Delhi District Court
Dr Iqbal Singh vs National Medical Commission Anr on 12 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRAGATI,SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS (SHAHDARA).
Civil Suit No. 363/24
CNR No. DLSH03-000622-2024
DR. IQBAL SINGH
S/o (Late) Mr. RS Panesar,
Head of the Department (Surgery),
Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital,
Government of NCT of Delhi,
Dilshad Garden, New Delhi 110095.
Also at:
House No. F-14, South Extn. Part II,
New Delhi-110049
...Plaintiff
Vs.
NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION,
Through The Chairman,
Pocket-14, Sector-8, Dwarka Phase-1
New Delhi-110077, India
Email: [email protected]
...Defendant No. 1
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
Through The Principal
Dilshad Garden, New Delhi 110095
Email: [email protected]
...Defendant No. 2
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION
Digitally Civil Suit No.857/24 Dr. Iqbal Singh Vs. National Medical Commission Pg no .1/11
signed by
PRAGATI
PRAGATI Date:
2026.01.12
17:16:39
+0530
Date of Institution : 20.04.2024
Date of Reserving Judgment : 07.01.2026
Date of Decision : 12.01.2026
Decision : Dismissed
1.The suit in hand has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking the relief of declaration of circular No. F.No.D-130024/07/2022/NMC/DMMP dated 18.10.2022 for implementation of Aadhar enabled biometric attendance system as null and void and subsequent relief of injunction of restraining the defendants from compelling the plaintiff to consent to the attendance system.
2. Briefly stating, plaintiff's case is that he is a public servant working as Head of the Department of Surgery at Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital and defendant No. 2. That the defendant no.1 is a statutory institution whereas defendant No. 2 is an autonomous institution entrusted with providing medical education for undergraduate and post graduate programs under the aegis of University of Delhi. That the plaintiff is an employee of the defendant No. 2 and has preferred the present suit seeking declaration of the circular F. No. D-
130024/07/2022/NMC/DMMP dated: 18th October 2022 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned circular) as null and void for being violative of the statutory provisions of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 as per which the defendant no. 1 has mandated the medical education institutions to implement the Civil Suit No.857/24 Dr. Iqbal Singh Vs. National Medical Commission Pg no .2/11 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.01.12 17:16:42 +0530 Aadhar Enabled Biometric Attendance System. That the defendant no. 2 has been compelling the plaintiff to provide his Aadhar details and consent to the Aadhar Enabled Biometric Attendance System based on the impugned circular in violation of his fundamental right of privacy as enshrined under the aegis of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and statutory provision of Section 8(2) and Section 8A(2) of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016. That defendant no. 1 has made the implementation of the Aadhar Enabled Biometric Attendance System mandatory for the faculty of the medical colleges by virtue of Section A.1.15 of the Minimum Requirements for Annual M.B.B.S. Admissions Regulations, 2020 and PGMER- 2000, Section 11.1 wherein regular monitoring of attendance is stipulated. It is averred that the said provisions do not state for implementation of the Aadhar Enabled Biometric Attendance System. That defendant no. 1, by virtue of the impugned circular, has exceeded the mandate of the gazette notification and directed the implementation Aadhar enabled biometric attendance system. That the guidelines under regulation 10 of the Establishment of New Medical Institutions, Starting of New Medical Courses, Increase of Seats for Existing Courses & Assessment and Rating Regulations, 2023 in short (UG MSR 2023)" and regulation 19 of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2023 are not applicable to the defendant no. 2. That the consent of the individual is mandatory for the process of authentication in both online or offline mode of their Aadhar details and the plaintiff has not provided his consent for collection and authentication of his Civil Suit No.857/24 Dr. Iqbal Singh Vs. National Medical Commission Pg no .3/11 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.01.12 17:16:45 +0530 Aadhar Details vide communication through Ld. Counsel dated 11th January 2024 and 11th April 2024. That the defendant no. 2 had issued notices for mandatory submission of the Aadhar details for the purpose of Aadhar Enabled Biometric Attendance System and the plaintiff completely denied his consent to the same citing the fear of the misuse of his Aadhar details which is mapped to his financial records in the bank. Reliance is placed on a denial note by Dr. Piyush Gupta, Principal of the defendant no. 2 on faculty declaration form of plaintiff wherein it is stated that "Aadhar Card No. not provided. User faculty NOT registered in the AEBAS. Pl. inform him and ask for Aadhar. Without register.
In AEBAS faculty may not be recognised by NMC.". It is alleged that defendant no. 2 has threatened the plaintiff with consequences of derecognition as a faculty by the defendant no.
