SARVEPALLI RADHAKRISHNAN UNIVERSITY & ANOTHER versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS on 17 January 2019

920

[2019] 1 S.C.R.

ASARVEPALLI RADHAKRISHNAN UNIVERSITY & ANOTHER

v.

UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

B(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1001 of 2017)

JANUARY 17, 2019

[S. A. BOBDE, L. NAGESWARA RAO AND

R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860 – s.193 – False Evidence – False statementCmade before the Court on the basis of a fabricated document –Petitioner No.2- College was permitted by the respondents to admitMBBS students – There were recurring lapses on the part of thepetitioner no.2- college to meet the requisite minimum standards foradmission of MBBS students – Consequently, respondents cancelledDthe admission of students for the academic year 2017-18 and directedCollege to discharge all the students – Writ petition before theSupreme Court – Respondents contended that the College wasindulging in fraud by showing persons who were not sick as patientsto show compliance of the minimum requirements – On the otherhand, College placed records and contended that they were beingEunnecessarily troubled by the respondents in spite of theircompliance with required standards to admit MBBS students – Acommittee was constituted to check the correctness of the statistics,reports and materials placed before the Court – Pursuant thereto,report submitted by the Committee before the Court – Thereafter,College submitted an apology for lapses on their part – Held:FApology cannot be accepted – On the basis of the findings of theCommittee, it was clear that a false statement was made by the Collegeon the basis of a fabricated document – Assertion made by theCollege regarding the genuineness of the patients in the hospitalturned out to be false in the enquiry conducted by the Committee –GThere were fake and incomplete addresses of the patients, in therecords of the hospital – Only 21 patients were identified and out ofthese 8 turned out to be employees/students of the College – Further,faculty members were found working elsewhere and runninghospitals – It was clear that the College was guilty of practicingfraud on the Court – College administration indulged inH

manipulations and deceived the authorities to project complianceof the requisite minimum standards for admission of students –College placed maneuvered documents to obtain a favourable order– It is trite that every litigant has to approach the Court with cleanhands – A litigant who indulges in suppression of facts andmisrepresentation is not entitled for any relief – Thus, Dean of theCollege liable for prosecution u/s.193 of IPC and the College liableto be punished for committing perjury – Establishment of MedicalCollege Regulations, 1999 – Regns. 8(3)(1)(a) and 8(3)(1)(d) –Perjury.

Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 – Regns.8(3)(1)(a) and 8(3)(1)(d) – Forged/fake documents for the purposeof showing compliance with minimum requirements – Petitioner No.2-College was permitted to admit MBBS students for the academicyear 2014-15 – However, for subsequent academic years i.e. 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18, the respondents found seriousdeficiencies in the Assessment Report of College – There werevarious rounds of litigations between the petitioner-College andthe respondents – Finally, respondents cancelled the admission ofstudents for the academic year 2017-18 and directed College todischarge all the students – Writ petition before the Supreme Court– College placed records and contended that they were beingunnecessarily troubled by the respondents in spite of theircompliance with required standards to admit students for MBBScourse – Held: College relied upon manipulated records to misleadthe Supreme Court for the purpose of getting favourable order –College has been habitually indulging in foul play which is clearfrom the course of events in 2015, when faculty members were foundto have been working elsewhere and running hospitals – There werefake and incomplete addresses of the patients, in the records of thehospital – College indulged in large scale malpractices in showingcompliance of the minimum required standards to obtain permissionfor admission of students – Thus, College barred from makingadmissions for the year 1[st] year MBBS course for the next two yearsi.e. 2018-19 and 2019-20 – Further, a penalty of Rs. Five Croresimposed on the College for playing fraud on the Court – Insofar asthe students who were admitted in the College for the academicyear 2017-18 are concerned, they were duly cautioned and AB

CDE

F

G

H

Ainformed that their admission was purely provisional and they cannotclaim any equity if the College was later on found to be deficient –By an earlier order of the Supreme Court, they were directed to beadjusted in other medical Colleges for the year 2018-19 – However,they are entitled for refund of the fee collected from them foradmission to the College – Penalty – Equity.B

Dismissing the Writ petitions,

HELD: 1. On the basis of the findings of the Committee, itis clear that a false statement has been made by the College onthe basis of a fabricated document. It was averred in the WritCPetition by the College that there were 365 patients in the hospitalat the time of inspection on 25[th] September, 2017 but theinspection team recorded that there were only seven patientsavailable. In support of the submission, reliance was placed onthe computerized data of the Medical Records Department. Thehard disk that was collected by the Committee to study the detailsDof the patients who were admitted in the hospital prior to January,2018 turned out to be empty and no data could be retrieved. Theassertion made by the College regarding the genuineness of thepatients in the hospital turned out to be false in the enquiryconducted by the Committee. The Committee had serious doubtsEwhether the patients were actually admitted. Most of the casesheets, prescriptions, operative notes, etc. appeared to be writtenby the same person in a very unprofessional manner. Thehistopathological reports were found to be sketchy andincomplete. On a thorough examination of the case sheets, theexperts from AIIMS opined that admission of the patients wasFunnecessary in a number of cases. In view of the fake andincomplete addresses mentioned in the records of the hospital,most of the patients could not be located. Only 21 patients wereidentified and 8 out of these turned out to be employees/ studentsof the College. All this goes to show that the College has indulgedGin large scale malpractices in showing compliance of the minimumrequired standards to obtain permission for admission of students.The College further tried to mislead this Court that it is compliantin all respects, to get permission for the admission of students.[Para 13][938-B-F]

