Medicare Educational Trust vs The Union Of India on 29 August, 2025

[Cites 38, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

Medicare Educational Trust vs The Union Of India on 29 August, 2025

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

             WRIT PETITION No. 23630 OF 2025

O R D E R:

Challenging the proceedings dated 18.07.2025 issued by the 4th respondent - Under Graduate Medical Education Board (UGMEB), prohibiting petitioner Institute of Medical Sciences from admitting students to the MBBS Course for the Academic Year 2025-26, this Writ Petition is instituted. Petitioners contend that the Impugned Order is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, suffers from non- application of mind, prejudice, arbitrariness and violates the Fundamental Rights of petitioners, including their Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. 1.1 The 1st petitioner - Medicare Educational Trust was established in 2001 with the objective of providing healthcare to the poor and needy. In line with this, the Trust established a hospital, medical college, B.Sc. Nursing College, B.Sc. Allied Health Sciences and other paramedical programs. In 2002, Medicare General Hospital was set up with an initial capacity of 150 beds at H.No. 19-3-159/B, Hunter Road, Rangasaipet, Thimmapur (H), Warangal, on a 33-acre campus named Father Colombo Health City. The hospital, one of the largest in 2 Warangal, expanded its capacity to 645 beds and offers a range of super-specialties. Due to its reputation for providing excellent, low-cost care, it attracts patients from various parts of the state and neighbouring states.

1.2 Desirous of expanding its philanthropic activities, the Trust sought to establish a medical college in Warangal. Accordingly, the Government of Telangana issued an Essentiality Certificate on 29.08.2022, permitting establishment of the 2nd petitioner - Father Colombo Institute of Medical Sciences with an annual intake of 150 MBBS seats for the Academic Year 2023-24. The certificate noted that the Trust owns and manages a 300-bedded hospital and possesses Acs. 13.34 Guntas of land in Hunter Road, Rangasaipet, Warangal. On 30.08.2022, the 6th petitioner - Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences (KNR University) granted a Consent of Affiliation, subject to permission from the National Medical Commission (NMC).

1.3 It is stated, based on these documents, the Trust applied to NMC. A surprise inspection was conducted by a team of assessors on 10.02.2023. Satisfied with the facilities, the Medical Assessment & Rating Board (MARB) issued a Letter of Intent (LoI) on 21.02.2023 for 150 MBBS seats, which was 3 followed by a Letter of Permission on 03.03.2023. Subsequently, after inspection by the Principal of Kakatiya Medical College, Hanamkonda, KNR University granted Provisional Affiliation on 26.06.2023 for the Academic Year 2023-24. Following all necessary permissions, petitioner college was listed on the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) portal, and 150 students were admitted for the Academic Year 2023-24.

1.4 Petitioners highlight significant change in Annual MBBS Admission Regulations, 2020 (for short '2020 Regulations). At the time of initial permission, the college met all the faculty requirements as per the Regulations. However, on 19.09.2023, the NMC notified the Amended Guidelines for Under Graduate Courses under Establishment of New Medical Institutions, Starting of New Medical Courses, Increase of Seats for Existing Courses & Assessment and Rating Regulations, 2023 (for short, '2023 Regulations). These Regulations significantly increased the faculty requirement for 150 seats from 83 to 114. For the first time, a mandatory requirement of additionally employing 3 Senior Residents in every department (both Pre-Clinical and Para-Clinical) was introduced. The new Regulations also introduced the Aadhar Enabled Biometric Attendance System (AEBAS), requiring daily AEBAS of staff, 4 preferably with face recognition, to be made available to the NMC and on the college website.

1.5 It is stated, in the State of Telangana, 11 new Government Medical Colleges and three new Private Medical Colleges were established in 2023 and 2024. This rapid increase in the number of colleges, coupled with the enhanced faculty requirements, led to a huge shortage of faculty across the State. Petitioners annexed Newspaper articles illustrating this situation by mentioning show-cause notices issued by the NMC to 26 out of 34 Government Medical Colleges in Telangana, 34 out of 36 in Tamil Nadu, all 22 in Karnataka, 71 in West Bengal, and 30 in Maharashtra. There was also a huge shortage of eligible candidates for Senior Resident positions, as the 2023 Regulations require them to have a Post Graduate Qualification (MD/MS). This affidavit details the total number of Post- Graduate seats in various departments in Telangana, noting that some seats remain unfilled and that 30% are reserved for In-Service Quota students who must return to government service, thereby reducing the available pool of candidates. 1.6 Recognizing these challenges, the Teachers Eligibility Qualifications in Medical Institutions Regulations, 2025 (for short, '2025 Regulations') were notified. These 5 Regulations permitted candidates with MSc. and Ph.D. degrees to be appointed as senior faculty, increased the upper age limit for Senior Residents to 50 years and allowed parallel entry of doctors from government hospitals without prior teaching experience. Despite their best efforts to comply with the 2023 Regulations, petitioner college experienced some delay in implementing the AEBAS. This led to the UGMEB issuing a Show Cause Notice in January 2024 for an alleged violation. The college replied via e-mail on 02.02.2024, explaining the unexpected challenges and the steps taken to achieve compliance. On 13.05.2024, a virtual personal hearing was held where the college's explanation was accepted and renewal was granted upon payment of a penalty of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The UGMEB's letter dated 07.06.2024 granted renewal for Academic Year 2024-25, subject to the fine and a re-assessment after two months. Subsequently, KNR University granted provisional affiliation for the second batch of 150 students for the Academic Year 2024-25 on 03.08.2024.

1.7 For the Academic Year 2025-26, the UGMEB issued Public Notice on 01.11.2024, calling on medical colleges to submit their annual declarations, which the petitioner college duly did. On 11.05.2025, the UGMEB issued a Show Cause 6 Notice to the college, received on 12.05.2025, pointing out certain deficiencies. Petitioner college submitted a reply on 16.05.2025, addressing each deficiency; a personal hearing was scheduled for 20.06.2025 at the NMC Office in New Delhi. During and after the hearing, petitioners submitted Form 16 and Form 26AS for their faculty for the Financial Years 2023-24 and 2024-25, providing proof of having employed the requisite faculty. The affidavit states that the petitioners are ready to present the entire documents during the hearing. 1.8 While so, on 30.06.2025, FIR No. RC2182025A0014 was registered by the CBI under 61 (2) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alleging irregularities involving public officials and representatives of private medical colleges, specifically concerning petitioner college alleging that Fr. Joseph Kommareddy, a Member Trustee, paid Rs. 20,00,000/- and Rs.46,00,000/- to intermediaries who, in turn, routed the money to Dr. Hari Prasad to manage the college's regulatory affairs which are vague and incorrect. The Trust and management were unaware of the FIR till 14.07.2025, when the MARB issued a Press Release referring to it. Shockingly, without any prior notice or hearing on the matter, the NMC announced 7 that the Applications for renewal for the Academic Year 2025-26 for six medical colleges, including petitioner college would be cancelled and not processed further. Finally, on 18.07.2025, the UGMEB via the Impugned Order, resolved to stop admission of MBBS Course for the Academic Year 2025-26 for the petitioner college.

2. The 3rd respondent - National Medical Commission contends that against the impugned order, there exists an alternate remedy of Appeal and petitioners without availing the same, approached straight away this Court. It is further stated, the impugned order was issued in full compliance with statutory provisions; it afforded adequate opportunity to petitioner to address persistent and grave deficiencies and that the decision was also influenced by serious allegations of corruption and manipulation under investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). According to this respondent, petitioner college has not approached this Court with clean hands, as they have attempted to divert attention from the core issue by suggesting the rejection was based solely on the CBI FIR dated 30.06.2025. It is stated, petitioner has been a repeated defaulter in fulfilling the mandatory requirements of the Establishment of New Medical Institutions, Starting of New Medical Courses, 8 Increase of Seats for Existing Courses & Assessment and Rating Regulations, 2023. It is further stated, the NMC exercised its inherent powers under these Regulations and issued a reasoned and speaking order. Apart from the deficiencies, NMC received a formal communication from the CBI regarding FIR No. RC2182025A0014 dated 30.06.2025, which was filed against assessors, college authorities and unknown persons on charges of bribery and serious misconduct.

2.1 It is stated, as per the requirements of MSMER, 2023, notified on 19.09.2023, the Under Graduate Medical Education Board (UGMEB) issued a Public Notice on 01.11.2024, directing medical colleges to submit their Annual Disclosure Reports. An additional Public Notice on 25.04.2025 sought further information. Upon examination of the Annual Declaration Report, video recordings of examinations, and AEBAS (Aadhaar Enabled Biometric Attendance System) data for the past year, several gross deficiencies were found in the petitioner college. These deficiencies included: all departments were found deficient in faculty/resident/tutor as per AEBAS records; the Establishment LOP file was not attached; OPD attendance was less than the recommended level; bed occupancy was less than 80%; an MBBS student stated that 9 candidates were not uniformly examined; 08 out of 20 departments had faculty deficiencies as per self-declaration; number of internal examiners in Physiology was only written in the C form, which was deemed suboptimal; 19 out of 20 departments had a faculty deficiency in AEBAS; and 16 out of 20 departments had a senior resident deficiency in AEBAS. 2.2 It is further stated, a detailed Show Cause Notice dated 11.05.2025 was issued to petitioner specifically listing these deficiencies, for which, a compliance report was submitted, but upon re-evaluation, most deficiencies persisted, including faculty/resident/tutor deficiencies as per AEBAS data and the unverified number of internal examiners in Physiology. The NMC highlights that the college was previously cautioned during the academic year 2024-25 that stringent action would be taken if deficiencies continued and for the academic session 2024-25, the college was granted a conditional renewal, but the assessment was conducted under the less stringent MSR 2020 Regulations and had it been assessed under MSR 2023, it would not have received even the conditional grant. For the academic year 2025-26, the college was again found deficient, but a conditional renewal was granted by imposing a penalty of Rs. 6,00,000/- under clause 8 of the MSMER, 2023. The NMC 10 argues that the institution has consistently failed to satisfy mandatory criteria, indicating a pattern of non-compliance. 2.3 While the assessment process was underway, it is stated, the NMC learnt of the CBI FIR dated 30.06.2025. The FIR alleges that officials of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and NMC assessors engaged in a criminal conspiracy with intermediaries and representatives of various private medical colleges. The FIR specifically claims that Dr. B. Hari Prasad, acting as a consultant, facilitated the use of dummy faculty and secured regulatory approvals in exchange for bribes. Dr. Hari Prasad and Dr. Ankam Rambabu jointly managed the regulatory affairs of petitioner institution and in return, Fr. Joseph Kommareddy0 of the institution paid Rs. 20 lakhs and Rs. 46 lakhs on two separate occasions via formal banking channels to Dr. Hari Prasad through intermediaries. 2.4 The NMC contends that allegations in the FIR point to illegal activities and manipulation of the inspection process by the college to receive favourable renewal orders. It is asserted that NMC would not tolerate corruption and states that its decision to halt admissions for the academic year 2025-26 was a well-considered action based on persistent deficiencies and the gravity of the allegations, aimed at upholding the integrity of 11 medical education and protecting students' futures. The NMC also mentions that it has blacklisted the assessors named in the FIR. In view of the same, it is prayed that Writ Petition may be dismissed.

3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri D. Prakash Reddy on behalf of Sri P. Panduranga Reddy primarily argues that NMC acted with pre-decisional bias. On 14.07.2025, prior to issuing the Impugned Order, the Medical Assessment & Rating Board (MARB) of the NMC released a press release announcing its decision not to process and to cancel the renewal application. This public pre-determination renders any subsequent hearing a mere formality and it demonstrates a clear violation of the principles of natural justice.

3.1 According to learned Senior Counsel, there is direct breach of the principle of audi alteram partem. The Impugned Order is based on a CBI FIR dated 30.06.2025. The Show Cause Notice was dated 11.05.2025, and petitioners submitted reply on 16.05.2025; personal hearing was held on 20.06.2025. Since the FIR was registered after these events, the college had no opportunity to address the new allegations; FIR, therefore, cannot be the basis for passing the Impugned Order. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCE. v. 12 Shital International 1 in this regard wherein it has been held that unless foundation of case is laid in show cause notice, the department cannot be permitted to build up a new case nor allowed to take contradictory stand.

3.2 Learned Senior Counsel cites key Supreme Court judgments to support his arguments. Swamy Devi Dayal Hospital & Dental College v. Union of India 2, which held that Section 10A(4) of the Dentists Act, 1948 applies to renewal cases and mandates an opportunity for a hearing. This case established a two-stage process for natural justice: a first stage at the council level (in this case, the DCI) to give a chance to rectify deficiencies, and a second stage at the government level, where a final hearing must be provided if the scheme is to be disapproved. Royal Medical Trust v. Union of India 3, which held that the principles from Swamy Devi Dayal case are fully applicable to the medical council and its regulations. 3.3 It is argued by learned Senior Counsel that allegations in CBI FIR are unfounded. The FIR alleges payments were made to Dr. Hari Prasad and Dr. Ankam Rambabu to manage regulatory affairs, but petitioners deny any connection 1 (2011) 1 SCC 109 2 (2014) 13 SCC 506 3 (2015) 10 SCC 19 13 with Dr. Hari Prasad. It is clarified that Dr. Ankam Rambabu was a service provider and HR consultant engaged to identify faculty and payments for these consultancy services were made transparently through banking channels and were not for illegal purposes.

3.4 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, claiming discriminatory treatment. NMC granted renewal to other colleges in Telangana, such as Dr. Patnam Mahender Reddy Institute of Medical Sciences, Deccan College of Medical Sciences, and SVS Medical College, despite similar or more severe deficiencies. By contrast, the NMC imposed a blanket ban on the petitioner college and other institutions named in the FIR without considering their individual circumstances. He cites the case of Geethanjali University, Rajasthan, where the NMC initially withdrew its renewal of permission on 17.07.2025 because its Registrar was named as Accused No. 1 in the FIR. However, the Rajasthan High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 14216 of 2025 stayed the withdrawal order on 30.07.2025 and allowed the institution to participate in counselling. Petitioners argue that their institution is in an even better position, as neither the college nor its management is specifically named in 14 the FIR, and the Member Trustee named as Accused No. 33 has not been served with a notice. It is contended that the Impugned Order was passed by UGMEB, while the competent authority to pass such orders is the Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB).

