Penal Code, 1860 – s.193 – False Evidence – False statement made before the Court on the basis of a fabricated document – Petitioner No.2- College was permitted by the respondents to admit MBBS students – There were recurring lapses on the part of the petitioner no.2- college to meet the requisite minimum standards for admission of MBBS students – Consequently, respondents cancelled the admission of students for the academic year 2017-18 and directed College to discharge all the students – Writ petition before the Supreme Court – Respondents contended that the College was indulging in fraud by showing persons who were not sick as patients to show compliance of the minimum requirements – On the other hand, College placed records and contended that they were being unnecessarily troubled by the respondents in spite of their compliance with required standards to admit MBBS students – A committee 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: Apology cannot be accepted – On the basis of the findings of the Committee, it was clear that a false statement was made by the College on the basis of a fabricated document – Assertion made by the College regarding the genuineness of the patients in the hospital turned out to be false in the enquiry conducted by the Committee – There were fake and incomplete addresses of the patients, in the records of the hospital – Only 21 patients were identified and out of these 8 turned out to be employees/students of the College – Further, faculty members were found working elsewhere and running hospitals – It was clear that the College was guilty of practicing fraud on the Court – College administration indulged in manipulations and deceived the authorities to project compliance of 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 clean hands – A litigant who indulges in suppression of facts and misrepresentation is not entitled for any relief – Thus, Dean of the College liable for prosecution u/s.193 of IPC and the College liable to be punished for committing perjury – Establishment of Medical College 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 purpose of showing compliance with minimum requirements – Petitioner No.2College was permitted to admit MBBS students for the academic year 2014-15 – However, for subsequent academic years i.e. 201516, 2016-17 and 2017-18, the respondents found serious deficiencies in the Assessment Report of College – There were various rounds of litigations between the petitioner-College and the respondents – Finally, respondents cancelled the admission of students for the academic year 2017-18 and directed College to discharge all the students – Writ petition before the Supreme Court – College placed records and contended that they were being unnecessarily troubled by the respondents in spite of their compliance with required standards to admit students for MBBS course – Held: College relied upon manipulated records to mislead the Supreme Court for the purpose of getting favourable order – College has been habitually indulging in foul play which is clear from the course of events in 2015, when faculty members were found to have been working elsewhere and running hospitals – There were fake and incomplete addresses of the patients, in the records of the hospital – College indulged in large scale malpractices in showing compliance of the minimum required standards to obtain permission for admission of students – Thus, College barred from making admissions for the year 1st year MBBS course for the next two years i.e. 2018-19 and 2019-20 – Further, a penalty of Rs. Five Crores imposed on the College for playing fraud on the Court – Insofar as the students who were admitted in the College for the academic year 2017-18 are concerned, they were duly cautioned and informed that their admission was purely provisional and they cannot claim any equity if the College was later on found to be deficient – By an earlier order of the Supreme Court, they were directed to be adjusted in other medical Colleges for the year 2018-19 – However, they are entitled for refund of the fee collected from them for admission to the College – Penalty – Equity.
Dismissing the Writ petitions,
HELD: 1. On the basis of the findings of the Committee, it is clear that a false statement has been made by the College on the basis of a fabricated document. It was averred in the Writ Petition by the College that there were 365 patients in the hospital at the time of inspection on 25 th September, 2017 but the inspection team recorded that there were only seven patients available. In support of the submission, reliance was placed on the computerized data of the Medical Records Department. The hard disk that was collected by the Committee to study the details of the patients who were admitted in the hospital prior to January, 2018 turned out to be empty and no data could be retrieved. The assertion made by the College regarding the genuineness of the patients in the hospital turned out to be false in the enquiry conducted by the Committee. The Committee had serious doubts whether the patients were actually admitted. Most of the case sheets, prescriptions, operative notes, etc. appeared to be written by the same person in a very unprofessional manner. The histopathological reports were found to be sketchy and incomplete. On a thorough examination of the case sheets, the experts from AIIMS opined that admission of the patients was unnecessary in a number of cases. In view of the fake and incomplete addresses mentioned in the records of the hospital, most of the patients could not be located. Only 21 patients were identified and 8 out of these turned out to be employees/ students of the College. All this goes to show that the College has indulged in large scale malpractices in showing compliance of the minimum required standards to obtain permission for admission of students. The College further tried to mislead this Court that it is compliant in all respects, to get permission for the admission of students. [Para 13][938-B-F]
2. The brazen manner in which the College has indulged in relying upon manipulated records to mislead this Court for the purpose of getting favourable order deserves to be dealt with in a serious manner. This Court find that this is a fit case where, Dean of the College must be held liable for prosecution under Section 193 of Indian Penal Code. [Para 14][938-G-H]
3. There have been instances of errant medical colleges making admissions to the medical courses without obtaining the requisite permission. This Court came down heavily on such deviant colleges by imposing penalties for the illegalities committed by them in the matter of admission and for putting the students’ future in jeopardy. The Committee exposes the evil design of the College in resorting to deceitful methods to cheat the authorities concerned and this Court to secure permission for admission of students. Apart from the prosecution of the Dean, the College is liable to be suitably punished for committing perjury. A penalty of Rs. Five Crores is imposed on the College for playing fraud on this Court. The amount may be paid to the account of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. [Paras 15, 18][938-G-H; 939-A-B; 940-B]
4. This Court cannot accept the apology offered on behalf of the College. The College has been habitually indulging in foul play which is clear from the course of events in 2015 when faculty members were found to have been working elsewhere and running hospitals. The bravado shown by the College in an attempt to cheat the MCI, the Government and this Court has to be condemned. [Para 16][939-C]
5. The students who were admitted in the 1st Year MBBS Course in the College for the academic year 2017-18 were duly cautioned and informed that their admission was purely provisional and they cannot claim any equity if the College was later on found to be deficient. They have 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 for admission to the College. [Para 17][939-E-F]
6. For the aforementioned reasons, the following order is passed:
(i) Dean of the Medical College Hospital and Research Centre i.e. Petitioner No.2-herein is liable for prosecution under Section 193 IPC. The Secretary General of this Court is directed to depute an Officer to initiate the prosecution in a competent Court having jurisdiction at Delhi.
(ii) The College is barred from making admissions for the 1st Year MBBS 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 for playing fraud on this Court. The amount may be paid to the account of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
(iv) The students are entitled to receive the refund of fee paid by them for admission to the College for the academic year 2017-19. In addition, the College is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. One Lakh to the said students. [Para 18][939-G; 940-A-C]
In Re. Suo Motu Proceedings against R. Karuppan, Advocate (2001) 5 SCC 289 : [2001] 3 SCR 750; Mohan Singh v. Amar Singh (1998) 6 SCC 686 : [1998]1 Suppl. 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. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) (2016) 11 SCC
530 : [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.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.