'1 . Medicare Educational Trust v. Family Welfare Dept Secretariat Bqildin

Order

Chaltenging the proce,]dings dated 18.O7 -2025 issucd by thc 4rr' rcspondent - fi-Jnder Graduate Mcdical trducation Board (UGMEB), prohibiqing petitioner Institutc of Medical Sciences lrom admitting stuflents to the MBBS Course for thc Acaclcmic Year 2U2.5 26, this Writ Petition is instituted' Petitioners contcnc.[ tLIat lhe Imprggnccl Order is in gross violation r-r I thc prir-rciples of naturall justice, suffers from non- application of mind, prejudice, arbftrariness and violates the Funclamcntal Rights of petitionersl including their Right to Equalit-r undt r Arliclc l{ r'f the Conslilution' l

1.1 'I'hc t.' pctitioircr - Mectifarc Educalional Trust r,'as establishccl in 2O0 I with the objectii.ie o[ providing healthcare to the 1:tlor and ncedl-- I n lirre with tLf is, the Trust establishe d a hospital, metlic:rl co[lege, B.Sc. Nrirsing College, B.Sc. Allied Healtl-r Scienccs ernd othcr paramgdical programs. In 2002, Mcclicare Gencral F{ospital \\'as set qp with an initial cerpacity of 150 bcds at H.No. 19 3 159i B, flunter Road, Rangasaipet, Thimmapur (11), Warangarl, on a 33iacre campus namcd Father Colombo He:rlth Citl'. Tlie frospifal, one of the lurgest. in /e- / I i Warangal, expanded its capa<;ity to 64.5 bcds ernd olfers a range of supcr-spcciaIties. Duc to it s re putation ftrr providing excellent, lo\,-cost carc, it attracts patients from r,:rrious parts of the statt. an,l neighb,rrrring Slilles;.

1.2 Desirous o[ cxpanding irs philanthropic activities, the Trust sotrghl to establish a rnedical colk,gc in Warangal. Accordingly, thc (iovernment of Telangana issucd an Essentiality Certifi ca I e on 29.O8.2022, permittin g estatrlishment of the 2nd peritioner - Farher Colombo InstirutC ol Medical Sciences with an annual intake of l5O MBBS seats lor the Academic Year 20'23 24. Thc cer-tific:rte notcd that the Trust owns and rnanages a 300-bedded hospital arrcl possesses Acs. 13.34 (iuntas ol land in Hunre r Ro:rrl, I?angasarpet, v, Warangal. On 30.O8.2022, the 6rt, petitiorrcr - I,.aloji Narayana Rao Universitv of Health Sciences (KNR Univcrsiry) granted a Consent of Alilliation, subjer:t to permission frorn the National Medical Comnrission (NMC).

1.3 It is statecl, based on the se documcnts, the Trust applied to NMC. A surprisc inspection u,as condLLctccl b1 a team of assessors on 1O.O2.2023. Satished u,ith the lacilitics, the Medical Assessment &, Riiting Boar.ci (MARB) issuerl a Letter of Intent (Lol) ot'r 21.O2.2O23 tor liiO MBBS seirrs. u.l.rich was V J followed by a Letter of Permission orrtO3.O3.2023- Subsequently, after inspection by the Principal ol'Kakatiya Medical College , Hanamkonda, KNR University grantQd Provisional Affiliation on

26.06.2023 for the Acaclemic Year 2023-24. F<-rllowing all necessary permissions, petitioner dollege was listed on the Medical Counselling Committee (MCQ) portal, and 15O students were admitted for the Acade ^i. Y.^r'i2o23-24. 1.4 Petitioncrs hightight siv[ilicant change in Annual MBBS Admission Rcgulations, |ro2o (for short '2o2o Regulations). At the time of initial pelmission, the college met all the facultv requirements as pcr thd Regulations. However, on 19 .O9 .2023, the N MC notif red the Amended Guidelines for Under Graduatc Courscs under Estfiblishmcnt of New Medical Institutions, Starting o[ Neu, Me dicr Courses, Increase of Seats t and Rating Regulations, for Existing Courses & Assessmcr 2023 (for short, '2023 Rcgulaqions) These Regulations I I significantly increascd the requirement for 150 seats

from 83 to I 14. For the firsl time, iI mandatory requirement of additionally employing 3 Scnior Regidents in every department (both Pre-Clinical and Para-Clinical]) was introduced. The neu, Regulations also inLroduced the [.adhar Enabled Biometric Attcndance System (AEBAS), ring daily AEBAS of staff, 'l t 4 Ir Ir preferably wlth face rccognition, to be made availerble to the NMC and on the collegc w,ebsitc.

