Symbiosis Law School, Pune

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - II.

(Internal No 1.) – IRAC Case Analysis.

CASE: Medical Council Of India v. State of Kerela. AIR 2018 SC 5041

Submitted To:
Prof. Amir Ali
Prof. Abhinav Shrivastava
Dr. Dhanaji Jadhav

Submitted By,
Dhruva Bhave: 21010122001
Course: 2nd year LLB, SEM- 3.

Medical Council Of India v. State of Kerela. AIR 2018 SC 5041

CONTENTS
FACTS OF THE CASE:............................................................................................................3
ISSUES INVOLVED:................................................................................................................4
RULES:......................................................................................................................................5
CRITICAL ANALYSIS:...........................................................................................................5
Conclusion:................................................................................................................................7
REFERENCES:..........................................................................................................................8
FACTS OF THE CASE:

~BACKGROUND~
1. The Supreme Court in Sankalp Charitable Trust v.Union of India and Ors1had
passed orders directing the colleges admitting students for M.B.B.S./ B.D.S.
courses to follow the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (hereinafter
referred to as NEET).
2. The Admission Supervisory Committee (hereinafter referred to as ASC) had
also issued several directions to all the professional colleges in the State of
Kerela to conduct the admission process in compliance of the orders of
Supreme Court as given in Sankalp Charitable Trust2.
3. The Government of Kerala vide order dated 23/8/2016 directed all the medical
colleges to admit only those students who were selected through common
counselling.
4. The Kerela High Court issued interim directions in a writ petition challenging
order dated 23/8/2016, that the admissions in the M.B.B.S. course shall be as
per marks obtained in NEET 2016 examination and that all such applications
shall be made online to maintain and facilitate transparency of merit and
identities of students.
5. The ASC after taking cognizance of the various complaints received by it,
issued directions to the private medical colleges in Kerala to comply with the
directions issued by it. It was further mentioned that any student whose
admission found to be in contravention of these directions shall not be
registered with the Kerala University of Health Sciences (KUHS).
6. The ASC passed the orders with regard to the prospectus submitted by Kannur
and Karuna Medical Colleges approving the prospectus subject to the
exception that reservation of seats under the management quota for the
dependents of various trust associations was unsustainable in law and could
not be applied while admitting the students against which the said medical
colleges filed writ petitions.

1
MANU/SC/0479/2016
2
Ibid 1
 7. The ASC observed that the explanation submitted by Kannur and Karuna
Medical colleges was found to be unsatisfactory. They decided to revise the
approval of prospectus and issued a revised admission schedule.
8. Subsequently the ASC conducted enquiries into the admission processes of
both these colleges and passed orders cancelling the admissions not in
compliance of the directions issued by ASC. The High Court of Kerela
approved the decision of the ASC in respect of de-reservation of the
management quota seats reserved for the dependants of various Trust’s
associations.
9. Inspite of continuous orders and directions passed by the ASC and affirmed by
the High Court of Kerela, Kannur and Karuna medical colleges admitted 150
and 30 students respectively by unfair, arbitrary and illegal means.
10. Subsequently, the matter was put an end to by the Supreme Court by directing
the 30 students of Karuna Medical college to be adjusted in the following
academic session i.e., 2017-18.
11. After the aforesaid matter was set at rest by the judgment of the Supreme
Court, the State Government notified the impugned Ordinance on 20/10/2017
- THE KERALA PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES (REGULARISATION OF
ADMISSION IN MEDICAL COLLEGES) ORDINANCE, 2017) whereby
admission of the students who were illegally admitted in the M.B.B.S. course
in the year 2016-17 in the said medical colleges, were sought to be
regularised.

ISSUES INVOLVED:

I. WHETHER THE STATE OF KERALA IS COMPETENT ENOUGH TO PROMULGATE THE

KERALA PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES (REGULARISATION OF ADMISSION IN MEDICAL
COLLEGES) ORDINANCE, 2017 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "THE
ORDINANCE") NOTIFIED ON 20.10.2017, WHICH IS INTENDED TO NULLIFY
JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS OF THIS COURT AND ENCROACHES UPON THE POWER OF
THE JUDICIARY.
RULES:

Articles 14, clause 4 of article 15, Article 123, Article 213, Article 50 of Indian Constituion

CRITICAL ANALYSIS:

