Tag Archives: #delhihc

Case Name: Aam Aadmi Party v. Union of India

 Case Number: W.P.(C) 15929/2023 & CM APPLs. 10225/2024, 19624/2024 & 19666/2024

Date of Decision: 05th June, 2024

Quorum: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

FACTS OF THE CASE

The case before the High Court of Delhi involved the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) petitioning for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents, the Union of India through its Secretary and others, to allocate a housing unit from the General Pool Residential Accommodation (GPRA) for office use. The AAP sought this allocation until it could construct its own office on a plot of land to be permanently allotted to them, in line with government guidelines for political parties. The background outlined how the AAP, registered as a political party in 2013, had initially rejected an offer of land in 2014, insisting on a central Delhi location. Later, disputes arose regarding the possession of certain plots and buildings earmarked for various purposes, including family courts and political party offices. The legal dispute intensified when the AAP’s temporary office allotment was cancelled, leading to litigation and subsequent orders from the court to reconsider the matter. Despite efforts to secure alternative plots, the AAP faced challenges in obtaining suitable land for their permanent office construction. The court reviewed various communications and actions taken by both the AAP and government agencies, including the cancellation of previous allotments and offers of alternative sites. Arguments presented by both parties reflected the complexities surrounding land allocation in Delhi, with the AAP emphasising its status as a National Party and its entitlement to suitable accommodation under government rules. The respondents, on the other hand, cited practical constraints such as accommodation shortages and the need to prioritise other demands for government housing. Additionally, the court noted the AAP’s rejection of previous offers and its failure to respond to recent allotment proposals. Ultimately, the court recognized the AAP’s status as a National Party and it’s right, under government guidelines, to temporary office accommodation from the GPRA. It directed the respondents to reconsider the AAP’s request within a specified timeframe and provide a detailed explanation if the allocation was not feasible. This decision balanced the AAP’s entitlement as a political entity with the practical challenges faced by government agencies in managing housing allocations in Delhi.

ISSUES

• Whether the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) is entitled to government-provided accommodation.
• Whether the cancellation of the AAP’s previous office allotment was justified.
• Whether suitable land is available for the AAP’s permanent office.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Representation of the People Act, 1952: This act regulates the conduct of elections and the recognition of political parties in India. It provides the framework for the registration and recognition of political parties.

Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968: This order, issued by the Election Commission of India, deals with the reservation and allotment of symbols for political parties. It establishes criteria for recognizing political parties as national or state parties.

Compendium of Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool in Delhi) Rules, 1963: These rules govern the allotment of government residences in Delhi. They outline the procedures and criteria for the allotment of housing units from the General Pool Residential Accommodation (GPRA) to various entities, including political parties.

Office Memorandum dated 09.11.2012: This memorandum, issued by the Land & Development Office (L&DO), provides policy guidelines for the allotment of land to political parties for the construction of office buildings. It specifies the eligibility criteria and procedures for such allotments.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The appellant argues that the allocation of government accommodations to political parties by the Directorate of Estates (DoE) violates various legal provisions, including the Representation of the People Act, 1952, and the Compendium of Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool in Delhi) Rules, 1963. They contend that the allotment of housing units from the General Pool Residential Accommodation (GPRA) to political parties is not in accordance with the established criteria and procedures outlined in these laws. The appellant alleges that the allocation of government accommodations to certain political parties, particularly the Indian National Congress (INC) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), is discriminatory and arbitrary. They argue that these parties have been allotted a disproportionate number of housing units from the GPRA, thereby giving them an unfair advantage over other political parties, including the appellant. The appellant contends that the allocation of government accommodations to political parties by the DoE constitutes an abuse of power by the authorities. They argue that the discretionary powers vested in the DoE have been misused to favour certain political parties at the expense of others. This, according to the appellant, undermines the principles of fairness, equality, and transparency in the allocation process. Finally, the appellant asserts that the issue at hand is of significant public interest, as it pertains to the fair and impartial allocation of government resources to political parties. They argue that ensuring equitable access to government accommodations for all political parties is essential for maintaining a level playing field in the democratic process. Therefore, the appellant seeks appropriate legal remedies to address the alleged violations and uphold the integrity of the allocation process.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The respondent contends that the allocation of government accommodations to political parties is carried out in accordance with the relevant legal provisions, including the Representation of the People Act, 1952, and the Compendium of Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool in Delhi) Rules, 1963. They argue that the allocation process follows established criteria and procedures outlined in these laws, ensuring transparency and fairness. The respondent refutes the appellant’s allegations of discrimination in the allocation of government accommodations. They maintain that housing units from the General Pool Residential Accommodation (GPRA) are allotted to political parties based on objective criteria such as the party’s representation in Parliament and the Legislative Assemblies. According to the respondent, the allocation process is non-discriminatory and aims to provide equitable access to government resources for all eligible political parties. The respondent defends the discretionary powers vested in the Directorate of Estates, arguing that they are exercised judiciously and in accordance with the law. They contend that the allocation of government accommodations involves considerations beyond just numerical representation, such as the functional requirements and logistical constraints of political parties. Therefore, the respondent asserts that the exercise of discretion by the Directorate of Estates is necessary to ensure the efficient and effective allocation of housing units from the GPRA. Finally, the respondent emphasises the importance of considering broader public interest considerations in the allocation of government accommodations to political parties. They argue that maintaining stability and order in the political system requires providing adequate facilities to parties for their functioning. Therefore, the respondent seeks to uphold the current allocation system as a means of promoting the democratic process and ensuring the smooth functioning of political parties within the framework of the law.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court meticulously examined the relevant legal provisions, including the Representation of the People Act, 1952, and the Compendium of Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool in Delhi) Rules, 1963. It scrutinised whether the allocation process followed by the Directorate of Estates was in accordance with the mandates of these laws. The court’s analysis focused on ensuring that the allocation criteria were consistent with the principles of fairness, transparency, and non-discrimination. The court deliberated on the discretionary powers vested in the Directorate of Estates concerning the allocation of government accommodations to political parties. It assessed whether the exercise of such discretion was arbitrary or based on valid and reasonable grounds. The court examined whether the allocation decisions considered relevant factors beyond numerical representation, such as functional requirements and public interest considerations.

