{"id":1685,"date":"2002-09-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-09-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/medical-council-of-india-vs-madhu-singh-and-ors-on-11-september-2002"},"modified":"2017-05-03T10:04:23","modified_gmt":"2017-05-03T04:34:23","slug":"medical-council-of-india-vs-madhu-singh-and-ors-on-11-september-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/medical-council-of-india-vs-madhu-singh-and-ors-on-11-september-2002","title":{"rendered":"Medical Council Of India vs Madhu Singh And Ors on 11 September, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Medical Council Of India vs Madhu Singh And Ors on 11 September, 2002<\/div>\n
Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Ruma Pal, Arijit Pasayat.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 5166  of  2001\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nMEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMADHU SINGH AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t11\/09\/2002\n\nBENCH:\nRUMA PAL & ARIJIT PASAYAT.\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis appeal filed by the Medical Council of India (in short the ‘MCI’)
\nraises important questions regarding desirability of belated admissions to
\nmedical colleges in different courses, both pre-graduate and post-graduate.
\nThe questions assume importance because filing a large number of petitions
\nbefore various High Courts and this Court has become an annual feature.
\nWhen time of admission to medical courses arrives, immediately comes to
\nmind Shakespeares’ Othello, where it was written “Chaos is come again”.
\nInevitable result is that considerable time is lost by candidates chasing vires
\ninstead of virus. This Court in Convenor, MBBS\/BDS Selection Board and
\nOrs. v. Chandan Mishra and Ors. (1995 Supp. (3) SCC 77) observed as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
 “………The learned Judges of the High Court, if we
\nmay say so in a well-considered opinion expressed
\ntheir anguish at the insensitivity of the authorities
\nadministering medical admission in the State to the
\nneed to prevent occasions for repetitive grievances
\nfrom the student community and had occasion to
\nobserve:\n<\/p>\n
“Shakespeare in Othello has written “Chaos is
\ncome again”. This Court has witnessed chaos
\nalmost annually when time for admission to
\nMBBS\/BDS courses came….”\n<\/p>\n
\tFactual position leading to the appeal, which is almost undisputed,
\nneeds to be noted in some detail.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor admission into the MBBS course relating to the session 1997-98,
\ncombined entrance competitive examination was held in the State of Bihar
\non 3.8.1997. The examination was conducted by the Bihar Combined
\nEntrance Competitive Examination Board (in short the ‘Board’). A
\ncombined merit list for the MBBS course and BDS course was published on
\n7.10.1997 for the aforesaid session. Respondent No.1 was one of the
\ncandidates who appeared at the said examination. She was, however, not
\nselected for the MBBS course, but she was given option to join the Dental
\nCourse. She accepted the option given and she was admitted. Her serial
\nnumber was 4 in the general category. After the first counseling which was
\nheld between the period 26.12.1997 to 31.12.1997, certain seats fell vacant.
\nThe Board decided not to fill up such vacancies, which primarily occurred
\non account of selected candidates abandoning the course or not taking
\nadmission. According to the Board, the approach was necessary to maintain
\nthe academic calendar and prevent mid-stream admissions.  The admissions
\nfor the session 1997-98 were completed by the end of January 1998. Two
\nstudents who were admitted to the Dental Course like respondent No.1 filed
\na Writ Petition before the High Court of Judicature at Patna (CWJC No.
\n5590\/98), inter alia, praying for a direction to the Controller of Examination
\nto admit them against the vacant seats in MBBS course. The petition was
\nfiled on the ground that second counseling was not done and seats were
\nlying vacant after the first counseling.  By order dated 4.12.1998, the Patna
\nHigh Court directed the Controller of Examination to admit the writ
\npetitioners as per the merit list and as per their choice against the four
\nvacancies existing due to non-joining of students, within a period of
\nfortnight from the date of the order. Five more students filed a Writ Petition
\n(CWJC No.11681\/98) making identical prayers as were made in the other
\nwrit petition. By order dated 10.3.1999, the High Court directed that all the
\nvacant seats upto 4.12.1998 for the session 1997-98 should be filled up from
\namongst the eligible candidates as enlisted in the merit list.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Letters Patent Appeal (LPA.439\/99) filed by the Controller of
\nExamination, a Division Bench upheld the order dated 10.3.1999. However,
\ncertain modifications were made in the directions. It was observed that if
\nany objection was taken by the MCI to the admissions in MBBS course,
\nsuch decision should be given binding effect.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is of relevance to note that the MCI was not a party in the aforesaid
\nwrit applications and LPA. The Controller of Examination vide its letter
\ndated 6.8.1999 communicated the directions and intimated the factual
\nposition regarding admission of students against “stray vacancies” for the
\n1997-98 session to MCI.\t A clarification application was filed in the LPA.