H

H

2. The brazen manner in which the College has indulged inrelying upon manipulated records to mislead this Court for thepurpose of getting favourable order deserves to be dealt with ina serious manner. This Court find that this is a fit case where,Dean of the College must be held liable for prosecution underSection 193 of Indian Penal Code. [Para 14][938-G-H]

3. There have been instances of errant medical collegesmaking admissions to the medical courses without obtaining therequisite permission. This Court came down heavily on suchdeviant colleges by imposing penalties for the illegalitiescommitted by them in the matter of admission and for putting thestudents’ future in jeopardy. The Committee exposes the evildesign of the College in resorting to deceitful methods to cheatthe authorities concerned and this Court to secure permissionfor admission of students. Apart from the prosecution of the Dean,the College is liable to be suitably punished for committingperjury. A penalty of Rs. Five Crores is imposed on the Collegefor playing fraud on this Court. The amount may be paid to theaccount of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. [Paras15, 18][938-G-H; 939-A-B; 940-B]

4. This Court cannot accept the apology offered on behalfof the College. The College has been habitually indulging in foulplay which is clear from the course of events in 2015 when facultymembers were found to have been working elsewhere andrunning hospitals. The bravado shown by the College in anattempt to cheat the MCI, the Government and this Court has tobe condemned. [Para 16][939-C]

5. The students who were admitted in the 1[st] Year MBBSCourse in the College for the academic year 2017-18 were dulycautioned and informed that their admission was purelyprovisional and they cannot claim any equity if the College waslater on found to be deficient. They have been directed to beadmitted in other colleges for the years 2018-19. In the process,students have lost a precious academic year. However, they areentitled for the refund of the fee collected from them for admissionto the College. [Para 17][939-E-F]

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A6. For the aforementioned reasons, the following order ispassed:

(i) Dean of the Medical College Hospital and ResearchCentre i.e. Petitioner No.2-herein is liable for prosecution underSection 193 IPC. The Secretary General of this Court is directedBto depute an Officer to initiate the prosecution in a competentCourt having jurisdiction at Delhi.

(ii) The College is barred from making admissions for the1[st] Year MBBS course for the next two years i.e. 2018-19 and2019-2020.

C

(iii) A penalty of Rs. Five Crores is imposed on the Collegefor playing fraud on this Court. The amount may be paid to theaccount of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.

(iv) The students are entitled to receive the refund of feepaid by them for admission to the College for the academic yearD2017-19. In addition, the College is directed to pay acompensation of Rs. One Lakh to the said students. [Para18][939-G; 940-A-C]

In Re. Suo Motu Proceedings against R. Karuppan,Advocate (2001) 5 SCC 289 : [2001] 3 SCR 750;EMohan Singh v. Amar Singh (1998) 6 SCC 686 : [1998]1Suppl. SCR 252 – relied on.

Medical Council of India v. M.G.R. Educational &Research Institute University (2015) 4 SCC 580 : [2015]5 SCR 579; Medical Council of India v. KalingaFInstitute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) (2016) 11 SCC530 : [2016] 4 SCR 403; T N Godavarman Thirumalpad(102) v. Ashok Khot and Anr. (2006) 5 SCC 1 : [2006]2 Suppl. SCR 215 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

G

H

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.1001 of 2017.

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

WITH

Writ Petition (C) No. 731 of 2018.

Vivek Tankha, Sr. Adv., Sumit Nema, Prashant Sivarajan,Amalpushp Shroti, Harsh Parashar, Amand Pandey, Abhimanyu Singh,Aditya Singh, Gaurav Sharma, Prateek Bhatia, Dhaval Mohan, PrasanaMohan, Arjun Garg, Sunny Choudhary, Rajesh Srivastava, Ms. PragatiNeekhra, Danish Zubair Khan, Niraj Sharma, Kush Chaturvedi, AmitSharma, Devashish Bharuka, Amrish Kr. Sharma (for G.S. Makker),P. K. Dey, Merusagar Samantray, Leetesh Krishna, Arvind KumarSharma, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J. 1. Permission was granted for theestablishment of Petitioner No.2-R.K.D.F. Medical College Hospital andResearch Centre (hereinafter referred to as “the College) by RespondentNo.1 on the recommendation of Respondent No.2-herein- MedicalCouncil of India, with an intake capacity of 150 MBBS seats annuallyfor the academic year 2014-15. An inspection was conducted on 23[rd]and 24[th] of February, 2015 for grant of renewal for admitting the 2[nd]Batch of 150 MBBS students for the academic year 2015-16. TheMedical Council of India (MCI) recommended to the Central Governmentto reject the permission for admission of the 2[nd] Batch of 150 MBBSstudents for the academic year 2015-16 in view of the deficiencies foundin the Assessment Report. A review/ reassessment was done by theExecutive Committee of Respondent No.2 at the request of the CentralGovernment. The Executive Committee of Respondent No.2reconsidered the matter and recommended to the Central Governmentnot to renew the permission for the 2[nd] Batch of MBBS students for theacademic session 2015-16. There was a further recommendation thatthe College should be debarred from making admissions for the nexttwo academic sessions. The Central Government accepted therecommendation made by Respondent No.2 and rejected the requestfor renewal. Yet another review/ reassessment was done by the CentralGovernment pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in SLP (C)

