- In Dental Council of India vs. Biyani Shikshan Samiti (2022), Justices L Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai observed that to guarantee that suitable academic standards, atmosphere, and infrastructure are maintained, the liberty to establish an educational institution can be regulated. Additionally, Regulation 6(2)(h) of the Dental Council of India Regulations, 2006, was upheld.
- In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court overturned the HC judgment that struck down the amended Regulation 6(2)(h). An applicant was eligible to apply if they owned and operated a General Hospital with at least 100 beds under the unamended Regulation 6(2)(h). However, after this regulation's amendment, it is mandatory for the applicant to attach their prospective Dental College to any Medical College approved via the Medical Council of India and is located within 30 kilometres of the proposed Dental College by road.
- The amended Regulation 6(2)(h) violated Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution and was beyond the scope of the Council's powers to make delegated legislation as provided in the Dentists Act's subsection (7) of Section 10A. Furthermore, it violated Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, so the HC struck it down.
- Article 14 of the Constitution provides for Equality before the law.
- Article 19(1)(g) talks about the right to regulate and establish an educational institution to guarantee proper academic standards and infrastructure and prevent maladministration.
- Regulation 6(2)(h) of DCI Regulations, 2006 talks about providing sufficient teaching and training facilities to the students.
- Section 10A of the Dentists Act, 1948 states that the Council is authorized to make Regulations suggesting any other conditions that are not mentioned in clauses (a) to (f) of sub section (7) of Section 10A of the Act.
- In a relevant case, Dental Council of India vs. Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust and Another, (2001) 5 SCC 486, the respondent-Trust had indisputably received clearance from the Central Government to build a Dental College. The dispute centred on whether students' strength should be 100, as the Trust argued, or 60, as the DCI contended.
- In another relevant case, T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others vs. State of Karnataka and others (2002) 8 SCC 481, the Constitution Bench had observed that the right to establish an educational institution can be regulated.
- The Hon'ble SC, while disagreeing with the HC judgment, ruled that the amended Regulation 6(2)(h) is closely connected to the purpose of providing sufficient teaching and training facilities to students and hence cannot be considered to be blatantly arbitrary for the Court to intervene. Additionally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court argued that the HC lacked authority to overturn the amendment.
- In reference to the aforementioned cases, the Apex Court held that regulatory measures must guarantee the maintenance of suitable academic standards, atmosphere, and infrastructure and the mitigation of maladministration. Furthermore, it stated that the impugned Notification was established to ensure the same. As a result, the Council's case was approved by the Supreme Court.
- Therefore, the appeal against the Rajasthan HC judgment was allowed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
"Loved reading this piece by Sharmishta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
