/2022 INSC 0274/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2892  OF 2022
[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 4618 of 2021]
CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR INDIAN 
MEDICINE        ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
KARNATAKA AYURVEDA MEDICAL 
COLLEGE AND OTHERS    ...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2895   OF 2022
[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 4447 of 2021]
CIVIL APPEAL NO.  2894  OF 2022
[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 3742 of 2021]
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2893  OF 2022
[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 4346 of 2021]
CIVIL APPEAL NO.  2897  OF 2022
[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 20181 of 2021]
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2896   OF 2022
[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 20453 of 2021]
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions. 
1

2. The present appeals challenge the following:
(i) judgment dated 21 st
 December 2020 passed by
the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   of
Karnataka   in   Writ   Appeal   Nos.   541   of   2020
(EDN­REG)   and   542   of   2020   (EDN­REG),
thereby dismissing the writ appeals filed by the
present   appellant­Central   Council   for   Indian
Medicine,  which  was  in  turn   filed,  challenging
the   order   dated   24 th
  September   2020   passed
by   the   learned   Single   Judge   in   Writ   Petition
No.50772   of   2018   (EDN­REG­P),   thereby
allowing   the   writ   petition   filed   by   the
respondent   No.1   herein­Karnataka   Ayurveda
Medical College; and
(ii) judgment   dated   24 th
  September   2020   passed
by the learned Single Judge of the High Court
of   Karnataka   in   Writ   Petition   Nos.   50828   of
2018   (EDN­EX)   thereby   allowing   the   writ
petition filed by the petitioner therein and Writ
2

Petition   No.50772   of   2018   (EDN­REG­P),
thereby   allowing   the   writ   petition   filed   by   the
respondent   No.1   herein­Karnataka   Ayurveda
Medical College.
3. For   the   sake   of   convenience,   we   refer   to   the   facts   as   are
found in civil appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.4618 of 2021.
4. The respondent No.1 herein had applied to the respondent
No.4­State   Government,   respondent   No.3­Rajiv   Gandhi
University   of   Health   Sciences   and   the   appellant   herein   for
permission to start Post­Graduate course for the academic year
2014­15.     The   appellant   granted   permission   to   start   five   new
Post   Graduate   Ayurvedic   disciplines   with   five   seats   each   in
accordance   with   the   then   prevalent   Indian   Medicine   Central
Council (Post­Graduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2012
(hereinafter   referred   to   as   “2012   Regulations”).     These   2012
Regulations   came   to   be   superseded   by   the   Indian   Medicine
Central   Council   (Post­Graduate   Ayurveda   Education)
Regulations,   2016   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “2016
Regulations”).
3

5. As   per   2016   Regulations,   it   was   a   requirement   that   an
institution   should   possess   a   Central   Research   Laboratory   and
an   Animal   House.     The   2016   Regulations   provided   that   the
Animal   House   could   be   either   owned   by   the   institution   or   it
could   be   in   collaboration   with   any   other   institution.
Accordingly,   the   respondent   No.1   collaborated   with   Sri
Dharmasthala   Manjunatheshwara   College   of   Ayurveda,   Udupi,
which   permitted   respondent   No.1   the   usage   of   Animal   House
set up by it.   As such, the appellant and the respondent No.2­
Union   of   India,   continued   permission   to   respondent   No.1   for
the academic years 2016­17 and 2017­18.   The Union of India
directed the appellant to inspect the facilities available with the
respondent   No.1   in   accordance   with   the   relevant   Regulations
and   submit   its   recommendations   and   the   inspection   report   to
it.   This was to be done by  the  end of March 2018 so  that the
matter  pertaining  to grant  of permission for  the academic year
2018­19   could   be   considered   before   the   start   of   the   next
academic  year.    The  appellant   inspected   the  facilities  available
with   the   respondent   No.1   on   2 nd
  February   2018   and   again   on
4

23 rd
­24 th
  May   2018.     On   the   basis   of   the   said   inspection,   the
Union   of   India   issued   a   notice   dated   3 rd
  August   2018,   which
was received by respondent No.1 on 16 th
 August 2018.  Vide the
said   notice   dated   3 rd
  August   2018,   certain   deficiencies   were
pointed   out.   The   respondent   No.1   was   given   an   opportunity   of
hearing   on   24 th
  August   2018   before   the   designated   Hearing
Committee.     After   the   hearing,   the   Union   of   India,   vide   order
dated   5 th
  September   2018,   rejected   the   permission   to
respondent   No.1   to   admit   students   to   the   Post   Graduate
courses   for   the   academic   year   2018­19   on   the   ground   of   non­
availability   of   Central   Research   Laboratory   and   Animal   House.
However,   vide   the   said   order   dated   5 th
  September   2018,   the
Union of India granted permission to respondent No.1 to admit
students   to   Under   Graduate   (BAMS)   Course   with   an   intake   of
50   seats   for   the   academic   year   2018­19   subject   to   it   fulfilling
the deficiencies mentioned therein by 31 st
 December 2018.
6. The   respondent   No.1   therefore   filed   a   writ   petition   being
Writ   Petition   No.   50772   of   2018   (EDN­REG­P)   before   the
learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka. It is to be
5

