received by<\/p>\n
WPC34270\/09 & con.cases    -: 9 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 the    educational      agency    or   on the  basis of<\/p>\n
 qualifying marks of eligibility examinations as<\/p>\n
 fixed by the Medical Council of India or from the<\/p>\n
 list prepared on the basis of any admission test.<\/p>\n
 The said provisions necessarily require that the<\/p>\n
 candidate      has    to undergo     the process  of  an<\/p>\n
 eligibility        examination.     The  Government, in<\/p>\n
 making that agreement, could not have, in any<\/p>\n
 manner, got over the Regulations of the Medical<\/p>\n
 Council of India which are issued under a Central<\/p>\n
 Act and which has uniform application through out<\/p>\n
 India.     By     now,  the      question whether  those<\/p>\n
 regulations are mandatory does not continue to be<\/p>\n
 res integra. In relation to admissions to the<\/p>\n
 MBBS Course for 2006-07, in R.D.Gardi Medical<\/p>\n
 College, Ujjain, the question of such eligibility<\/p>\n
 and the binding nature of the MCI Regulations<\/p>\n
 arose for decision. The High Court of Madhya<\/p>\n
 Pradesh at Jabalpur, by judgment dt.14.7.2008 in<\/p>\n
 WP(C).13379\/2007 and connected cases, held that<\/p>\n
 the regulations are mandatory. In appeals carried<\/p>\n
 against that judgment, Civil Appeal Nos.5518-5519<\/p>\n
WPC34270\/09 & con.cases    -: 10 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 of 2008, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India<\/p>\n
 issued an order on 4th September, 2008 (Ext.P8 in<\/p>\n
 WP(C).34285\/09). In that order(Monika Ranka and<\/p>\n
 others v. Medical Council of India and others<\/a>),<\/p>\n
 the Apex Court noted that the regulation of the<\/p>\n
 MCI had stated that the candidates should have<\/p>\n
 secured more than 50% marks in the entrance<\/p>\n
 examination.         The Apex     Court  maintained the<\/p>\n
 judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court as<\/p>\n
 regards the principle laid down therein. We note<\/p>\n
 the said judgments of the Madhya Pradesh High<\/p>\n
 Court and the Apex Court affirming it, at this<\/p>\n
 stage, to notice that the binding nature of the<\/p>\n
 MCI    Regulations      requiring    50%  marks  in the<\/p>\n
 entrance examination is beyond challenge.<\/p>\n
9.The following are the findings recorded by the<\/p>\n
 Jabalpur      Bench    of the     High Court  of  Madhya<\/p>\n
 Pradesh      in     the  order    dt.14.7.2008  in Writ<\/p>\n
 Petition No.13379\/2007 and connected cases:<\/p>\n
     1.The      Regulations     framed  by  the  MCI are<\/p>\n
WPC34270\/09 & con.cases     -: 11 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
        mandatory in nature.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.The MCI as per the direction given by the
\n        Division       Bench    of   this Court in Writ
\n        Petition No.16146\/2006 was entitled to take
\n        appropriate action against the students.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3.The directions given by the Apex Court in
\n        S.L.P.(C)No.16168\/2006          pertain  to  a
\n        different arena and does not curtail the
\n        power of the MCI to take action.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4.The contentions that the students could be
\n        admitted on the basis of the marks obtained
\n        in 10+2 examination is sans substance in
\n        view of the decision rendered in State of
\n        M.P. v. Gopal D.Tirthani,<\/a> (2003) 7 SCC 83 as
\n        far as the State of M.P. is concerned.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     5.Submission        that      the students and the
\n        colleges were in lack of knowledge with
\n        regard to the marks secured by the students
\n        is bereft of any substratum and deserves to
\n        be repelled.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     6.The MCI does not have any authority to relax
\n        the qualification as such a provision is
\n        absent in the 1997 Regulations.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
WPC34270\/09 & con.cases   -: 12 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
     7.The plea that some of the students were
\n        admitted as NRI is not substantiated and, in
\n        fact,      what is   discernible  is  that some
\n        students were admitted against NRI seats
\n        and, therefore, the principles laid down in
\n        respect of students who are NRI as laid down
\n        in P.A.Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR<\/a>
\n        2005 SC 3226 is not applicable to the case
\n        at hand.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     8.The      concept   of      equity and  legitimate
\n        expectation does not arise in the present
\n        batch of the cases as the Rule of Law should
\n        be     allowed   to     prevail  and cannot  be
\n        permitted to succumb.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     9.The order of discharge passed by the MCI in
\n        respect of all the students is valid barring
\n        that       of   Ku.Viny     Lahiri  subject  to
\n        verification of her marks obtained in PMT by
\n        the MCI. If she has secured 50% marks in the
\n        PMT she would be permitted to complete the
\n        course.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     10.The students who had been admitted to the
\n        course without requisite marks have suffered
\n        at the end of the respective colleges and,
\n        therefore, the said respondent colleges are
\n        directed to refund the fee with interest at<\/p>\n
WPC34270\/09 & con.cases     -: 13 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
        the rate of 8% per annum within a period of
\n        six weeks.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 We are in complete agreement with the principles<\/p>\n
 and   findings        on  the     issues  of  law  as are<\/p>\n
 contained in the aforesaid order of the Madhya<\/p>\n
 Pradesh      High      Court.      Not  only   that, such<\/p>\n
 principles stand affirmed by the Apex Court in<\/p>\n
 Monika Ranka(supra).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.In fact, even before us, all that was attempted<\/p>\n
 to be shown on behalf of the Jubilee, Amala,<\/p>\n
 Malankara and Pushpagiri and their students was<\/p>\n
 only that the terms of the prospectus issued by<\/p>\n
 those establishments showed a peculiar modality<\/p>\n
 of   selection        and fixing      the  marks. We have<\/p>\n
 examined the said formula as projected by the<\/p>\n
 learned senior counsel and are of the firm view<\/p>\n
 that it does not generate a situation where a<\/p>\n
 student     who     does  not      get  50%  marks in the<\/p>\n
 competitive entrance examination gets excluded<\/p>\n
 from the field of choice. So much so, we cannot<\/p>\n
WPC34270\/09 & con.cases   -: 14 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 but hold that even as regards the students of<\/p>\n
 those institutions, the MCI Regulations would be<\/p>\n
 fulfilled only if each of them has 50% marks in<\/p>\n
 the competitive entrance examination.<\/p>\n
11.The plea of a few students, of Amala, Malankara<\/p>\n
 and Pushpagiri, who claim to have secured more<\/p>\n
 than 50% marks in entrance examination conducted<\/p>\n
 by   CMC,      Ludhiana,    in   the Karnataka  Common<\/p>\n
 Entrance Examination for private colleges and the<\/p>\n
 Common       Entrance    Examination    conducted  by<\/p>\n
 Government of Kerala’s Commissioner for Entrance<\/p>\n
 Examinations does not stand. This is because such<\/p>\n
 claim is on the basis of success in a different<\/p>\n
 competition and if we were to accept that, we<\/p>\n
 would be compelling the authorities to act on the<\/p>\n
 results of those entrance tests for admission to<\/p>\n
 yet another institution in relation to which the<\/p>\n
 candidate admittedly did not secure 50% marks in<\/p>\n
 the   competitive      entrance   examination. We are<\/p>\n
 fortified in this view by the decision of the<\/p>\n
 Apex Court in Islamc Academy of Education v.<\/p>\n
WPC34270\/09 & con.cases    -: 15 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 State of Karnataka, (2003) 6 SCC 697           wherein the<\/p>\n
 Apex    Court      stated  in     paragraph  16  that  the<\/p>\n
 management could select students, of their quota,<\/p>\n
 either on the basis of the common entrance test<\/p>\n
 conducted by the State or on the basis of a<\/p>\n
 common     entrance     test    to  be   conducted by   an<\/p>\n
 association of all colleges of a particular type<\/p>\n
 in that State and that the common entrance test<\/p>\n
 held by the association must be for admission to<\/p>\n
 all colleges of that type in the State. It was<\/p>\n
 further specifically laid down that the option of<\/p>\n
 choosing, between either of these tests, must be<\/p>\n
 exercised before issuing of prospectus and after<\/p>\n
 intimation to the concerned authority and the<\/p>\n
 Committee set up following that judgment. This<\/p>\n
 clearly      rules     out   the     possibility  of   one<\/p>\n
 institution being told to admit a student on the<\/p>\n
 basis of the marks obtained at the competitive<\/p>\n
 entrance examination conducted by yet another<\/p>\n
 institution, even the identity of which was not<\/p>\n
 conceived       of    while   issuing    the   prospectus.<\/p>\n
 Therefore, we find that the petitioners in WP(C).<\/p>\n
WPC34270\/09 & con.cases    -: 16 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 Nos.13810, 13817, 13818, 13819 and 21534 of 2010<\/p>\n
 are not entitled to any special consideration on<\/p>\n
 the   basis      of   their   pleadings   in  those writ<\/p>\n
 petitions.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12.We would now consider the plea of the MES<\/p>\n
 Medical College and its students to the effect<\/p>\n
 that in terms of clauses 6 and 7 of the agreement<\/p>\n
 between the State Government and the institution,<\/p>\n
 the establishment should be treated to have made<\/p>\n
 a   bonafide       exercise    in   having  admitted the<\/p>\n
 students,       having    particular     regard  to  its<\/p>\n
 minority status and also because, no complaint<\/p>\n
 has been raised by any student regarding the<\/p>\n
 admissions already made. Clauses 6 and 7 provide<\/p>\n
 only for admission of students on the basis of<\/p>\n
 inter se merit and ability. This can only be in a<\/p>\n
 manner not offending the mandatory terms of the<\/p>\n
 MCI     Regulations.      If      the argument   of  the<\/p>\n
 petitioners and the MES Medical College in this<\/p>\n
 regard is accepted, it would be permitting that<\/p>\n
 institution         and  students     to  overreach  the<\/p>\n
WPC34270\/09 & con.cases    -: 17 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 regulations made by the MCI on the basis of the<\/p>\n
 agreement between the State Government and the<\/p>\n
 institution. Even if such provisions in those<\/p>\n
 clauses are ratified by the Admission Supervisory<\/p>\n
 Committee under the State Act(Act 19 of 2006),<\/p>\n
 that    does      not,  in    any   manner, impair  the<\/p>\n
 overreaching effect of the Regulations issued by<\/p>\n
 the MCI in terms of the MCI Act which is a<\/p>\n
 central legislation. We are clear in our mind<\/p>\n
 that the State Government by including those<\/p>\n
 clauses 6 and 7 in the agreement which is Ext.P2<\/p>\n
 in WP(C).34278\/2009, could not have intended to<\/p>\n
 violate the mandatory requirements of the MCI<\/p>\n
 Regulations.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13.With    the     aforesaid,     all that  survives for<\/p>\n
 consideration is a very persuasive plea made by<\/p>\n
 the learned counsel for the petitioners in all<\/p>\n
 the writ petitions and also the learned counsel<\/p>\n
 appearing for the managements that on equitable<\/p>\n
 considerations, the students having been admitted<\/p>\n
 in 2007-2008 be permitted to continue with their<\/p>\n
WPC34270\/09 & con.cases   -: 18 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 education for MBBS. In support, strong reliance<\/p>\n
 was placed on behalf of the petitioners and the<\/p>\n
 management to the order of the Apex Court in<\/p>\n
 Monica Ranka’s case (supra) and also the later<\/p>\n
 order in that case which is Ext.P9 in WP(C).<\/p>\n
 34285\/2009. In Monica Ranka, it was noted that<\/p>\n
 there was nothing on record to show that the<\/p>\n
 appellants before the Apex Court were informed of<\/p>\n
 the    marks      secured by     them in  the  entrance<\/p>\n
 examination. On that factual matrix, the Apex<\/p>\n
 Court indulged to give them the peculiar personal<\/p>\n
 relief of permitting them to continue with the<\/p>\n
 course.      Reliance was also made to the judgment<\/p>\n
 dt.21.1.2009 of the Delhi High Court in WP(C)<\/p>\n
 3109\/08 and connected cases which is Ext.P10 in<\/p>\n
 WP(C)34285\/09, in support of the students and the<\/p>\n
 management. The managements, in so far as the<\/p>\n
 Jubilee,      Amala,   Malankara    and Pushpagiri are<\/p>\n
 concerned, have also further stated through their<\/p>\n
 learned      counsel    that     there could  be  even<\/p>\n
 surrender of seats as has been done in the case<\/p>\n
 of Madhya Pradesh High Court as reflected by the<\/p>\n
WPC34270\/09 & con.cases   -: 19 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 orders in Monica Ranka’s case, Exts.P8 and P9 in<\/p>\n
 WP(C)34285\/09. However, the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
 the MES Medical College states that they may not<\/p>\n
 be compelled to surrender seats having regard to<\/p>\n
 the fact that they had allotted 50% of the seats<\/p>\n
 in favour of the State quota in terms of the<\/p>\n
 agreement that it had with the State Government.<\/p>\n
14.Per contra, the learned counsel for the MCI made<\/p>\n
 specific       reference    to    different  decisions,<\/p>\n
 including Mahatma Gandhi University v. Gis Jose,<\/a><\/p>\n
 (2008) 17 SCC 611, Regional Officer, CBSE v. Ku.<\/p>\n
 Sheena Peethambaran,<\/a> (2003)7 SCC 719, Medical<\/p>\n
 Council of India v. Manas Ranjan Behera,<\/a> (2010) 1<\/p>\n
 SCC 173 and states that in the case in hand, what<\/p>\n
 is   being     sought   for    is only  application  of<\/p>\n
 misplaced equities and sympathy and that there<\/p>\n
 cannot be any affront to the statute law under<\/p>\n
 the guise of enforcing equitable considerations.<\/p>\n
 The learned counsel also cautioned that even the<\/p>\n
 power of the Apex Court under Article 142 to do<\/p>\n
 complete       justice   between    parties  has   been<\/p>\n
WPC34270\/09 & con.cases    -: 20 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 repeatedly held as not extending to empower the<\/p>\n
 court     to    act   in  affront     to  the  particular<\/p>\n
