SC Imposes a Cost of Rs. 10,00,000 on NMC and says, “NMC is an organ of the State and is expected to act in a fair and reasonable manner”

Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) of India was hearing an appeal filed by the National Medical Commission (NMC) challenging the Kerala High Court’s decision that allowed the KMCT Medical College to increase the number of seats from 150 to 250 for the academic year 2023-24, upon filing an undertaking. The bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan disapproved of the NMC’s challenge and imposed a cost of Rs. 10,00,000. While imposing the cost the SC said that the NMC, being an organ of the state, should act reasonably and fairly. The operative part of the order reads, “Prima facie, we find that the attitude of the NMC is not of a model litigant. The NMC is an organ of the State and is expected to act in a fair and reasonable manner. Making a party run from Court to Court to seek permission, specifically when the institute concerned is not a new institute and has been running for the last 18 years, in our view, is only an attempt to harass the institution.”

In this case, Senior Advocate Gaurav Sharma, appeared for the NMC, assisted by Advocate Prateek Bhatia, Advocate Dhawal Mohan, Advocate Paranja Tripathi, Advocate Rajesh Raj, and Advocate Ankita Dogra. Senior Advocate Maninder Singh represented the Medical College, assisted by Advocate Aswathu MK, and Advocate Niraj Bobby Paonam. During the proceedings, it was noted that initially a Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB) approved the KMCT medical college to increase its seat. However, this year in April, the approval was withdrawn. Further, as per the letter of disapproval dated June 29, 2024, the MARB granted disapproval to the college highlighting 2 reasons, “(i) COA is not submitted and (ii) the matter is sub judice in the Court.” 

The SC, in its order, said, “We find that merely because the matter is sub judice in Court could not have been the ground of disapproval of the proposal. If the National Medical Council (for short ‘NMC’) had any doubts, it could have clearly approached the Court concerned and sought clarification.” It added, “Insofar as the second ground is concerned, the perusal of the impugned order would reveal that a consent of affiliation (COA) has admittedly been granted in favor of the respondent-Medical College on 12.08.2024.” During the hearing, Senior Advocate Sharma submitted, “The grant of permission has to be considered on an annual basis…earlier disapproval was for the academic year 2023-2024, whereas in the present year, we are concerned with the academic year 2024-2025.” He added, “there is no inspection insofar as the academic year 2024-2025 is concerned and, therefore, the High Court was not justified in passing the order which is challenged before this Court.”

After hearing the matter, the SC bench said that the attitude of the NMC is not of a model litigant. It added that making a party run from Court to Court to seek permission, despite the fact that the concerned institute has been running for the last 18 years, is only an attempt to harass the institution. Lastly, the SC ordered, “The present special leave petitions are an abuse of the process of law and, therefore, dismissed with cost quantified at Rs.10,00,000/- to be paid within four weeks from the date of this order.” It added that the cost of Rs.5,00,000/- should be deposited in the SC Advocates-on-Record Association to be used for the purpose of the Library and the cost of Rs.5,00,000/- should be deposited with the Supreme Court Bar Association Advocates Welfare Fund.