1.5 It is stated, in the State of Tclanqanzr, I I new Government Mcdical Colleges and thrce ncr. privirte Meclical Colleges werc es[ablishcd in 2023 and 2024. 'lhis rapid increasc in the number of colleges, coupk:d with thc cnhanccd faculty requiremt:nts, led to a huge shortage of faculty a(jross thc State. Petitioncrs annexed Newspaper articles illrrstr:rting this situation by mcntioning shou, cause notices issucd irr. the NMC to 26 out of 34 Government Medir:al College s in TeJzLngana, 34 out of 36 in Tamil Nadu, all 22 in Karnataka, 7l in W<:st Bcngal, and 30 in Maharashtra. There was aiso a huge short:rgc of etigible candidates for Senior Resident positions, as rhe 2023 Regulations require them to have a Post ()raduatc er-ralilication (MD/MS). This affidavit details rhe toral nLrmbt:r oi post Graduate seats in variouts departtnents in Telangtrna, rroting that some seats remain unfilled and that 30oz zrrc rcscn,t,cl for In-Service Quota students \,ho nrust re turn to qo!.err)ment service, thereby rr:ducing the available pool of can(liditLes.

1.6 Recognizing these challenges, tl,re Tenchers Eiigibility Qualifications in Medical Institutions R(.guLiLrons, 2025 (for short , '2025 Regulations) \(/erc norifi(.(i. .these w ) 'l Regulations permitted candidates with MSc. and Ph.D. degrees to be appointed as senior faculty, inpreased the upper age limit for Senior Residents to 50 years arld allou cd parallel entry of doctors from government hospitalis wirhout prior teaching experience. Despite their best effor{s to comply $,ith the 2023 Regulations, petitioner college cxpcrienccd some delay in implementing the AEBAS. This lcd] to rhe UGMEB issuing a i Show Cause Notice in Jan uary 2OJ4 tor :r n alleged violation. 'l The college replied uia e-mall on p2.O2.2O24, cxplaining the unexpected challenges and the steps taken to achieve compliance. On 13.05.2024, a virtual personal hearing was held where the college's cxplanation was;zrcceptcd and renewal was granted upon payment o[ a penalty o[ Rs 6,00,000/ -. The UGMEB's letter dated 07 .06.2024 grBnted rcnerval for Academic Year 2024-25, subject to the fine and a rc-asscssment aftcr tr,r.,o 1 months. Subsequently, KNR Unir"prsity grantcd provisional I affiliation for the second batch of 15Q stuc.lents for the Academic Year 2024 25 on O3.O8.2O24

1.7 For the Academic vear 7025-26, the UGMEB issued Public Notice on 01.11.2024, callifig on rncdical colleges to submit their annual declarations, Which rh, petitioner college duly did. On 11.05.2025, the UGqfEB issr,,-d a Shor.r, Cause o on 12.05'2025' pointing out collt:ge submitted Notice to the collcge, received ir re PIt on cer[ain de ficiencics Petitioner 16.05.2025, adclrcssing each deficiency; a personal hcaring "vas scheduled for '2O 06 2()25 at the NMC Ofl-rce in Nerv Dcihi' During and after thc hearing' petif ioners submittcd F orm 16 and Form 26A5 lirr their faculty for rhe Financial Years 2023-24 of having emPloYcd the reqursltc and 2024 -25, Providing Proof that the petitioners ll re readv ltr affidavit states entire documents during the heartng- While so, on 3O 06'2O25' FIR No' RC2 l82O25AO0 l4 registered by the CBI under 61 (2) of BNS' 2023 and 7 , 8, l),10, and 12 of the Prevention of Cornrption Ac[' facultY. The present the \rras

1.8 Sect.Ions atr d 'loscph

1988. alieging irregularities involving public offir:itrls representatives of private medical collt:ges' spec:ificallr' concerning pctitioner college alleging that Iir' Kommareddy, zr Member Trustee' paid Rs 20'0O'OO0/ ,trd Rs.46,00,00O/ - to intermediaries who' in turu' roLltcd thc Hari Prasad to manage the collcge's regulatory money Lo Dr are vague and incorrect The 'frr-rst and management \\'ere unayare of tht FIR ttll l4'O7 '2025 ' u'hen the Shockin gh., u ithout MARB issueil a Press Release referring to lt' anv pnor not ice clr hcaring on the mattcr' t he NMC arlnoullced aflairs rvhich I 7 that the Applications for renewal for {he Acariemic ycar 2O2S 26 for six medical colleges, including petitioncr college would bc cancelled and not processed further. if inatti, on 18.O7.2025, the UGMEB uia the Impugned Order, reEolved to stop admission of MBBS Course for the Academic Yea( 202.5 26 for the petitioner r college.

