The names of Randeep Guleria, Director of AIIMS at Delhi; V K Paul, Professor and Head of Paediatrics at the AIIMS; Nikhil Tandon, Professor and Head of Endocrinology at the AIIMS; Jagat Ram, Director of PGIMER at Chandigarh and B N Gangadharan, Director of NIMHANS at Bengaluru, were shortlisted by the Centre.
The Supreme Court today allowed the Centre to appoint five eminent doctors in the oversight committee which would replace the court-appointed panel set up to supervise the functioning of the Medical Council of India.
The court's nod came after the Solicitor General gave the names of five doctors shortlisted by the Centre to be appointed in the oversight committee as the term of the panel led by former Chief Justice R M Lodha had come to an end.
The names of Randeep Guleria, Director of AIIMS at Delhi; V K Paul, Professor and Head of Paediatrics at the AIIMS; Nikhil Tandon, Professor and Head of Endocrinology at the AIIMS; Jagat Ram, Director of PGIMER at Chandigarh and B N Gangadharan, Director of NIMHANS at Bengaluru, were shortlisted by the Centre.
"We accept the proposal made to this court by Ranjit Kumar, Solicitor General of India on behalf of the Union of India. We grant liberty to the Union of India to nominate one of the members of the reconstituted Oversight Committee, as its Chairperson," a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar said.
The bench said that it was satisfied with the names and does not want to suggest any names as the doctors, whose names have been proposed are all outstanding people.
The court also listed the duties to be done by the oversight committee and said that it will have "the authority to oversee the functioning of Medical Council of India".
"All decisions/recommendations of MCI will require approval of oversight committee before they are communicated to the Central Government. The Oversight Committee will be free to issue appropriate remedial directions for improvement in the functioning of MCI.
"The oversight committee will function till the Central Government puts in place any other appropriate mechanism, or until further orders," it said.
The apex court said the functions of oversight committee "are clearly limited to oversee the activities of the MCI." "The decision in all matters required to be determined by the Government of India, shall be that of the Government of India, which shall record reasons for taking a view different to the one proposed by the Medical Council of India, in conjunction with the Oversight Committee.
"It shall also be open to the aggrieved party, if it is so advised, to assail the same, in accordance with law," it said while disposing of a plea on the issue.
The bench had yesterday asked the Centre to constitute a panel which would replace the oversight committee set up last year by the apex court to oversee the MCI's functioning till the government put in place an alternate mechanism.
The committee, set up by the court on May 2 last year, was to function for a period of one year or till a suitable mechanism was brought in by the Centre to substitute it.
During the hearing, senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, appearing for some medical colleges, had told the bench that till date, no alternative mechanism had been put in place by the Centre despite the fact that the oversight panel was to function for only one year or till a suitable mechanism was evolved.
He had argued that the MCI was bound by directions of the oversight committee but the council was not adhering to them.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, had said the tenure of the oversight committee should be extended by one more year or till the time the Centre comes out with a mechanism to deal with the issues relating to the MCI's functioning.
The apex court had on July 13 agreed to set up a five- judge constitution bench to deal with the matter after Rohatgi had said it was an urgent matter as counselling for admissions in MBBS and BDS was underway.
The Centre had earlier told the apex court that it had taken steps to put the alternative mechanism in place and there was no need now for the oversight committee to continue.
MCI had contended that the directions of the constitution bench which had set up the oversight committee were based on certain material which could not be controverted at the time of the order.
(This article has not been edited by DNA's editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}