Dental
Council of India & Anr Vs. Hari Prakash & Ors [2001] Insc 437 (29 August 2001)
S. Rajendra
Babu & Brijesh Kumar Rajendra Babu, J. :
1.1
The facts leading to this appeal are as follows :
1.1
Dr. Sidhu, Professor & Head of the Department of Dental Surgery, All India
Institute of Medical Sciences [for brevity AIIMS] was a member of the Dental
Council [Council for brevity] under Section 3(d) of the Dentists Act, 1948 [the
Act for brevity] for the period between 23.2.1991 to 22.3.1996. He having
retired from the services of the AIIMS in 1993, to fill up the said vacancy
respondent No.1 was stated to have been elected by the Dental Faculty of the
AIIMS, which was approved by the Chairman, Academic Committee and his name was
forwarded to the Council as member of the Council representing the AIIMS for
the unexpired period of Dr. Sidhus nomination. A communication was sent by the
Acting President of the Council that respondent No.1 has not been elected by
the members of the Senate or the Court and the AIIMS has no Senate or Court and
his membership to the Council as representative of the AIIMS was being
terminated and his name would stand deleted and that AIIMS was not also
eligible to send its elected representative to the Council. Aggrieved by that
action, a writ petition was filed before the High Court. The stand of
respondent No.1 is that the medical degrees granted by the AIIMS are recognised
as medical qualifications for the purpose of the Act and has been included in
the Schedule to the Act as recognised dental qualification within the meaning
of Section 2(j) of the Act; that the provisions of Section 3(d) of the Act must
be liberally construed in such a manner as to treat AIIMS as a University and
the Academic Committee of the AIIMS as the Senate of the University and the
Governing Body as Court of the University within the meaning of the said
Section. On behalf of the Council, contention put forth is that respondent No.1
could not be elected under the provisions of Section 3(d) of the Act as AIIMS
cannot be treated to be a University established by law in any State; that the
language of Section 3(d) of the Act is clear and unambiguous and there is no
scope for interpreting the same except as it is stated therein. The High Court,
on the contentions raised, formulated the question as to whether AIIMS is a
University and its Academic Committee a Senate or Governing Members a Court
within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the Act.
1.2
The High Court noticed that the Act is a pre-constitutional Act and when the
Act came into force, there were hardly three institutions in the country, one
at Lucknow, the second at Amritsar and the third at Bombay, which imparted dental education.
It is only much later other institutions took up dental education. The High
Court, after making a detailed reference to the provisions of the AIIMS Act,
held that if the provisions of Section 3(d) of the Act are applied as the
language stands, the nomination of respondent No.1 to the Council cannot be
stated to be valid because:
(1)
AIIMS cannot be said to have been established by law as a University; and
(2) respondent
No.1 was not elected either by members of the Senate or the Court from amongst
the members of the Dental or Medical Faculty of the University.
1.3
Thereafter, the High Court went on to state as to in what circumstances liberal
construction should be adopted and particularly when the expression University
had not been defined its etymological meaning could be adopted. By analysing
Section 3(d) of the Act and various provisions of the AIIMS Act, the High Court
concluded as follows:
.one
of the main objects being to develop patterns of teaching in under-graduate and
post-graduate medical education, which includes establishment of dental college
for the purpose of dentistry and for the practical training of the students in
those branches of medical education; and above all the recognition of the
post-graduate decree awarded by the AIIMS as recognised dental qualification as
defined in Section 2(g) of the Act by its inclusion in the Schedule tot he Act,
we feel that it is a fit case where the doctrine of reading down needs to be
applied to interpret Section 3(d) of the Act to treat the AIIMS as a deemed
University because, though not technically established as a University, it
apparently has, for the purpose of the Act, all the trappings of a University,
and to equate the Academic Committee of the AIIMS with the Senate of a
University and the Governing Body as the Court of the University for the
purpose of Section 3(d) of the Act. We are of the view that if Section 3(d) of
the Act is given literal and narrow interpretation it would be contrary to the
apparent purpose for which the Act was enacted. There seems to be no reason why
the expertise of the AIIMS, which imparts post- graduate training and degree in
this branch of medical science, duly recognised by the Council, could not be
made use of by the Council to advance the object of the legislation by its
representation in the Council.
1.4 On
that basis, the High Court held that the action of the appellant is wrong and
allowed the writ petition.. Against this order this appeal is preferred.
1.5 Shri
P.P.Rao, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant, raised a
preliminary point that the writ petition filed before the High Court was only
in relation to nomination of respondent No.1 to the Council and his term having
come to an end on 3.1.1996, there was no occasion for the High Court to decide
the matter on July 23, 1996. As the period for which respondent No.1 was
nominated had lapsed, the petition should have been disposed of as having
become infructuous. We do not think the High Court was not justified in
deciding the contentions raised in the case although the occasion to consider
this question was in the context of election of respondent No.1 under Section
3(d) of the Act.
