(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the impugned order dated 11/4/2022 passed in W.P.No.7857 of 2019 to the extent that

                     (i) there shall be only one unique ID number, being the one issued by the original State Nursing Council

                     (ii). Regulation 6 (iii) of impugned Notification has been set aside pertaining to penalty and

                     (iii) that the appellant Council cannot communicate directly with the Nursing Institutions functioning in the State of Tamil Nadu.)

K. Surender, J.

1. The present Intra Court Appeal is directed against the order dated 11/4/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7857 of 2019, whereby, certain provisions of the Indian Nursing Council (Nurses Registration and Tracking System) Regulations, 2019 framed under Sections 15 A and 16(1) of the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947 (Central Act) were interfered with.

2. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in this Writ Petition. The first respondent herein is the writ petitioner, who is a registered Nurse with the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council (State Council / R4). She had challenged a letter dated 8/9/2015 issued by the INC-Indian Nursing Council to the State Council and also the consequential Circular instructions dated 28/6/2018 issued by the State Council. The said communications were assailed on the ground that initiation for formulation of National Live Register of Nurses is improper. While the Writ Petition was pending, Indian Nursing Council (Nurses Register and Tracking System) Regulations, 2019, was gazetted and accordingly, prayer was amended by the petitioner seeking quashment of the said Notification dated 7/5/2019.

3. The 2019 Regulations were framed with the sole object of modernizing and standardizing system of registration and tracking of nursing professionals across the country. A reading of the Regulations would show that a Centralized Digital Platform was established viz., the Nurses Registration Tracking system (NRTS) for the purposes of maintaining a uniform National data base, to ensure transparency and traceability of registrations to facilitate Reciprocal Recognition across States and also to prevent duplication. The Scheme also provides for a standardized procedure of Registration, Renewal and time bound compliance of such Registration and Renewal.

4. To sum up, the Regulations were intended to promote administrative efficiency and professional accountability of the Registered Nurses.

5. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order, held that

                     (i). The Unique Registration Number issued by the State Nursing Council alone would suffice and introduction of an additional identification number by the INC would only create confusion.

                     (ii). The communication with institutions by INC directly constitutes an excess of authority and the INC cannot correspond directly with Colleges except for limited purposes.

                     (iii). Thirdly, the Court held that the levy of penalty for late Registration or Renewal is ultra vires and accordingly set aside.

6. Heard Mr.M.S.Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/Indian Nursing Council, Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy, Senior Panel Counsel for the second respondent, Mr.E.Sundaram, learned Government Advocate for the third respondent and Mr.R.Thomas, learned counsel for the fourth respondent.

7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the finding of the learned Single Judge on three aspects is contrary to the need and purpose for which the Regulations were made.

                     (i). Learned Senior Counsel submitted that, the issuance of a National Unique Number would remove any difficulty regarding the nurses migrating in between States. The National Unique Number would ensure that there is no confusion and when State gives the identification numbers, there is a problem of duplication of identification numbers in between States.

                     (ii). The learned Senior Counsel further argued that a direction limiting communications with Institutions is contrary to Sections 13 and 14 of the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947, which expressly empowers the Indian Nursing Council to inspect Institutions, access suitability, evaluate faculty adequacies and communicate deficiencies. For these reasons, direct communications with the Institutions is necessary.

                     (iii). Finally the learned Senior Counsel argued that the power to levy penalty is by the State Nursing Council and without there being uniform fees and penalties, nurses would face arbitrariness and there would be inconsistency regarding the charges across the States.

8. The learned counsel for the third respondent adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. However, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent would submit that there cannot be any levy of penalty for the reason of there being no powers granted under Section 16 A of the Act, to levy penalty.

Centralized Unique Identification Number:-

9. The learned Single Judge held that the State Council Registration Number alone would suffice and introducing an additional number which is on a nation wide basis would add confusion.

10. As seen from the Notification, the assignment of the Centralized Unique Identification Number is an integral component of a National Digital Registry. While the State Registration signifies the enrollment within a particular State, however the National Identification Number would ensure portability and traceability across the States and jurisdictions. The existence of dual identification numbers would ensure and address the practical problem of nurses migrating in between States to jurisdictions. Without a National Identification Number, there is a possibility of duplication and tracking failures. The Unique National Identification Number however would eliminate the problem. There cannot be any inconsistency or confusion but would regulate the frame work. For the said reason, there would be no confusion, if a National Identification Number is given and would only help in simplifying the process of maintaining the nationwide statistics of Registered Nurses.

Direct communication with Institutions

11. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the finding of the learned Judge that INC cannot correspond directly with Colleges except for limited purposes has to be set aside and the finding is contrary to the provision of Section 13, 14 of the INC Act.