1. It is further stated that no data safety protocols or cyber security have been provided by defendant no. 1 or 2 nor they have designated any Data Protection officer for the safety and security of the faculty data. It is, thus, prayed that a decree holding the impugned Circular, i.e., F. No. D-Circular 130024/07/2022/NMC/DMMP | Dated: 18th October 2022 as null and void be passed alongwith a decree of mandatory injunction as a consequential relief in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby directing the defendants not to compel the plaintiff to provide his Aadhar details for Aadhar Enabled Biometric Attendance System against his consent and choice.
Digitally Civil Suit No.857/24 Dr. Iqbal Singh Vs. National Medical Commission Pg no .4/11 signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.01.12 17:16:50 +0530
3. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendants and were duly served upon them, however, neither defendant no.1 nor defendant no. 2 appeared before the court. Further, no written statement was filed by both the defendants, therefore, vide order dated 08.08.2024, defence of both the defendants was struck off and they were proceeded against ex parte.
4. Thereafter, plaintiff was asked to lead his ex-parte evidence and thereafter Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 2 also appeared before the court at the time when evidence was led on behalf of the plaintiff.
5. In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW-1. He tendered his affidavit Ex.PW1/A in his examination-in-chief wherein he reiterated the contents of the plaint. He further relied upon following documents:-
S. No. Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. Copy of the ID cards of the deponent Ex.PW-1/1
2. Copy of impugned circular Ref: no. Ex.PW-1/2 F.No. D-
130024/07/2022/NMC/DMMP dated 18.10.2022 as issued under the authority of defendant no.1
3. Copy of the Gazette Notification for Ex.PW-1/3 the minimum requirement for annual M.B.B.S regulations, 2020 Admissions
4. Copy of the Gazette Notification for Ex.PW-1/4 Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023
5. Copy of the notices issued by the Ex.PW-1/5 defendant no.2 i.e., University College of Medical College for mandatory Digitally Civil Suit No.857/24 Dr. Iqbal Singh Vs. National Medical Commission Pg no .5/11 signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.01.12 17:16:54 +0530 submission of the Aadhar details providing the Aadhar for the purpose of Aadhar Enabled Attendance System Biometric
6. Copy of the denial note by Dr. Piyush Ex.PW-1/6 Gupta (principal of defendant no.2 ie., University College of Medical College) to the deponent on his faculty declaration form
7. Copy of the plaintiff's representation Ex. PW1/7 made to the defendant through counsel under the aegis of Section 80 of CPC, 1908.
8. Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Ex. PW1/8 Evidence Act with respect of all the computer generated documents
6. Plaintiff further got examined PW-2 Dr. Mohammad Ajazur Rahman who tendered his affidavit Ex. PW2/A in his examination-in-chief stating therein that he is a Group A Public Servant belonging to the Central Health Services Cadre of the Government of India and working at present as a Nodal Officer at the Department of Surgery at Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital and defendant no.2. That he is entrusted with the responsibility of efficient functioning of the Department of Surgery at Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital in accordance with rules, regulation and statutory provisions as prescribed by the authorities. He further supported the plaintiff's version therein.
7. Pertinently, neither PW-1 nor PW-2 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 2 despite of affording opportunity.
DigitallyCivil Suit No.857/24 Dr. Iqbal Singh Vs. National Medical Commission Pg no .6/11 signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.01.12 17:16:59 +0530
8. Thereafter, plaintiff's evidence was closed by the plaintiff vie his separate statement dated 15.02.2025. No evidence was led on behalf of the defendants.
9. Final arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 2 heard. Case file perused carefully.
10. In the present matter, plaintiff has challenged the impugned circular issued by the defendant no. 1 vide which the defendant no.1 has implemented Adhar Enabled Biometric Attendance System (hereinafter referred to as AEBAS) for biometric attendance in order to regularly monitor the attendance of the faculty and staff of the Medical institutions across the country which are regulated by the NMC which includes the defendant no.2.
11. It is the case of the plaintiff that by making the biometric attendance system enabled with Adhar details of the faculty the defendant no.1 has exceeded the mandate of Gazette Notification for Minimum Requirements for Annual M.B.B.S. Admissions Regulations, 2020 because its Section A.1.25 does not talk about Adhar Enabled Biometric Attendance System (AEBAS) and it only talks about Biometric Attendance System. It is further the case of the plaintiff that by linking the Adhar details of the faculty with the Biometric Attendance System, the right to privacy of the plaintiff, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, would be violated. Further, there is no mechanism available either with defendant no. 1 or defendant Digitally Civil Suit No.857/24 Dr. Iqbal Singh Vs. National Medical Commission Pg no .7/11 signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.01.12 17:17:03 +0530 no.2 for the protection/security of data which would be available by linking the Adhar details of the plaintiff/faculty with the Biometric Attendance System. That, moreover, no consent was obtained either by defendant no.1 or defendant no.2 from the plaintiff before implementing the said system as is required under Section 8 and 8A of the Adhar Act, 2016. It is further his case that defendant no. 2 has threatened the plaintiff that if he does not provide his Adhar Card details then he may not be recognized as a faculty by the defendant no.1. Thus, it is averred that the said circular is liable to be declared null and void as the plaintiff cannot be compelled to share his Adhar details.
