Delhi High Court
Hari Parkash vs Dental Council Of India on 3 July, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996IIIAD(DELHI)533, 1996(38)DRJ177
Author: D.K. Jain
Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal, D.K. Jain
JUDGMENT D.K. Jain, J.
(1) The petitioner, a Professor and Head of the Department of Dental Surgery in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, (for short the AIIMS) assails in this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the communication dated 8 July 1995 issued by the Acting President, Dental Council of India (hereinafter referred to as the Council), whereby the Aiims was informed that as the petitioner had not been elected by the members of the Senate or the Court and the Aiims has no Senate or Court, his membership to the Council as representative of Aiims was being terminated with immediate effect and his name had been deleted in accordance with the letter of the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, dated 8 May 1995. Aiims was also told that it was not eligible to send its elected representative to the Council.
(2) On this, the petitioner, vide his letter dated 19 July 1995, protested to the Council against the deletion of his name from the membership of the Council, and asserted that neither the Acting President nor the Council had authority to remove his name from the list of members according to the Dentists Act and, therefore, he continued to be the member of the Council. He also took up the matter with the Government of India. On 26 July 1995 the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India asked the Council to withdraw the impugned letter. The Council declined to do so. Hence the present petition.
(3) Initially only the Council and its acting President were imp leaded as respondent Nos. 1 and 2 but subsequently the Union of India, as respondent No.3 and the Aiims as respondent No.4 were also added as partics.
(4) While issuing notice of motion to the respondents the operation of the impugned communication was stayed. This interim order was confirmed on 3 November 1995 by a speaking order.
(5) The material facts relevant to the issues raised are that on the recommendation of the Aiims, on 15 April 1991, the Dental Council notified the name of Dr. S.S.Sidhu, Professor and Head of the Department of Dental Surgery, Aiims as a member of the Council under Section 3(d) of the Dentists Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The term of Dr. Sidhu was notified to be from 23.3.91 to 22.3.96. Dr. Sidhu retired sometime in the year 1993. To fill up the vacancy in the Council by a representative of the Aiims, on 6 December 1993, the petitioner is stated to have been elected by the Dental Faculty of 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. Sidhu's nomination. Accordingly the petitioner was to continue as member of the Dental Council upto 22 March 1996. It seems that some discussions took place between the Council and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare regarding membership of the Council and on 8 May 1995, while issuing directions to the Council for deletion of names of certain members, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare wrote to the Council the following letter: "I am directed to refer to the discussion held in the room of Shri Alok Perti, Director (ME) in this Ministry on 2nd March, 1995 on the subject mentioned above and to say that necessary action may kindly be initiated in respect of membership of the Council as indicated below: ' i) Names of those persons who have completed their term and more than 3 months have lapsed should be deleted from the list of members. ii) In cases where nominations have been made by State Government and there is no State Register the names of persons should be deleted from the list of members as such nomination are not legally valid. iii) In those cases where doubts had appeared on the process of elections or nominations, the Council may initiate the process of scrutiny and provide the Ministry with detailed information in respect of each case to take a decision regarding validity of such members", (6) Presumably, acting on this letter the Council vide its letter dated 26 May 1995 asked the Aiims to intimate whether the Senate or Court is constituted in the Aiims as a University and if so furnish a copy of the proceedings of the meeting of the Senate or Court as well as the notification of election issued by the University in which the petitioner was declared elected as a member of the Council under Section 3(d) of the Act.
(7) In response the Aiims in its letter dated 7 June 1995, referring to the composition of the Institute, the Governing Body, which is its Executive body, and the Standing Academic Committee, which deals with all the academic matters, replied back to say that the Institute having been declared as an institution of national importance with the power to grant medical degrees which are recognised medical qualifications for the purpose of the Act, the same having been included in the Schedule to the Act, had the trappings of a University and should be deemed as a University. The Council was informed that all academic matters are placed before the Academic Committee and, therefore, the Academic Committee of the Institute could be considered at par with the Senate of the University and the Governing Body as Court of the University. It was added that the petitioner was elected by the Faculty of Dental Surgery of the Institute and was nominated as a nominee of the Institute in the Council, in place of Professor S.S.Sidhu with the approval of the Chairman, Academic Committee. The Aiims, thus, requested the Council that in view of the position explained, the nomination of the petitioner by the Institute may be considered as valid.
(8) Not satisfied with the AIIMS' reply, as noted above, the Council, ignoring what it had been called upon to do by the Government of India, issued the impugned communication, deleting the name of the petitioner from its membership. Apparently the impugned action of the Council, purportedly taken in compliance of the Ministry of Health's letter dated 8 May 1995, is not so.
(9) Mr. Vikas Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that having regard to the fact that the medical degrees granted by the Aiims are recognised medical qualifications for the purpose of the Act and more so when Master of Dental Surgery - Orthodontist (MDS Ortho) has been included in the Schedule to the Act as recognised dental qualification within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act,the provisions of Section 3(d) of the Act should be liberally construed so as to deem the Aiims as a University and the Academic Committee of the Institute as the Senate of ' the University and the Governing Body as Court of the University within the meaning of the said Section. It was also urged, though not seriously, that the Council or its acting President had no jurisdiction to decide the question of petitioner's membership and it was only the Central Government who could take a decision on the issue, more so when, vide its letter dated 8 May 1995 the Government of India had initially asked the Council to furnish the names of its members whose membership was doubtful and then vide letter dated 26 July 1995, it had directed the Council to withdraw the impugned communication.
(10) On the other hand it was contended by Mr. R.L.Kohli, learned counsel for the Council that Aiims is neither a University nor it has a Court or Senate and, therefore, the petitioner could not be treated as an elected member from the University established by law in terms of Section 3(d) of the Act. He also submitted that even under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, the Aiims is not a University as defined in Section 2(f) of the said Act nor it has been recognised as such by the Commission under the said Section. His stand was that the language of Section 3(d) being clear and unambiguous, there was no question of its being read down to include therein any institution other than a University established as such by law.
(11) Mr. Maninder Singh, learned counsel for the Acting President of the Council, while supporting Mr. Kohli, also urged that even on the showing of the Aiims the petitioner was not elected as per the procedure prescribed in Section 3(d) of the Act.
(12) Mr. Vinay Bhasin, Advocate, appearing for the Aiims contended that the provisions of the Ugc Act had no bearing on the facts in hand because Ugc had no part to play in the affairs of Aiims, which has been established under an Act of Parliament as an autonomous body. He submitted that to determine whether Aiims is a University or not, aid should be had from the dictionary meaning of the word "University". In brief his submission was that to determine the character of an institution, what is important is its functions and powers and not its nomenclature.
(13) Thus, the points which arise for determination are: (i) whether the Council or its President is competent to terminate the membership of the petitioner and delete his name and (ii) whether Aiims is a "University" and its Academic Committee a "Senate" or members of "Court" within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the Act. Since the first point was not argued seriously, perhaps for the reason that the issue was rendered infructuous on account of expiry of term of the petitioner on 22 March 1996, we refrain from expressing any opinion on it.
(14) To appreciate the controversy involved in the second point it would be necessary at this stage to briefly notice, in retrospect, the objects and relevant provisions of the Act and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act (for short the Aiims Act).
(15) Historically, except in Bengal, there was no legal provision for the regulation of education and training of dental practitioners or for the registration of qualified persons and there was no restriction on the practice of dentistry by persons without scientific training. In 1947, the Government of India noticed this deficiency and decided to constitute an Indian Denial Council, empowered to lay down minimum standards of education and training. Only dentists who have undergone such training and possess recognised qualifications were considered to be eligible to be elected to the Council (See Gazette of India 5 April 1947).
(16) In the year 194S, with a view to make provision for the regulation of the profession of dentistry and to provide statutory recognition to the Denial Councils (Central and Stale), the Act was enacted, which came into force w.c.f. 29 March 1948. Chapter Ii of the Act, inter alia, deals with Dental Council of India, its functionaries, its executive Council, mode of election and appointment of visitor and the Council's duty to furnish to the Central Government copies of its minutes and annual report of its activities together with an abstract of its accounts. Section 3 therein provides for constitution and composition of the Council. It stipulates that the Central Government shall, as soon as may be, constitute a Council consisting of various members to be elected /nominated in the manner prescribed therein. Clause (d) of Section 3 of the Act, relevant to the controversy involved, is set down below: "3(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 Denial Faculty of the University or in case the University has no Denial Faculty, from amongst the members of the Medical Faculty thereof"
(17) In the year 1956, The Government of India decided to establish an institution under the name of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences and for the purpose the Aiims Act was enacted by the Parliament, with a view to improve professional competence among medical practitioners and to place before all medical colleges and other allied institutions in the country a high standard of medical education, both post-graduate and under-graduate, and to develop patterns of leaching in undergraduate and post-graduate medical education in all its branches and provide facilities of high order for training of personnel in all important branches of health activities. It came into force w.e.f. 2 June 1956. Section 5 of the Aiims Act declares the Aiims as an institution of national importance. Sections 13 and 14 thereof spell out the objects and functions of the Institute. The predominant objects so stated in Section 13 (a) and (b) are: to develop patterns of teaching in the under-graduate and post- graduate medical education in all its branches so as to administer a high standard of medical education to all medical colleges and other allied institutions in India; to bring together in one place educational facilities of the highest order for the training of personnel in all important branches of health activity. Amongst the various functions of the Institute, one of the functions spelt out in Section 14(f)(iii) is to establish and maintain a dental college with such institutional facilities for the practice of dentistry and for the practical training of students as may be necessary, notwithstanding anything contained in any other Saw for the time being in force.
(18) As noticed earlier, Section 3(d) of the Act, reproduced above, on its plain reading, stipulates that amongst others, the Council was to have one member from each University established by law in the Slates which grants a recognised denial qualification. It also provides that this member shall 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.