3.5 According to learned Senior Counsel, petitioners complied with the 2020 Regulations, the new 2023 Regulations drastically increased faculty requirements. Petitioners attribute the temporary shortage to this change and the establishment of 14 new medical colleges in Telangana. They note that the 2025 Regulations were later introduced to address these challenges. It is contended that despite having a full faculty strength, technological issues with AEBAS system may have led to an inaccurate reflection of faculty numbers.

3.6 Finally, learned Senior Counsel justifies approaching the High Court directly bypassing the statutory appeal remedy under Regulation 9 of the Maintenance of Standards of Medical Education Regulations, 2023. He cites the pre-decisional bias by the NMC, which, they argue, makes the Appeal an empty formality. They also invoke the precedent set in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, 15 Mumbai 4, which established that a writ petition is maintainable even with an alternate remedy when there is violation of fundamental rights or natural justice. As the denial of renewal would have serious civil consequences, preventing student admissions for the Academic Year 2025-26 and counselling has already commenced, learned Senior Counsel emphasizes urgency in this Writ Petition.

4. Ms. Sri Ranga Pujitha Gorantla, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent - NMC makes her submissions point-wise. She, at the outset, denies the claim of violation of principles of natural justice for NMC issued detailed Show Cause Notice on 11.05.2025 and also granted physical hearing on 01.07.2025, where college representatives appeared before the UGMEB. The NMC found the college's clarifications unconvincing and unsatisfactory, observing gross and substantive deficiencies in faculty and clinical parameters. The college also accepted the deficiencies and assured to fulfill them. She emphasizes that decision was based on data from the Annual Declaration Form, AEBAS analysis for AY 2024-25, and verification of Form-16 and Form 26AS, in addition to the allegations in the FIR.

4 (1998) 8 SCC 1 16 4.1 According to learned Standing Counsel, petitioners have bypassed the prescribed appellate mechanism under Regulation 9 of the MSMER, 2023. She relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 9057 of 2020 (M/s Srini Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. V. Union of India) to contend that this Court should exercise its power under Article 226 only in exceptional circumstances and in this case, such circumstances are absent, hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.

4.2 It is argued, Regulations of MCI are binding and mandatory (see Medical Council of India v. S. R. Educational and Charitable Trust 5). No interim relief can be granted to admit students as a matter of course (Union of India v. Era Educational Trust 6 and Medical Council of India v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences 7). Learned Standing Counsel contends that the decision taken on the basis of recommendation of an expert body regarding the inadequacy of facilities in medial colleges cannot be interfered with lightly - Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences 8, Medical Council of India v. KMCT Medical 5 2018 SCC Online SC 2276 6 (2000) 5 SCC 57 7 (2004) 6 SCC 76 8 (2016) 11 SCC 530 17 College 9, Medical Council of India v. Vedantaa Institute of Academic Excellence Pvt. Ltd. 10 and Medical Council of India v. S.R. Educational and Charitable Trust 11. 4.3 Learned Standing Counsel further argues that the scope of judicial review is extremely limited in matters relating to decisions taken by the expert bodies where standards of institutions are concerned. In support of her contention, relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J&K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik 12 and Medical Council of India v. Sarang 13. She also relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including Krishna Priya Ganguly v. University of Lucknow 14, which holds that Courts should not relax the rules and regulations of academic bodies under Article 226. The NMC also references National Medical Commission v. SSPM's Medical College & Lifetime Hospital & Research Centre where the Supreme Court stayed a Bombay High Court order and affirmed the NMC's express statutory authority under Section 26(1)(f) of the NMC Act, 2019 to stop admissions. The affidavit also cites Rohilkhand Medical College & Hospital, Bareilly v. Medical Council of 9 (2018) 9 SCC 766 10 (2018) 7 SCC 225 11 2018 SCC Online SC 2276 12 (2000) 3 SCC 59 13 (2001) 8 SCC 427 14 (1984) 1 SCC 307 18 India and Iq City Foundation v. Union of India to reinforce that regulatory bodies can act on credible evidence of non- compliance without waiting for criminal convictions.

5. Having heard learned counsel on either side at length and having considered the material on record placed by both the parties, the moot questions that require decision of this Court are:

1) Whether existence of efficacious alternate remedy bars this Court from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?

2) Whether there is direct breach of the principle of audi alteram partem.

3) Whether this Court can interfere with the decisions taken by the expert bodies?

6. POINT No. 1: With regard to the existence of an alternate remedy, petitioners themselves have acknowledged that there is appellate remedy under Regulation 9 of the Maintenance of Standards of Medical Education Regulations, 2023. In Gazette Notification dated 08.08.2017 whereunder the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 was promulgated, Section 22(3) says that subject to the provision of Section 28, a 19 person who is aggrieved by any decision of an Autonomous Board may prefer an Appeal to the Commission against such decision within sixty days of the communication of such decision. In the Gazette Notification dated 21.09.2023 whereunder the Maintenance of Standards of Medical Education Regulations, 2023 were published, Chapter II - Annual Disclosure Report and its Evaluation Section 5(4) says that if the applicant fails to submit such information or clarify or provide additional documents etc., as mandated by the respective Board within such prescribed time including any additional time provided by the respective Board, shall be deemed as non-compliance with the Regulations and shall attract penalty. Chapter III deals with penalties. Section 8 says that where the respective Board has reason to believe that a medical institution has failed to comply with any statutory provision, regulations framed thereunder, or has not complied with the Minimum Standards of Requirements as prescribed by their respective Boards, or has conducted themselves in any manner which is not in accordance with the goals of medical education and practice, the Board shall either penalise the medical college or medical institution and / or conduct further enquiry into such act and wherever needed provide an opportunity to rectify the same. Clause 2(h) further says that 20 the imposition of penalty may include recommending to NMC for withdrawal of permission. It is further provided that UGMEB, PGMEB or the NMC may also initiate criminal proceedings for furnishing false information, or fabrication of false documents as per the criminal law in force at that time. Chapter IV, Section 9 provides Appeal to NMC. A medical college or medical institution or any such aggrieved person may file an appeal before the Commissioner with an appropriate fee as specified against any order, provided such an Appeal is filed within sixty days of passing of such an order or lapse of time, as the case may be. Section 10 provides Appeal to the Central Government. Where an applicant / medical college or medical institution is aggrieved by the decision of the Commission or where the Commission fails to give its decision within forty-five days from the date of receipt of such an Appeal, a second appeal may be filed before the Central Government within thirty days from the date of such order or lapse of time, as thecae may be. The decision of the Central Government in this regard shall be final. Hence, in the impugned order, in the penultimate paragraph it is recorded that 'if you are not satisfied and aggrieved with the decision of the Board, you are free to prefer an Appeal before the Commission under Section 9, Chapter IV of the 21 Maintenance of Standards of Medical Education Regulations, 2023 (MSMER, 2023) within sixty days of the issue of this letter.'

7. However, petitioners contend that NMC had already arrived at a conclusion, hence, filing an Appeal is nothing but an empty formality. In that regard, learned Senior Counsel citing the judgment in Whirlpool Corporation's case (supra) contends that a writ petition is maintainable even with an alternate remedy when there is a violation of fundamental rights or natural justice. It is a well-established principle that existence of statutory and efficacious alternate remedy is a strong ground for a writ court to decline to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction. The said statement is supported by the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 9057 of 2020 (M/s Srini Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. V. Union of India), relied upon by learned Standing Counsel for NMC. In the said judgment, it was held that this Court should exercise its power under Article 226 only in exceptional circumstances. For better understanding, the relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:

" The power under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is couched in wide terms. Hence, it is not subject to any restrictions, except the self-imposed ones.

The exercise of the jurisdiction is absolutely discretionary; it is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so.

The self-imposed restrictions are essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law.

The self-imposed restrictions are: firstly, if there is an efficacious alternative remedy available to the aggrieved party; secondly, if the case involves disputed questions of facts, which would require elaborate examination of evidence in order to establish the right which the aggrieved party claims through the issuance of a writ; thirdly, if the writ petition is hit by delay and latches. Since the writ jurisdiction is one of equity, delay would defeat equity; fourthly, if a party comes to the court with unclean hands.

The existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar on the power of writ jurisdiction of a High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

However, the said power is to be invoked only in exceptional cases and under circumstances. The party invoking the writ jurisdiction extraordinary has to establish not only that extraordinary circumstances do exist, but also that the alternative remedy provided by the statute is "entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situation".

Since the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the invoking of a writ jurisdiction, the said jurisdiction may be exercised in circumstances: a) where the writ petition has been filed for enforcement of fundamental rights; b) where the principles of natural justice have been violated; c) where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; d) where the vires of an Act is under challenge. But even when these grounds are made out, even then the exercise of the writ jurisdiction continues to be discretionary.

Before exercising the writ jurisdiction in face of the existence of the alternative remedy, the Court is duty bound to consider if the exercise of writ power would defeat the purpose, aim or object of the statute which provides the alternative remedy. For, the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution may defeat the very purpose of the statute, The High Court should also consider whether the exercise of the writ jurisdiction is in the interest of the public or not? For, the jurisdiction should not be so exercised as to adversely affect the public interest. Therefore, the High Court should be circumspect while exercising 23 the writ jurisdiction when an alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved party under a statute".

8. In the light of the said precedent, petitioners' claim of pre-decisional bias by the NMC cannot be said to be a sufficient ground to bypass the statutory appeal mechanism. An appellate authority is fully capable of examining the issue of bias and determining the validity of the Impugned Order on its merits. Petitioners' assertion that the Appeal would be an empty formality is a speculative claim and does not constitute an exceptional circumstance that warrants bypassing of the established legal procedure. The law is clear that writ jurisdiction should not be a substitute for the statutory appellate mechanism. In view of the foregoing discussion on this aspect, the contentions of learned Senior Counsel does not hold water.

9. POINT No. 2: On the second question, whether there is a direct breach of the principle of audi alteram partem, pleadings reveal that NMC issued a detailed Show Cause Notice on 11.05.2025, which specifically listed a number of deficiencies found in the college's Annual Declaration Report, video recordings, and AEBAS data. Petitioners submitted reply on 16.05.2025, and personal hearing was held on 20.06.2025. The NMC's affidavit states that during physical hearing on 24 01.07.2025, college representatives appeared before the UGMEB. Hence, it is to be understood that petitioners had ample opportunity to present their case and address the deficiencies. In this connection, at the cost of repetition, it is to be seen that some of the major defects pointed out by the NMC are i) all the departments are deficient in faculty / resident / tutor as per AEBAS record data; ii) establishment LOP file not attached; iii) OPD attendance is less than the recommended; iv) bed occupancy is less than 80%; v) one MBSS student has said all candidates were not uniformly examined college may take utmost care to ensure that in Renewal / UGMEB/2023- 24/1251/3785520/2025 future examination; vi) 08/20 Departments have a deficiency of faculty as per self-declaration;

vii) the number of internal examiners in Physiology was only written in C form, which is suboptimal and it should be verified;

viii) 19/20 departments have faculty deficiency in AEBAS and

ix) 16/20 departments have senior resident deficiency in AEBAS. It is also stated that point Nos. 1, 6, 8 and 9 are still deficient and the number of internal examiners in physiology was still not verified. The above deficiencies are found by the verification of data / details submitted by the colleges in Annual Declaration Form on the NMC Portal, AEBAS Analysis (Aadhar Enabled Biometric Attendance System) for the AY 2024-25 and 25 Form-16 and Form 26AS as provided by the college authority. Petitioners submitted their reply on 16.05.2025. Subsequently, on 30.06.2025 CBI registered FIR alleging corruption and manipulation of inspections. Thereafter, on 01.07.2025, personal hearing was granted by NMC to petitioner college. The NMC's actions, including the Show Cause Notice and the personal hearing, indicate that principles of natural justice were, in fact, complied with. The NMC is a statutory expert body tasked with upholding the standards of medical education, and it cannot be expected to ignore serious allegations of corruption and misconduct simply because they emerged after the initial show-cause notice.

10. Here, it is to be seen, the contention of petitioners is that they came to know of registration of FIR only during press release of NMC on 14.07.2025, hence, they do not have the opportunity to make their submissions with regard to the said case in the personal hearing provided to them on 01.07.2025. Though petitioners' argument is that CBI FIR dated 30.06.2025 was the sole basis for the Impugned Order and that they had no opportunity to address, as could be seen from the FIR registered against Sri Joseph Kommareddy, the allegation of bribing assessors of NMC is extremely serious in nature, as stated by the NMC, the decision was based on a combination of persistent 26 deficiencies. In view of the same, this Court is not ready to accept the contention that CBI FIR is the sole basis to pass the impugned order. Petitioners' claim that the press release dated 14.07.2025 demonstrated pre-decisional bias is also not convincing. The press release merely announced the NMC's decision based on the information available to it at that time. It does not negate the fact that a detailed show-cause notice was given and hearings were conducted. Petitioners had the opportunity to appeal the decision and present all their arguments before a higher authority.

11. In the light of the above, it can be said that there is no breach of the principles of natural justice in the case of petitioners.

12. POINT No. 3: Finally, on the third question, whether this Court can interfere with the decisions taken by expert bodies, this Court is of the considered opinion that the scope of judicial review in such matters is extremely limited. As is well-settled, Regulations of the MCI are binding and mandatory. It is to be seen that the Central Government had rejected permission after obtaining recommendations from the Medical Council twice, hence, such decision taken based on the recommendation of the an expert body regarding inadequacy of facilities in medical colleges cannot be interfered with lightly. 27

13. In this connection, it is relevant to see the judgments relied on by the learned Standing Counsel.

In S.R. Educational and Charitable Trust's case (supra), it has been held as under:

" 26. Considering the aforesaid provisions and the deficiencies found in the case of the aforesaid three medical colleges, we are of the considered opinion that the recommendations made by the Hearing Committee to review and to consider the compliance could not be said to be binding. The provisions of Regulations 8(3)(1)(a) and (b) are binding upon the Hearing Committee/Government of India and MCI. It is only in a case when a report of the assessors on the face of it, makes out that the same is incorrect, a reconsideration or review is called for. Otherwise, in the case of gross deficiency, the yardstick contained in Regulation 8(3) (1)(a) or (b) has to be applied by the Hearing Committee, Government of India or MCI, as the case may be. It is not open to the Government of India/MCI or Hearing Committee to depart in a few cases and in some other to take a different stand. They have to scrupulously observe the provisions of regulations which are binding on them.