 statutory provisions. Reference was also made to<\/p>\n
 the     decision      of    the     Gujarat  High  Court<\/p>\n
 [SCA.No.9526\/2009(Ext.R-1\/L in WP(C).34285\/2009)]<\/p>\n
 in which the request for extending such equitable<\/p>\n
 consideration was specifically refused.<\/p>\n
15.Having given our anxious consideration to the<\/p>\n
 facts and circumstances of the cases in hand, we<\/p>\n
 find different important factors emerging.            As<\/p>\n
 already     found     by  us,     the admissions of   the<\/p>\n
 students in question are in clear violation of<\/p>\n
 the MCI Regulations, the norms of which are<\/p>\n
 mandatory       and    such   mandatory    nature stands<\/p>\n
 recognised by the Apex Court as part of law laid<\/p>\n
 by it. Consistency in the matter of application<\/p>\n
 of Regulations to higher education, including<\/p>\n
 medical education is a matter that is salutary.<\/p>\n
 Any dilution to that will adversely affect the<\/p>\n
 fundamental needs of the society for quality in<\/p>\n
 health sector and would undermine the purpose of<\/p>\n
WPC34270\/09 & con.cases   -: 21 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 such    Regulations.    Such     indulgence  would  also<\/p>\n
 disturb the uniform application sought to be<\/p>\n
 achieved by enforcement of such regulations. At<\/p>\n
 any rate, equity cannot override statute and we<\/p>\n
 are sure that the constitutional power of the<\/p>\n
 writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution<\/p>\n
 does not enable it to issue any direction in<\/p>\n
 contradiction         to   the     mandatory   statutory<\/p>\n
 regulations        which govern     a   particular  fact<\/p>\n
 situation and which is part of the law of the<\/p>\n
 land.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
16.Now, we had also heard the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
 the Calicut University which had filed a counter<\/p>\n
 affidavit in one of the matters. It stands to say<\/p>\n
 that in terms of the decisions of this Court as<\/p>\n
 also the Apex Court, the Universities are free to<\/p>\n
 make     their      own regulations     in  relation  to<\/p>\n
 admissions and that in terms of the Regulations<\/p>\n
 of the Calicut University, it is the independent<\/p>\n
 requirement        that the      candidate should   have<\/p>\n
 obtained 50% marks in the qualifying competitive<\/p>\n
WPC34270\/09 & con.cases     -: 22 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 examination.          He   further     argued  that   any<\/p>\n
 interference with the decision of the Medical<\/p>\n
 Council     of     India   would    not,  in  any manner,<\/p>\n
 preclude       the     right     and  authority  of   the<\/p>\n
 University to stand by the decision it has taken<\/p>\n
 or to take any decision against the students in<\/p>\n
 accordance with its Regulations. We record that<\/p>\n
 we have not touched upon any such issue since<\/p>\n
 these writ petitions are filed challenging only<\/p>\n
 the decision of the MCI.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
17.In   so     far     as  WP(C).34389\/2009    and  WP(C).<\/p>\n
 34941\/2009(M.E.S.Medical College) are concerned,<\/p>\n
 the learned counsel appearing for the institution<\/p>\n
 attempted      to     point   out   that  apart from  one<\/p>\n
 student, the MCI had not reported to the College<\/p>\n
 the disqualification incurred by any of the other<\/p>\n
 students, for more than one year, from the list<\/p>\n
 sent by the College to the MCI. This is strongly<\/p>\n
 countenanced by the learned counsel for the MCI<\/p>\n
 by stating that this was an issue pointed out<\/p>\n
 during an earlier round of litigation in which<\/p>\n
WPC34270\/09 & con.cases    -: 23 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 the managements were the writ petitioners and as<\/p>\n
 of now, there is no exchange of pleadings between<\/p>\n
 the College and the MCI which obliges the MCI to<\/p>\n
 meet any such submission. The learned counsel for<\/p>\n
 the MCI also states that in the earlier round,<\/p>\n
 the materials with the MCI disclosing even the<\/p>\n
 despatch of materials from its office to the MES<\/p>\n
 Medical College were made available to the court.<\/p>\n
 We do not deem it necessary or proper for us to<\/p>\n
 ponder     any     further   into   such a controversy<\/p>\n
 between the management and the MCI for the simple<\/p>\n
 reason that the management(College) has not filed<\/p>\n
 any    writ      petition    challenging the impugned<\/p>\n
 decisions of the MCI, though those decisions were<\/p>\n
 generated on directions issued by this Court on<\/p>\n
 writ petitions filed by the managements earlier.<\/p>\n
 We also do not find that the writ petitioners had<\/p>\n
 pressed any such argument before us at final<\/p>\n
 hearing.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
18.For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any<\/p>\n
 merit in these writ petitions. They fail.<\/p>\n
WPC34270\/09 & con.cases   -: 24 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 In    the     result,   these     writ  petitions   are<\/p>\n
 dismissed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                             Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,
\n                                        Judge.\n<\/p>\n
                                     P.Bhavadasan,
\n                                         Judge.\n<\/p>\n
Sha\/0709<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Deepa Thomas vs Medical Council Of India on 16 September, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 34270 of 2009(C) 1. DEEPA THOMAS, 2ND MBBS, … Petitioner 2. LAVEENA V.ANTONY, 2ND MBBS, 3. JISHA JEEV K., 2ND MBBS, 4. NIDHI GIRVASIS, 2ND MBBS, 5. JOBBY JOSE, 2ND MBBS, Vs […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-137202","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDeepa Thomas vs Medical Council Of India on 16 September, 2010 - 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\/deepa-thomas-vs-medical-council-of-india-on-16-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Deepa Thomas vs Medical Council Of India on 16 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deepa-thomas-vs-medical-council-of-india-on-16-september-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-15T21:06:31+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deepa-thomas-vs-medical-council-of-india-on-16-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deepa-thomas-vs-medical-council-of-india-on-16-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Deepa Thomas vs Medical Council Of India on 16 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-15T21:06:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deepa-thomas-vs-medical-council-of-india-on-16-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3759,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deepa-thomas-vs-medical-council-of-india-on-16-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deepa-thomas-vs-medical-council-of-india-on-16-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deepa-thomas-vs-medical-council-of-india-on-16-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Deepa Thomas vs Medical Council Of India on 16 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-15T21:06:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deepa-thomas-vs-medical-council-of-india-on-16-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deepa-thomas-vs-medical-council-of-india-on-16-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deepa-thomas-vs-medical-council-of-india-on-16-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Deepa Thomas vs Medical Council Of India on 16 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Deepa Thomas vs Medical Council Of India on 16 September, 2010 - 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\/deepa-thomas-vs-medical-council-of-india-on-16-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Deepa Thomas vs Medical Council Of India on 16 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deepa-thomas-vs-medical-council-of-india-on-16-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-15T21:06:31+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deepa-thomas-vs-medical-council-of-india-on-16-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deepa-thomas-vs-medical-council-of-india-on-16-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Deepa Thomas vs Medical Council Of India on 16 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-15T21:06:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deepa-thomas-vs-medical-council-of-india-on-16-september-2010"},"wordCount":3759,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deepa-thomas-vs-medical-council-of-india-on-16-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deepa-thomas-vs-medical-council-of-india-on-16-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deepa-thomas-vs-medical-council-of-india-on-16-september-2010","name":"Deepa Thomas vs Medical Council Of India on 16 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-15T21:06:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deepa-thomas-vs-medical-council-of-india-on-16-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deepa-thomas-vs-medical-council-of-india-on-16-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deepa-thomas-vs-medical-council-of-india-on-16-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Deepa Thomas vs Medical Council Of India on 16 September, 2010"}]},{"@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\/137202","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=137202"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137202\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=137202"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=137202"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=137202"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}