(19) It is indeed indisputable that if Section 3(d) of the Act is interpreted narrowly and literally, as pleaded on behalf of the Council, the nomination of the petitioner to the Council cannot be said to be valid because (i) Aiims cannot be said to have been literally established as a "University" and (ii) the petitioner was not elected, strictly speaking, by either the members of the Senate or the Court from amongst the members of the Dental or Medical Faculty of the University. Therefore, the axial issue that arises for consideration is whether the provisions of Section 3(d) arc to be construed strictly and literally to lake plain ordinary grammatical meaning of the words appearing therein or could these be read down to give it a purposeful meaning to include an institution, which may have all the attributes of a University, within its ambit.
(20) It is the cardinal principle of law that every law is designed to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate it on mere technicalities, It is equally well established that to pick up the legislative intent, it is permissible for the Courts to take into account the ostensible purpose and the object of legislature because otherwise, a bare mechanical interpretation of the words might render the legislation otiose. The doctrine of reading down is one of the established principles of interpretation of statutes.
(21) In Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, Twelfth Edition, under the. Chapter dealing with the question of modification of the language to meet the intention, the following passage appears: "WHERE the language of a statute, in its ordinary meaning and grammatical construction, leads to a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment, or to some inconvenience or absurdity which can hardly have been intended, a construction may be put upon it which modifies the meaning of 1130 words and even the structure of the sentence."
(22) In Chandra Mohan v. Sate of U.P., Air 1966 Sc 1987, the Supreme Court observed that the fundamental rule of interpretation is that in considering the provisions of the Constitution or an Act of Parliament, the Court "will have to find out the expressed intention from the words of the Constitution or the Act as the case may be ....." and eschew the construction which will lead to absurdity or give rise to practical inconvenience or make the provisions of the existing law nugatory.
(23) In the light of above principles of interpretation, we may now examine the issue raised in the instant case, namely whether Section 3(d) of the Act is to be construed literally or liberally.
(24) The word "University" has neither been defined in the Act nor any other statute has been brought to our notice where it was defined prior to the enactment of the Act in 1948. Therefore, we may look to its dictionary meaning.
(25) In Stroud's judicial dictionary (fifth edn.), "University" is defined as: "THE word "university" is not a word of art and whether or not an educational institution can claim to be a university or not must depend on whether an ordinary man of good education of university standard would consider that the institution in question is one."
(26) The Law Lexican defines it to be: "A corporation of teachers or assemblage of learned men or colleges for teaching the higher branches of learning; and having power to confer degrees."
(27) BLACK'S Law Dictionary (fifth Edn.) defines "university" as: "AN institution of higher learning, consisting of an assemblage of colleges united under one corporate organisation and government, affording instructions in the Arts and Sciences and the learned professions, and conferring degrees."
(28) According to Webster's third New International Dictionary, "University" means: "AN institution of higher learning providing facilities for teaching and research and authorised to grant academic degrees"
(29) Therefore, as per the dictionary meaning, for an institution to claim itself to be a university, the essential ingredients it must possess arc: (i) that there should be learned men to teach in higher branches of learning and (ii) it must have power to confer degrees.
(30) As noticed above, the prime object for setting up a Dental Council was to establish a statutory body to lay down and regulate minimum standards of education and training for dental practitioners and to achieve this object, it was necessary that this body had such members who had varied experience in the field of dentistry either on the theoretical side as teachers or on practical side as practitioners. Even in the statement of objects and reasons for bringing out the enactment in the form of Dentists Act, it was recommended that only Dentists, who have undergone such training and possess recognised qualifications will be entitled to be elected to the Council. That is precisely what has been incorporated in Section 3 of the Act.
(31) If we analyse Section 3(d) carefully, what it envisages is the existence of one or more than one university in a State which, (i) grants a recognised dental qualification and (ii) a member to be elected by its senate or if there be no senate, by members of the court from: (a) amongst the members of its dental faculty or (b) if there be no dental faculty from amongst the members of its medical faculty. Thus, requirements in the section itself are liberal.
(32) Having regard to the provisions of the Aiims Act, in particular, Section 5 - declaring the Aiims as an institution of national importance; Section 13 - enumerating various objects of the Aiims and 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 to the 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 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.
(33) We arc, therefore, constrained to observe that the Council not only acted in a great haste in deleting the name of the petitioner from the list of its members but also adopted a very narrow approach while construing Section 3(d) of the Act. As noticed above, the impugned communication purports to have been issued in accordance with the letter of the Government of India dated 8 May 1995, reproduced above whereas in the said letter there is not even a whisper that the Government of India had recommended the deletion of petitioner's name from the list of members of the Council. It is evident from the said communication that the Government of India had merely asked for detailed information in respect of each case to enable it to take a decision regarding validity of such members in whose cases there was some doubt about their election/nomination. On learning about Council's letter dated 8 July 1995, the same being contrary to the mandate and spirit of the Government's letter dated 8 May 1995, referred to above, the Government of India directed the Council to withdraw it. In this view of the matter the action of the Council in issuing the impugned communication, pending final decision by the Government of India, particularly in the light of our interpretation of Section 3(d) of the Act, cannot be sustained. We accordingly quash the impugned communication and make the Rule absolute leaving the parties to bear their own costs.