The
appellant objected to sending a representative from AIIMS to the Council itself
on grounds indicated earlier in the course of this order, goes to the root of
the matter and is likely to recur often and on.
Therefore,
that contention need not detain us any further and is rejected.
2. Shri
P.P.Rao further contended as follows :
2.1
The High Court did not apply its mind to the various clauses in Section 3 but
only looked at clause (d) thereof. On a reading of the entire Section 3 it will
be clear that there is a clear distinction between States and Union Territories. So far as Union Territories are concerned a special
provision is made in clause (f) of Section 3 for the nomination of members by
the Central Government of whom at least one shall be a registered dentist duly
qualified and practising or holding an appointment in an institution for the
training of Dentists in a Union Territory.
2.2
All India Institute of Medical Sciences is established under Section 3 of the
1956 Act. It is declared to be an Institution of National Importance but not
stated to be a University. It does not have the democratic structure of a
University like the Academic council, the Executive Council and the Court or
the Senate, the Syndicate etc. vide Sections 4 and 10 of the Act. It has the
power to grant degrees and medical diplomas under Section 24 of the All India
Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956 [for brevity AIIMS Act]. The degrees
and diplomas awarded by the Institute enjoy statutory recognition in view of
Section 23 of the AIIMS Act.
2.3
The concept of deemed university was incorporated in the UGC Act, 1956. The
AIIMS is not a deemed university within the meaning of (Section 3 of the UGC
Act, 1956) and is not subject to the UGC.
Therefore
the word University used in the Dentists Act, 1948 could not have been intended
to cover an institution like All India Institute of Medical Sciences which was
not in existence when the Act was made in 1948.
2.4
The High Court erred in over looking the requirements of Section 3(d) viz. that
the University should be one established by law in a State and it should have a
Senate, or Court. The AIIMS has no Senate or a Court. The person to be elected
should be a member of the Dental Faculty of the University and if there is no
Dental Faculty then he should be the member of the Medical Faculty. In the
AIIMS there is no Senate or Court but only a governing body and other
committees. There is no Dental Faculty or a Medical Faculty as such, as in the
AIIMS, the entire institute being a medical institute, to attract clause (d) of
Section 3.
2.5 On
a correct interpretation of Section 3, the AIIMS can secure representation in
the Dental Council only under clause (f) as and when the Central Government chooses
to nominate a Member of the Department of Dentistry of the AIIMS and not under
clause (d) of Section 3.
2.6
The principle of reading down has no application at all to this case.
2.7 Shri
R.N.Trivedi, learned Additional Solicitor General for India appearing for AIIMS, submitted that
the AIIMS Act had been enacted pursuant to Entry 63 or 64 of List I of the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and took us through various
provisions of the AIIMS Act. He contended that if we properly examine the scheme
of Section 3 of the Act, several classes of members are provided under the same
and one of them is a University which can have representation under clause (d)
of Section 3 of the Act. There are members who are nominated and there are
members who are elected. The object of the said provisions is clear that there
should be representation of all teaching institutions covered by the Act and it
cannot be the intention of excluding member from an institution of national
importance as AIIMS;
that
when one member from each University is brought in, it cannot be said that the
AIIMS would be excluded from the category arising under Section 3(d) of the
Act.
2.8 Shri
Vikas Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, reiterated the
contentions raised by him before the High Court to which we have already
adverted to. He also submitted that in terms of Section 3(58) of the General
Clauses Act, State shall include Union Territory and, therefore, under Section 3(d)
of the Act one member from each University established by law in the State
would include a Union Territory. Shri Trivedi, supporting this contention, adverted to the
decision of this Court in Ram Kishore Sen & Ors. vs. Union of India &
Ors., 1966 (1) SCR 430, wherein such an interpretation has been adopted by
using the General Clauses Act. Both of them contended to have representation on
the Council under Section 3(d) of the Act all that is required is that it
should be a University established by any law in the State which would include
Union Territory and grants a recognised dental qualification elected either by
members of the Senate or the Court from amongst the members of the Dental or
Medical Faculty of the University (where there is no separate dental faculty
members]. It was also brought to our notice that Explanation to Section 3(e) of
the Act in defining the State, Union Territory is specifically excluded and,
therefore, wherever the expression State is used would include Union Territory
unless expressly excluded, so as to make it clear that the meaning attributed
to the expression State in the General Clauses Act would not be applicable.
