The Supreme Court, while rejecting several petitions, emphasized that the National Medical Commission (NMC) expected to act fairly. The pleas dismissed with a cost of Rs.10 lakh. The court highlighted the need for transparency and fairness in the NMC’s actions. The ruling serves as a reminder of the high standards expected from regulatory bodies.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court emphasized that the National Medical Commission (NMC), as a state body, expected to act fairly and reasonably while dismissing its pleas with a cost of Rs 10 lakh.
These pleas challenged a Kerala High Court order regarding the withdrawal of approval for increasing medical college seats from 150 to 250 for the academic year 2023-24.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan criticized the NMC for its actions, stating,
“Prima facie, we find that the attitude of the NMC is not of a model litigant. The NMC is an organ of the State and is expected to act in a fair and reasonable manner.”
The court further observed that making the medical institution seek permission repeatedly, despite being operational for 18 years, appeared to be an attempt to harass the institution.
The apex court declared,
“We are, therefore, of the view that the present special leave petitions are an abuse of the process of law and, therefore, dismissed with cost quantified at Rs 10,00,000 to be paid within four weeks from the date of this order.”
The Supreme Court noted that the National Medical Commission (NMC) and others had challenged the Kerala High Court’s August 13 order, which instructed the medical college to file an undertaking. The High Court further directed that upon receiving such an undertaking, the NMC should grant the necessary permission to the institution.
The bench observed that the material on record showed that the Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB) initially approved an increase in the medical college’s seats from 150 to 250 for the academic year 2023-24, through a letter dated February 27, 2023. However, a subsequent letter dated April 5, 2023, withdrew this approval.
The bench remarked,
“The matter being sub-judice could not have been the ground for disapproval of the proposal,”
It further added that,
“If the NMC had any doubts, it should have approached the court concerned and sought clarification.”
The Supreme Court observed,
“Insofar as the second ground is concerned, the perusal of the impugned order would reveal that a consent of affiliation (COA) has admittedly been granted in favor of the respondent-medical college on August 12, 2024.”
NMC’s counsel argued that the permission needs to be considered annually, and the earlier disapproval applied only to the academic year 2023-2024.
Read Also: Mobile Flashlight Surgery| Bombay HC Seeks NMC & Probe Committee Response
However, the bench criticized this approach, stating,
“Making a party run from court to court to seek permission, specifically when the institute concerned is not a new institute and has been running for the last 18 years, in our view, is only an attempt to harass the institution.”
The court noted that when the approval for 2023-24 was withdrawn, no deficiencies, apart from the non-grant of the COA, were identified. It ordered that Rs 5 lakh of the imposed cost be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association for library purposes, and the remaining amount be deposited in the Supreme Court Bar Association Advocates Welfare Fund.