27. It is unfortunate that the High Court has made a passing reference to the decision of this Court in Medical Council of India v. Vedantaa Institute of Academic Excellence (P) Ltd. and Medical Council of India v. KMCT Medical College. It was incumbent upon the High Court in pith and substance to follow the mandate of Vedantaa institute of Academic Excellence (P) Ltd. The High Court has relied upon other judgments which were not based upon the consideration of the amended provisions of Regulation 8(3)(1). It could not have relied upon its own decision of the Division Bench in DM Education & Research Foundation v. Union of India which was clearly contrary to the aforesaid decisions of this Court.

28. It is high time for MCI to ensure its functions well and eradicate all the loopholes and decide the case within a reasonable time and not to lend the colleges in a situation with no legal remedy available once case is decided at the fag end of the academic session on 31st May. We are constrained to observe that it would be appropriate that MCI and 28 the Government of India take a decision in all the cases at an early date and not by the end of May 2018. The next academic session has to commence from first of July of the Gregorian calendar year as such at least 3-4 months the should be available to seek judicial review of the action or re-inspection, if any, so warranted by MCI or the Government of India. We find that once a petition is filed and even if in some cases we are inclined to grant a relief of re-inspection to a college, but due to the lapse of the time schedule and the admissions having already been made, it is not considered appropriate to disturb the uniform schedule of various universities. In our opinion, it would be appropriate that MCI, as well as the Government of India, should take a final decision after inspection, by the end of February or latest by the end of March.

29. Now, we consider the submission raised by Mr C.S. Vaidyanathan in the case of P.K. Dass Institute of Medical Scienc in regard to the correctness of the report of the assessors as to the occupancy of the bed, wherein bed occupancy had been found to be 40.60% at 10.00 am. on the date of the inspection held on 31-10-2017 and 1-11-2017 for the purpose of renewal of permission for admission of fifth batch of 150 seats in MBBS course or 2018-2019. The provisions contained in Regulation 8(3)(1)(b) had been applied. The Executive Committee on 16- 1-2018 considered the representations dated 5-1-2018 submitted by the college, forwarded to it by the Ministry. The Hearing Committee had observed that attendance was counted till 2.00 p.m. the college has explained the deficiency of faculty and deficiency of attendance in OPD, however, it was observed that the submission of the college regarding bed occupancy was not entirely satisfactory. The case was referred to MCI for review including considering the imposition of Regulation 8(3)(1)(b). After considering the recommendation decision was taken by MCI, as the aforesaid regulation was applicable, the decision was taken not to renew the permission for admission of 5th batch of MBBS course.

30. It was further contended on behalf of the college that the performance of the students and result of the examination was extremely good and bed occupancy was more as shown on the college website. With respect to the bed occupancy, it was reported by the assessor that there were 262 patients out of 650 required beds at 10.00 am. on the first day. It was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel 29 that there were approximately 500 patients admitted as indoor patients as apparent from the web portal of the college in question thus, the report of the assessors was absolutely incorrect and this aspect should be looked into by this Court. It was contended that the assessors had counted patients available on the beds at that time. Assessors did not count patients who were under investigation procedures and operation theatre and those who were in the washrooms, pantry, etc. As per the assessors, the bed occupancy was 40.30% i.e. 262 patients out of 650 patients which were required. Whereas college claimed that 493 indoor patients were there at 10.00 am. oh 31-10-2017 There was 80% bed occupancy on 30-10-2017 to 31-10-2017 and 1-11-2017. The learned Senior Counsel has drawn support from the website portal.

31. We have no hesitation in rejecting the submission as it has no legs to stand. Whatever college says is not a gospel truth. There is no case wherein college does not dispute the report of the assessors and contend that there were no such deficiencies. It is clearly a disputed fact. Firstly, the report of the assessor cannot be lightly disbelieved. It is not open to examining the case set up by the college as facts are found by assessors are at great variance, secondly, in the judicial review, the report cannot be discarded relying on data put up by the college on self serving website portal. In our view, the High Court was right in discarding the explanation offered by the colleges with respect to deficiencies. Even the Hearing Committee with respect to P.K. Dass Institute of Medical Sciences did not doubt the report of assessors as to bed occupancy. This Court has considered the value of a website portal and such objections in Medical Council of India v. N.C. Medical College & Hospital in which the decision of Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences has been referred to. The Court observed:

(N.C. Medical College case, SCC pp. 748-49, para 20) "20. On the one hand, the High Court has doubted the report of inspection and for that surprisingly relied on the self-serving contents of the website of the college. There is nothing to vouch for the authenticity of the website information, it is not what the institution asserts on website but what is actually found on inspection, that has to be considered by the court and while exercising judicial review it is settled law that court cannot sit in appeal over the report of the assessors as 30 observed in Medical Council of India v. Kalinga institute of Medical Sciences thus: (SCC p. 540, paras 21-22)

21. A perusal of the decision of the High Court clearly indicates that it considered the latest report of the Inspection Team as if it was hearing an appeal against the report. In doing so, the High Court went into great details on issues relating to the number of teaching beds in the hospital, the limitations in the OPD Department, the number of units available in the subjects of General Medicine, Paediatrics, etc, bed occupancy, number of Caesarean sections, discrepancy in data of major and minor operations, computerisation in the institution, number of patients in the ICLI number of static x-ray machines, deficiency of examination halls, lecture theatres, library, students hostel, interns hostel, playground, etc. etc. Surely, this was not within the domain of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

22. The High Court did not appreciate that the inspection was carried out by eminent Professors from reputed media! institutions who were experts in the field and the best persons to give an unbiased report on the facilities in KIMS. The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution was certainly not tasked to minutely examine the contents of the inspection report and weigh them against the objections of KIMS in respect of each of its 18 items. In our opinion, the High Court plainly exceeded its jurisdiction in this regard in venturing into seriously disputed factual issues.""

It was also observed that at the time of inspection faculty should be present barring certain exceptions otherwise the very purpose of the inspection would be defeated. The report of the assessors cannot be lightly faulted and the court cannot sit in an appeal and go into disputed facts. There were other deficiencies too but due to the aforesaid gross deficiencies, the provisions of Regulation 8(3)(1)(b) were clearly attracted.

32. In Medical Council of India v. KMCT Medical College it was contended that the inspection was not properly conducted. The submission had been rejected thus: (SCC p. 773, para 23) 31 "23. We do not deem it necessary to deal with the submission made on behalf of the College regarding the inspection not being properly conducted. This Court has repeatedly said that a decision taken by the Union of India on the basis of a recommendation of an expert body regarding the inadequacy of facilities in medical colleges cannot be interfered with lightly. Interference is permissible only when the colleges demonstrate jurisdictional errors, ex facie perversity or mala fide. [See Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of india and Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences) As no case is made out by the College for interference with the inspection report, we decline the request of Mr Sibal for remand of the matter to the High Court." In our opinion, in view of the aforesaid legal position, it is not open to the court in judicial review to accept tenuous objections as to bed occupancy in the absence of mala fides.

33. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court has gravely erred in law while passing the impugned judgment and order in quashing Government's order, allowing the admissions for the academic session 2018-2019 without there being Government of India's permission and the recommendation of MCI. The High Court has issued direction for fresh inspection and thereafter MCI to consider the report after the grant of opportunity to remove defects, if any. Firstly, it could not have issued such a direction in view of regulations and also the blanket direction that college should be permitted to remove the deficiencies, if any found. Deficiencies can be removed, if found, within the permissible limits as provided in regulation 8(3), not in a case Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) or (b) is attracted. Thus, such kind of general direction issued without considering the provisions of the Regulations are wholly illegal and unwarranted and on Inspection, the decision has to be taken in accordance with law as per the Regulations. Obviously, the Regulations would come into play as per outcome of an assessment. It cannot be predicted in advance what would be the outcome of inspection to decide in advance opportunity of removal of deficiencies. There may be a case where deficiencies are found by assessors to be gross as contemplated in the proviso to Regulation 8(3)(1), they cannot be removed in that year. Even otherwise, the Court could not have at all ordered the admissions, as directed in 32 the instant matter. The High Court at the same time has ordered inspection and if the deficiencies are found to exist then MCI and the Government of India have been given liberty to take appropriate decision. Such orders may ruin the entire career of the students. Once permission to admit students is granted, it should not be such conditional one. Considering the deficiencies, it would be against the efficacious medical education and would amount to permit the unequipped medical college to impart medical education without proper infrastructure and faculty, patients serve as the object of teaching by such an approach ultimately interest of the society would suffer and half-baked doctors cannot be left loose on society like drones and parasites to deal with the life of patients in the absence of proper educational training. It would be dangerous and against the right to life itself, in case unequipped medical colleges are permitted to impart substandard medical education without proper facilities and infrastructure.

In re: D.M. Education and Research Institute of Medical Sciences

34. Coming to the case of recognition of and admission in D.M. Education and Research Institute of Medical Science established by D.M. Education Research Foundation Trust, it was a case of recognition and admission. In the inspection dated 27-2-2018 and 14-3-2018/15-3- 2018 various deficiencies were found supported by photographs, videography, etc. The deficiencies which were found as mentioned in the Government of India Order dated 31-5-2018 are extracted hereunder:

"The Executive Committee of the Council considered the assessment report (27-2-2018 and 14-3-2018 & 15-3-2018) along with photographs/videography and letters/representation dated 15-3-2018 from Dean of the Institute with regard to recognition/approval of D.M. Wayanad Institute of Medical Sciences, Kerala and noted the following:

1. Deficiency of faculty is 18.93% as detailed in the report.

2. OPD: On both days, at 09.40 am, most of the faculty and residents were not available.

3. Bed occupancy at 10 am. on the day of assessment was 61.69% however, about 15% of the patients were not genuine reducing bed occupancy to 46%. Out of these, most of the patients were admitted on a day prior to assessment 33

4. Patients: On verification of the patients on the beds (from among the 4011, the following patients were notified in most of the wards, indicating the non-genuine patients. For example

1. Mini C.K. WIMS No. 258951. Gen. Med-3. was admitted on 14-3-2018 at 9:40 pm, when the institution was inspecting at 9.30 am. on 14-3-

2018. Nurses clinical chart was entered even for 13th doctors notes too, thereby indicating that case sheets with non- genuine patients are prepared in advice.

11. Raimanath- WIMS No. 310182, OBG Ward, was admitted twice on 13-3-2018 and 14-3-2018. No case notes of the patient in the case sheet and no treatment.

18. Mr Sivan WIMS No. 212033-Gen Medicine only admission request form names blank. entire Inpatient case records including IV. Prabhashini WIMS No. 319575, OBG Ward 2-admitted with complaints of excessive bleeding PV, on enquiry, she gives a history of no bleeding at all, but only pain in abdomen. The same was endorsed by the resident in the ward on the case sheet. No investigations and treatment were given. Taking this into account in the wards, around 15% of the patients were non-genuine, taking the effective bed occupancy to around 46%.

Also apart from this, in the wards, more than 50% of the patients were admitted on 13-3-2018, the day before the assessment

5. Data of radiological and laboratory investigations given by the institute include data of private patients and super special patients which is not permissible.

6. Wards: There is no signage of unit-wise bed distribution, no faculty and residents were available inwards during the round.

7. ICUs: There was only 1 patient in PICU on the day of assessment. 8.4 mobile x-ray machines are available against the requirement of 6.

9. Microbiology Department: 6 service laboratories are available against requirement of 7.

10. Pharmacology Department: There are nil Specimen & nil Model in the Museum.

11. Forensic Medicine Department: Cold Storage is not available. 34

12. RHTC: Cold chain equipment is not available.

13. Residents hostel: On verification, about 15-20% of residents are found to be not staying in the campus. Rooms allotted them were closed on inspection by the assessors."

35. The background facts indicate that the college was granted permission for the academic sessions 2013-2014 an 2015-2016. For the academic year 2016-2017, it was granted conditional permission on the recommendation of the Oversight Committee to the effect that in case of failure to remove the deficiencies, it would be debarred for two academi years. Thereafter, on inspection assessment that was made on 5-12- 2016 and 6-12-2016, gross deficiencies were found ans due to that MCI on 28-1-2017 recommended the Central Government to debar the college for two academic years and to encash the bank guarantee. On 31-5-2017, the Government of India accepted the recommendations of MCI. As the firs batch admitted in the college reached the final year, the application was filed by the college for grant of recognition. The college, aggrieved by the Government of India's decision on 31-5-2017 filed Writ Petition (C) No. 19753 of 2017 fom permission to admit fresh batch of 150 MBBS students for the academic year 2017-2018. The writ petition was decided by the order dated 2-8-2017, and the High Court directed the Government of india to give a personal hearing to the college and thereafter to pass a fresh reasoned order. The Government of India after considering the recommendation of the Hearing Committee decided on 14-8-2017 to confirm the conditional renewal of permission for the academic year 2016-2017 and that no fresh batch for 2017-2018 may be allowed.

36. Writ Petition No. 19753 of 2017 came to be filed for grant of admission in 2017-18 in which interim order was granted by the High Court on 25-8-201721, This Court set aside the interim order of the High Court on 6-9-2017, however, permitted the college to approach this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Thereafter, Writ Petition (C) No. 838 of 2017 was filed in this Court. This Court vide order dated 22-9-2017 while permitting the students admitted for the academic year 2017-2018 to continue, directed the college to remove the deficiencies. The order was passed to safeguard the interest of the 35 students already admitted pursuant to the interim order dated 25-8- 2017,

37. In order to consider the case of the respondent medical college for recognition, an inspection was carried out on 27-2-2018 and 14-3- 2018/15-3-2018. In the assessment report, various deficiencies as noted above were found. The Executive Committee decided not to recommend the recognition in regard to MBBS degree. It was also recommended to the Central Government not to grant renewal of permission for the admission of a fresh batch of 150 MBBS students for the academic year 2018-19. The decision of the Executive Committee was communicated to the Oversight Committee, which in turn vide order dated 28-3-2018 approved the same.

38. The Executive Committee then vide letter dated 20-4-2018 communicated to the Government of India. At the same time, MCI vide letter dated 20-4-2018 requested the respondent Medical College to rectify the deficiencies and submit compliance within one month for further consideration of its case for grant of recognition. As against recommendation made by MCI, the college filed Writ Petition (C) No. 15171 of 2017 before the High Court of Kerala. The High Court directed the Government of India to grant a hearing and to pass final order on or before 31-5-2018. The Government of India granted hearing opportunity on 21-5-2018. The college reported compliance on 22-5-2018. MCI vide letter dated 25-5-2018 requested the Oversight Committee to consider the matter. The Oversight Committee on 28-5-2018 directed MCI to follow the Regulations. The Government of India was informed by MCI on 28-5-2018 that last date to send recommendation".

In Krishna Priya Ganguly v. University of Lucknow 15, it has been held as under:

" 17. The counsel for the State further agreed to passing an order that those candidates who were refused admission but granted provisional admissions under the orders of the Court may be deemed to be admitted to complete the course according to the provisions of the Rules. We might mention that this concession was 15 (1984) 1 SCC 307 36 made because the candidates concerned had secured pretty high percentage and since they had completed the course in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. As far as CA No. 3045/82 filed by the State against the decision of the High Court is concerned, the view taken by the High Court is unsustainable. The High Court could not have given a go-by to the rules framed by Admission Committee. It was a matter for decision of the academic body and since the academic body had applied the rules in a bona fide manner to all the students equally, there was no jurisdiction whatsoever on the part of the High Court to interfere with the internal working of an academic institution concerned with imparting higher education in the field of postgraduate course in medicine. The Rule prescribing that housemanship must be in the same subject is not inconsistent with the Ordinance. It is supplementary to the Ordinance and amplifies the same. Hence there is no inconsistency and the High Court was therefore clearly wrong. However, as the counsel for the State has agreed to declare his result we do not pass any order for reversing the directive issued by the High Court as far as Dr Hari Om Gupta is concerned though the High Court was wrong".

In Medical Council of India v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:

" In the normal circumstances, the High Court ought not to issue an interim order when for the earlier year itself permission had not been granted by the Council. Indeed, by grant of such interim orders students who have been admitted in such institutions would be put to serious jeopardy, apart from the fact whether such institutions could run the medical college without following the law. Therefore, we make it clear that the High Court ought not to grant such interim orders in any of the cases where the Council has not granted permission in terms of Section 10-A of the Medical Council Act. If interim orders are granted to those institutions which have been established without fulfilling the prescribed conditions to admit students, it will lead to serious jeopardy to the students admitted in these institutions".

In Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (supra), it is observed thus:

" 24. The High Court did not appreciate that the inspection was carried out by eminent Professors from reputed medical institutions who were experts in the field and the best persons to give an unbiased report on the facilities in KIMS. The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution was certainly not tasked to minutely examine the contents of the inspection report and weigh them against the objections of KIMS in respect of each of its 18 items. In our opinion, the High Court plainly exceeded its jurisdiction in this regard in venturing into seriously disputed factual issues.

27. The High Court was of opinion that the Inspection Team was required to conduct the inspection with reference to the academic year 2015-16 but the report pertains to the academic year 2016-2017. If that was so, the High Court could have passed an appropriate order in this regard rather than examine and scrutinize the inspection report prepared for the academic year 2016-17 which academic year was not at all the subject matter of consideration or discussion before it. Moreover, invalidation of the inspection report for the academic year 2016-17 would not automatically invalidate the inspection report for the academic year 2015-16. Unfortunately, the High Court spent its energy on adjudicating a non-issue.

In Medical Council of India v. Principal, KMCT Medical College (supra), it is held as under:

" 23. We do not deem it necessary to deal with the submission made on behalf of the College regarding the inspection not being properly conducted. This Court has repeatedly said that a decision taken by the Union of India on the basis of a recommendation of an expert body regarding the inadequacy of facilities in medical colleges cannot be interfered with lightly. Interference is permissible only when the colleges demonstrate jurisdictional errors, ex facie perversity or mala fide. [See: Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India and Medical 38 Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS)). As no case is made out by the College for interference with the inspection report, we decline the request of Mr Sibal for remand of the matter to the High Court.

In Medical Council of India v. Vedantaa Institute of Academic Excellence (supra), it is recorded as under:

"11. On perusal of the material on record, we are of the opinion that the conclusion reached by the High Court regarding the manner in which inspection was conducted is also not correct. Bed occupancy at 45.30% on random verification was the claim of Respondents 1 and 2. However, the inspection report shows that out of required minimum of 300 patients only 3 were available at 10.00 am. on 25-9-2017. This Court in Kalinga has held that medical education must be taken very seriously and when an expert body certifies that the facilities in a medical college are inadequate, it is not for the courts to interfere with the assessment, except for very cogent jurisdictional reasons such as mala fides of the inspection team, ex facie perversity in the inspection, jurisdictional error on the part of MCI, etc. The submission relating to the cyclone being a reason for the number of patients being less is not acceptable. We are in agreement with the submission made on behalf of the appellant that the resident doctors are required to be in the hospital at all points of time".

In J&K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik (supra), it is held thus:

" 18. While judging the authority or otherwise all steps taken by authorities of the Board to take action against candidates taking resort to mass malpractice it should be borne in mind that the Board is entrusted with the duty of maintaining high standards of education and proper conduct of examinations. It is an expert body consisting of persons coming from different walks of life who are engaged in or interested in the field of education and have wide experience. The 39 decision of such an expert body should be given due weightage by courts. This Court in the case of Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinhal observed. (SCC pp. 652-53, para 14) "The universities are responsible for their standards and the conduct of examinations. The essence of the examinations is that the worth of every person is appraised without any assistance from an outside source. If at a centre the whole body of students receive assistance and manage to secure success in the neighbourhood of 100% when others at other centres are successful only at an average of 50%, it is obvious that the University or the Board must do something in the matter. It cannot hold a detailed quasi-judicial inquiry with a right to its alumni to plead and lead evidence etc. before the results are withheld or the examinations cancelled. If there is sufficient material on which it can be demonstrated that the university was right in its conclusion that the examinations ought to be cancelled then academic standards require that the university's appreciation of the problem must be respected. It would not do for the Court to say that you should have examined all the candidates or even their representatives with a view to ascertaining whether they had received assistance or not. To do this would encourage indiscipline if not also perjury."

19. The Allahabad High Court in Rajiv Ratna Shukla v. University of Allahabad made the following observations:

Even otherwise the statute and ordinances provide for an authority known as Examination Committee to look into and decide such matter. As the Examination Committee after looking into the report was satisfied that the examinations were not conducted fairly it would be unfair for this Court to interfere in writ jurisdiction. It need not be mentioned that a finding recorded by a tribunal, administrative or quasi-judicial body, is a finding of fact if it is based on consideration of evidence howsoever meagre and insufficient it may be. The report of the Flying Squad coupled with the statement of Centre Superintendent was available with the Examination Committees. Even if another committee or this Court on the same material could have come to a different conclusion it could not furnish ground for interference. This Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the Committee. It could quash the order only if it finds that it was based on no material or the 40 Committee ignored some material which if considered could have resulted in a different conclusion. Since the decision of the Examination Committee does not suffer from any such error it is difficult to grant relief to petitioners.