noted   that   in   the   interregnum,   the   Union   of   India   granted
permission   to   the   respondent   No.1   to   admit   students   for   the
Post   Graduate   Course   for   the   academic   year   2019­20.     The
learned Single Judge, relying   on  the  judgments of  the  Division
Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in the cases of  Bahubali
Vidyapeeths JV Mandal Gramin Ayurvedic Medical College
v.   Union   of   India   and   Others 1
  and   Central   Council   of
Indian Medicine v. Union of India and Others 2
, wherein the
Division Bench held that if the permission was granted for the
subsequent   years,   the   benefit   should   enure   in   respect   of   the
previous   year   also,   allowed   the   said   writ   petition.     The   same
was   carried   in   an   appeal   by   the   present   appellant   before   the
Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   of   Karnataka,   which   was
dismissed   vide   the   impugned   judgment.     Hence,   the   appellant
approached this Court by way of the present appeals.
7. This   Court,   while   issuing   notice   in   the   present   matter,
recorded   the   statement   of   Smt.   Aishwarya   Bhati,   learned
Additional   Solicitor   General   (for   short   “ASG”),   appearing   on
1   Writ Petition No. 107076/2018 (EDN­ADM) dated 01.07.2019
2   Writ Appeal No. 736/2011
6

behalf   of   the   appellant   that   the   students   who   have   been
granted   admission   in   the   respondent   No.1   college   for   the   Post
Graduate Ayurveda courses for the academic year 2018­19, will
not   be   disturbed.     The   learned   ASG,   however,   requested   that
the question of law arising in these matters needs consideration
by this Court.  As such, by the said order dated 19 th
 April 2021,
this Court issued notice.
8. We   have   heard   Smt.   Aishwarya   Bhati,   learned   ASG
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant,   Smt.   Madhavi   Divan,
learned ASG appearing on behalf of the Union of India and Shri
Chinmay   Deshpande,   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of
respondent No.1.
9. Smt. Bhati submitted that the said 2016 Regulations were
made   by   the   appellant   in   exercise   of   the   powers   conferred   by
clause  (j)  of  Section   36  of  the   Indian  Medicine  Central  Council
Act,   1970   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   “said   Act”)   with   the
previous   sanction   of   the   Central   Government.     She   submitted
that   the   2016   Regulations   prescribe   the   requirements   of
minimum   standard   for   grant   of   permission.     The   learned   ASG
7

submitted   that   unless   the   institution   applying   possess   the
required   minimum   standards,   it   would   not   be   entitled   for
permission.     It   is   submitted   that   the   minimum   standards,   as
required, are to be fulfilled for the particular academic year and
in the event, such minimum standards are not fulfilled for  the
relevant academic year, the institution would not be entitled for
permission.     The   learned   ASG   submitted   that   merely   because
for   the   subsequent   academic   year,   the   requirements   were
fulfilled, it cannot efface the deficiencies that were found in the
previous academic year.  It is therefore submitted that the view
taken by the High Court of Karnataka, that if the permission is
granted   for   a   subsequent   academic   year,   it   would   also   be
available  for   the  previous  year  and   such   an  institute  would  be
entitled   for   permission   even   for   the   earlier   year   in   which   the
deficiencies   were   found   to   have   existed,   does   not   lay   down   a
correct   proposition   of   law.     She   submitted   that   though   a
judgment   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Ayurved   Shastra   Seva
Mandal   and   Another   v.   Union   of   India   and   Others 3
,   was
pointed out to the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench
3   (2013) 16 SCC 696
8

of   the   High   Court   of   Karnataka,   they   have   failed   to   apply   the
law laid down in that judgment and as such, the judgment and
order   of   the   Division   Bench   and   the   Single   Judge   are   liable   to
be set aside.
10. Smt. Divan, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the Union
of India, also supported the submissions made on behalf of the
present appellant.
11. Shri   Deshpande,   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of
respondent   No.1,   on   the   contrary,   submitted   that   the   view
taken by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka is
taken   on   the   basis   of   its   earlier   judgment   and   as   such,   no
interference is warranted in the present appeal.
12. For appreciating the rival submission, it will be necessary
to   refer   to   the   background   in   which   the   said   Act   came   to   be
enacted.     The  Union   of   India,   after   noticing   that   the   minimum
standards for admission, duration of courses of training, details
of curricula and syllabi of studies and the title of the degree or
diploma,   vary   from   State   to   State   and   even   from   institution   to
institution   in   the   same   State,   had   appointed   various
9

Committees to consider problems relating to the Indian system
of   medicine   and   Homoeopathy.     The   said   Committees   had
recommended that a  statutory   Central  Council, on the  lines  of
the   Medical   Council   of   India   for   modern   system   of   medicine,
was a pre­requisite for the proper development of these systems
of   medicine.     It   was   noticed   that   though   some   States   have
constituted State Boards or Councils, either by legislation or by
executive orders for the purpose of registration of practitioners
in the various systems of Indian Medicine and Homoeopathy as
well   as   recognition   of   qualifications,   there   was,   however,   no
central legislation for the regulation of practice or for minimum
standards   of   training   and   conduct   of   examinations   in   these
systems of medicine on  an all­India basis.   It was also noticed
that   in   the   absence   of   such   legislation,   there   was   no   effective
control   over   the   large   number   of   unregistered   practitioners   in
these systems.     In June 1966, the Central Council of Health, in
its   13 th
  meeting,   while   discussing   the   policy   on   Ayurvedic
education,   has   recommended   the   setting   up   of   a   Central
Council   for   Indian   systems   of   Medicine   to   lay   down   and
10

regulate   standards   of   education   and   examinations,
qualifications   and   practice   in   these   systems.   In   this
background, the said Act came to be enacted on 21 st
 December
1970.
13. As   per   the   provisions   of   Section   3   of   the   said   Act,   the
Central Government was required to constitute, for the purpose
of   the   said   Act,   a   Central   Council   consisting   of   the   Members
specified   therein.   Chapter   IIA   of   the   said   Act   deals   with
“Permission for new Medical College, Course, etc.”.   The earlier
Chapter   IIA   of   the   said   Act   came   to   be   substituted   by   new
Chapter   IIA   containing   Sections   13A   to   13C   by   the   Indian
Medicine Central Council (Amendment) Act, 2003 (Act No. 58 of
2003).   It will be relevant to refer to Sections 13A to 13C of the
said Act, which read thus:
“ 13A.   Permission   for   establishment   of   new
medical   college,   new   course   of   study,   etc . —(1)
Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   this   Act   or
any other law for the time being in force,—
( a )   no   person   shall   establish   a   medical
college; or
( b ) no medical college shall—
11

( i )   open   a   new   or   higher   course   of
study   or   training,   including   a   post­
graduate course of study or training,
which   would   enable   a   student   of
such   course   or   training   to   qualify
himself   for   the   award   of   any
recognised medical qualification; or
( ii )   increase   its   admission   capacity
in   any   course   of   study   or   training
including   a   postgraduate   course   of
study or training, 
except   with   the   previous   permission   of   the   Central
Government   obtained   in   accordance   with   the
provisions of this section.
Explanation   1 .—For   the   purposes   of   this   section,
“person”   includes   any   University   or   a   trust,   but
does not include the Central Government.
Explanation   2 .—For   the   purposes   of   this   section,
“admission   capacity”,   in   relation   to   any   course   of
study or training, including post­graduate course of
study   or   training,   in   a   medical   college,   means   the
maximum   number   of   students   as   may   be   fixed   by
the Central Government from time to time for being
admitted to such course or training.
(2)   Every   person   or   medical   college   shall,   for   the
purpose   of   obtaining   permission   under   sub­section
(1), submit to  the  Central  Government a  scheme  in
accordance   with   the   provisions   of   sub­section   (3)
and the Central Government shall refer the scheme
to the Central Council for its recommendations.
(3)   The   scheme   referred   to   in   sub­section   (2),   shall
be   in   such   form   and   contain   such   particulars   and
be preferred in such manner and accompanied with
such fee, as may be prescribed.
12

(4)   On   receipt   of   a   scheme   from   the   Central
Government   under   sub­section   (2),   the   Central
Council   may   obtain   such   other   particulars   as   may
be considered necessary by it from the person or the
medical college concerned, and thereafter, it may,—
( a ) if the scheme is defective and does not
contain   necessary   particulars,   give   a
reasonable   opportunity   to   the   person   or
medical   college   concerned   for   making   a
written   representation   and   it   shall   be
open to such person or medical college to
rectify the defects, if any, specified by the
Central Council;
( b ) consider the scheme, having regard to
the   factors   referred   to   in   sub­section   (8)
and submit it to the Central Government
together   with   its   recommendations
thereon within a period not exceeding six
months   from   the   date   of   receipt   of   the
reference from the Central Government.
(5)   The   Central   Government   may,   after   considering
the   scheme   and   recommendations   of   the   Central
Council   under   sub­section   (4)   and   after   obtaining,
where   necessary,   such   other   particulars   as   may   be
considered   necessary   by   it   from   the   person   or
medical college concerned and having  regard to the
factors referred to in sub­section (8), either approve
the   scheme   with   such   conditions,   if   any,   as   it   may
consider   necessary   or   disapprove   the   scheme   and
any   such  approval   shall  constitute   as  a  permission
under sub­section (1):
Provided   that   no   scheme   shall   be   disapproved   by
the   Central   Government   except   after   giving   the
person   or   medical   college   concerned   a   reasonable
opportunity of being heard:
13

Provided   further   that   nothing   in   this   sub­section
shall   prevent   any   person   or   medical   college   whose
scheme   has   not   been   approved   by   the   Central
Government   to   submit   a   fresh   scheme   and   the
provisions   of   this   section   shall   apply   to   such
scheme   as   if   such   scheme   had   been   submitted   for
the first time under sub­section (2).
(6) Where, within a period of one year from the date
of   submission   of   the   scheme   to   the   Central
Government   under   sub­section   (2),   no   order   is
communicated   by   the   Central   Government   to   the
person   or   medical   college   submitting   the   scheme,
such   scheme   shall   be   deemed   to   have   been
approved by the Central Government in the form in
which   it   was   submitted,   and,   accordingly,   the
permission   of   the   Central   Government   required
under  sub­section   (1)  shall   also   be   deemed  to   have
been granted.
(7)   In   computing   the   time­limit   specified   in   sub­
section (6), the time taken by the person or medical
college   concerned   submitting   the   scheme,   in
furnishing  any  particulars  called  for   by  the  Central
Council,   or   by   the   Central   Government,   shall   be
excluded.
(8)   The   Central   Council   while   making   its
recommendations under clause ( b ) of sub­section (4)
and   the   Central   Government   while   passing   an
order,   either   approving   or   disapproving   the   scheme
under   sub­section   (5),   shall   have   due   regard   to  the
following factors, namely:—
( a )   whether   the   proposed   medical   college
or  the  existing  medical  college  seeking  to
open   a   new   or   higher   course   of   study   or
training,   would   be   in   a   position   to   offer
the   minimum   standards   of   medical
14

education   as   prescribed   by   the   Central
Council under Section 22;
( b )   whether   the   person   seeking   to
establish a medical college or the existing
medical  college  seeking  to  open   a  new  or
higher   course   of   study   or   training   or   to
increase   its   admission   capacity   has
adequate financial resources;
( c )   whether   necessary   facilities   in   respect
of   staff,   equipment,   accommodation,
training,   hospital   or   other   facilities   to
ensure   proper   functioning   of   the   medical
college   or   conducting   the   new   course   of
study   or   training   or   accommodating   the
increased   admission   capacity   have   been
provided or would be provided within the
time­limit specified in the scheme;
( d )   whether   adequate   hospital   facilities,
having   regard   to   the   number   of   students
likely   to   attend   such   medical   college   or
course   of   study   or   training   or   the
increased   admission   capacity   have   been
provided or would be provided within the
time­limit specified in the scheme;
( e )   whether   any   arrangement   has   been
made   or   programme   drawn   to   impart
proper   training   to   students   likely   to
attend such medical college or the course
of   study   or   training   by   persons   having
recognised medical qualifications;
( f )   the   requirement   of   manpower   in   the
field of practice of Indian medicine in the
college;
( g )   any   other   factors   as   may   be
prescribed.
15

