D Y Chandrachud, J. - (1.) The judgment rendered by a three judge Bench in State of Uttar Pradesh v Dinesh Singh Chauhan, 2016 9 SCC 749 , construed the provisions of Regulations 9(IV) and 9(VII) of the Medical Council of India Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2000, as amended on 15 February 2012. In the present batch of cases, a Bench of three Judges opined, by an order dated 13 April 2018, that these petitions require consideration by a larger Bench.
(2.) In making this reference, the referring order primarily indicated the following reasons : (i) The decision in Dinesh Singh Chauhan has not considered the entries in the legislative lists of the Seventh Schedule, more particularly Entry 66 of the Union List and Entry 25 of the Concurrent List; (ii) The main contention of the petitioners is that while coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education falls within the exclusive domain of the Union (Entry 66 List I), medical education is a subject in the Concurrent List (Entry 25 List III). Though, Entry 25 of List III is subject to Entry 66 of List I, the State is not denuded of its power to legislate on the manner and method of making admissions to post-graduate medical courses; (iii) The contentions which have been raised in the present batch of petitions were not addressed before this Court in Dinesh Singh Chauhan; (iv) The judgment in Dinesh Singh Chauhan does not consider three decisions of the Constitution Bench in R Chitralekha v State of Mysore, 1964 6 SCR 368 , Kumari Chitra Ghosh v Union of India, 1969 2 SCC 228 and Modern Dental College and Research Centre v State of Madhya Pradesh, 2016 7 SCC 353 ; and (v) There are decisions rendered by Benches of an equal strength as in Dinesh Singh Chauhan.
(3.) While making a reference to a larger Bench, the referring order observed that it would be "appropriate that even the interim relief should be considered by the larger Bench". Accordingly, on the directions of the learned Chief Justice, the proceedings have been placed before the Constitution Bench to consider the question of interim relief.;