Cal. HC: Cannot Differentiate Between Contractual and Permanent Employees For Maternity Leave  ||  Supreme Court: Entering Into Sale Agreement With Minor is Void and Unenforceable  ||  SC: Information Disclosing Cognizable Offence to Be Recorded as FIR & Not in General Diary  ||  Delhi High Court: Deployment of CISF Personnel Shall be Based on Operational Requirements  ||  All. HC: Returning Unpaid Check With Endorsement of Account Closed Amounts to Dishnonor of Cheque  ||  Karnataka HC: Courts Should Ensure That Legal Procedures Are Not Abused in Order to Reduce Burden  ||  Utt. HC: Joining in Service Cannot Be Denied to Woman on The Ground of Her Pregnancy  ||  Kar. HC: Can’t Stretch Protection u/a 21 to Those Posing Threat to Nation’s Sovereignty & Integrity  ||  Delhi High Court: Can’t Stop Student From Entering Exam Hall Once Admit Card Issued  ||  Supreme Court Asks Medical Colleges Either to Pay Stipend or Not Have Internship    

Modern Dental College and Research Centre and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. - (02 May 2016)

Oversight Committee darkens MCI future



“…That the need for major institutional changes in the regulatory oversight of the medical profession in the country is so urgent”, the concluding lines from the Expert Committee Report may have sounded the death knell for the independent functioning of the Medical Council of India.

Certainly, Justice Sikri wasted no words constituting an Oversight Committee to oversee all the functions of the MCI and approve all of its policy decisions.

The Committee, also empowered to issue remedial directions, is seen as an interim step till a regulatory body and framework for the education sector in a “welfare economy” is established.

The case before the Supreme Court had raised questions about the authority of a State borne Authority regulating medical education in such State.

Justice Banumathi discussed authority to determine standards in higher education existing between States and the Centre and opined that ‘co-ordination’ and ‘determination’ of standards in higher education are the “preserve of Parliament”.

He, however, was mindful that States in practice were directly responsible for the growth and development of higher education in the State: “…no one can be a better judge of the requirements and inequalities-in-opportunity of the people of a particular state than that state itself.” Limitations also exist on private educational establishments determining their own fee. The Court cautioned private institutions against “profiteering” off students.

Relevant : R. Chitralekha and Anr. v. State of Mysore and Ors. MANU/SC/0030/1964 State of T.N. and Anr. v. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and Ors. MANU/SC/0709/1995 In Ambesh Kumar (Dr.) v. Principal, L.L.R.M. Medical College, Meerut and Ors. MANU/SC/0071/1986


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved