Right to establish educational institutions not absolute, can be regulated: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that the right to establish an educational institution can be regulated to ensure the maintenance of proper academic standards, atmosphere and infrastructure and prevention of maladministration [Dental Council of India v Biyani Shikshan Samiti & Anr.]..A Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai observed thus while upholding a notification by which Regulation 6(2)(h) of the Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or Higher Course of Studies or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, was amended"The impugned notification, undoubtedly, is made in order to ensure the maintenance of proper academic standards and infrastructure," the judgment stated.The top court opined that the notification is supported by the decision of an eleven-judge Constitution Bench judgment in TMA Pai Foundation & Ors. v State of Karnataka & Ors especially since it was issued to maintain proper academic standards and infrastructure. "It can thus clearly be seen that the Constitution Bench itself has held that the right to establish an educational institution can be regulated. However, such regulatory measures must, in general, be to ensure the maintenance of proper academic standards, atmosphere and infrastructure and the prevention of maladministration," the apex court noted in its judgement. .The Supreme Court was considering an appeal moved by the Dental Council of India against a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court which had struck down a notification issued by it as being unconstitutional. .The notification, issued in May 2012, said that any person/institute who wants to establish dental college must attach it with an existing government or private medical college recognised or approved by the Medical Council of India. It also stipulated that the attached institute shall be only one in number and within 10 kilometers from the proposed dental college.Prior to this notification, under the unamended Regulation 6(2)(h), an applicant was entitled to apply if he/she/it owned and managed a general hospital of not less than 100 beds.The High Court struck down the 2012 notification on the on the grounds that it was violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and beyond the scope of the powers of the council to make delegated legislation under Section 10A(7) of the Dentists Act.The Court also noted that prior to the notification, dental colleges were being allowed to run without being attached to any government-approved medical college, but for those dental colleges established after the notification, they must be compulsorily attached to one. Therefore, it struck down the same on the ground that it violated Article 14 of the Constitution as well. .While considering the appeal against the High Court judgment, the Supreme Court observed that the Council amended the Regulations as per Section 10A(g), which is a residual clause giving power to the Council to lay down factors for consideration while establishing an institution. Further, it found that as per Section 20(2)(fb), the Council has the power to amend the regulation and put down new conditions for establishing an institution.The Court also opined that the institutions formed before and after the notification do form separate classes and therefore, differential treatment would not violate Article 14. Further, the Court held that since the amended regulation serves an objective that is constitutional and legitimate, it cannot be said to be manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional. "The object to be achieved is to provide adequate teaching and training facilities to the students. If in the wisdom of the expert body, this can be done by attaching a Dental College to the already existing Medical College, it cannot be faulted with," the Supreme Court held.Regarding, the non-attachment of more than one dental college to a private/government medical college, the apex court observed that if more than one Dental College is permitted to be attached, it will lead to overcrowding of students in the Medical College.The Court also made some observations regarding the role of the judiciary while considering challenges to the decisions of the legislature ."It has been held that it is not permissible for the court to sit in judgment over the wisdom and effectiveness or otherwise of the policy laid down by the regulation making body and declare a regulation to be ultra vires merely on the ground that, in the view of the Court, the impugned provisions will not help to serve the object and purpose of the Act," the judgment said.Therefore, the division bench of the High Court erred in substituting its wisdom with that of the rule making body, which is an expert body."We are, therefore, of the considered view that it was not permissible for the Division Bench of the High Court to enter into an area of experts and hold that the unamended provisions ought to have been preferred over the amended provisions," the top court opined. It also observed that the High Court should not have admitted the writ petition as the same petition was earlier filed before a single-judge and rejected. .The top court, therefore, allowed the appeal and quashed the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court..Advocate Gaurav Sharma appeared for the appellant while advocate Shobha Gupta and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the respondents. .[Read Judgment]