\nBy order dated 30.8.1999 it was observed by the High Court that if any
\ndirection is issued by the MCI, the parties will be at liberty to seek
\nappropriate remedy.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Executive Committee of the MCI in its meeting held on
\n14.9.1999 refused permission to students in respect of vacant seats of 1997-
\n98 session after 18 months as that would amount to increasing the intake
\ncapacity and would be contrary to the provisions of The Indian Medical
\nCouncil Act, 1956 (in short the ‘Act’). By letter dated 22.10.1999, the
\ndecision of the Executive Committee was communicated to the Board.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Controller of Examination of the Board cancelled the admissions
\nof four students (including the respondent No.1) who had got admission.
\nThey were shifted back to the BDS course to which they were originally
\nadmitted.\n<\/p>\n
Aggrieved by the decision of the Board, which was taken pursuant to
\nMCI’s decision, respondent No.1 filed a Writ Application (CWJC
\nNo.11100\/99) challenging the jurisdiction of MCI under the Act to guide the
\nadmission in the colleges.  For the first time, MCI was impleaded in the
\nproceedings. It was, inter alia, pleaded by the writ petitioner that MCI had
\nno power and authority in deciding the question of admission of the
\nstudents. Counter-affidavit was filed by MCI taking the stand that mid-
\nstream admissions would amount to increasing admission capacity which
\nwas fixed and that was not permissible. Originally, the matter was listed
\nbefore a learned Single Judge.\tSince the earlier order dated 22.9.1999 was
\npassed by a Division Bench in LPA, it was directed that the writ petition
\nshould be placed before a Division Bench. By impugned order dated
\n12.5.2000, writ application was allowed by the Division Bench primarily on
\nthe ground that the vacancies remained unfilled due to lapse on the part of
\nthe Controller of Examination or MCI and since earlier directions were
\ngiven to admit the students, the order was to be operative. It was directed
\nthat the respondent No.1 should be allowed to complete the MBBS course to
\nwhich she was admitted as per the directions given in the earlier order.
\nStand of MCI in this appeal essentially is that the directions given by
\nthe High Court are contrary to the scheme of the Act. It would mean that a
\ncandidate would be permitted to take admission into a course of a fixed
\nduration just before completion thereof. In reality, the candidate would be
\npursuing the course with the students of subsequent academic session, and
\nessentially it means increase in the students’ strength beyond the prescribed
\nmaximum when there is a statutory bar on the increase of the students intake
\ncapacity. Directions cannot be given to act contrary to what is statutorily
\nprescribed. It is pointed out that directions for mid-stream admissions have
\nbeen dis-approved by this Court on several occasions. It was submitted that
\nby admitting students mid-stream, the statutorily prescribed time schedules
\nget affected and it is neither fair to the students getting admission nor the
\ninstitution.  At this juncture, it is to be noted that while issuing notice in this
\ncase while granting leave, it was made clear that whatever be the result of
\nthe petition, the admission of the first respondent will not be adversely
\naffected. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, therefore, submitted that the
\nresult of the appeal would not affect his client. However, his submission was
\nthat there was nothing wrong in mid-stream admissions and even if there
\nwas fixed time schedule, extra classes can be taken by the teachers to meet
\nthe deficiency in attendance. It was further submitted that leaving seats
\nunfilled is not good for the country as eligible candidates would be deprived
\nof pursuing the medical studies and it will be a loss to the national
\nexchequer.\n<\/p>\n
In order to appreciate the rival stands, it is desirable to take note of
\nfew provisions of the Act and Medical Council of India Regulations on
\nGraduate Medical Education, 1997 (in short the ‘Regulation’).
\n“Regulation 7(1)- Every student shall undergo a
\nperiod of certified study extending over 4
\nacademic years divided into 9 semesters, (i.e. of 6
\nmonths each) from the date of commencement of
\nhis study for the subjects comprising the medical
\ncurriculum to the date of completion of
\nexamination and followed by one year
\ncompulsory rotating internship. Each semester
\nwill consist of approximately 120 teaching days
\nof 8 hours each college working time, including
\none hour of lunch.\n<\/p>\n
7(6) Universities shall organize admission timings
\nand admission process in such a way that teaching
\nin first semester starts by 1st of August each year.\n<\/p>\n
 Section 10A – Permission for establishment of new
\nmedical college, new course of\tstudy, etc.<\/p>\n
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this
\nAct or any other law for the time being in force,-\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tno person shall establish a medical
\ncollege; or<\/p>\n
(b)\tno medical college shall-\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) open a new or higher course of
\nstudy or training ( including a post-\n<\/p>\n
graduate course of study or training)
\nwhich would enable a student of such
\ncourse or training to qualify himself
\nfor the award of any recognized
\nmedical qualification; or<\/p>\n
\t(ii) increase its admission capacity in
\nany course of study or training
\n(including a post-graduate course of
\nstudy or training),<\/p>\n
except with the previous permission of the Central
\nGovernment obtained in accordance with the
\nprovisions of this section.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation 1- For the purposes of this section,
\n“person” includes any University or a trust but
\ndoes not include the Central Government.\n<\/p>\n
(2) (a)- Every person or medical college shall, for
\nthe purpose of obtaining permission under sub-
\nsection (1), submit to the Central Government a
\nscheme in accordance with the provisions of
\nclause (b) and the Central Government shall refer
\nthe scheme to the Council for its
\nrecommendations.\n<\/p>\n
(b) The scheme referred to in clause (a) shall be in
\nsuch form and contain such particulars and be
\npreferred in such manner and be accompanied
\nwith such fee as may be prescribed.\n<\/p>\n
10(B)- Non-recognition of medical qualifications
\nin certain cases:\n<\/p>\n
(1) Where any medical college is established
\nexcept with the previous permission of the Central
\nGovernment in accordance with the provisions of
\nsection 10A, no medical qualification granted to
\nany student of such medical college shall be a
\nrecognized medical qualification for the purposes
\nof this Act.\n<\/p>\n
(2) Where any medical college opens a new or
\nhigher course of study or training (including a
\npost-graduate course of student or training) except
\nwith the previous permission of the Central
\nGovernment in accordance with the provisions of
\nsection 10A, no medical qualification granted to
\nany student of such medical college on the basis
\nof such study or training shall be a recognized
\nmedical qualification for the purposes of this Act.\n<\/p>\n
(3) Where any medical college increases its
\nadmission capacity in any course of study or
\ntraining except with the previous permission of
\nthe Central Government in accordance with the
\nprovisions of section 10A, no medical
\nqualification granted to any student of such
\nmedical college on the basis of the increase in its
\nadmission capacity shall be a recognized medical
\nqualification for the purposes of this Act.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation  For the purposes of this section, the
\ncriteria for identifying a student who has been
\ngranted a medical qualification on the basis of
\nsuch increase in the admission capacity shall be
\nsuch as may be prescribed.\n<\/p>\n
Section 19- Withdrawal of recognition-\n<\/p>\n
(1) When upon report by the Committee or the
\nvisitor, it appears to the Council-\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tthat the course of study and
\nexamination to be undergone in, or the
\nproficiency required from candidates at any
\nexamination, held by, any University or
\nmedical institution, or<\/p>\n
(b)\tthat the staff, equipment,
\naccommodation, training and other
\nfacilities for instruction and training
\nprovided in such University or medical
\ninstitution or in any college or other
\ninstitution affiliated to that University, do
\nnot conform to the standards prescribed by
\nthe Council, the Council shall make a
\nrepresentation to that effect to the Central
\nGovernment.\n<\/p>\n
(2) After considering such representation, the
\nCentral Government may send it to the State
\nGovernment of the State in which the University
\nor medical institution is situated and the State
\nGovernment shall forward it along with such
\nremarks as it may choose to make to the
\nUniversity or medical institution, with an
\nintimation of the period within which the
\nUniversity or medical institution may submit its
\nexplanation to the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
(3) On the receipt of the explanation or, where no
\nexplanation is submitted within the period fixed,
\nthen on the expiry of that period, the State
\nGovernment shall make its recommendations to
\nthe Central Government.\n<\/p>\n
(4) The Central Government, after making such
\nfurther inquiry, if any, as it may think fit, may, by
\nnotification in the Official Gazette, direct that an
\nentry shall be made in the appropriate Schedule
\nagainst the said medical qualification declaring
\nthat it shall be a recognized medical qualification
\nonly when granted before a specified date (or that
\nthe said medical qualification if granted to
\nstudents of a specified college institution
\naffiliated to any University shall be a recognized
\nmedical qualification  only when granted before a
\nspecified date, or, as the case may be, that the
\nsaid medical qualification shall be a recognized
\nmedical qualification in relation to a specified
\ncollege or institution affiliated to any University
\nonly when granted after a specified date.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t(Underlined for emphasis)