(9)   Where   the   Central   Government   passes   an   order
either   approving   or   disapproving   a   scheme   under
this   section,   a   copy   of   the   order   shall   be
communicated   to   the   person   or   medical   college
concerned.
13B. Non­recognition of medical qualifications in
certain   cases . —(1)   Where   any   medical   college   is
established   without   the   previous   permission   of   the
Central   Government   in   accordance   with   the
provisions   of   Section   13­A,   medical   qualification
granted to any student of such medical college shall
not   be   deemed   to   be   a   recognised   medical
qualification for the purposes of this Act.
(2) Where any medical college opens a new or higher
course of study or training including a postgraduate
course   of   study   or   training   without   the   previous
permission   of   the   Central   Government   in
accordance   with   the   provisions   of   Section   13­A,
medical qualification granted to any student of such
medical   college   on   the   basis   of   such   study   or
training   shall   not   be   deemed   to   be   a   recognised
medical qualification for the purposes of this Act.
(3)   Where   any   medical   college   increases   its
admission   capacity   in   any   course   of   study   or
training   without   the   previous   permission   of   the
Central   Government   in   accordance   with   the
provisions   of   Section   13­A,   medical   qualification
granted   to   any   student   of   such   medical   college   on
the   basis   of   the   increase   in   its   admission   capacity
shall   not   be   deemed   to   be   a   recognised   medical
qualification for the purposes of this Act.
13C.   Time   for   seeking   permission   for   certain
existing   medical   colleges . —(1)   If   any   person   has
established a medical college or any medical college
has   opened   a   new   or   higher   course   of   study   or
training   or   increased   the   admission   capacity   on   or
16

before   the   commencement   of   the   Indian   Medicine
Central   Council   (Amendment)   Act,   2003,   such
person or medical college, as the case may be, shall
seek,   within   a   period   of   three   years   from   the   said
commencement,   permission   of   the   Central
Government   in   accordance   with   the   provisions   of
Section 13­A.
(2) If any person or medical college, as the case may
be,   fails   to   seek   permission   under   sub­section   (1),
the provisions of Section 13­B shall apply, so far as
may be, as if permission of the Central Government
under Section 13­A has been refused.”
14. The   perusal   of   sub­section   (1)   of   Section   13A   of   the   said
Act, which is a non­obstante clause, would show that no person
is   entitled   to   establish   a   medical   college   except   with   the
previous   permission   of   the   Central   Government   obtained   in
accordance   with   the   provisions   of   the   said   Section.     Similarly,
no medical college can 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.
Likewise, there is also a prohibition for  the medical colleges to
increase   its   admission   capacity   in   any   course   of   study   or
17

training,   including  a  post­graduate   course  of   study   or   training
except with the previous permission of the Central Government
obtained in accordance with the provisions of the said Section.
Explanation   1   to   the   said   Section   clarifies   that   the   “person”
stated therein includes any  University  or  a trust, but does not
include   the   Central   Government.     Explanation   2   to   the   said
Section   clarifies   that   the   “admission   capacity”   means   the
maximum   number   of   students   as   may   be   fixed   by   the   Central
Government   from   time   to   time   for   being   admitted   to   such
course or training.
15. Sub­section (2) of Section 13A of the said Act provides that
a   person   or   a   medical   college,   who   desires   to   seek   permission
as   provided   under   sub­section   (1)   of   Section   13A   of   the   said
Act,   shall   submit   a   scheme   to   the   Central   Government   in
accordance with the provisions of sub­section (3) of Section 13A
of the said Act.  It further provides that the Central Government
shall   refer   the   scheme   to   the   Central   Council   for   its
recommendations.  
18

16. Sub­section (3) of Section 13A of the said Act provides that
the scheme shall be in such form and contain such particulars
and   be   preferred   in   such   manner   and   accompanied   with   such
fee, as may be prescribed.  
17. Sub­section (4) of Section 13A of the said Act provides that
on   receipt   of   a   scheme   from   the   Central   Government   under
sub­section   (2)   of   Section   13A   of   the   said   Act,   the   Central
Council   may   obtain   such   other   particulars   as   may   be
considered   necessary   by   it   from   the   person   or   the   medical
college   concerned.     It   further   provides   that   if   the   scheme   is
defective   and   does   not   contain   necessary   particulars,   it   shall
give   a   reasonable   opportunity   to   the   person   or   medical   college
concerned   for   making   a   written   representation.     It   further
provides that it shall be open to such person or medical college
to rectify the defects, if any, specified by the Central Council.  It
also   requires   the   Central   Council   to   consider   the   scheme   with
regard   to   the   factors   referred   to   in   sub­section   (8)   of   Section
13A   of   the   said   Act   and   submit   the   same   to   the   Central
Government together with its recommendations thereon within
19