2. The 3.d respondent Napional Mcdical Commission contends that against the impugnpd order, therc exists an alternate remedy of Appeal and petiflioners \\,ithout iLvailing the same, approached straight away thi{ Courr. It is [Lrther stated, the impugned order was issued in full compliancc with statutory provisions; it afforded adequate ofportunitv Lo pcritioner [o address persistent and grave deficiepcies ancl [hal t]re decision was also influenced by serious attfg:rti<.ns of <.orrtrption and manipulation under investigation py the Central Bureau of i Investigation (CBI). According to this respondcnt, petitioner college has not approached this Couit rvith clcan tranrls, as they have attempted to divert attentiofr from i the core issue by suggesting the rejection was based Solely on the CBI FIR dated

30.06.2025.It is stated, pe[itioner hps becn a repeare(l defaulter in fulfilling the mandatory requiremQnts ol rhc trstablrshment of New Medical Institutions, Startingi o[ Ncu, Mcclic:zrl Courses, 'l 'l 8 lncrcase of S(rilts for Extsting Courses & Assessment and Rating Regulations, 2023. IL is further stated, the NM(l crercised its inherent powcrs uncler these Regtrlations and issrled a rcasoncd anci speaking orcler. Apart from the deficiencies, NM(l rr:ccivcd a formal comtnunication from the CBI regarding FIR No RC2 182025A0014 clated 30.06.2025, which was liled against assessors, college authorities and unknown persons on chargcs of bribery and scrious misconduct.

2.1 It is sLated, as per the requiremetlts of MSMtrR, 2023, notified on 19-09.2O23, the Under Graduate Mcdical Education Bo:trd (UGMEB) issued er Public Notice on O1.11.2024, dirccting medical colleges to submit their Annual Disclosure Rcports. An additional Public Notice on ?'5.O4.2025 sought furthcr information. Upon examination oi thc Annual Declaration Rt:port, video recorclings of examirlit I iotrs, antl AEBAS (Aaclhaar Ilnabled Biometric Attendance Svstcrn) data for the pasL )'car, sevcral gross dchciencies were ftrlrnrl in ti-rt: petitioner college. These deficiencies included: all departnlcnts werc found delicient in faculty/ rt:sident/ tutor as per AF)BAS rccord.s, the trstablishment LOP hle was not attachecl; OPD attend.rnL'e \\'.rs less than the recommended lcvel; bccl occupanc) rvas less Lt-ran 8OYn; an MBBS stud(ln1 stated that 1 t, '1. /, (l candidates were not uniformly dxamincd; 08 out of 20 departme nts had faculty dehciencips as per self-cieclaratio n; i numbcr of internal examiners in Physiologl rvas only writtcn in the C form, which was deemed $uboptimal; 19 out o[ 20 departmcnts had a faculty deficienci, in AEBAS; and l6 our of 2O departments had a senior residenf dcficiency in AI]BAS .)) It is further stated, a d tailed Shorv Causc Noticc p l dated 1 1.O5.2O25 was issued to pPtitioner spccificallv lisring these deficiencies, for which, a compliance reporr \r,.ars submi[ted, but upon re-evaluation. fnost dcficicncics pcrsistecl, including facultSz/ resident/ turor defipiencies as pcr AtrBAS data l I and the unverihed number of internpl examiners in ph-ysiolopl'. The NMC highlights that the collegp n as previor:slv cautiont.d during the academic year 2024,25 [.hrt "t.ing"r-,r be taken if deficiencies continued arid for the acade rnic sessiorr zrt--tion u.oulcl I 2024 25, the college was granted a Qonditional rencu,al, bur thc i assessment was conducted under t{e tess stringent MSR 2020 Regulations and had it been asselssed undcr MSR 2023, t would not have received even the conditional grant. For thc academic year 2025-26, the college was again found dehcicn t, but a conditional renewal was grantpd by imposing zr penzrlt.v r,l Rs. 6,O0,O0O/- under clause 8 of tlle MSrvtsR, 2023. Thc NMC ,l ,l l0 argues that t he institution has consistently failecl to satisfy mandatory crilcria, indicating a pilttern of non compliancc.

