File photo: Madras High Court, Chennai
Photo: Yoga Balaji
Source: Wikimedia Commons
Licence: CC BY 3.0
Judgment Intelligence
Petition AllowedChettinad Academy of Research and Education v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
2026:MHC:3645
W.A. No. 83 of 2026
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of Decision
- 8 September 2026
- Bench
- Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 — Form 2; Establishment of New Medical Institutions ... Regulations, 2023 — Regulations 2(f), 9(a); SARFAESI Act, 2002 — Section 13(6); National Medical Commission Act, 2019 — Section 60(4)
Final Outcome
Writ appeal allowed; the single judge's order of 03.12.2025 was set aside, and the State must process the application within Form 2 without insisting on the two environmental certificates at this stage; no costs (paras 19-20).
Source Madras High Court, decided 08.09.2026
Key holdings
- A judgment that leaves a live, contested issue unanswered cannot stand as a complete disposal (paras 8-10).
- V.N. Public Health and Educational Trust bars only conditions tied to Form 2 requirements, not every condition (para 12).
- The State’s inquiry for an Essentiality Certificate is confined to the Form 2 criteria (para 17).
- Environmental clearance and Pollution Control Board approval are not Form 2 criteria and cannot hold up the certificate (para 18).
- Whether the 2014 certificate passed to the auction purchaser was left open (para 19).
Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
Chettinad Academy bought, at a 2024 SARFAESI auction, land on which PRIST Trust had run a medical college under a 2014 Essentiality Certificate (para 3). After the National Medical Commission rejected its 2025 application, it applied to the State for a fresh certificate, but the State asked it first to produce an Environmental Clearance Certificate and a Pollution Control Board certificate (para 3). A single judge held that the State's past conditional certificates were illegal, relying on V.N. Public Health and Educational Trust, and directed the Academy to obtain both certificates first (para 3).
Court's Findings
The Bench found that the single judge had left two live issues unanswered: whether the 2014 certificate passed to the Academy under Section 13(6) of the SARFAESI Act, and whether the two environmental certificates had any bearing on an Essentiality Certificate; this alone required the order to be set aside (paras 8-10). V.N. Public Health and Educational Trust concerned a condition tied to a Form 2 requirement and does not make every condition void (para 12). The Academy did not seek exemption from environmental clearance, only that its absence should not hold up the certificate (para 13). Under the 2023 Regulations and Form 2, the State's inquiry is limited to medical manpower needs, doctor-population ratios, public interest, feasibility and clinical material, and it cannot insist on parameters outside Form 2 (paras 14-17). Environmental approvals are mandatory under separate statutes before construction or commissioning, but are not criteria for an Essentiality Certificate (para 18).
Legal Principle
In deciding an Essentiality Certificate for a medical college, the State must act within the criteria in Form 2 of the 1999 Regulations. It cannot withhold or defer the certificate for want of environmental clearance or Pollution Control Board approval, which are required separately under environmental statutes (paras 17-18).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Medical Council of India v. V.N. Public Health and Educational Trust (2016) 11 SCC 216
An Essentiality Certificate made conditional on a mandatory Form 2 requirement (clinical material) is no certificate in the eyes of the Regulations; it does not make every condition void.