a   period   not   exceeding   six   months   from   the   date   of   receipt   of
the reference from the Central Government.
18. It   can   be   seen   from   perusal   of   sub­section   (5)   of   Section
13A   of   the   said   Act,   that   the   Central   Government   may,   after
considering   the   scheme   and   recommendations   of   the   Central
Council   under   sub­section   (4)   of   Section   13A   of   the   said   Act
and after obtaining, where necessary, such other particulars as
may   be  considered   necessary   by   it  from   the   person   or   medical
college concerned and having regard to the factors referred to in
sub­section   (8)   of   Section   13A   of   the   said   Act,   either   approve
the   scheme   with   such   conditions,   if   any,   as   it   may   consider
necessary   or   disapprove   the   scheme.     It   further   provides   that
any such approval shall constitute as a permission under sub­
section   (1)   of   Section   13A   of   the   said   Act.     The   first   proviso   to
sub­section  (5)  of  Section  13A  of  the  said  Act  provides  that   no
scheme   shall   be   disapproved   by   the   Central   Government,
without   giving   the   person   or   medical   college   concerned,   a
reasonable   opportunity   of   being   heard.     The   second   proviso   to
sub­section  (5)   of   Section   13A   of   the   said   Act   also   enables   the
20

person   or   medical   college,   whose   scheme   has   not   been
approved   by   the   Central   Government,   to   submit   a   fresh
scheme.     It   further   provides   that   the   provisions   of   the   said
Section shall apply to such scheme as if such scheme had been
submitted for the first time under sub­section (2) of Section 13A
of the said Act.
19. Sub­section  (6)  of Section  13A  of the said Act,  which  is a
deeming   provision,   provides   that   if   no   order   is   communicated
by   the   Central   Government   to   the   person   or   medical   college
submitting   the   scheme,   within   a   period   of   one   year   from   the
date   of   submission   of   the   scheme,   such   a   scheme   shall   be
deemed   to   have   been   approved   by   the   Central   Government   in
the form in which it was submitted.  It further provides that the
permission   of   the   Central   Government   required   under   sub­
section  (1) of  Section 13A of the said Act shall also  be deemed
to have been granted.  
20. Sub­section (7) of Section 13A of the said Act provides that
in   computing   the   time­limit   specified   in   sub­section   (6)   of
Section   13A   of   the   said   Act,   the   time   taken   by   the   person   or
21

medical college concerned submitting the scheme, in furnishing
any   particulars   called   for   by   the   Central   Council,   or   by   the
Central Government, shall be excluded.
21. The   perusal   of   sub­section   (8)   of   Section   13A   of   the   said
Act   would   show   that   the   Central   Council   while   making   its
recommendations under clause (b) of sub­section (4) of Section
13A of the said Act and the Central Government while passing
an   order,   either   approving   or   disapproving   the   scheme   under
sub­section   (5)   of   Section   13A   of   the   said   Act,   shall   have   due
regard   to   the   factors   mentioned   therein.     Various   factors   have
been mentioned in clauses (a) to (g) including as to whether the
proposed medical college or the existing medical college seeking
to open a new or higher course of study or training, would be in
a position to offer the minimum standards of medical education
as   prescribed   by   the   Central   Council   under   Section   22   of   the
said Act.   It could be seen that clauses (a) to (f) of sub­section
(8) of Section 13A of the said Act relate to specific factors to be
taken   into   consideration,   whereas   clause   (g)   thereof   is   a
residuary   clause,   which   permits   the   Central   Council   and   the
22

Central   Government   to   take   into   consideration   any   other
factors that may be prescribed.
22. Sub­section (9) of Section 13A of the said Act provides that
where   the   Central   Government   passes   an   order   either
approving   or   disapproving   a   scheme   under   the   said   Section,   a
copy   of   the   order   shall   be   communicated   to   the   person   or
medical college concerned.  
23. At this stage, it will also be relevant to refer to Section 22
of the said Act, which reads thus:
“ 22.   Minimum   standards   of   education   in   Indian
medicine . —(1)   The   Central   Council   may   prescribe
the   minimum   standards   of   education   in   Indian
medicine,   required   for   granting   recognised   medical
qualifications   by   Universities,   Boards   or   medical
institutions in India.
(2)   Copies   of   the   draft   regulations   and   of   all
subsequent amendments thereof shall be furnished
by the Central Council to all State Governments and
the   Central   Council   shall,   before   submitting   the
regulations   or   any   amendment   thereof,   as   the   case
may   be,   to   the   Central   Government   for   sanction,
take   into   consideration   the   comments   of   any   State
Government   received   within   three   months   from   the
furnishing of the copies as aforesaid.
(3)   Each   of   the   Committees   referred   to   in   clauses
( a ),   ( b )   and   ( c )   of   sub­section   (1)   of   Section   9   shall,
from   time  to  time,  report  to  the   Central  Council  on
the  efficacy  of  the  regulations  and  may   recommend
23

to the Central Council such amendments thereof as
it may think fit.”
24. It   can   thus   be   seen   that   under   sub­section   (1)   of   Section
22   of   the   said   Act,   the   Central   Council   is   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.     Sub­
section   (2)   of   Section   22   of   the   said   Act   would   reveal   that   the
copies   of   the   draft   regulations   and   of   all   subsequent
amendments thereof shall be furnished by the Central Council
to   all   State   Governments.     It   further   provides   that   before
submitting   the   regulations   or   any   amendment   thereof,   to   the
Central   Government   for   sanction,   the   Central   Council   shall
take into consideration the comments of any State Government
received within three months from the furnishing of the copies
as   aforesaid.     Sub­section   (3)   of   Section   22   of   the   said   Act
provides that each of the  Committees referred to  in  clauses (a)
to (c) of sub­section (1) of Section 9 of the said Act, shall, from
time to time, report to the Central Council on the efficacy of the
24

regulations   and   may   recommend   to   the   Central   Council   such
amendments thereof as it may think fit.
25. Section   36   of   the   said   Act   empowers   the   Central   Council
“to make regulations” to carry out the purposes of the said Act,
which reads thus:
“ 36. Power to make regulations . — (1) The Central
Council   may,   with   the   previous   sanction   of   the
Central   Government,   by   notification   in   the   Official
Gazette, make regulations generally to carry out the
purposes   of   this   Act,   and,   without   prejudice   to   the
generality   of   this   power,   such   regulations   may
provide for—
(a) ….……..
(b) …………
(c) …………
(d) …………
(e) …………
(f) …………
(g) …….......
(ga) ………..
( gb )   any   other   factor   under   clause   ( g )   of
sub­section (8) of Section 13­A; 
( h )   the   appointment,   powers,   duties   and
procedure of inspectors and visitors;
( i ) the courses and period of study and of
practical   training   to   be   undertaken,   the
subjects   of   examination   and   the
standards   of   proficiency   therein   to   be
25

obtained,   in   any   University,   Board   or
medical   institutions   for   grant   of
recognised medical qualifications;
( j )   the   standards   of   staff,   equipment,
accommodation,   training   and   other
facilities   for   education   in   Indian
medicine;
(k) ………..
(l) …………
(m) ……….
(n) ………..
(o) ………..
(p) ………..
(2)   The   Central   Government   shall   cause   every
regulation   made   under   this   Act   to   be   laid,   as   soon
as   may   be   after   it   is   made,   before   each   House   of
Parliament,   while   it   is   in   session,   for   a   total   period
of   thirty   days   which   may   be   comprised   in   one
session   or   in   two   or   more   successive   sessions,   and
if,   before   the   expiry   of   the   session   immediately
following   the   session   or   the   successive   sessions
aforesaid,   both   Houses   agree   in   making   any
modification in the regulation or both Houses agree
that   the   regulation   should   not   be   made,   the
regulation   shall   thereafter   have   effect   only   in   such
modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be;
so,   however,   not   any   such   modification   or
annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity
of anything previously done under that regulation.”
26. It can be seen that such regulations are to be made by the
Central   Council   with   the   previous   sanction   of   the   Central
26

Government. Clause (gb) of sub­section (1) of Section 36 of the
said   Act   enables   the   Central   Council   to   make  regulations  with
regard to any other factor as provided under Clause (g) of sub­
section   (8)   of   Section   13A   of   the   said   Act.     Clause   (i)   of   sub­
section   (1)   of   Section   36   of   the   said   Act   enables   the   Central
Council   to   make   regulations   providing   for   the   courses   and
period of study  and  of  practical training  to  be undertaken, the
subjects   of   examination   and   the   standards   of   proficiency
therein etc.  It can further be seen from the perusal of Clause (j)
of sub­section (1) of Section 36 of the said Act that the Central
Council, with the previous sanction of the Central Government,
is entitled to make regulations prescribing for the standards of
staff, equipments, accommodation, training  and other  facilities
for education in Indian medicine. Sub­section (2) of Section 36
of the said Act requires the Central Government to cause every
regulation made under the said Act to be laid, as soon as after
it   is   made,   before   each   House   of   Parliament.     It   reserves   the
power   of   both   the   Houses   of   Parliament   to   make   any
modification in the regulations.  
27

27. It   could   thus   clearly   be   seen   that   Section   13A   read   with
Sections   22   and   36(1)(j)   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.     From   the   perusal   of   the   scheme   of   the   aforesaid
provisions,   it   is   clear   that   no   person   is   entitled   to   establish   a
medical   college   except   with   the   previous   permission   of   the
Central Government.    Similarly, 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.     Likewise,   no   medical
college   can   increase   its   admission   capacity   in   any   course   of
study or training, including a post­graduate course of study or
training.   Sub­sections (2) to (5) of Section 13A of the said Act
prescribe   a   detailed   procedure   for   submitting   a   scheme   and
consideration   thereof   by   the   Central   Council   and   the   Central
Government.   It also provides for in­built safeguards inasmuch
as   the   principles   of   natural   justice   are   provided   at   two   stages,
28

one  before  the   Central   Council   and  another   before  the   Central
Government.     The   second   proviso   to   sub­section   (5)   of   Section
13A   of   the   said   Act   also   enables   a   person   or   medical   college
whose   scheme   has   not   been   approved   by   the   Central
Government, to again submit a fresh scheme, which is required
to be considered as if the same is made for the first time under
sub­section  (2) of  Section  13A of  the  said  Act.   Sub­section  (6)
of   Section   13A   of   the   said   Act   provides   that   when   no   order   is
communicated   within   a   period   of   one   year   from   the   date   of
submission   of   the   scheme,   by   a   deeming   provision,   such
scheme   shall   stand   approved   and   it   will   be   deemed   that   the
permission   of   the   Central   Government   as   required   under   sub­
section   (1)   of   Section   13A   of   the   said   Act   has   been   granted.
Sub­section   (7)   of   Section   13A   of   the   said   Act   provides   for
exclusion   of   the   period   for   the   time   taken   by   the   person   or
medical   college   concerned   to   furnish   any   particulars   called   by
the   Central   Council,   or   by   the   Central   Government.     Sub­
section (8) of Section 13A of the said Act provides the factors to
be  taken   into  consideration.     Sub­section   (9)  of   Section   13A  of
29