12. During the course of arguments Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, in addition to the aforesaid averments, has also contended that plaintiff cannot be co-erced/forced to give his consent for providing his Adhar details as it is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the defendants did not obtain any permission from the Unique Identification Authority of India before implementing the AEBAS. That neither the Gazette Notification for Minimum Requirement for Annual MBBS Admissions Regulations, 2020 nor PGMER, 2000 provides for AEBAS.
13. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the defendant has contended that if the plaintiff is pleading violation of Article 21 then he cannot approach a civil court and the appropriate remedy available to him is to approach the Hon'ble High Court or Hon'ble Apex Court by invoking the writ jurisdiction. Further, Digitally signed by Civil Suit No.857/24 Dr. Iqbal Singh Vs. National Medical Commission Pg no .8/11 PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.01.12 17:17:07 +0530 that as per Section 33F of the Adhar Act itself, the suit in hand is not maintainable in a civil court. Further, that the defendant no.1 comes under the regulation of the Central Government which follows the rules of the Central Government and defendant no. 2 is bound by the defendant no.1. That the plaintiff has filed the suit in hand merely on the basis of apprehensions, therefore, there is no cause of action in his favour. That, even if the details of the plaintiff are misused then legal remedies are available to him. That merely one individual's hardship cannot be a basis of challenging a statutory provision. Thus, it is contended that the suit in hand is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
14. In rebuttal, it is contended by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that Section 9 of CPC is applicable in the suit in hand. Since, there is no express or implicit bar on the jurisdiction of a civil court in respect of the nature of relief sought by the plaintiff, therefore, as per Section 9 of CPC, this court being a civil court has the jurisdiction to try the suit in hand. That as per the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the NMC Act, 2019) as well, there is no bar that the suit in hand cannot be filed by the plaintiff in a civil court.
15. Pertinently, the fact that defendant no.1 is a statutory body constituted under the NMC Act, 2019, is admitted by the plaintiff. Further, the fact that defendant no.1 has been entrusted to function under the provisions of NMC Act, 2019 for laying down policies for regulating medical institutions (across the country of India) is also admitted by the plaintiff. The same is Civil Suit No.857/24 Dr. Iqbal Singh Vs. National Medical Commission Pg no .9/11 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.01.12 17:17:11 +0530 also evident from perusal of the purpose of the Act as laid down in the NMC Act, 2019.
16. As per Section 3 of the NMC Act, the National Medical Commission/ defendant no.1 is constituted to exercise the powers conferred upon and to perform functions assigned to it, under the NMC Act, 2019. Thus, the defendant no.1 derives its power from the NMC Act, 2019 to exercise its powers and function for regulating the medical institutions in India.
17. The gazette notification Ex. PW1/3 also says that regulations have been made by the defendant no.1 thereunder, by exercising the powers conferred by Section 57 of the NMC Act. In the said gazette notification, vide Section A.1.15 the biometric attendance system has been implemented for capturing the attendance of human resources (including faculty of medical institutions). The impugned circular has been issued in furtherance of aforesaid Section A.1.15(a) of the Minimum Requirement for Annual MBBS Admissions Regulations, 2020 alongwith Section 11.1 of PGMER-2000.
18. Since the defendant no.1 is constituted and governed by the NMC Act, therefore, it is imperative to look into the provisions of the NMC Act to find out whether its actions can be challenged in a civil court or not. Now, Section 53 of the NMC Act clearly says that no suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Government, the Commission or any Autonomous Board or a State Medical Council or any Committee thereof, or Civil Suit No.857/24 Dr. Iqbal Singh Vs. National Medical Commission Pg no .10/11 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.01.12 17:17:15 +0530 any officer or other employee of the Government or of the Commission acting under this Act for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder.
19. Thus, evidently, the acts of defendant no. 1 cannot be challenged by way of filing of a suit until and unless it is proved that the said act has not been done in good faith.
20. In the present matter, it is not specifically pleaded by the plaintiff in his plaint nor it has been argued at the time of final arguments that the defendant no.1 has not acted in good faith or that it had any malafide intention while issuing the impugned circular. The same can also not be inferred from the contents of the plaint. Thus, there is nothing on record to show that defendant no.1 has acted malafidely. Therefore, this court is of the view that the suit in hand is not maintainable being barred under the provision of Section 53 of the NMC Act, 2019.
21. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
22. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.Digitally signed by PRAGATI
Pronounced in Open Court PRAGATI Date:
2026.01.12on January 12th, 2025 17:17:19
+0530
(PRAGATI)
Senior Civil Judge-cum RC
KKD/SHD/DELHI/12.01.2026
Civil Suit No.857/24 Dr. Iqbal Singh Vs. National Medical Commission Pg no .11/11