In its judgement, the court underscored the importance of upholding constitutional principles such as equality before the law and non-discrimination. It emphasised the need for government actions, including the allocation of resources, to be guided by these principles. The court scrutinised whether the allocation process respected the fundamental rights of political parties and adhered to constitutional norms.

Based on its analysis, the court rendered its judgement. It held that the allocation process followed by the Directorate of Estates for government accommodations to political parties was in compliance with the relevant legal provisions and constitutional principles. The court found no evidence of arbitrariness or discrimination in the allocation decisions. Consequently, it dismissed the appellant’s petition and upheld the validity of the existing allocation system. The judgement affirmed the Directorate of Estates’ discretion in allocating government accommodations and underscored the importance of adhering to legal and constitutional norms in such matters.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 Judgement Reviewed by – Shruti Gattani

Click here to view judgement

Case Name: Hemica Rani Singh vs. National Medical Commission & Another

Case Number: W.P.(C) 3356/2022 and CM APPL. 9804/2022

Date: Reserved on 20 May 2024, Pronounced on 4 June 2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner, who completed her 10+2 education in India, sought to pursue a medical degree abroad. She enrolled in the Doctor of Medicine (MD) course at the Davao Medical School Foundation, Inc. (DMSFI) in the Philippines. The DMSFI course requires students to complete a Bachelor of Science (BS) course before proceeding to the MD program. In the Philippines, the education system requires students to complete a 10+4 system, where students finish ten years of school education followed by a four-year BS course before they can be admitted to the MD program. Indian students with a 10+2 background are required to undertake a BS course before enrolling in the MD program. The petitioner completed the requisite BS course in the Philippines before commencing her MD studies. As per the regulations of the Medical Council of India (MCI), an Eligibility Certificate is mandatory for Indian students seeking to pursue medical education abroad. This certificate must be obtained prior to securing admission in a foreign medical institution. The petitioner did not obtain this certificate before joining the MD program at DMSFI. According to the Screening Test Regulations, Indian students who obtain their primary medical qualification (PMQ) from a foreign institution must qualify for the Foreign Medical Graduate Examination (FMGE) to practise medicine in India. An Eligibility Certificate, obtained before starting the foreign medical course, is a prerequisite for appearing in the FMGE. After completing her MD course, the petitioner applied for an Eligibility Certificate to appear for the FMGE. Her application was rejected by the National Medical Commission (NMC), the successor to the MCI, on the grounds that she did not obtain the Eligibility Certificate before joining the foreign medical institution as mandated by the regulations. The petitioner cited various judicial precedents to argue that obtaining the Eligibility Certificate after completing the MD course should be permissible. However, the NMC and subsequent court judgments emphasised that the Eligibility Certificate must be acquired before the commencement of the medical course abroad, as stipulated by the regulations and supported by several high court and Supreme Court judgments. The petitioner approached the court seeking relief, arguing that the BS course in the Philippines is equivalent to the 10+2 system in India, and thus she should be allowed to obtain the Eligibility Certificate post facto. The court had to interpret the relevant regulations, statutory provisions, and judicial precedents to decide on the petitioner’s eligibility to appear for the FMGE without having obtained the Eligibility Certificate prior to her MD course.