the   said   Act   provides   for   the   communication   of   the   order
approving or disapproving the scheme, to the person or medical
college concerned.
28. The statutory scheme is thus clear that no medical college
can open a new or higher course of study or training, including
a post­graduate course, except with the previous permission of
the   Central   Government.     Prior   to   such   a   permission   being
granted, the procedure as prescribed under Section 13A has to
be followed.
29. The  legislative  intent  is  further  clarified  by  the   provisions
made in Section 13B of the said Act.  Sub­section (1) of Section
13B  of the said Act  provides that  where  any  medical  college  is
established   without   the   previous   permission   of   the   Central
Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 13A of
the   said   Act,   medical   qualification   granted   to   any   student   of
such   medical   college   shall   not   be   deemed   to   be   a   recognized
medical qualification for the purposes of the said Act.  Likewise,
sub­section   (2)   of   Section   13B   of   the   said   Act   provides   that
w here   any   medical   college   opens   a   new   or   higher   course   of
30

study   or   training   including   a   post­graduate  course   of   study  or
training   without   the   previous   permission   of   the   Central
Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 13A of
the   said   Act,   medical   qualification   granted   to   any   student   of
such   medical   college   on   the   basis   of   such   study   or   training
shall not be deemed to be a recognised medical qualification for
the   purposes   of   the   said   Act.   Likewise,   sub­section   (3)   of
Section   13B   of   the   said   Act   provides   that   w here   any   medical
college increases its admission capacity in any course of study
or   training   without   the   previous   permission   of   the   Central
Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 13A of
the   said   Act,   medical   qualification   granted   to   any   student   of
such   medical   college   on   the   basis   of   the   increase   in   its
admission   capacity   shall   not   be   deemed   to   be   a   recognised
medical qualification for the purposes of the said Act.
30. It   could   further   be   seen   that   the   legislature   itself   has
taken   care   of   a   situation,   where   any   person   has   established   a
medical   college   or   any   medical   college   has   opened   a   new   or
higher   course   of   study   or   training,   or   increased   the   admission
31

capacity   prior   to   the   commencement   of   the   Indian   Medicine
Central   Council   (Amendment)   Act,   2003.   It   has   provided   that
such person or medical college, as the case may be, shall seek,
within   a   period   of   three   years   from   the   said   commencement,
permission   of   the   Central   Government   in   accordance   with   the
provisions of Section 13A of the said Act. 
31. The   impugned   judgment   of   the   Division   Bench   and   the
Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, so also the other
judgments of the High Court of Karnataka, which are relied on
by   the   Division   Bench,   do   not   take   into   consideration   the
scheme of Section 13A of the said Act.  
32. It  could   further   be  relevant   to   notice   Regulation   3(1)(a)  of
the 2016 Regulations, which reads thus:
“ 3.  Requirements of Minimum Standard to grant
of permission­
(1)(a)   The   Ayurveda   colleges   established   under
Section   13A   and   existing   under   Section   13C   of   the
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 the 31 st
December of every year for consideration of grant of
permissions   for   undertaking   admissions   in   the
coming academic session.” 
32

33. It could thus clearly be seen, that Regulation 3(1)(a) of the
2016   Regulations   specifically   provides   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   31 st
  December   of   every   year   for
consideration   of   grant   of   permissions   for   undertaking
admissions   in   the   coming   academic   session.     It   is   thus   clear
that   in   order   to   be   eligible   for   grant   of   permission   for
undertaking   admissions   in   a   particular   academic   session,   the
institution   must   fulfill   the   requirements   of   minimum   standard
as   on   31 st
  December   of   the   earlier   year.     For   example,   if   the
institution   is   seeking   grant   of   permission   for   undertaking
admissions   for   the   academic   session   2022­23,   it   must   have
fulfilled   the   requirements   of   minimum   standard   as   on   31 st
December 2021.  It could thus be seen that the finding that the
permission granted for a subsequent academic year would also
enure   to   the   benefit   of   earlier   academic   year   though   the   said
33

institution was not fulfilling  the criteria of minimum standard,
is totally erroneous.
34. We further find that the High Court has also erred in not
correctly applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of
Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal   (supra).   In the said case, the
petitioner   Ayurved   Shastra   Seva   Mandal   had   approached   the
Bombay   High   Court   being   aggrieved   by   the   refusal   by   the
Government   of   India   to   grant   permission   to   the   colleges   to
admit   students   for   the   academic   year   2011­12.   Such
permission   was   refused   on   account   of   various   deficiencies
relating   to   infrastructure   and   teaching   staff,   which   had   not
been   rectified   and   brought   into   line   with   the   minimum
standard norms.
35. It is further to be noted that in paragraph (10) of the said
judgment,   this   Court   had   specifically   observed   that   the
petitioner   therein   tried   to   impress   upon   that   the   deficiencies
had   already   been   removed   and   that   is   why   permission   was
specifically given for the admission of students for the academic
year 2012­13.   It was therefore urged that there was no reason
34

for  withholding  the  permission  for  the  academic year  2011­12.
This Court specifically noticed that a large number of students
had   applied   for   admission   for   the   academic   year   2011­12   and
that too with the leave of this Court.  However, this Court found
that   the   privilege   granted   to   the   candidates   could   not   be
transformed into a right to be admitted in the course for which
they had applied.  While dismissing the petition and refusing to
interfere   with   the   judgment   of   the   High   Court,   this   Court
observed thus:
“ 17.   It   is   not   for   us   to   judge   as   to   whether   a
particular   institution   fulfilled   the   necessary   criteria
for being eligible to conduct classes in the discipline
concerned   or   not.   That   is   for   the   experts   to   judge
and   according   to   the   experts   the   institutions   were
not geared to conduct classes in respect of the year
2011–2012.   It   is   also   impractical   to   consider   the
proposal of the colleges of providing extra classes to
the   new   entrants   to   bring   them   up   to   the   level   of
those   who   have   completed   the   major   part   of   the
course   for   the   first   year.   We   are   not,   therefore,
inclined   to   interfere   with   the   orders   of   the   High
Court impugned in these special leave petitions and
the same are, accordingly, dismissed.”
36. It   can   be   seen   from   the   conjoint   reading   of   various
paragraphs of the said judgment that the contention that since
the   deficiencies   stood   already   removed   and   the   permission
35