1. The doctrine of separation of powers implies that each pillar of democracy – the
executive, legislature and the judiciary – perform separate functions and act as
separate entities.
2. The executive is vested with the power to make policy decisions and implement laws. 
The legislature is empowered to issue enactments.  The judiciary is responsible for
adjudicating disputes. Thereby, the court is the final authority to declare and interpret
law, and it is not open to the legislature to simply brush aside findings of a court of
law.
3. Articles 123 and 213 of the Constitution of India confer the Ordinance-making power
in the hands of the President and Governor respectively when both the houses of
Parliament are not in session and the Head of the State is satisfied that such
circumstances exist which require the ordinance as an immediate action.
4. It is not right on part of the legislature to directly annul a judgment of a court other
than altering the very basis of such earlier decision.3
5. It is also common knowledge that a person or group of people cannot have their rights
and obligations revoked under a decision by a subsequent legislative act. In other
words, under the Constitution, ‘no Legislature has the power to abrogate civil courts'
decrees, orders or judicial adjudications by simply declaring under a law it
promulgates, that such decrees, orders or adjudications are no longer valid or binding
on the parties for such power of declaration would be a judicial function which cannot
be encroached upon by a Legislature.’
6. The power of Judicial Review is vested in the courts and they have to exercise it in
situations where there is an overstepping of power by the Parliament or the Executive
in their duties.
7. The current case explores the situation of nullifying the judgement of the Kerala High
Court by promulgation of an Ordinance regularising illegal admissions in M.B.B.S.
course.
3
S.T. Sadiq Vs. State of Kerala and Ors. (2015) 4 SCC 400
 8. A legislation that nullifies judicial verdict is a stepping stone towards Lawlessness.
The leading decision was in the case of Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal Case 4.
The Karnataka State passed the "Karnataka Cauvery Basin Irrigation Protection
Ordinance," which was unconstitutional. The Inter-state Water Disputes Act, 1956's
jurisdiction over the Tribunal was refuted by this Ordinance, which also revoked the
Tribunal's interim order. This Ordinance, according to the Supreme Court, violated
the fundamental principles of the rule of law. The Karnataka State by way of issuing
this ordinance sought out to take law into its own hands.
9. In the current case, the apex court has severely criticised the act of the state legislature
in passing an ordinance to overturn the decision of the apex court. What has been
done by the impugned Ordinance by the State Government is clearly entrenching
upon the field of judicial review and it was obviously misadventure resorted to5.
10. The State Government was not at all permitted to issue the Ordinance or pass
legislation on the subject. In addition to the court's order being overturned and the
obvious arbitrariness in admissions, the High Court of Kerala's ruling that
applications should be considered even if they were submitted online has also been
overturned. It was obviously an attempt to overturn the decision, which is against the
law and a violation of the judiciary's jurisdiction.
11. In Janapada Sabha Chhindwara case6, ‘It is open to the Legislature within certain
limits to amend the provisions of an Act retrospectively and to declare what the law
shall be deemed to have been, but it is not open to the legislature to say that the
interpretation of the law shall be otherwise than as declared by the Court.7’
12. The separation of powers between the legislative, executive branch, and judiciary is
only a natural outgrowth of the values established in Article 14 of the Indian
Constitution. Accordingly, a violation of the separation of powers in the judiciary
could negate the concept of equality under Article 14. In other words, since a
violation of the separation of powers negates equality under Article 14 of the
Constitution, a law may be declared unlawful on that basis.
13. The regularisation of admission via the ordinance is a blatant attempt against the
decisions of the superior courts. Thus, when the Supreme Court has upheld the order

4
AIR 1992 SC 522
5
Ibid 1, para 21.
6
MANU/SC/0398/1970
7
 dated 14.11.2016 on the grounds of illegality, irregularities and not following the due
procedure, such admissions cannot be made to be regularised at all.
14. If such a power of covering up illegal action is given to the State Government in
individual cases of the two colleges, it would send a message to people that every
judgment can be annulled and illegal actions may be regularised by misusing the
ordinance making power of the head of the state i.e., Governor or President.
15. It is also obvious that what the State Government has done through the debatable
Ordinance is not only unlawful and outside the purview of legislative authority, but it
also has the unintended consequence of perpetuating the illegality and arbitrariness
committed by the contested colleges by ignoring the legal requirements established by
the High Court and upheld by this Court. In an illegal and improper manner for which
the State Government lacked authority, an attempt has been made to conceal the
arbitrariness and illegality. In addition to being unconstitutional and arbitrary, the
restrictions created by the Ordinance also violate the theory of the separation of
powers as stated in Article 50 of the Indian Constitution.

CONCLUSION:

By modifying the legislation in order to add new provisions that were not previously present
rather than to make repairs or remove anomalies, the Legislature cannot render null and void
the rulings that have already been made. The legislature may be able to change the judicial
pronouncement's foundation or rationale, but it does not have the authority to reverse or set
aside the judgment—and certainly not retroactively by adding a new provision. The
mandamus issued by the court binds the legislature.

The judiciary and the legislature exercise jurisdiction in different domains. But, as observed
by Chief Justice Chandrachud in AK Roy Vs. Union of India 8  ‘Our constitution does not
follow the American pattern of strict separation of powers.’ That is why the legislatures in
India could ‘enact a fresh law with retrospective effect to alter the foundation and meaning
of the legislation and to remove the base on which the judgment is founded’ as held
in Cheviti Venkanna Yadav Vs. State of Telangana9.

8
AIR 1982 SC 710
9
AIR 2016 SC 4982
REFERENCES:

56th Edition, Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, Central Law Agency, 2019.