Karnataka High Court Quashes State Inspection Order | Deputy Commissioners Cannot Replace RGUHS, INC Or KNC
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed two writ petitions challenging a government directive that authorized district-level inspections of nursing colleges by Deputy Commissioners. The Court quashed the impugned government communication dated 5.11.2024, observing that inspections of nursing institutions must be conducted only by the specialized statutory agencies—namely the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS), Indian Nursing Council (INC), and Karnataka Nursing Council (KNC). The Court directed that any complaints received by the government must be forwarded to these competent bodies for further action. Additionally, it ordered the creation of online portals for publishing inspection reports to ensure transparency.
The petitioners in W.P. No. 32106 of 2024 and W.P. No. 32185 of 2024 are associations representing private nursing and allied health science institutions in Karnataka. The first petitioner, Karnataka State Private Management Association of Health Institutions, and the second petitioner, Karnataka State Association of the Management of Nursing and Allied Health Science Institutions, approached the High Court challenging a directive issued on 5.11.2024 by the Principal Secretary of the Department of Health and Family Welfare (Medical Education).
This directive instructed Deputy Commissioners across Karnataka to conduct inspections of nursing institutions within their jurisdictions. It included lists of nursing experts and institutions to be inspected. The petitioners contended that the Deputy Commissioners lacked the necessary expertise and legal authority to conduct such inspections, which are already governed by specialized agencies established under statutory frameworks.
The petitioners stated that nursing institutions operate under statutory supervision from three agencies: RGUHS, INC, and KNC. These bodies are constituted respectively under the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994; the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947; and the Karnataka Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act, 1961 (KNM Act). Each agency carries out periodic inspections, grants affiliations, and oversees compliance with infrastructure and academic requirements.
The petitioners argued that the directive issued on 5.11.2024 was similar to an earlier initiative from 2021 involving inspections by members of the Legislative Council. That initiative was stayed by the Supreme Court in SLP No. 23948 of 2023 and remains pending. They contended that authorizing Deputy Commissioners to inspect nursing colleges would amount to unauthorized duplication of regulatory authority and create legal inconsistency.
The petitioners also referred to Sections 13 of the INC Act and 45 of the RGUHS Act, both of which lay down the legal framework for inspections and affiliations. Section 13 empowers the INC to appoint inspectors to evaluate the suitability of institutions. Section 45 empowers RGUHS to regulate affiliations.
The Court heard detailed submissions from Senior Counsel M.S. Shyamsundar and Advocate T. Krishna on behalf of the petitioners. They reiterated that only the statutory agencies have the expertise and authority to inspect nursing colleges and schools. They also warned that the new inspection mechanism would jeopardize the interests of students and institutions, many of which cater to students from across the country.
The State, represented by Additional Government Advocate Ms. Mamatha Shetty, defended the government order. She argued that the directive was based on complaints from the public and students regarding inadequate facilities in some nursing institutions. She referred to Sections 20 and 22 of the KNM Act, asserting that licensing authorities—who could include Deputy Commissioners—have supervisory powers and authority to inspect nursing establishments.
Ms. Shetty submitted that under Section 8 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the Deputy Commissioner is empowered to exercise all duties and powers under various enactments, including supervisory functions. She further argued that the inspection was meant to be conducted with the assistance of subject experts and did not encroach upon the roles of statutory bodies.
The Indian Nursing Council (INC), represented by Advocate Shivarudra, submitted that the INC is empowered to conduct inspections under Section 13 of the INC Act. Reports of these inspections are forwarded to both Central and State authorities as well as State Councils.
The Karnataka Nursing Council (KNC), represented by Advocate Jyoti Maradi, submitted that the KNC performs regular inspections and oversees registration and regulation of nursing professionals under the KNM Act.
The Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS), represented by Advocate Mamatha G. Kulkarni, confirmed that it carries out annual inspections and ensures compliance with affiliation norms.
All three agencies confirmed they conduct inspections and take appropriate action for non-compliance.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj recorded that "the Deputy Commissioner, even with the assistance of the specialized agencies, in my considered opinion, cannot substitute the specialized agencies like RGUHS, INC and KNC." The Court held that the statutory framework empowers only these specialized bodies to undertake inspections.
"Taking into consideration the legal aspects, these inspections can only be carried out by the concerned specialised agencies, in case of Nursing colleges and schools, by the RGUHS, INC and KNC," the Court stated.
On the nature of the government communication dated 5.11.2024, the Court observed that it "would have to be looked upon as an instruction by the Principal Secretary and not as a policy decision of the State, the same not qualifying as a policy decision."
"There is no reference which has been made to the impugned order dated 5-11-2024 to experts under RGUHS, INC or KNC."
"The Deputy Commissioner not having any expertise in educational facilities... I am of the considered opinion that the said letter is completely arbitrary, the exercise of powers by the Deputy Commissioner is unbridled and such inspection is not under any particular enactment," the Court recorded.
The Court noted that although Sections 20 and 22 of the KNM Act empower the licensing authority to conduct inspections, "the licensing authority would not have any authority to seek for compliance of the conditions imposed by KNC, INC and RGUHS, which will be the sole prerogative of those Institutions and not of the licensing authority."
The Court further stated that if the objective of ensuring educational standards is genuine, the competent authorities—RGUHS, INC, and KNC—must intensify their efforts. The Court observed that multiple inspections by different bodies would be "a duplicitous effort" and that "the inspection by the Deputy Commissioner would not only be a duplicitous effort but, in the present case, could be the fourth such inspection."
The Court expressed concern over the lack of a public repository for inspection reports and directed the creation of online portals.
The High Court issued the following directions:
The writ petition in W.P. No. 32185 of 2024 was allowed. The Court issued a writ of certiorari quashing the communication bearing reference No. Aa.Sa.Pa.Sum:MED 555 MSF 2024 dated 5.11.2024 issued by the Principal Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department (Medical Education).
In view of the above, the writ petition in W.P. No. 32106 of 2024 was also allowed. No further orders were required as the communication at issue had been quashed.
The Court granted liberty to the State Government to forward any complaints it receives to the RGUHS, INC, or KNC for further action. These bodies must act expeditiously and keep the State authorities informed of the outcomes.
The Court clarified that licensing authorities retain the right to take permissible action for violations of license conditions. However, this does not extend to inspecting compliance with conditions imposed by RGUHS, INC, or KNC.
General directions were issued to RGUHS, INC, and KNC to develop dedicated web portals to upload all inspection reports college-wise. Each agency must provide Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) to allow mutual access to uploaded data by other agencies and the Health and Family Welfare Department.
These inspection reports must include information on infrastructure, facilities, licenses, sanctions, and any litigations involving the institutions.
Each body was directed to establish grievance redressal mechanisms on their respective web portals. An option to submit online grievances by students, parents, or faculty members must also be implemented.
Each agency must submit a detailed project report on the implementation of these directions within six weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of the order.
The Court scheduled the matter for compliance review on 15.07.2025 at 2:30 PM.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: M.S. Shyamsundar, Senior Advocate; T. Krishna, Advocate; Pradeep Kumar P.K., Advocate
For the Respondents: Mamatha Shetty, Additional Government Advocate; Shivarudra, Advocate for INC; Mamatha G. Kulkarni, Advocate for RGUHS; Jyoti M. Maradi, Advocate for KNC
Case Title: Karnataka State Private Management Association of Health Institutions v. State of Karnataka
Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC:18118
Case Numbers: W.P. No. 32106 of 2024 and W.P. No. 32185 of 2024
Bench: Justice Suraj Govindaraj
[Read/Download order]