12. The learned Judge found that Sections 13 and 14 of the INC Act, 1947, regarding inspections and withdrawal of Recognition, the purpose is to establish a uniform standard of training for nurses and its function and responsibilities are restricted to and in furtherance of this object under Section 14 of the INC Act.

13. We do not find any infirmity with the finding of the learned Judge that communication by the INC directly with the Institutions should be within the powers vested under the INC Act and any communication by the INC beyond the purposes mentioned in Sections 14 would constitute an excess of authority. The said finding cannot be found fault with, since none of the provision under the INC Act were held to be ultravires.

14. No restriction is imposed on INC regarding any of the functions that are mentioned in the INC Act, which need communication directly with the Institutions in the State of Tamil Nadu. The INC can directly communicate for the said purposes and there is no restriction put forth by the learned Single Judge. For the said reasons, we do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding.

Penalty:

15. Penalty is imposed in the Schedule of the 2019 Regulations for delay in ‘Reciprocal of Registration’ and ‘delay in Renewal of Registration’.

16. For easy understanding, the relevant portion of the Schedule is extracted hereunder:-

                     “9. Penalties – In case of non-adherence of any of the provisions of above regulations penalties as stipulated in the Schedule will be imposed.

                     SCHEDULE

                     A. Fees

                     (i). Registration fee – Rs.1,000/- for ANM and Rs.2,000/- for GNM/BSC ...Para 5

                     (ii). Reciprocal Registration fee – Rs.1,000/- Para 6 (iii)

                     (iii). Renewal of Registration fee – Rs.500/- Para 7 (iv)

                     (iv). Additional/Higher Qualification Registration fee: Rs.1,000/- Para 8 (ii).

                     B. PENALTIES

                     (i). Delay in Reciprocal of Registration for more than 3 months: Rs.5000/- para 6 (iii)

                     (ii). Delay in Renewal of Registration for more than 6 months: Rs.5,000/- Para 7 (iv).”

17. The levy of penalty was quashed by the learned Judge for want of required authority under the Central Act to impose such penalties. The learned Judge found that when there is no specific provision under the INC Act, enabling the INC to impose such penalty, the penalty which is imposed under the Regulation 2019 has to be quashed.

18. As seen from the Notification, the word “penalty” is used, however, such use of the expression “penalty” is not determinative and the substance has to be looked into over the expression. The amount of Rs.5,000/- under the schedule is for delay in Reciprocal of Registration beyond three months under para 6 of (iii) of the Regulation and secondly, Rs.5,000/- for the delay caused in Renewal of Registration for more than six months in accordance with Para 7 of (iv) of the Regulation. Regulation 6 (iii) is about charging uniform Reciprocal Registration fee and Regulation 7 (iv) is for charge of a uniform Renewal of Registration.

19. The levy is attracted in cases of ‘delay in Reciprocal Registration’ and ‘delay in Renewal of Registration’ and would only operate as a condition for entertaining the belated applications. In fact, it enables the applicant to over come the delay and get the benefit of Registration or Renewal, however, subject to the additional fee such excess amount can only be treated as Regulatory late fee and not a punitive measure. The said imposition of additional fee (referred to as penalty in the Regulation) would be a condition for entertaining the late applications that are made for Registration or Renewal, as such it cannot be treated as beyond the powers conferred under Section 16 of INC Act. It is not the case of imposing any kind of penalty for not Registering or Renewal, however, it is for entertaining applications though belatedly made. There is a difference in so far as punitive action is concerned and admitting belated applications with the condition of paying additional fee quantified as Rs.5,000/- which in our view is neither arbitrary nor beyond the scope of regulations under the Act.

20. In view of the foregoing discussions, we hold that

                     (i). the introduction of a Unique Identification Number by INC through out India, is valid and consistent with the object of the Regulations and the INC Act.

                     (ii). The levy of penalty, in substance, is regulatory late fee entertaining the delayed applications for which additional fee is imposed and which cannot be termed as a punitive action.

                     (iii) The INC is competent to directly communicate with the institutions within the powers prescribed under the INC Act and 2019 Regulations.

21. For the said reasons, in so far as the finding in the impugned order that an additional National Identification Number by the INC would create confusion is incorrect, and the INC can go ahead with a National Identification Number. The quashment of the penalty under the Regulation is hereby set aside and the INC can continue to impose the cost of Rs.5,000/- in case of delayed application for ‘Registration’ and ‘Renewal’. No restrictions can be imposed on the INC for direct communications with the institutions as mentioned under the Act and 2019 Regulations.

22. The order dated 11.04.2022 passed in WP.No.7857 of 2019 is hereby set aside. The Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.