Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Dr. Ashok Sinha, filed a public interest litigation before the High Court of Tripura challenging the admission procedure and fees charged by the Tripura Medical College and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Teaching Hospital. The High Court had earlier directed the State government to either reconstitute the managing committee or retain control with consequences. Pursuant to that, the State reconstituted the Society for the college with its own recruitment rules and pay structure. The appellant filed a fresh PIL alleging that nothing had changed, seeking parity with other government medical colleges. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on 24 June 2016. The Supreme Court, in appeal, noted that the High Court had correctly not issued a mandamus to run the college as a government institution, as it pertains to policy. The State had adopted a hybrid model with a society having government nominees and non-governmental representatives. The Court held that it is not appropriate to interfere with such policy decisions under Article 226. Regarding fees, the Court stated that any grievance can be raised before the regulatory committee. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Policy Decision - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court held that it is a matter of policy for the State government to determine the manner of running a medical college, and the High Court cannot direct the State to run it as a government institution or hand it over to the private sector. The hybrid model adopted by the State is not amenable to judicial review (Paras 3-5).
B) Medical Education - Fee Regulation - Regulatory Committee - The court observed that any grievance regarding fees charged from students can be considered by the regulatory committee constituted in the State, and without underlying material, the court cannot determine the reasonableness of fees (Para 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should have directed the State government to run the Tripura Medical College as a government institution or to interfere with the fee structure and admission procedure.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the policy decision of the State to run the college through a society is not subject to judicial review. Any grievance regarding fees can be raised before the regulatory committee.
Law Points
- Judicial review of policy decisions
- Scope of Article 226
- Hybrid model of governance
- Fee regulation by regulatory committee
Case Details
Civil Appeal No 5708 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No 21662 of 2017)
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee
Mrs Rachana Joshi Issar (for appellant)
The State of Tripura & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Public Interest Litigation challenging admission procedure and fees of Tripura Medical College.
Remedy Sought
Direction to State government to run the college as a government institution or reduce fees to parity with other government medical colleges.
Filing Reason
Allegation that despite earlier High Court directions, the management and fee structure remained unchanged.
Previous Decisions
High Court of Tripura on 30 April 2015 directed State to either reconstitute managing committee or retain control with consequences. State reconstituted Society.
Issues
Whether the High Court should have directed the State to run the medical college as a government institution?
Whether the fee structure and admission procedure are subject to judicial review?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant: The State has not complied with earlier directions; fees and admissions should be at par with government colleges.
Respondents: The Society has been reconstituted with non-governmental members; the college is run on a self-sustaining model; government finances are treated as interest-free loan.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it is a matter of policy for the State government to determine the manner of running a medical college, and the High Court cannot direct the State to run it as a government institution or hand it over to the private sector. The hybrid model adopted by the State is not amenable to judicial review under Article 226.
Judgment Excerpts
Whether the State government should run the College as a department of the government depends upon numerous circumstances, including the availability of resources and the expertise to run a medical college in the State.
If the government has chosen a hybrid model in which a society has been constituted for the purpose of running the Tripura Medical College while, at the same time, allowing the government some voice in important policy decisions, this is not an arrangement which can be questioned in the exercise of judicial review.
Procedural History
The appellant filed a PIL before the High Court of Tripura which resulted in an order dated 30 April 2015 directing the State to reconstitute the managing committee or retain control. A fresh PIL was filed challenging admission and fees, dismissed on 24 June 2016. The present appeal is against that dismissal.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
