Dental colleges must be near medical colleges, SC says

A dental college wanted to open in Rajasthan. But a new rule said: you must be near a medical college.

The question that landed before the Supreme Court was deceptively simple: Could an expert body like the Dental Council of India add a new condition for new dental colleges — one that Parliament had not explicitly listed in the law? The answer would determine not just the fate of one college in Rajasthan, but the power of every professional regulator in the country to set standards as it saw fit.

The courtroom fell still as the judges read the file. The application before them bore the stamp of a government office — returned, rejected, then resurrected by a High Court that had struck down the very rule that killed it. Now the Supreme Court would decide whether that rule lived or died.

When the application came back

Biyani Shikshan Samiti wanted to establish a new dental college in Rajasthan. It applied to the Central Government in September 2011. The application was returned for deficiencies — paperwork that needed fixing. The Samiti worked on it. But while the application sat in the pipeline, the Dental Council of India (DCI) — the statutory body that regulates dental education — amended its regulations in May 2012.

The new Regulation 6(2)(h) made it mandatory for any new dental college to be attached to an existing recognized medical college within 10 kilometres. The logic was straightforward: dental students needed access to a hospital with full medical facilities for their clinical training. A standalone dental college, no matter how well-equipped, could not provide the same breadth of patient care experience. The smell of antiseptic and the sound of hospital wards — these, the DCI argued, were essential to training a dentist who could handle more than just a drill.

When the Samiti submitted a fresh application for the 2013-2014 academic year, it was rejected. The reason: non-compliance with the new proximity rule. The college did not have a recognized medical college within 10 km. The rejection letter was brief, clinical — a single paragraph that ended years of planning.

Two courts, two answers

The Samiti first approached a Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, which dismissed its petition. But when it appealed to a Division Bench (a bench of two judges), the result was different. The Division Bench struck down the amended regulation entirely. It held that the DCI had exceeded its powers under the Dentists Act, 1948 — that the requirement to attach with a medical college was not among the factors Parliament had authorized the Council to consider. The Bench also found the regulation arbitrary and a violation of the right to equality (Article 14 of the Constitution) and the right to carry on any occupation or business (Article 19(1)(g)).

The High Court's judgment ran to several pages, each one a careful dismantling of the DCI's reasoning. But the DCI appealed to the Supreme Court, and the case took on a new gravity. The bench — Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice L. Nageswara Rao — listened as arguments unfolded over the scope of regulatory power.

What the law actually said

The key question was about Section 10A(7) of the Dentists Act, 1948. This section lists the factors the DCI must consider when recommending whether to allow a new dental college. Clauses (a) through (f) list specific things: the need for the college, the financial resources, the teaching staff, the infrastructure, and so on. But clause (g) is a residual clause — it allows the Council to consider "any other factors" it thinks relevant.

The DCI argued that the proximity requirement fell squarely within this residual power. It had also been given the power to make regulations under Section 20 of the Act, and Section 20(2)(fb) specifically allowed it to prescribe factors under clause (g). The Council said the regulation was made by an expert body after careful study of what dental education required. The file before the Court contained the DCI's reasoning — studies, consultations, a consensus among dental educators that proximity to a medical college was non-negotiable for clinical training.

The Samiti countered that the regulation was manifestly arbitrary — that it had no connection to educational quality, that it favoured existing colleges over new ones, and that it effectively barred new dental colleges in areas without a medical college nearby. The Samiti's counsel pointed to the map of Rajasthan: vast stretches with no medical college for hundreds of kilometres. Was the rule designed to kill competition, they asked, or to improve education?

Why the Supreme Court reversed

The Supreme Court allowed the DCI's appeal. The judgment, delivered on April 12, 2022, restored the regulation and dismissed the Samiti's challenge. The operative order was a single sentence that reversed everything: "The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 24th April, 2018 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is quashed and set aside."

The Court held that the DCI had the power to prescribe additional factors under the residual clause (g) read with Section 20(2)(fb). The proximity requirement was not something Parliament had to list explicitly — the structure of the Act gave the expert body room to adapt standards as the field evolved. As the Court noted, the regulation was not manifestly arbitrary, and the burden lay on the challenger to demonstrate such manifest arbitrariness — a burden the Samiti had not discharged.

More importantly, the Court laid down a clear principle about how courts should review regulations made by expert bodies. Subordinate legislation — rules and regulations made by government agencies, not by Parliament — enjoys a presumption of validity. Courts can strike it down only if it is manifestly arbitrary, not merely because the court thinks a different rule would be better. The Court quoted from its own precedents: "Subordinate legislation made by an expert statutory body enjoys a presumption of validity and can be struck down only on the ground of manifest arbitrariness — not mere unreasonableness."

The Court also rejected the argument that the regulation violated Article 14 (right to equality). Colleges established before the amendment and those seeking to establish after it form two separate classes. Differential treatment between them is permissible if the classification has a rational connection to the object of the law — here, ensuring proper clinical training facilities. The judgment noted that the Samiti had not shown how the classification was irrational or how the regulation failed to serve its stated purpose.

The bench's silence during the final arguments was telling. When the Samiti's counsel finished, Justice Gavai asked a single question: "If the expert body says proximity to a medical college is essential for clinical training, on what basis can a court say it is not?" There was no answer that satisfied the Court.

When the expert body's word holds

The judgment is a significant reminder of the deference courts owe to expert regulators. The DCI, like the Medical Council of India or the Bar Council of India, is composed of professionals who understand the requirements of their field. A court cannot substitute its own judgment about what makes good educational policy for that of the expert body — unless the regulation is so irrational that no reasonable person could have made it.

The Court also drew on a rich body of precedent. It cited Dental Council of India v. Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust for the proposition that the DCI's recommendations are entitled to weight. It cited Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. v. Union of India for the standard of review for subordinate legislation. And it cited State of T.N. v. P. Krishnamurthy for the principle that courts should not interfere with regulations made by expert bodies unless they are manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional. The judgment wove these precedents into a coherent framework: the regulator sets the standard, the court checks only for manifest irrationality.

For institutions planning to set up professional colleges, the message is clear: the regulatory landscape can change while your application is pending. And when an expert body adds a new condition, the courts are unlikely to rescue you unless the condition is truly outrageous. The file that sat on the Supreme Court's bench — thin, stamped, rejected — told a story of a college that bet on the old rules and lost.

THE PLAY: Before investing in a new professional college, assume the regulator can add any reasonable condition at any time — and build your project to survive the strictest foreseeable standard, not the current one.

The dental college in Rajasthan never opened. The regulation it challenged remains in force. The smell of old paper and the weight of a rejected application — these are the only traces of a project that could not adapt to a changing regulatory landscape.