granted   for   the   academic   year   2012­13,   the   said   permission
should   also   be   construed   as   having   been   granted   for   the
academic year 2011­12, was not accepted by this Court.
37. We   are   at   pains   to   say   that   though   the   judgment   in   the
case of  Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal  (supra) was specifically
relied on by the appellant herein, the learned Single Judge and
the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka have chosen
to   rely   on   the   earlier   judgments   of   the   Division   Bench   of   the
same High Court rather than a judgment of this Court.  
38. It   will   further   be   relevant   to   note   that   this   Court   in   the
case   of   Ayurved   Shastra   Seva   Mandal   (supra)   has   also
referred   to   the   amended   provisions   of   the   said   Act.     It   will   be
relevant   to   refer   to   paragraphs   (5)   to   (9)   of   the   said   judgment,
which read thus:
“ 5.   As far as medical institutions are concerned, the
procedure   relating   to   the   recognition   of   medical
colleges   as   well   as   admission   therein   was   governed
by   the   Indian   Medicine   Central   Council   Act,   1970
(hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the   1970   Act”),   which
was amended in 2003, to incorporate Sections 13­A,
13­B   and   13­C,   which   provided   the   procedure   for
establishing   new   colleges   and   making   provision   for
seeking prior permission of the Central Government
36

in   respect   of   the   same.   The   amendment   also
attempted   to   bring   in   reforms   in   the   existing
colleges   by   making   it   mandatory   for   them   to   seek
permission   from   the   Central   Government   within   a
period of three years from their establishment.
6.   Having   regard   to   the   said   amendments,   the
Central   Council   of   Indian   Medicine,   with   the
previous   sanction   of   the   Central   Government,
framed   Regulations,   in   exercise   of   the   powers
conferred   on   it   by   Section   36   of   the   1970   Act.   The
said  Regulations  were  named  as  the  Establishment
of   New   Medical   College,   Opening   of   New   or   Higher
Course   of   Study   or   Training   and   Increase   of
Admission   Capacity   by   a   Medical   College
Regulations,   2003   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the
2003   Regulations”).   Regulation   6(1)( e )   of   the   2003
Regulations provides for applications to be made by
a   medical   college   owning   and   managing   a   hospital
in   Indian   medicine   containing   not   less   than   100
beds with necessary facilities and infrastructure.
7.   The   Central   Council   of   Indian   Medicine   further
framed   Regulations   in   2006   called   as   the   Indian
Medicine   Central   Council   (Permission   to   Existing
Medical   Colleges)   Regulations,   2006   (hereinafter
referred   to   as   “the   2006   Regulations”).   Regulation
5(1)( d )   of   the   2006   Regulations   provides   that   the
applicant   College   would   have   to   be   owning   and
managing   a   minimum   of   100   beds   for
undergraduate   courses   and   150   beds   for
postgraduate courses, which conforms to the norms
relating   to   minimum   bed   strength   and   bed
occupancy   for   in­patients   and   the   number   of   out­
patients.
8.   When   the   2003   Amendment   was   effected   to   the
1970 Act, three years' time was given to the existing
colleges   to   remove   the   deficiencies.   The   2006
37

Regulations   provided   a   further   period   of   two   years
to   remove   the   deficiencies   and   even   relaxed   the
minimum   standards   in   that   regard.   Even   after   the
expiry   of   two   years,   the   colleges   were   given   further
opportunities   to   remove   the   shortcomings   by
granting   them   conditional   permission   for   their
students  for   the   academic  years   2008–2009,   2009–
2010   and   2010–2011.   It   is   only   obvious   that   the
minimum   standards   were   insisted   upon   by   the
Council   to   ensure   that   the   colleges   achieved   the
minimum standards gradually.
9.   It   may   be   noted   that   there   was   little   or   no
response   from   the   institutions   concerned   in   regard
to   removal   of   the   deficiencies   in   their   respective
institutions   and   it   is   only   when   the   notices   were
given   to   shut   down   the   institutions   that   they   woke
up   from   their   slumber   and   approached   the   courts
for   relief.   In   many   of   these   cases,   permission   was
given by the courts to the institutions concerned to
accept admission forms, but they were directed not
to pass any orders thereupon till the decision of this
Court in these special leave petitions.”
39. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the learned
Single   Judge   as   well   as   the   Division   Bench   have   grossly   erred
in   not   taking   into   consideration   the   scheme   of   the   said   Act   so
also   the   judgment   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Ayurved
Shastra Seva Mandal  (supra).
38

40. In   the   result,   the   appeals   are   allowed.     The   common
judgment and order dated 21 st
 December 2020, delivered by the
Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   of   Karnataka   in   Writ   Appeal
No.   542   of   2020   (EDN­REG)   and   Writ   Appeal   No.541   of   2020
(EDN­REG), and the judgment and order dated 24 th
  September
2020 passed by the Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 50772 of
2018 (EDN­REG­P) and Writ Petition No. 50828 of 2018 (EDN­
EX) are quashed  and set  aside.   The writ petitions filed by the
original writ petitioners in the High Court are dismissed.  
41. Pending   application(s),   if   any,   shall   stand   disposed   of   in
the above terms.  No order as to costs. 
……..….......................J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
…….........................J.
[B.R. GAVAI]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 11, 2022.
39