Read Time: 06 minutes

Placing reliance on the Eleven-Judge Constitution Bench judgment in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others vs. State of Karnataka and others, the Supreme Court on Tuesday reiterated that,

"...the right to establish an educational institution can be regulated. However, such regulatory measures must, in general, be to ensure the maintenance of proper academic standards, atmosphere and infrastructure and the prevention of maladministration."

With this view, the Top Court went on to uphold the validity of the Notification dated May 21, 2012 ("the Notification"), vide which the Dental Council of India ("the Council"), had substituted Regulation 6(2)(h) of the Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or Higher Course of Studies or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006 ("the Regulations").

In the impugned order, the Rajasthan High Court had struck down the said "Notification" while acting on a writ petition filed by Biyani Shikshan Samiti ("Committee"), on the ground that it was inconsistent with the provisions of the Dentists Act, 1948 ("Act of 1948") and also being violative of Articles 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India.

The committee's application for the permission for the establishment of a dental college was returned by the Union of India vide its order dated 31st December 2012, on the ground that the proposal/application was not in compliance with the amended Regulation 6(2)(h) of the Regulations.

Stating that the Essentiality Certificate had been issued to it already in 2012, the committee had argued that the impugned notification was not applicable to it and requested for reconsideration of its application under the unamended Regulation 6(2) (h). This application came to be rejected as well.

This order was challenged before the High Court wherein a division bench in the impugned judgment allowed the said writ petition by striking down the impugned Notification and directed the Union of India to reconsider Committee's case.

It was submitted on behalf of the Council that the amended Regulation 6(2)(h) was brought into effect so that it would facilitate training to the students of the proposed Dental Colleges as per the syllabus/course curriculum prescribed.

"It, therefore, cannot be said that the Council has taken into consideration the factors, which are not relevant or germane for the purpose to be achieved. The object to be achieved is to provide adequate teaching and training facilities to the students. If in the wisdom of the expert body, this can be done by attaching a Dental College to the already existing Medical College, it cannot be faulted with", noted the Court.

Thus while allowing the appeal filed by the council, Court held that the impugned Notification, undoubtedly, was made in order to ensure the maintenance of proper academic standards and infrastructure.

Case Title: DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA vs. BIYANI SHIKSHAN SAMITI & ANR.