Therefore, it is submitted that, by implication, it must be held that the expression
State in Section 3(d) of the Act would include a Union Territory. Shri Rao,
however, contended that there has been a history to the formation of States in
this country.
Originally
there were Part A, B and C States and on the State Reorganisation Act coming
into force by the Adaptation of Orders, certain changes in the Act were made
and, therefore, when the expression State has been used in Section 3(d) of the
Act, that background should not be forgotten and the same has to be borne in
mind and interpreted appropriately. So done, he submitted that, the expression
State in Section 3(d) of the Act would not cover a Union Territory like Delhi
where AIIMS is located.
3. For
purposes of proper appreciation of the rival contentions, we may set out
Section 3 of the Act :
Section
3. The Central Government shall, as soon as may be, constitute a Council
consisting of the following members, namely:-
(a) one
registered dentist possessing a recognised dental qualification elected by the
dentists registered in Part A of each State register;
(b) one
member elected from amongst themselves by the members of the Medical Council of
India;
(c) not
more than four members elected from among themselves by- (a) Principals, Deans,
Directors and Vice-Principals of dental colleges in the States training
students for recognised dental qualifications:
Provided
that not more than one member shall be elected from the same dental college;
(b)
Heads of dental wings of medical colleges in the States training students for recognised
dental qualifications;
(d)
one member from each University established by law in the States which grants a
recognised dental qualification, to be elected by the members of the Senate of
the University, or in case the University has no Senate, by the members of the
court, from amongst the members of the Dental Faculty of the University or in
case the University has no Dental Faculty, from amongst the members of the
Medical Faculty thereof;
(e) one
member to represent each State nominated by the Government of each State from
among persons registered either in a medical register or a dental register of
the State;
Explanation.- In this clause, State does not
include a Union territory;
(f)
six members nominated by the Central Government, of whom at least one shall be
a registered dentist possessing a recognised dental qualification and practising
or holding an appointment in an institution for the training of dentists in a
Union terrirory, and at least two shall be dentists registered in Part B of a
State register;
(g) the
Director General of Health Services, ex officio :
Provided
that pending the preparation of registers the State Government may nominate to
the first Council members referred to in parts (a) and (e) and the Central
Government members referred to in part (f) out of persons who are eligible for
registration in the respective registers and such persons shall hold office for
such period as the State or Central Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette, specify.
3.1
The Act is a pre-constitutional enactment but it has application in the
post-constitutional era also. When interpreting such an enactment, we have not
only to bear in mind the historical background leading to the legislation and
the amendments effected therein, but also various aspects covered by it. To our
mind, reading of Section 3(d) of the Act would make it clear that the
expression state has been used in the larger sense as defined in the General
Clauses Act to include Union Territory. This position becomes further clear when we read Section
3(e) of the Act wherein it is stated that nomination can be made from amongst
the members of each State. By explanation thereto, it is stated, the State
would not include a Union Territory. In respect of Union Territory a separate
provision has been made in Section 3(f). The General Clauses Act read with the
scheme of the enactment will make it clear that the expression State used in
Section 3(d) of the Act would include a Union Territory also.
3.2
The scheme of Section 3(d) of the Act will indicate that there are different
constituencies for representation on the Council; first, constituency is from
amongst the registered dentists in Part A of each State register; second, from
amongst the members of the Medical Council of India; third, from the teaching
faculty of different dental colleges such as the Principals, Deans, Directors
and Vice-Principals of dental colleges or Heads of dental wings of medical
colleges in the States training students for recognised dental qualifications;
fourth, from each University established by law in the States which grants a recognised
dental qualification; fifth, nominated members from States other than a Union
Territory; sixth, from nominated members from the Union Territory and those
dentists registered in Part B of a State register; and lastly, the Director
General of Health Services. The Act covers the various institutions and
Universities over which it has control under the various provisions in relation
to qualification and discipline as well as those who practise after obtaining
the necessary qualification in the dentistry. The object of Section 3 is to
provide a wide representation to the Council, which is a professional body.
Therefore, appropriate meaning will have to be given to the expressions used in
the enactment bearing in mind the historical background and purpose of the
legislation.
4.
Now, we may briefly glean into provisions of the AIIMS Act. The AIIMS Act
provides for constitution of a governing body [Section 10] and the objects of
the AIIMS include developing the pattern of teaching in under-graduate and
post-graduate medical education and attain self sufficiency in post-graduate
medical education [Section 13]. In terms of Section 23 of the AIIMS Act, AIIMS
stands outside the scope of the Medical Council in the conferment of medical
degrees and diplomas granted under the AIIMS Act, which shall be recognised
medical degrees for the purpose of that Act and shall be deemed to be included
in the First Schedule of the Act. Under Section 24 of the AIIMS Act, it is
provided that the AIIMS shall have the power to grant medical degrees and
diplomas and other academic distinctions and titles irrespective of what may be
contained in other enactments.
