Scribd
Upload
24 views2 pages

SC56

Uploaded by

kepehip295
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
24 views2 pages

SC56

Uploaded by

kepehip295
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

AABBCC

This Case Explanation includes important Laws, background of case, Facts of case, question
in matter, judgment and reference cases.

First
Important Laws covered in the case are,
 Article 32 of the Constitution of India
 8(3)(1)(d) of Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999

Second
Background of case
 This writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of
the Indian Constitution by Shri Venkateshwara University seeking relief
against an order issued by the Union of India debarring the university from
admitting students in the MBBS course for the two academic years.

Third
Facts of the case
 The petitioner in this case is Shri Venkateshwara University, represented by
its registrar and another individual. The respondents are the Union of India
and another party.
 The case involves a history of litigation related to inspections conducted by
the Medical Council of India (MCI) regarding the university's medical college.
Previous inspections had revealed deficiencies that led to the university
facing restrictions on admitting students for specific academic sessions.
 The inspection reports highlighted various deficiencies, including issues with
faculty appointments, patient admissions, surgeries performed, and
discrepancies in the college's website information.
 Follow-up inspections raised concerns about the non-functioning of the
hospital and medical college during declared holidays, which further
complicated the matter.
 Based on the inspection reports, the MCI made recommendations, which
were subsequently acted upon by the Union of India through an order
debarring the university from admitting students for two academic years and
authorizing the encashment of the bank guarantee.
Fourth
question in matter
 Whether the inspection conducted, violated MCI regulations regarding the
timing of inspections concerning religious and festival holidays?
 Whether the decision to debar the university from admitting students for two
academic years was justified?
Fifth
judgment stated

 The court ruled that the inspection conducted, did not violate MCI
regulations on the timing of inspections in relation to religious and festival
holidays. It concluded that the inspection fell outside the specified timeframe
for the moratorium before and after holidays, and thus, was justified.
 The court upheld the decision to debar the university from admitting
students for two academic years. It emphasized the importance of
compliance with regulations and addressing deficiencies to ensure
educational quality. Existing students were allowed to continue their studies,
and a follow-up inspection was directed for the next academic session to
assess compliance and address any remaining deficiencies.
Sixth
Reference cases used in judgment
 Kanachur Islamic Education Trust (R) vs. Union of India and Another [Writ
Petition (Civil) No.468 of 2017]

YYZZXX

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy