Read Time: 10 minutes

Noting that though deficiencies in the postgraduate medical program were removed and permission was granted to Karnataka Ayurveda Medical College ("Medical College") to admit students for the Post Graduate Course for the academic year 2019-20, the Supreme Court has held that this could not be construed to mean that permission to admit students to the academic year 2018-19 was also granted.

The Medical College had applied to the State Government, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and the present appellant Central Council for Indian Medicine for permission to start a Post-Graduate course for the academic year 2014-15.

It was then granted the permission to start five new Post Graduate Ayurvedic disciplines with five seats each in accordance with the then prevalent Indian Medicine Central Council (Post-Graduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2012 ("2012 Regulations"). These 2012 Regulations were superseded by the 2016 Regulations.

As per the 2016 Regulations, it was a requirement that an institution should possess a Central Research Laboratory and an Animal House.

Thereafter, the Union of India (UOI) directed the appellant Council to inspect the facilities of the Medical College by March 2018 so that a grant of permission for academic year 2018-19 could be considered.

After inspecting the facilities of two accounts, Uol issued notice to the Medical College pointing out certain deficiencies. Medical college was heard by the Hearing Committee and in September 2018, the permission to admit students to post-graduate courses for academic year 2018-19 was denied.

In the interregnum, UOI granted permission to the Medical College to admit post-graduate students in 2019-20.

Thereafter, on a plea filed by the Medical College, the Single judge bench of the Karnataka High Court, while relying on the judgments in the cases of Bahubali Vidyapeeths JV Mandal Gramin Ayurvedic Medical College vs. Union of India and Others and Central Council of Indian Medicine vs Union of India and Others, wherein the division bench of the High Court had held that if the permission was granted for the subsequent years, the benefit should ensue in respect of the previous year also, allowed the said writ petition.

In appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court opined the same and dismissed the appeal by the Appellant Council. Accordingly, the Medical Council approached the top court in appeal.

A bench of Justices L Nageshwar Rao and BR Gavai referred to the provision under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 under which the 2016 Regulations were made by the appellant Council.

A perusal of subsection (1) of Section 13A of the Act of 1970 showed that no medical college could open a new or higher course of study or training, including a postgraduate course or training, which would enable a student of such course or training to qualify himself for the award of any recognized medical qualification without the previous permission of the Central Government.

Also, as per subsection (1) of Section 22 of the said Act, the Central Council was entitled to prescribe the minimum standards of education in Indian medicine, required for granting recognized medical qualifications by Universities, Boards or medical institutions in India.

Further, reliance was also placed on Clause (j) of subsection (1) of Section 36 of the said Act which said that the Central Council, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, is entitled to make regulations prescribing for the standard accommodation, training and other facilities for education in Indian medicine.

"It could thus clearly be seen that Section 13A read with Sections 22 and 36(1)() of the said Act provides a complete scheme for establishment of medical college, opening a new or higher course of study or training, including a postgraduate course of study or training, and also increasing the admission capacity.....no medical college can open a new or higher course of study or training, including a post-graduate course of study or training without the previous sanction of the Central Government....", noted the top court.

It was thus held that the impugned judgments did not take note of Section 13A of the Act of 1970.

Furthermore, Regulation 3(1)(a) of the 2016 Regulations specifically provided that the Ayurveda colleges established under Section   13A and existing under Section 13C of the said Act and their attached hospitals shall fulfill the requirements of minimum standard for infrastructure and teaching and training facilities referred to in the Regulations 4 to 11 up to 31st December of every year for consideration of grant of permissions for undertaking admissions in the coming academic session.

Thus, while holding that the Single Judge, as well as the Division Bench, had grossly erred in not taking into consideration the scheme of the said Act of 1970, the appeal filed by the Medical Council came to be allowed.

Case Title: CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR INDIAN MEDICINE vs. KARNATAKA AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND OTHERS