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

ANo.19543 of 2015 vide order dated 8[th] September, 2015. A Committeewas constituted to afford an opportunity of hearing to the College. TheCollege was denied permission to admit the 2[nd] Batch of the MBBSstudents for the year 2015-16 by an order of Respondent No.1 dated28[th] September, 2015. The High Court of Delhi quashed the said orderdated 28[th] September, 2015 and directed the Central Government toBexamine the matter afresh vide its order dated 29[th] December, 2015 inWrit Petition (C) No. 9663 of 2015. The Central Government reiteratedits decision by an order dated 1[st] January, 2016 to not grant permission tothe College to admit the 2[nd] Batch of MBBS students. One moreinspection was ordered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh onC11[th] May, 2016 in Writ Petition (C) No.21223 of 2015. Respondent No.2filed SLP (C) No.14729 of 2016 challenging the order dated 11[th] May,2016 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. On 15[th] July, 2016,this Court directed that a fresh inspection should be conducted. Theorder dated 15[th] July, 2016 was modified by this Court on 9[th] September, 2016 by which the Oversight Committee was requested to consider theDmatter pertaining to the admission of students in the College for the year2016-17.

2. By an order dated 27[th] September, 2016, the OversightCommittee accorded approval to the College for admission of studentsfor the year 2016-17. The Oversight Committee directed the College toErectify the deficiencies and submit a compliance report to the Ministryof Health & Family Welfare by 27[th] September, 2016. The College wasinformed that a bank guarantee of Rs. Two Crores in favour of RespondentNo.2 has to be furnished by 27[th] September, 2016. It was stated thatnon-compliance of the conditions imposed by the Oversight CommitteeFwould result in the College getting debarred from fresh intake for twoyears commencing 2017-18. The 2[nd] Batch of 150 students for theacademic year 2016-17 were admitted pursuant to the conditionalpermission for renewal granted by the Central Government.

3. A joint verification inspection was conducted on 5[th] and 6[th]GJanuary, 2017 for renewal of permission to the 3[rd] Batch of MBBSstudents for the academic year 2017-18. Finding gross deficiencies inthe infrastructure, clinical material, teaching faculty and other physicalfacilities in the College, the Executive Committee of Respondent No.2concluded that the undertaking given by the College on 28[th] September,2016 was breached. The Committee decided to recommend to the CentralH

Government to debar the College from admitting students for theacademic years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The Central Government acceptedthe recommendations made by Respondent No.2 and by anorder dated 31[st] May, 2017 debarred the College from making admissionsfor the years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The High Court of Madhya Pradeshallowed Writ Petition (C) No.8100 of 2017 filed by the College questioningthe legality of order of the Central Government dated 31[st] May, 2017.The College was permitted to provisionally admit 150 students. Aggrievedby the judgment dated 21[st] July, 2017 of the High Court of MadhyaPradesh, Respondent No.2 filed SLP (C) No.20400 of 2017 before thisCourt. The re-inspection as directed by the High Court of MadhyaPradesh was confirmed by this Court by an order dated 14[th] August,2017. It was made clear in the said order that the admission of studentsshall be completely provisional, being dependent on the result of theinspection. It was further mentioned that the admission of studentsshall be liable to be cancelled if the College fails in the inspection and thestudents will not be entitled to claim any equity. The students weredirected to be informed by the Counselling committee about the saidcondition. An inspection was scheduled to be conducted on 14[th] & 15[th]September, 2017 for renewal of the 4[th] Batch of students in College forthe MBBS course. According to Respondent No.2, the said inspectionhad to be aborted midway as the assessors were manhandled andphysically forced to leave the College. At the request made by theCollege, another inspection was conducted on the 25[th] & 26[th] September,2017. The Executive Committee of Respondent No.2 considered theAssessment Report at its meeting held on 26[th] September, 2017 anddecided that admissions of the 4[th] Batch of 150 MBBS students for theyear 2017-18 should be cancelled in view of the following deficienciesfound in the inspection conducted on 25[th] & 26[th] September, 2017:

“I. Bed Occupancy at 10 a.m. on day of assessment was01.07% (i.e. 7 out of 410).

II. There were no Major Surgical operation on day ofassessment.

III. There was NIL Normal Delivery or LSCS on day ofassessment.

IV. Data of Clinical material like Casualty attendance,Discharges, Major & Minor Operations, AB

C

DE

F

G

ARadiological Investigations as provided by the Instituteare inflated.