\n\tIt is important to note that in respect of certain subjects, the total time
\nfor teaching is also fixed. For example, for bio-physics the time schedule is
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
(a) Goal and objectives: The broad goal of teaching
\nBiophysics to undergraduate students is that they
\nshould understand basic physical principles
\ninvolved in the functioning of body organs in
\nnormal and diseased conditions.\n<\/p>\n
\tTotal time for teaching Biophysics\t5 hours<\/p>\n
\t\t\tOut of which: 1. Didactic lectures\t3 hours<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t  2.Tutorial\/Group
\n     discussion\t\t\t1 hour<\/p>\n
  3. Practical\t\t\t1 hour<\/p>\n
\tIt may also be noted that under the Medical Council of India
\nEstablishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 (in short the
\n‘Establishment Regulations’) certain qualifying criteria have been
\nprescribed. Regulation 2(7) reads as follows:
\n“Regulation 2(7)- that the person provides two
\nperformance bank guarantees from a Scheduled
\nCommercial Bank valid for a period of five years,
\nin favour of the Medical Council of India, New
\nDelhi, one for a sum of rupees one hundred lakhs
\n(for 50 admissions), rupees one hundred and fifty
\nlakhs (for 100 admissions) and rupees two hundred
\nlakhs (for 150 annual admissions) for the
\nestablishment of the medical college and its
\ninfrastructural facilities and the second bank
\nguarantee for a sum of rupees 350 lakhs (for 400
\nbeds), rupees 550 lakhs (for 500 beds) and rupees
\n750 lakhs (for 750 beds) respectively for the
\nestablishment of the teaching hospital and its
\ninfrastructural facilities:\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided that the above conditions shall not
\napply to the persons who are State
\nGovernments\/Union Territories if they give an
\nundertaking to provide funds in their plan budget
\nregularly till the requisite facilities are fully
\nprovided as per the time bound programme.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t(underlined for emphasis)<\/p>\n
Part II of Regulation 3 deals with educational programme and sub-parts 4
\nand 5 read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
(4) Educational programme (a) proposed annual
\nintake of students (b) admission criteria (c) method
\nof admission (d) reservation\/preferential allocation
\nof seats (e) department-wise and year-wise
\ncurriculum of studies.\n<\/p>\n
(5) Education programme – (a) department-wise
\nand service-wise functional requirements, and (b)
\narea distribution and room-wise seating capability.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t(underlined for emphasis)<\/p>\n
Regulation 7 deals with Report of the MCI which reads as follows:
\n“Regulation 7(a)- After examining the application
\nand after conducting necessary physical
\ninspections, the Medical Council shall send to the
\nCentral Government a factual report stating –\n<\/p>\n
(1)\tThat the applicant fulfils the eligibility
\nand qualifying criteria.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tThat the person has a feasible and time
\nbound programme to set up the proposed
\nmedical college along with required
\ninfrastructural facilities including adequate
\nhostels facilities separate for boys and girls,
\nand as prescribed by the Council,
\ncommensurate with the proposed intake of
\nstudents, so as to complete the medical
\ncollege within a period of four years from
\nthe date of grant of permission.\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tThat the person has a feasible and time
\nbound expansion programme to provide
\nadditional beds and infrastructural facilities,
\nas prescribed by the Medical Council of
\nIndia, by way of upgradation of the existing
\nhospital or by way of establishment of new
\nhospital or both and further that the existing
\nhospital has adequate clinical material for
\nstarting 1st year course.\n<\/p>\n
(4)\tThat the person has the necessary
\nmanagerial and financial capabilities to
\nestablish and maintain the proposed medical
\ncollege and its ancillary facilities including a
\nteaching hospital.\n<\/p>\n
(5)\tThat the applicant has a feasible and
\ntime bound programme for recruitment of
\nfaculty and staff as per prescribed norms of
\nthe Council and that the necessary posts
\nstand created.\n<\/p>\n
(6)\tThat the applicant has appointed staff
\nfor the 1st year as per MCI norms.\n<\/p>\n
(7)\tThat the applicant has not admitted
\nany students.\n<\/p>\n
(8)\tDeficiencies, if any, in the
\ninfrastructure or faculty shall be pointed out
\nindicating whether these are remediable or
\nnot.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tThe recommendation of the Council whether
\nLetter of Intent should be issued and if so, the
\nnumber of seats per academic year should also be
\nrecommended. The Council shall recommend a
\ntime bound programme for the establishment of the
\nmedical college and expansion of the hospital
\nfacilities. This recommendation will also include a
\nclear cut statement of preliminary requirements to
\nbe met in respect of buildings, infrastructural
\nfacilities, medical and allied equipments, faculty
\nand staff before admitting the first batch of
\nstudents. The recommendation will also define
\nannual targets to be achieved by the person to
\ncommensurate with the intake of students during
\nthe following years.\n<\/p>\n
(c)\tWhere the Council recommends for not
\nissuing of Letter of Intent, it shall furnish to the
\nCentral Government-\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tits reasons for not granting the Central
\nGovernment permission;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tdocuments\/facts on the basis of which
\nthe Council recommends the disapproval of
\nthe scheme.\n<\/p>\n
(d)\tThe recommendation of the Council shall be
\nin Form-4.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(underlined for emphasis)<\/p>\n
\tSo far as Regulations are concerned, the highlighted aspects are
\nrelevant for deciding the question as to the desirability of fixing a time limit
\nfor admission and stop any admission thereafter. For the MBBS course as
\nnoted above, the total duration is 4  years of 9 semesters.