5. The
thrust of the submission made by Shri Rao is that the eminence of the AIIMS in
the field of medical education is undisputed but the fact remains that the
language of Section 3(d) of the Act requires that representation under that
clause is available only to a University established by law and not any other
institution though established by law imparting dental education and conferring
degrees. In this context, the High Court placed very heavy reliance upon the
provisions of the AIIMS Act which enacted that AIIMS imparts dental education
and confers or grants degrees, which is normally the function of a University
and, therefore, in a general sense by adopting the dictionary meaning, it
should be stated that it is a University, while the contention on behalf of the
appellant is that it must be a University established by law.
6. We
may in this context notice the provisions of Section 22 of the University
Grants Commission Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as the UGC Act]. Section
22 of the UGC Act provides that the right of conferring or granting degree
shall be exercised by three categories of institutions, namely,-
(1) a
University established or incorporated by a Central or a State Act;
(2) an
institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the UGC Act; and
(3) an
institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant
degrees.
6.1
The fact that there are three kinds of authorities empowered to grant degrees
or diplomas is too well known in educational field and is legislatively taken
note of as aforesaid. Thus it is clear that there are various institutions in
India other than Universities which are empowered to confer or grant degrees
and diplomas and AIIMS is one such institution. Therefore, it cannot be said
that mere fact of being empowered under the AIIMS Act to confer degrees or
diplomas, would convert it into a University established by law.
7. The
intention of the legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used
in the statute, thus paying attention to what has been said as also to what has
not been said. When the words used are not ambiguous, literal meaning has to be
applied, which is the golden rule of interpretation.
8. To
interpret the meaning of the expression University the High Court proceeded to
examine various dictionaries. That exercise could not have been undertaken by
the High Court in view of the fact that the expression used in Section 3(d) of
the Act is a University established by law. The expression used is not just a
University but University established by law and the expression University
cannot be divorced from the following words established by law. Entire expression
University established by law constitutes one concept and is well known in law
as indicated in Section 22 of the UGC Act. Hence, construction of the
expression used in the Act with reference to dictionaries is not called for.
Such a course will result in either omission of words in the Act such as
established by law or to add different words which is not permissible in the
language of the Act.
9. The
learned counsel for respondents referred to large number of decisions where the
meaning of the expression used in an enactment has been given a wider meaning
or even to cover a situation which could not have arisen when the law was
enacted. But we are afraid, these principles cannot be applied in the present
context, for the Parliament is well aware of the situation of University,
deemed University and the institutions constituted and empowered under relevant
enactments to confer degrees and the Act has been amended from time to time, to
suit fresh needs as and when they arose. Thus, the Act has not remained static
but is catching up with times. Therefore, what is not included by the
legislature cannot be undone by us by adopting the principle of purposive
interpretation.
AIIMS
is an institution, which is specially empowered by Act of Parliament to confer
or grant degrees. As a result thereof AIIMS may impart education in dentistry
and also confer degrees or diplomas as provided under the AIIMS Act but that
circumstance would not itself convert such an institution into a University
established by law. If Parliament had intended that all categories of
institutions which impart dental education will also be covered by Section 3(d)
of the Act, it would not have provided that it is only a University established
by law imparting dental education could send its representative to the Council.
The
object of Section 3(d) of the Act being to provide representation to the
University established by law, to give any other meaning would strain the
meaning of the expression University established by law so as to treat any
other institution empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees
at par with University established by law for the purpose of representation on
the Council. May be Parliament found that such an institution to be merely
covered by Section 3(c) of the Act so that the institution is merely treated as
a dental college in a State training students for recognised dental
qualifications from whom the Principals, Deans, Directors and Vice Principals
or Head of the Dental Wing would also be elected, if found fit. Again, it is
for the Parliament to amend the law to give representation appropriately in the
Council to the AIIMS and the High Court ought not to have proceeded to consider
other modes of interpretation when the language of the provision itself is
absolutely clear. Therefore, we think the view taken by the High Court cannot
be sustained. The other question whether the Governing Body or the Academic
Committee of the AIIMS is equivalent to a Senate or a Court in a University
does not arise for consideration in the view we have taken in the matter.
10.
Insofar as respondent No.1 is concerned, inasmuch as his term on the Council
came to an end in 1996 his petition had become infructuous by the time it was
disposed off and hence nothing need be said on that aspect of the matter.
Appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
...J.
[ S.
RAJENDRA BABU ] ...J.
[BRIJESH
KUMAR] AUGUST 29, 2001.
Back