V. ICUs: There was NIL patient in NICU/ PICU & only 1 patienteach in ICCU, MICU, SICU on day of assessment.

VI. Blood Bank: NIL Unit was dispensed on day of assessment.

B

VII. Deficiency of faculty is 15.65% as detailed in the report.

VIII. Shortage of residents is 40% as detailed in the report.

IX. Diet order was not recorded in the register on day ofassessment.C

X. MRD is partly manual.

XI.Facilities in Central Research Laboratory are not adequate.There are NIL ongoing or completed research projects.

XII. RHTC: Cold Chain equipment are not available. SurveyD/ MCH / Immunization / Family Welfare registers are notavailable. No activities under National Health Programmesare carried out.

XIII.UHCC: Cold Chain equipment are not available. Survey/ MCH / Immunization / Family Welfare Registers are notEavailable.”

4. The Executive Committee of Respondent No.2 further decidedthat Regulation 8(3)(1)(b)[1] of the Establishment of Medical College 1 Regulation 8 (3)(1)- The permission to establish a medical college and admit studentsmay be granted initially for a period of one year and may be renewed on yearly basisFsubject to verification of the achievements of annual targets. It shall be the responsibilityof the person to apply to the Medical Council of India for purpose of renewal [as perlatest time schedule] prior to the expiry of the initial permission. This process ofrenewal of permission will continue till such time the establishment of the medicalcollege and expansion of the hospital facilities are completed and a formal recognitionof the medical college is granted. Further admissions shall not be made at any stageunless the requirements of the Council are fulfilled. The Central Government may atGany stage convey the deficiencies to the applicant and provide him an opportunity andtime to rectify the deficiencies.

(b) - Colleges in the stage of III & IV renewal (i.e. Admission of fourth & fifth batch): [If it is observed during any inspection of the Institute that the deficiency of teachingfaculty and / or Residents is more than 20% and / or bed occupancy is < 65%, complianceof rectification of deficiencies from such an institute will not be considered for renewalHof permission in that Academic Year.]

Regulations, 1999 (“the MCI Regulations”) should be invoked in view ofthe deficiencies found in the bed occupancy and residents. The saiddecision of Respondent No.2 was approved by the Oversight Committee.

5. Respondent No.2 directed the College to discharge all thestudents admitted for the academic year 2017-18 by its letter dated 29[th]September, 2017. The Principal Secretary (Medical Division Department),Government of Madhya Pradesh- Respondent No.3-herein wasrequested to cancel the admission of students made in the College forthe academic year 2017-18.

6. The communications dated 29[th] September, 2017 to the Collegeand the Respondent No.3 are subject matter of challenge in this WritPetition. The College sought a further direction that a fresh inspectionshould be conducted strictly in accordance with the Assessor’s Guide.While issuing notice on 23[rd] October, 2017, this Court stayed the operationof the communication dated 29[th] September, 2017. On 24[th] October,2017 it was clarified that the students admitted as per the order dated14[th] August, 2017 in SLP (Civil) No. 20400 of 2017 shall be permitted tocontinue with their studies. Thereafter, on a consideration of theAssessment Report pursuant to the inspection dated 25[th] & 26[th]September, 2017 and the submissions made on behalf of both sides, thisCourt by an order dated 14[th] December, 2017 directed the admission ofthe students to be cancelled. This Court took note of the order dated14[th] August, 2017 which made the admission of students subject to theresult of the inspection. As the students were found not to be complicitand not having any role to play in non-compliance of the requisite standardsby the College, this Court considered it expedient to direct the studentsto be accommodated in other colleges. By referring to the AssessmentReport pursuant to the inspection done on 25[th] & 26[th] September, 2017,learned Senior Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that theCollege was indulging in fraud by showing persons who were not sick aspatients only for the purpose of showing compliance of the minimumrequirements. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Collegerefuted the said contention and argued that all the patients were genuine.As this Court was in no position to determine the truth or otherwise ofthe allegations, an enquiry was directed to be conducted into thecorrectness of the statistics, reports and material placed before this Courtby the College along with the Writ Petition. For the said purpose, acommittee was constituted by this Court. A senior officer deputed by AB

C

DE

F

G

H

Athe Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), was directed tohead the Committee which would have two doctors of the All IndiaInstitute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) as its members. It is relevant tonote that in the said order dated 14[th] December, 2017 it was made clearthat the College may have to face prosecution under Section 193 of theIndian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) if the allegations made by RespondentBNo.2 were found to be correct. The decision to constitute a committeeby this Court was arrived at after a thorough examination of thevoluminous material placed on record by the College. The material wasconstituted of several photographs showing patients occupying the bedsand their case sheets. A bare perusal of the photographs did not convinceCus that the patients were genuine. After a close scrutiny of the casesheets, we had serious doubts about the necessity for admission of personssuffering from minor ailments as in-patients.

7. The students who were admitted in the College for the year2017-18 were directed to be adjusted in the other private medical collegesDin the State of Madhya Pradesh for the academic year 2018-19 by anorder passed by this Court on 3[rd] July, 2018. The students were directedto pay the fees to the colleges to which they are admitted. It wasmentioned in the said order dated 3[rd] July, 2018 that the entitlement ofthe students for refund of the fee paid for admission to the College shallbe adjudicated at the final hearing of the Writ Petition.

E

E

8. The Committee appointed by this Court on 14[th] December, 2017submitted its Report on 12[th] July, 2018. It was mentioned in the Reportinter alia, that the Committee visited the College on 29[th] January, 2018around 11.30 a.m. and found that the patient waiting area for OPDRegistration was totally empty. After visiting several wards in the hospital,Fthe Committee found that the attendance of patients was abysmally lowand the patients shown to be admitted in OPDs/ wards were not inconformity with the actual number of patients. It was further stated inthe Report that a scrutiny of the medical case files of the in-patientsshowed that their admission was not necessary. The case duty rostersGfor duty doctors as well as nurses were not available in the wards andthe junior doctors on duty were not able to identify and confirm who hadwritten the case notes/ progress notes on the case files.

9. The Committee collected the medical sheets of 435 patientswho were shown to have been admitted in the hospital on the date of theHinspection conducted on 25[th] & 26[th] September, 2017. The hard disk SARVEPALLI RADHAKRISHNAN UNIVERSITY v. UOI[L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.]

that was obtained from the hospital for verification of the details ofpatients who were admitted prior to 7[th] January, 2018 was edamined bythe CBI. It was found that the hard disk was empty and did not containany data. The conclusion of the Committee after a detailed enquiryrevealed the following:

A

“i. The petitioner college has claimed that 6 doctors namely,BDr. Ritesh Kumawat, Dr. MR Gaikwad, SB Petkar, Dr.Deepak Kaladagi, Dr. Jeetendra Gupta and Dr. RamBallabh Thakur couldn’t attend the MCI inspection on25.09.2017 as they were summoned by Court/Police inconnection with a motor accident case. However, suchCclaim was found to be incorrect.

ii. All of the six doctors namely, Dr. Ritesh Kumawat, Dr. MRGaikwad, SB Petkar, Dr. Deepak Kaladagi, Dr. JeetendraGupta, Dr. Ram Ballabh Thakur, when examined, deniedhaving received any notice from police regarding the motoraccident.

D

iii. Out of the 10 doctors (Sr. Residents/ Jr. Residents) whowere not counted by the assessors on the strength of thepetitioner college as faculty on the ground that they werenot residing in the college hostel, 9 doctors could becontacted, Examination of those 9 doctors revealed :

E

• 07 doctors confirmed during enquiry that they were notstaying in the hostel in the college campus and theythemselves had conveyed the MCI assessors in thisregard. It is mandatory to stay in hostel as per Assessor’sGuide issued by MCI for academic year 2018-19.

F

• The other two resident doctors, i.e. Dr. Meenal Parmarand Dr. Arpita Mishra, stated that they were staying inthe hostel but were not considered on the strength ofthe college by the MCI assessors.

G

iv. Out of the 8 resident doctors which petitioner college hadclaimed to be on night duty and so couldn’t appear beforeMCI assessors by 11 AM, enquiry revealed that:

• Out of the above mentioned 8 resident doctors, 6 doctorsstated that they were not on payroll of the petitioner H

Acollege on the day of inspection i.e. 25.09.2017. Even4 of those doctors had stated that they never joined thehospital.

• 1 doctor (Dr. Ritesh Kumawat) stated that he was notpresent on the day of the inspection, i.e. 25.09.2017.

B

• And another doctor Dr. Devyani Patel was present on25.09.2017 but she was rightly excluded by the MCIassessors as she couldn’t make her presence by 12 noon(which was mandated as per Assessor’s Guide).

v.The 3 doctors namely Dr. Priyank Jain, Dr. Manoj SahuCand Dr. Amit Jain, who were not treated as Sr. Residentdoctors by the MCI assessors doesn’t seem to be justifiableconsidering the fact that all three of them were treated asSr. Resident Doctors on earlier inspection on 05.01.2017.

vi. Two tutors who have been shown as present in theDassessment by the college had not attended the assessmentproceedings on 25.09.2017.

vii. Due to vague and incomplete type of the addressesmentioned in the record of the petitioner college, most ofthe patients could not be located as merely the names ofEthe colonies and sub areas have been found to bementioned on the patient case sheets. In theidentified 21patients, 8 are the employees/students of various RKDFinstitutions.

xiv. On the basis of the medical analysis of the case sheets ofFthe patients most doctors from AIIMS are of the similarview that it is doubtful that all these patients were actuallyadmitted and that too for such a long duration.

xv. Most of the doctors are also of the opinion that the rangeof cases shown to be admitted was grossly inadequate forGtraining of students.

xvi. The doctors were also of the opinion that in most of thecase sheets prescriptions, operative notes, etc.appears tohave been written by the same person in a veryunprofessional manner. Alsohistopathological reports areHvery sketchy and incomplete.