We are not unconscious or oblivious of grave injustice which might be done to some of the students, maybe even majority, because of refusal by this Court to interfere but we cannot ignore the deterioration in the standard of discipline of academic institutions. How this should be regulated or controlled should best be left to the discretion of those who are entrusted with this responsibility. If this Court starts substituting its own opinion in place of opinion expressed by authorities it shall result in chaos.. It is well known that due to conduct of others even innocent persons suffer but the sufferings of few has to be tolerated in the larger interest of the society. As is usual in such matters it is only the few who are responsible but to protect the bona fide or the genuine if a decision is given which erodes the discipline and vitiates the atmosphere of the academic institutions then it is better to restrain and refuse.

As regards demand for inquiry and violation of principle of natural justice, suffice it to say, that on academic disciplinary proceedings exception is made where proceedings are substantially fair or it is impossible to hold inquiry. Cases of mass copying resulting in cancellation of the examination fall in this exception. By its very nature no inquiry could have been made. Decision in Madhulika. Mathur case has absolutely no relevance. Concept of reasonable opportunity assumes primacy where penal action is proposed to individual. Direction to hold re-examination cannot be put in that category. It was not like what had happened in Gorakhpur University where examination was not treated as Ineffective or vitiated. Ratio of that decision is that what was invalid could not be treated as valid for punishment without affording opportunity."

20. Coming to the case on hand, as noted earlier, the High Court has quashed the notification issued by the Board as ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution and ultra vires the Act. Further the High Court has 41 discussed at length how the Board should proceed in the matter and has issued directions regarding the principles to be followed and matters to be bome in mind by the Board while framing Rules and has even issued directions as to what some of the provisions of the Rules should be. From the discussions in the impugned judgment it is clear that the High Court has taken upon itself the task of finding out a scheme to tackle the problem of mass malpractice in examination. In our considered view the approach of the High Court in the matter is erroneous and this has vitiated the judgment. In matters concerning campus discipline of educational institutions and conduct of examinations the duty is primarily vested in the authorities in charge of the Institutions. In such matters the court should not try to substitute its own views in place of the authorities concerned nor thrust its views on them. That is not to say that the court cannot at all interfere with the decisions of the authorities in such matters. The court has undoubtedly the power to intervene to correct any error in complying with the provisions of the rules, regulations or notifications and to remedy any manifest injustice being perpetrated on the candidates. In judging the validity of a notification containing provisions regarding steps to be taken when a report of mass malpractice is received it is to be kept in mind whether the provisions contained in the notification are relevant for achieving the purpose for which the notification is issued and if it is found that the notification is relevant for and has a nexus with the purpose to be achieved then the notification cannot be said to be arbitrary and discriminatory. The High Court has failed to keep this principle in view while considering the validity of the notification in question. A notification cannot be struck down as discriminatory merely because in implementing the same injustice is likely to be suffered by some candidates. The impugned judgment does not show that the decision to strike down the two notifications is based on grounds sound in law and justified on facts. It is our considered view that the judgment of the High Court is unsustainable and has to be quashed".

In Medical Council of India v. Sarang (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:

" 6. In matters of academic standards, courts should not normally interfere or interpret the rules and such matters should be left to the experts in the field. This position has been made clear by this Court in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, State of Kerala v. Kumari T.P. Roshana and Shirish Govind Prabhudesai v. State of Maharashtra. The object of the said Regulation appears to be that although the course of study leading to the IInd professional examination is common to all medical colleges, the sequence of coverage of subjects varies from college to college. Therefore, the requirement of 18 months of study in the college from which the student wants to appear in the examination is appropriately insisted upon. Migration is not normally allowed and has got to be given in exceptional circumstances, in the absence of such a stipulation as contained in Regulation 6(5), it is clear that the migrated student is likely to miss instruction and study in some of the subjects, which will ultimately affect his academic attainments. Therefore, the strained meaning given by the High Court, which actually changes the language of Regulation 6(5), is not permissible. Thus we disagree with the view taken by the High Court and state that the correct interpretation is as given by the Medical Council of India, set forth above by us".

14. The sum and substance of the above precedents is that decisions of expert bodies regarding the standards of medical education should not be interfered with. The NMC is the apex body responsible for maintaining the quality and integrity of medical education in the country. Its decisions, which are based on a meticulous assessment of compliance with stringent regulations, must be given due deference.

15. The deficiencies found in the petitioner college, as detailed above are not merely minor or technical in nature. Even according to petitioners, on 13.05.2024, a virtual personal 43 hearing was held where the college's explanation was accepted and renewal was granted upon payment of a penalty of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The UGMEB's letter dated 07.06.2024 granted renewal for Academic Year 2024-25, subject to the fine and re- assessment after two months. The NMC also in their counter stated that petitioner has been a repeated defaulter in fulfilling the mandatory requirements of the 2023 Regulations. Apart from the deficiencies, NMC received a formal communication from the CBI regarding FIR dated 30.06.2025, which was filed against assessors, college authorities and unknown persons on charges of bribery and serious misconduct. The college was previously cautioned during the academic year 2024-25 that stringent action would be taken if deficiencies continued and for the academic session 2024-25, the college was granted a conditional renewal, but the assessment was conducted under the less stringent MSR 2020 Regulations and had it been assessed under MSR 2023, it would not have received even the conditional grant. For the academic year 2025-26, the college was again found deficient, but a conditional renewal was granted by imposing a penalty of Rs. 6,00,000/- under clause 8 of the MSMER, 2023.

16. The findings of faculty and senior resident deficiencies as per AEBAS data in 19 out of 20 and 16 out of 20 departments respectively, along with low bed occupancy and OPD attendance, point to a systemic failure to meet the mandatory standards under the MSR 2023 Regulations. The allegations in the CBI FIR, as mentioned in the NMC's affidavit, are extremely serious and directly pertain to the manipulation of the regulatory process. While petitioners denied any wrongdoing, these are grave allegations that cannot be ignored. The NMC's decision to halt admissions for the academic year 2025-26, in the opinion of this Court, was a well-considered action based on persistent deficiencies and the gravity of the allegations and aimed at upholding the integrity of medical education and protecting the future of prospective students. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Medical Commission v. SSPM's Medical College & Lifetime Hospital & Research Centre. (Order dated 12.04.2022) affirmed the NMC's express statutory authority under Section 26(1)(f) of the NMC Act, 2019 to stop admissions. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the decision taken on the basis of recommendation of an expert body.

17. For all the reasons stated supra, this Court finds no merit in the contentions raised by petitioners. The Writ Petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

18. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. Liberty is given to petitioners to pursue the alternate remedy of appeal as provided under the relevant Regulations. No costs.

19. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.

-------- -----------------------------

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 29th August 2025 ksld

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Telangana High Court