\nSection 10-A, Explanation 2 defines ‘admission capacity’ which reads
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Explanation 2- For the purposes of this section,
\n‘admission capacity’ in relation to any course of
\nstudy or training (including post-graduate course
\nof study or training) in a medical college, means
\nthe maximum number of students that may be
\nfixed by the Council from time to time for being
\nadmitted to such course or training.”\n<\/p>\n
As the definition of “admission capacity” shows it is the maximum number
\nof students that may be fixed by the Council from time to time for being
\nadmitted to the course and training.  By carrying forward the unfilled seats
\nfrom one year to the subsequent year, there is necessarily increase in the
\nnumber of seats i.e. admission capacity. Section 10-B frowns upon such
\nadmissions beyond the prescribed limit. In fact, there is a possibility of de-
\nrecognition under Section 19.\n<\/p>\n
At this juncture, few decisions of this Court dealing with somewhat
\nsimilar situations need to be noted.\n<\/p>\n
In  Dr. Indu Kant etc.etc. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1993 Supp (2)
\nSCC 71), it was observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
\nentire facts and circumstances of the case.  We
\nhave already held that the rule laying down the
\nminimum percentage of marks in the entrance
\nexamination is valid and no direction can be given
\nto the State Government to fill up any vacant seats
\nby the candidates securing less than the minimum
\nqualifying marks. We had of course, made a
\nrecommendation to the State Government in
\nrespect of the vacant seats of post-graduate courses
\nfor 1992, but we find no valid justification to make
\nsuch recommendation in respect of the candidates
\nof the earlier years of 1990 or 1991. The candidates
\nwho had not secured the minimum qualifying
\nmarks in the years 1990 or 1991 had an opportunity
\nto appear in the entrance examination of 1992 and
\nto make up the deficiency. We find justification in
\nthe difficulties pointed out by the State
\nGovernment in doing so.\t Granting admission to
\nthe candidates of 1990 and 1991 batch now and to
\nallow them to join with the batch of 1992 is bound
\nto increase the total strength of post-graduate
\nstudents in 1992. This would not only be in
\nviolation of the directions of the Medical Council
\nof India, but would also put an additional financial
\nburden on the State Government. In any case, the
\nState Government itself is vehemently opposing
\nsuch request made on behalf of the candidates of
\n1990 and 1991 and we cannot give any direction to
\nthe State Government in this regard.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t(underlined for emphasis)
\nThe concept of counseling was noted by this Court in Sharwan Kumar
\netc.etc\t v. Director General of Health Services and Anr. (1993 (3) SCC 332).
\nA scheme was formulated so that there would be no difficulty in admitting
\nstudents at the appropriate time. In that case, an outer limit of 30th
\nSeptember was fixed for 15% of all India quota.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Dr. Subodh Nautiyal v. State of U.P. and Ors.<\/a> (1993 supp. (1) SCC\n<\/p>\n
593), it was observed that in respect of a technical course, to admit a student
\nfour months after the commencement would not at all be correct.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta and Ors.<\/a>
\n(1993 Supp (1) SCC 594), the view in Dr. Subodh’s case (supra) was re-
\niterated.  It was observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
“It is next contended by Shri Yogeshwar Prasad
\nthat the courses were started from October 30,
\n1990 and in terms of the orders of this Court it
\nshall be deemed to have been commenced from
\nMay 2, 1990, the direction as given in the
\nimpugned judgments for admission after more than
\na year, is illegal. To maintain excellence in the
\nacademic courses, the delay defeats the claim for
\nadmission, though posts are vacant. In Pramod
\nKumar Joshi v. Medical Council of India<\/a> (1991 (2)
\nSCC 179) this Court held that the course for the
\nyear 1991 is almost completed and it would not be
\nproper to allow admission belatedly.  In Dr.
\nSubodh Nautiyal v. State of U.P. the<\/a>re was a delay
\nof four months in giving admission, and this Court
\nheld that, “even according to Mr. Pandey the
\ncourse has started in September for the session.
\nThis is technical course and to admit a student four
\nmonths after the commencement would not at all
\nbe correct.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t(underlined for emphasis)<\/p>\n
In para 14, the desirability of commencing the course on schedule and
\ncompleting the same within the schedule was stressed in the following
\nwords:\n<\/p>\n
“Considering from this point of view, to maintain
\nexcellence the courses have to be commenced on
\nschedule and be completed within the schedule so
\nthat the students would have full opportunity to
\nstudy full course to reach their excellence and
\ncome at par excellence.\t Admission in the mid-
\nstream would disturb the courses and also work as
\na handicap to the candidates themselves to achieve
\nexcellence. Considering from this pragmatic point
\nof view we are of the considered opinion that
\nvacancies of the seats would not be taken as a
\nground to give admission and direction by the High
\nCourt to admit the candidates into those vacant
\nseats cannot be sustained.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t(underlined for emphasis)<\/p>\n
In State of Punjab and Ors. v. Renuka Singla and Ors.<\/a> (1994 (1) SCC\n<\/p>\n
175), this Court disapproved the course adopted by several High Courts
\ndirecting students to be admitted much after the course had commenced.
\nThough that case was for admissions under the Dentists Act, 1948 (in short
\nthe ‘Dentists Act’), identical provisions were under consideration. In para 8,
\nit was noted as under:\n<\/p>\n
“The admission in medical course throughout India
\nis governed by different statutory provisions,
\nincluding regulations framed under different Acts.
\nDuring last several years efforts have been made to
\nregulate the admissions to the different medical
\ninstitutions, in order to achieve academic
\nexcellence.  But, at the same time, a counter-
\nattempt is also apparent and discernible, by which
\nthe candidates, who are not able to get admissions
\nagainst the seats fixed by different statutory
\nauthorities, file writ applications and interim or
\nfinal directions are given to admit such petitioners.
\nWe fail to appreciate as to how the High Court or
\nthis Court can be generous or liberal in issuing
\nsuch directions which in substance amount to
\ndirecting the authorities concerned to violate their
\nown statutory rules and regulations, in respect of
\nadmissions of students.\t It cannot be disputed that
\ntechnical education, including medical education,
\nrequires infrastructure to cope with the requirement
\nof giving proper education to the students, who are
\nadmitted. Taking into consideration the
\ninfrastructure, equipment, staff, the limit of the
\nnumber of admissions is fixed either by the
\nMedical Council of India or Dental Council of
\nIndia.\tThe High Court cannot disturb that balance
\nbetween the capacity of the institution and number
\nof admissions, on “compassionate ground”.  The
\nHigh Court should be conscious of the fact that in
\nthis process they are affecting the education of the
\nstudents who have already been admitted, against
\nthe fixed seats, after a very tough competitive
\nexamination. According to us, there does not
\nappear to be any justification on the part of the
\nHigh Court, in the present case, to direct admission
\nof respondent 1 on “compassionate ground” and to
\nissue a fiat to create an additional seat which
\namounts to a direction to violate Section 10-A and
\nSection 10-B(3) of the Dentists Act referred to
\nabove.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t(underlined for emphasis)<\/p>\n
In Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka and Ors.<\/a>  (1998 (6)
\nSCC 131), action of the State Government in increasing number of seats
\nwas held to be illegal. In paragraphs 27 and 29 of the judgment, it was held
\nas under:\n<\/p>\n
“The State Acts, namely, the Karnataka
\nUniversities Act and the Karnataka Capitation Fee
\nAct must give way to the Central Act, namely, the
\nIndian Medical Council Act, 1956. The Karnataka
\nCapitation Fee Act was enacted for the sole
\npurpose of regulation in collection of capitation fee
\nby colleges and for that, the State Government is
\nempowered to fix the maximum number of
\nstudents that can be admitted but that number
\ncannot be over and above that fixed by the Medical
\nCouncil as per the regulations.\t Chapter IX of the
\nKarnataka Universities Act, which contains
\nprovision for affiliation of colleges and recognition
\nof institutions, applies to all types of colleges and
\nnot necessarily to professional colleges like
\nmedical colleges.  Sub-section (10) of Section 53,
\nfalling in Chapter IX of this Act, provides for
\nmaximum number of students to be admitted to
\ncourses for studies in a college and that number
\nshall not exceed the intake fixed by the university
\nor the Government. But this provision has again to
\nbe read subject to the intake fixed by the Medical
\nCouncil under its regulations. It is the Medical
\nCouncil which is primarily responsible for fixing
\nstandards of medical education and overseeing that
\nthese standards are maintained.\t It is the Medical
\nCouncil which is the principal body to lay down
\nconditions for recognition of medical colleges
\nwhich would include the fixing of intake for
\nadmission to a medical college.\t We have already
\nseen in the beginning of this judgment various
\nprovisions of the Medical Council Act.\tIt is,
\ntherefore, the Medical Council which in effect
\ngrants recognition and also withdraws the same.
\nRegulations under Section 33 of the Medical
\nCouncil Act, which were made in 1977, prescribe
\nthe accommodation in the college and its
\nassociated teaching hospitals and teaching and
\ntechnical staff and equipment in various
\ndepartments in the college and in the hospitals.
\nThese regulations are in considerable detail.