ISSUES

• Whether the petitioner can obtain an Eligibility Certificate after completing her medical education abroad, despite not having obtained it prior to her admission as required by the Medical Council of India (MCI) regulations.
• Whether the Bachelor of Science (BS) course undertaken by the petitioner in the Philippines is considered equivalent to the 10+2 system of education in India, which may affect the requirement of obtaining an Eligibility Certificate before starting the MD course.
• Whether the petitioner can be permitted to sit for the Foreign Medical Graduate Examination (FMGE) without having fulfilled the prerequisite of obtaining an Eligibility Certificate prior to starting her medical education abroad.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Section 13(4B) of the Indian Medical Council (IMC) Act:

• This section stipulates that a citizen of India seeking admission to a medical institution abroad to obtain a Primary Medical Qualification (PMQ) must obtain an Eligibility Certificate issued by the Medical Council of India (MCI) beforehand. It further states that failure to obtain this certificate renders the individual ineligible to appear for the screening test required for practising medicine in India.

Regulation 4(2) of the Screening Test Regulations:

• This regulation requires that individuals must have obtained the Eligibility Certificate from the MCI as per the Eligibility Regulations before being allowed to appear for the screening test. It emphasises that this certificate must be obtained prior to undertaking the medical course abroad.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Mr. Singhdev cites judgments to support his submissions, including those in Director, AIIMS v. Dr. Nikhil Tandon, Medical Council of India v. Indian Doctors from Russia Welfare Association, and Sanjeev Gupta v. UOI, among others. These cases are referenced to bolster his arguments regarding the eligibility requirements for medical practitioners. Mr. Singhdev emphasises Regulation 3 of the Eligibility Regulations, particularly focusing on the phrase “or an equivalent examination from abroad.” He argues that without a certificate of equivalence, the petitioner cannot be considered eligible to enrol in the MD course in the Philippines. This contention highlights the importance of meeting specific eligibility criteria outlined in the regulations. Mr. Singhdev seeks to distinguish certain judgments cited by Mr. Naagar, arguing that they do not adequately address the issue of obtaining an Eligibility Certificate before undertaking the medical course abroad. By doing so, he aims to underscore the significance of adhering to the regulatory requirements set forth by the IMC Act and related regulations. In summary, Mr. Singhdev’s contentions revolve around the interpretation and application of relevant legal provisions and precedents to establish the petitioner’s eligibility status for practising medicine in India.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

Mr. Naagar argues in rejoinder, referencing judgments such as Jishalakshi Embrandiri v. Medical Council of India and Ouwshitha Surendran v. National Medical Commission. He also cites specific portions of the case Shambhavi Sharma v. NBE. These references are made to support his counterarguments against Mr. Singhdev’s submissions. Mr. Naagar contests Mr. Singhdev’s position by pointing out the precedent set in Jishalakshi Embrandiri. He highlights the case’s consideration of a petitioner who had enrolled in an MBBS course abroad based on prevailing eligibility conditions. Mr. Naagar contends that this precedent supports the petitioner’s entitlement to enrol in the MS course without strict adherence to Indian MBBS admission criteria. Mr. Naagar presents further arguments, emphasising that Indian students studying abroad are not required to undergo the full four-year BS course in the Philippines. He cites FAQs from the Indian Embassy in the Philippines to support his contention that the BS course serves as an equivalent to the Indian 10+2 system. These contentions aim to challenge the strict interpretation of eligibility criteria put forth by Mr. Singhdev. In essence, Mr. Naagar’s contentions aim to refute Mr. Singhdev’s arguments by presenting alternative interpretations of relevant legal precedents and regulations, particularly regarding the eligibility requirements for medical education abroad.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court begins its analysis by addressing the issue of the eligibility certificate and its significance in the context of the Indian Medical Council (IMC) Act and relevant regulations. It discusses the legal provisions, including Section 13(4B) of the IMC Act and Regulation 4(2) of the Screening Test Regulations, which stipulate the requirement of obtaining an eligibility certificate before undertaking a medical course abroad. The court examines various judicial precedents, including Indian Doctors from Russia Welfare Association, Ishan Kaul, and Rohinish Pathak, to establish the importance of obtaining the eligibility certificate before commencing medical studies abroad. It emphasises the necessity of adhering to the statutory provisions and precedents in determining eligibility for appearing in the Foreign Medical Graduate Examination (FMGE). The court also considers the implications of the National Medical Commission’s (NMC) practice of granting eligibility certificates to students who did not obtain them before joining medical courses abroad. It expresses concern about the divergence between this practice and the legal requirements outlined in the IMC Act and regulations. In its analysis, the court underscores the need for legislative or regulatory changes to address potential discrepancies and ensure consistency in the application of eligibility criteria for medical education abroad.

Based on its analysis of the legal provisions, judicial precedents, and the specific circumstances of the case, the court arrives at its conclusion. It states that the petitioner failed to obtain the eligibility certificate before joining the MD course, rendering her ineligible to appear in the FMGE or register as a medical practitioner in India. The court dismisses the writ petition, citing the petitioner’s non-compliance with the statutory requirements and the precedents established by higher courts. It refrains from addressing other submissions made during the proceedings, as they are deemed unnecessary in light of the primary issue of eligibility. The judgement was delivered on June 4, 2024, concluding the court’s deliberation on the matter and providing a final resolution to the legal dispute brought before it.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Shruti Gattani

Click here to view judgement