xvii.Dr. S.C. Sharma, Professor and HoD, ENT Department,AIIMS has examined 14 medical sheets of the patientsshown on bed in ENT Department of petitioner’s collegeon 25/25.09.2017. As per his opinion most of the patientsappear to be fictitious.

xviii. Dr. H.L. Nag, Professor, Orthopedics, AIIMS hasexamined 52 medical sheets of the patients shown on bedin Orthopedics Department of petitioner’s college on 25/26.09.2017. He held that majority of those cases couldhave been managed without hospital admissions.

xix.Dr. Naval Kishore Vikram, Professor General MedicineAIIMS has examined 97 medical patients of G e n e r a lMedicine and 12 patients of TB && Chest Departmentwho were shown to be on bed on 25/26.09.2017. He hasconcluded that it appears doubtful that those patients wereactually admitted in the hospital. Most of the patientsappear to be over treated by various medications,particularly antibiotics. He also held that most of the caseshad limited number of diagnosis which is grossly inadequatefor training of medical students.

xx. Dr. Pankaj Hari, Professor Paediatrics Department, AIIMShas examined 62 medical sheets of the patients shown onbed in Paediatrics Department of petitioner’s college on25/26.09.2017. He concluded that the admitted cases havelimited diagnosis which is quite inadequate for training ofstudents in a medical college. He also raised doubt overthe authenticity of those medical files.

xxi.Dr. Vinod K. Khetan, Professor, Department ofDermatology and Venerelogy, AIIMS, examined 10 medicalsheets of the patients shown on bed in Dermatologydepartment of petitioner’s college on 25/26.09.2017. Heraised serious doubts over the authenticity of patient beingactually admitted. He also opined that the range of casesadmitted and their work-up is grossly inadequate for thetraining of students.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

934SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Axxii. Dr. Namrata Sharma, Professor, Deptt. of Opt hal micSciences, AIIMS has concluded that in out of total 17 cases,admission of the 02 patients was required whereas in allother cases patient could have been managed under daycare OPD.

Bxxiii. Dr. Mamta Sood, Professor, Deptt. of Psychiatry, AIIMSexamined 08 medical sheets of the patients shown on bedin Psychiatry Department of petitioner’s college on 25[th] /26.09.2017. Though she mostly agreed that the treatmentshown to be given to the patients was appropriate, but sheopined that they didn’t require to be admitted.C

xxiv.Dr. Ongikla Bhutia, Professor, Division of OralMaxillofacil Surgery, AIIMS examined 11 medical sheetsof the patients shown on bed in Oral MaxillofacialSurgery Department of petitioner’s college on25/26.09.2017. The doctor opined that the diagnosisDappeared repetitive. Neither pre-operative radiography norpost operative radiography were found on record. Consentfrom for the surgery was also found to be absent in somecases.

xxv. Dr. Deepika Deka, Professor, Deptt. of Obstetrics andEGynaecology, AIIMS had examined 56 medical sheets ofthe patients shown on bed in Obstetrics and GynaecologyDepartment of petitioner’s college on 25/26.09.2017. Sheraiseddoubt whether actual surgery was performed or not.She also raised doubt over the genuineness of theFadmissions shown for those patients.

viii.Dr. Subodh Kumar, Professor, Deptt. of SurgicalDisciplines, AIIMS examined 96 medical sheets of thepatients on bed on 25/26.09.2017. He raised serious doubtover the genuineness of patients actually admitted. HeGalso held that spectrum of cases shown to be admitted wasgrossly inadequate for training of students.”

10. When the matter was listed on 5[th] December, 2018, Shri VivekTankha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the College, submittedthat the College intends to submit an apology for the lapses on their part.H

He requested us to give a quietus to this matter. He submitted that thereare students presently studying in the institution who would be affectedby any adverse order passed against the College.

11. It has been brought to our notice by the Respondent No.2-MCI that during the inspection conducted on 23[rd] & 24[th] February, 2015for the purpose of granting admission for the academic year 2014-15, itwas found that there were patients who were fake and others who hadbeen admitted without any significant illness. The MCI was constrainedto invoke Regulation 8(3)(1)(a)[2] and Regulation 8(3)(1)(d)[3] of the MCIRegulations in view of the College submitting forged/ fake documentsfor the purpose of showing compliance with the minimum requirements.

2 Regulation 8 (3)(1) The permission to establish a medical college and admit studentsmay be granted initially for a period of one year and may be renewed on yearly basissubject to verification of the achievements of annual targets. It shall be the responsibilityof the person to apply to the Medical Council of India for purpose of renewal [as perlatest time schedule] prior to the expiry of the initial permission. This process ofrenewal of permission will continue till such time the establishment of the medicalcollege and expansion of the hospital facilities are completed and a formal recognitionof the medical college is granted. Further admissions shall not be made at any stageunless the requirements of the Council are fulfilled. The Central Government may atany stage convey the deficiencies to the applicant and provide him an opportunity andtime to rectify the deficiencies.

(a) Colleges in the stage of Letter of Permission upto II renewal (i.e. Admissionof third batch):

[If it is observed during any inspection/assessment of the institute that the deficiencyof teaching faculty and/or Residents is more than 30% and/or bed occupancy is < 50%(45% in North East, Hilly Terrain, etc.), compliance of rectification of deficienciesfrom such an institute will not be considered for issue of Letter of Permission (LOP)/renewal of permission in that Academic Year.]

3 Regulation 8(3)(1)(d) Colleges which are found to have employed teacherswith faked / forged documents:

If it is observed that any institute is found to have employed a teacher with faked /forged documents and have submitted the Declaration Form of such a teacher, such aninstitute will not be considered for renewal of permission / recognition for award ofM.B.B.S. degree / processing the applications for postgraduate courses for two AcademicYears – i.e. that Academic Year and the next Academic Year also.

[However, the office of the Council shall ensure that such inspections are not carriedout at least 2 days before and 2 days after important religious and festival holidaysdeclared by the Central/State Govt.]

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AA complaint was made by Dr. A.K. Banerjee, Ex-Associate Professorof Surgery of the College on 25[th] March, 2015 alleging that more than50% of the doctors who were shown as full-time Faculty Memberswere full-time private practitioners. Dr. Paresh Ruparel who was shownas a Professor of Surgery in the College was working as a surgeon atV.S. Hospital affiliated to MHL Medial College, Ahmedabad and wasBalso running a private hospital. Dr Ruparel was referred to EthicsCommittee and he was suitably dealt with for misdemeanor. Withoutdelving deep into the details of the Report submitted by the Committee,it is clear that the College is guilty of practicing fraud on this Court. Theconduct of the College administration in indulging in manipulations andChoodwinking the authorities to project compliance of the requisiteminimum standards for admission of students does not deserve to becondoned. The impunity with which the College has manufactured recordsto convince us that they were being unnecessarily hounded by the MCIin spite of their compliance with the required standards is deprecated.

The brazen attempt by the College in taking this Court for a ride byDplacing on record maneuvered documents to obtain a favourable orderis a clear-cut act of deceit. The justification given by the College regardingthe absence of certain residents has turned out to be a concocted story.Had we not initiated an enquiry by the Committee of Experts, the fraudplayed by the College on this Court would not have come to light. It isEtrite that every litigant has to approach the Court with clean hands. Alitigant who indulges in suppression of facts and misrepresentation is notentitled for any relief. The conduct of the College in this case to misleadthis Court for the purpose of getting a favourable order is reprehensibleand the College deserves to be dealt with suitably.F12. In Re. Suo Motu Proceedings against R. Karuppan,Advocate[4], this Court observed as under:

“13. Courts are entrusted with the powers of dispensationand adjudication of justice of the rival claims of the partiesbesides determining the criminal liability of the offenders forGoffences committed against the society. The courts are furtherexpected to do justice quickly and impartially not being biasedby any extraneous considerations. Justice dispensation systemwould be wrecked if statutory restrictions are not imposedupon the litigants, who attempt to mislead the court by filing 4 (2001) 5 SCC 289H

SARVEPALLI RADHAKRISHNAN UNIVERSITY v. UOI[L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.]

and relying upon false evidence particularly in cases, theadjudication of which is dependent upon the statement of facts.If the result of the proceedings are to be respected, these issuesbefore the courts must be resolved to the extent possible inaccordance with the truth. The purity of proceedings of thecourt cannot be permitted to be sullied by a party on frivolous,vexatious or insufficient grounds or relying upon falseevidence inspired by extraneous considerations or revengefuldesire to harass or spite his opponent. Sanctity of the affidavitshas to be preserved and protected discouraging the filing ofirresponsible statements, without any regard to accuracy.”

In Mohan Singh v. Amar Singh[5] case, it was observed by this Court :

“36. …Tampering with the record of judicial proceedings andfiling of false affidavit in a court of law has the tendency ofcausing obstruction in the due course of justice. It underminesand obstructs free flow of the unsoiled stream of justice andaims at striking a blow at the rule of law. The stream of justicehas to be kept clear and pure and no one can be permitted totake liberties with it by soiling its purity.”

13. In the affidavit filed along with the Writ Petition, Mr. S.S.Kushwaha, Dean of the R.K.D.F. Medical College Hospital and ResearchCentre stated that the contents in the Writ Petition are true and correctto the best of his knowledge and belief. According to the College, theAssessment Report pursuant to the inspection conducted on 25[th] and26[th] September, 2017 was unfair as the justification for the absence ofsix members of the faculty was not accepted. The averment in the WritPetition is to the effect that the said six doctors who had received summonsfrom the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bairagarh were at the police station at11 a.m. on 25[th] September, 2017 in connection with the complaint relatingto a motor accident case. The Committee enquired into the correctnessof the claim made by the College regarding the absence of the six facultymembers. Mr. Mohan Sharma, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police ofBairagarh Police Station stated that there was no such notice issued forsummoning the six doctors to the police station. On further enquiry, thesix doctors namely Dr. Ritesh Kumawat, Dr. MR Gaikwad, SB Petkar, AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

ADr. Deepak Kaladagi, Dr. Jeetendra Gupta and Dr. Ram Ballabh Thakurdenied having received any notice from the police station. Dr. RiteshKumawat further denied having filed any complaint regarding the motoraccident. On the basis of the above findings of the Committee, it is clearthat a false statement has been made by the College on the basis of afabricated document. It was averred in the Writ Petition by the CollegeBthat there were 365 patients in the hospital at the time of inspection on25[th] September, 2017 but the inspection team recorded that there wereonly seven patients available. In support of the submission, reliance wasplaced on the computerized data of the Medical Records Department.The hard disk that was collected by the Committee to study the detailsCof the patients who were admitted in the hospital prior to January, 2018turned out to be empty and no data could be retrieved. The assertionmade by the College regarding the genuineness of the patients in thehospital turned out to be false in the enquiry conducted by the Committee.The Committee had serious doubts whether the patients were actuallyadmitted. Most of the case sheets, prescriptions, operative notes, etc.Dappeared to be written by the same person in a very unprofessionalmanner. The histopathological reports were found to be sketchy andincomplete. On a thorough examination of the case sheets, the expertsfrom AIIMS opined that admission of the patients was unnecessary in anumber of cases. In view of the fake and incomplete addressesEmentioned in the records of the hospital, most of the patients could notbe located. Only 21 patients were identified and 8 out of these turnedout to be employees/ students of the College. All this goes to show thatthe College has indulged in large scale malpractices in showing complianceof the minimum required standards to obtain permission for admission ofstudents. The College further tried to mislead this Court that it is compliantFin all respects, to get permission for the admission of students.

14. The brazen manner in which the College has indulged in relyingupon manipulated records to mislead this Court for the purpose of gettingfavourable order deserves to be dealt with in a serious manner. We findthat this is a fit case where Mr. S.S. Kushwaha, Dean of the CollegeGmust be held liable for prosecution under Section 193 IPC.

15. There have been instances of errant medical colleges makingadmissions to the medical courses without obtaining the requisitepermission. This Court came down heavily on such deviant colleges byimposing penalties for the illegalities committed by them in the matter ofH

admission and for putting the students’ future in jeopardy.[6] We havenoticed a disturbing trend of some medical colleges in projecting fakefaculty and patients for obtaining permission for admission of students.The Committee exposes the evil design of the College in resorting todeceitful methods to cheat the authorities concerned and this Court tosecure permission for admission of students. Apart from the prosecutionof the Dean, the College is liable to be suitably punished for committingperjury.

16. We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the apologyoffered on behalf of the College. The College has been habitually indulgingin foul play which is clear from the course of events in 2015 when facultymembers were found to have been working elsewhere and runninghospitals. The bravado shown by the College in an attempt to cheat theMCI, the Government and this Court has to be condemned. TheCommittee constituted by this Court is due to the vehemence with whichthe Counsels appearing for the College were trying to convince us thatthey are fully compliant with all the requirements. “Apology is an act ofcontrition. Unless apology is offered at the earliest opportunity and ingood grace, the apology is shorn of penitence and hence it is liable to berejected. If the apology is offered at the time when the contemnor findsthat the court is going to impose punishment it ceases to be an apologyand becomes an act of a cringing coward.[7]”

17. The students who were admitted in the 1[st] Year MBBS Coursein the College for the academic year 2017-18 were duly cautioned andinformed that their admission was purely provisional and they cannotclaim any equity if the College was later on found to be deficient. Theyhave been directed to be admitted in other colleges for the years 2018-19. In the process, students have lost a precious academic year. However,they are entitled for the refund of the fee collected from them foradmission to the College.

18. For the aforementioned reasons, we pass the following order:

(i) Mr. S.S. Kushwaha, Dean of the R.K.D.F. Medical CollegeHospital and Research Centre i.e. Petitioner No.2-herein is liable forprosecution under Section 193 IPC. The Secretary General of this Court 6 (2015) 4 SCC 580 ¶ 45.6 -Medical Council of India v. M.G.R. Educational & ResearchInstitute University and (2016) 11 SCC 530 ¶31, 31.2 & 31.4 – Medical Council ofIndia v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS)

7 T N Godavarman Thirumalpad (102) v. Ashok Khot and Anr. (2006) 5 SCC 1 atPara 31

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ais directed to depute an Officer to initiate the prosecution in a competentCourt having jurisdiction at Delhi.

(ii) The College is barred from making admissions for the 1[st] YearMBBS course for the next two years i.e. 2018-19 and 2019-2020.

(iii) A penalty of Rs. Five Crores is imposed on the College forBplaying fraud on this Court. The amount may be paid to the account ofthe Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.

(iv) The students are entitled to receive the refund of fee paid bythem for admission to the College for the academic year 2017-19. Inaddition, the College is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. One LakhCto the said students.

19. The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly.

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 731 OF 2018:

The Writ Petition is hereby dismissed in terms of the aboveDjudgment.

Ankit Gyan

Writ Petitions dismissed.

E

F

G

H