\nTeacher-student ratio prescribed is 1 to 10,
\nexclusive of the Professor or Head of the
\nDepartment. Regulations further prescribe, apart
\nfrom other things, that the number of teaching beds
\nin the attached hospitals will have to be in the ratio
\nof 7 beds per student admitted.\t Regulations of the
\nMedical Council, which were approved by the
\nCentral Government in 1971, provide for the
\nqualification requirements for appointments of
\npersons to the posts of teachers and visiting
\nphysicians\/surgeons of medical colleges and
\nattached hospitals.\n<\/p>\n
A medical student requires gruelling study
\nand that can be done only if proper facilities are
\navailable in a medical college and the hospital
\nattached to it has to be well equipped and the
\nteaching faculty and doctors have to be competent
\nenough that when a medical student comes out, he
\nis perfect in the science of treatment of human
\nbeings and is not found wanting in any way.  The
\ncountry does not want half-baked medical
\nprofessionals coming out of medical colleges when
\nthey did not have full facilities of teaching and
\nwere not exposed to the patients and their ailments
\nduring the course of their study. The Medical
\nCouncil, in all fairness, does not wish to invalidate
\nthe admissions made in excess of that fixed by it
\nand does not wish to take any action of
\nwithdrawing recognition of the medical colleges
\nviolating the regulation. Henceforth, however,
\nthese medical colleges must restrict the number of
\nadmissions fixed by the Medical Council.  After
\nthe insertion of Sections 10-A, 10-B and 10-C in
\nthe Medical Council Act, the Medical Council has
\nframed regulations with the previous approval of
\nthe Central Government which were published in
\nthe Gazette of India dated 29.9.1993 (though the
\nnotification is dated 20.9.1993).  Any medical
\ncollege or institution which wishes to increase the
\nadmission capacity in MBBS\/higher courses
\n(including diploma\/degree\/higher specialities), has
\nto apply to the Central Government for permission
\nalong with the permission of the State Government
\nand that of the university with which it is affiliated
\nand in conformity with the regulations framed by
\nthe Medical Council.  Only the medical college or
\ninstitution which is recognized by the Medical
\nCouncil can so apply.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t(underlined for emphasis)<\/p>\n
\tAs regards the desirability of commencement and completion of the
\ncourse according to a fixed schedule, this Court’s observations in Dr.
\nDinesh Kumar and Ors. v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and
\nOrs.<\/a> (1987 (4) SCC 122) are relevant.  In para 6, it was observed that “in all
\nmedical colleges\/institutions to which the scheme applies teaching for
\nMBBS or BDS course should start on the first working day of September
\nand even those institutions which are outside the scheme might as well
\ncommence their academic sessions from September so that throughout the
\ncountry there would be uniformity in that regard.” Similar directions were
\ngiven for the post-graduate course. The directions were slightly modified in
\nDr. Dinesh Kumar and Ors. v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad
\nand Ors.<\/a> (1987 (4) SCC 459) and the announcement for holding the
\nexamination in 1988 was directed to be made on 1st October, 1987.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is to be noted that if any student is admitted after commencement of
\nthe course it would be against the intended objects of fixing a time schedule.
\nIn fact, as the factual positions go to show, the inevitable result is increase in
\nthe number of seats for the next session to accommodate the students who
\nare admitted after commencement of the course for the relevant session.
\nThough, it was pleaded by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that with the
\nobject of preventing loss of national exchequer such admissions should be
\npermitted, we are of the view that same cannot be a ground to permit mid-
\nstream admissions which would be against the spirit of governing statutes.
\nHis suggestion that extra classes can be taken is also not acceptable.\tThe
\ntime schedule is fixed by taking into consideration the capacity of the
\nstudent to study and the appropriate spacing of classes. The students also
\nneed rest and the continuous taking of classes with the object of fulfilling
\nrequisite number of days would be harmful to be students’ physical and
\nmetal capacity to study. In fact such a suggestion was held to be grossly
\ninappropriate in Dr. Dinesh Kumar’s case (supra). In paragraph 15, it was
\nobserved as under:\n<\/p>\n
“The next question is as to when should the
\nexamination be held. Learned counsel for the
\nUnion of India as also the Indian Medical Council
\nsuggested that it could be done in October this year
\nso that the candidates selected at the entrance
\nexamination could join the 1987-88 session from
\nNovember.  In most of the colleges, admission in
\nrespect of 85 per cent seats has been completed and
\nactual teaching has either begun or is about to
\nbegin.\tBy November a substantial part of the
\ncourse would have been read.  To meet the
\nsituation, learned counsel for the Union of India
\nsuggested that we should direct the colleges and
\ninstitutions to have a supplementary course for the
\nstudents admitted against the 15 per cent vacancies.
\nIn the absence of consent from the institutions, it
\nwould be difficult to work out that. As it is, there
\nexists a lot of confusion in the field and we do not
\npropose to add to it by giving a direction of the
\ntype proposed.\tOn the other hand it would be
\nappropriate to bring the scheme into operation from
\nthe coming year so that all the preliminaries can be
\nproperly conducted and in regular course the
\nstudents can seek admission to the 1988-89
\nsession. We accordingly direct the authorities to
\nhold the examination in the manner directed, in
\nJune (sic May) 1988.  The Union of India, the
\nMedical Council the Dental Council, the several
\nStates, Universities and Medical Colleges or
\ninstitutions who are covered by the scheme are
\ndirected to comply with these orders in time so as
\nto give full effect to what has been said here.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t(underlined for emphasis)<\/p>\n
\tThere is, however, a necessity for specifically providing the time
\nschedule for the course and fixing the period during which admissions can
\ntake place, making it clear that no admission can be granted after the
\nscheduled date, which essentially should be the date for commencement of
\nthe course.\n<\/p>\n
In conclusion:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tthere is no scope for admitting students mid-tream as that would be
\nagainst very spirit of statutes governing the medical education;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\teven if, seats are unfilled that cannot be a ground for making mid
\nsession admissions;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tthere cannot be telescoping of unfilled seats of one year with
\npermitted seats of the subsequent year;\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\tthe MCI shall ensure that the examining bodies fix a time schedule
\nspecifying the duration of this course, the date of commencement of the
\ncourse and the last date for admission;\n<\/p>\n
(v)\t different modalities for admission can be worked out and necessary
\nsteps like holding of examination if prescribed, counseling and the like have
\nto  be completed within the specified time;\n<\/p>\n
(vi)\tno variation of the schedule so far as admissions are concerned shall
\nbe allowed;\n<\/p>\n
(vii)\tin case of any deviation by the concerned institution, action as
\nprescribed shall be taken by the MCI.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court was obviously in error in directing mid-session
\nadmission. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. But as was earlier
\ndirected by this Court, the admission of respondent No.1 would not be
\naffected by allowing the appeal.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Medical Council Of India vs Madhu Singh And Ors on 11 September, 2002 Author: A Pasayat Bench: Ruma Pal, Arijit Pasayat. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5166 of 2001 PETITIONER: MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA Vs. RESPONDENT: MADHU SINGH AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/09\/2002 BENCH: RUMA PAL & ARIJIT PASAYAT. JUDGMENT: ARIJIT […]<\/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-1685","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMedical Council Of India vs Madhu Singh And Ors on 11 September, 2002 - 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\/medical-council-of-india-vs-madhu-singh-and-ors-on-11-september-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Medical Council Of India vs Madhu Singh And Ors on 11 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/medical-council-of-india-vs-madhu-singh-and-ors-on-11-september-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-03T04:34:23+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=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/medical-council-of-india-vs-madhu-singh-and-ors-on-11-september-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/medical-council-of-india-vs-madhu-singh-and-ors-on-11-september-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Medical Council Of India vs Madhu Singh And Ors on 11 September, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-03T04:34:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/medical-council-of-india-vs-madhu-singh-and-ors-on-11-september-2002\"},\"wordCount\":5818,\"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\\\/medical-council-of-india-vs-madhu-singh-and-ors-on-11-september-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/medical-council-of-india-vs-madhu-singh-and-ors-on-11-september-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/medical-council-of-india-vs-madhu-singh-and-ors-on-11-september-2002\",\"name\":\"Medical Council Of India vs Madhu Singh And Ors on 11 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-03T04:34:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/medical-council-of-india-vs-madhu-singh-and-ors-on-11-september-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/medical-council-of-india-vs-madhu-singh-and-ors-on-11-september-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/medical-council-of-india-vs-madhu-singh-and-ors-on-11-september-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Medical Council Of India vs Madhu Singh And Ors on 11 September, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Medical Council Of India vs Madhu Singh And Ors on 11 September, 2002 - 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\/medical-council-of-india-vs-madhu-singh-and-ors-on-11-september-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Medical Council Of India vs Madhu Singh And Ors on 11 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/medical-council-of-india-vs-madhu-singh-and-ors-on-11-september-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-03T04:34:23+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":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/medical-council-of-india-vs-madhu-singh-and-ors-on-11-september-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/medical-council-of-india-vs-madhu-singh-and-ors-on-11-september-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Medical Council Of India vs Madhu Singh And Ors on 11 September, 2002","datePublished":"2002-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-03T04:34:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/medical-council-of-india-vs-madhu-singh-and-ors-on-11-september-2002"},"wordCount":5818,"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\/medical-council-of-india-vs-madhu-singh-and-ors-on-11-september-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/medical-council-of-india-vs-madhu-singh-and-ors-on-11-september-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/medical-council-of-india-vs-madhu-singh-and-ors-on-11-september-2002","name":"Medical Council Of India vs Madhu Singh And Ors on 11 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-03T04:34:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/medical-council-of-india-vs-madhu-singh-and-ors-on-11-september-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/medical-council-of-india-vs-madhu-singh-and-ors-on-11-september-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/medical-council-of-india-vs-madhu-singh-and-ors-on-11-september-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Medical Council Of India vs Madhu Singh And Ors on 11 September, 2002"}]},{"@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\/1685","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=1685"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1685\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1685"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1685"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1685"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}