2.3 While tht-- assessmenl process was underway, it is st.rted. tl-rc Nl\4C learnr of the ctll FIR datcd 30.06.2025. Thc FIR alleges th:rt officials of the Ministry of Heillth and Family Welfare and NMC assessors eng€rged in a criminal conspiracy with intermccliaries and representatives of various privatc medical r:ollegcs. The FIR specifit:ally claims that I)r. B. Hari Prasad, acting as a consultant, lacilitated the use of dumml' faculty and secured regulatory approvals in exchange lor bribes. Dr. Hari Prasad and Dr. Ankam Rambabu jointly managed thc regulaton, aflhirs of petitioner institution and in return, Fr. Joseph Kommzrreddyo oi the institution paid Rs. 2O lakhs ancl Rs. 46 lakhs on tu() scparate occasions uia lbrmal banking channels to Dr. Hari Prasad through intermediaries.

2.4 Tlrt'NMC contends that allegations in tl-re FIR point to illegal activities ar-rd manipulation of the inspcr lion pr()cess by the college to rcceive f:rvourable renewal orders. It is zrsserted that NMC rvor:ld not tolerate corruption and states that its decision to halt admissions for the academic vear 2025 26 was a r,r.ell considcrcd action bascd on p"a"l",ar-t, defiL'iencres anrl Lhc gra"'ity of t ire allcgations, irimed at upholding thc intcgritv ol- I' f' medical education and protecting stqdents' futures. The NMC also men tions that it has blacklisted t e assessors named in the I FIR. ln view of the same, it is prayed that Writ Petition may be dismisse d 3 Learned Senior Counsel Sri D Prakash Reclcly on behalf of Sri P. Panduranga Reddy primarily argues that NMC acted with pre-decisional bias. On 14.O7 .2025, prior to issuing i the Impugned Order, the Medical A$sessment & Rating Board i (MARB) of the NMC released a preFs rclease announcing its decision no[ to process and to cancil the reneu'al application. This public pre-determination rendefs any subsequent hcaring a mere formality and it demonstratps a clear viola tion of t he principles of natural justice. ]

3.1 According to learned Ser-}ior Counsel, therc is direct breach of the principle of audi alteiam.partem. The lmpugrred i Order is based on a CBI FIR dated 3Q.06.2025. The Shovv Causc Noticc r.,as dated I | .O5.2O25, and petitioners submitted re ph' r on 16.O5.2O25; personal hearing wa held on 20.06.2025. Since $ the FIR rvas registered after these ievents, the college had no opportunity to address the new Lll.grtio.,=: FIR, thereforc, cannot be the basis for passing the Jlmpugned Order. He relied on th7 iud8ment of the Hon'ble- $uprcmc Court in CCE. v. : I Shital latentationalr in this rcgard wherein it hzrs becn held that unless lound:rtion o[ case is laid in show cause notice, thc department czlnnot bc permittecl to build up a new case nor .allowed to take colt tr.r(l ic torv starrd.

3.2 Lt:arnt'd Senior Cour-rsel cites key Slrpreme CourL judgments to suppor[ his argtrments. Suamy Devi Dagat Hospital & Dental College u. Union oJ India2, u,hich held that Section iOA(4) of the Dentists Act, 1948 applies to renewal cases and mandates an opportunity for a hearing. This case established a r\\'o-stagc process frrr natural justicc: a first stage at the council levr:l (in this case, the DCI) to giv<_: a chance to rectify deficiencies, and a second stage at the govt:rnment level, wherc a final ltcarir-rg must be provided if the scherne is to be disapprovcd. Royal Medicq.l Tntst a. Ilnion oJ India3, which held that the principlcs from Suamg Devi Dagal case are fully applicable tr> the mcdical council and its regulations.

3.3 [t is argued by learned Senior C]otrnsel that allegations in CBI F-lR are unfounded. The FIR alleges payments were made to Dr. Hari Prasad and Dr. Ankam Rambabu to manage regulaton' affetirs, but petttioners deny an.r'c.onnection '12ottrIstcto,r t(zot +) tl SC( 50. ' (20I r'r) l0 SCt: 19 I' I' l:t with Dr. Hari Prasad. It is clarified that Dr. Ankam Rambabu was a service provider and HR conlultant engaged to identify facultv and payments for these consql[ancy services werc made transparently through banking chandels and u,ere not for illcgal purposes

3.4 Learned Senior Counscl ]further submits that there is violation of Article 14 of ttte Constitution, claiming discriminatory trcatment. NMC gfanted renewal to other colleges in Telangana, such as Dr. Patnam Mahender Rcdd5, Institutc of Medical Sciences, Dgccan College of Medical Sciences, and SVS Medical Colleg-g, despite similar or more severe deficiencies. By contrast, thf NMC imposcd a blanket ban on the petitioner college and o[her institutions named in thc F tR rviLhouI considering their in$ividual circumstanccs. He cites the case of Geethanjali uniuerpitg, Rajasthan, where the NMC initially withdrew its renewal of permission on 17.O7.2025 bccause its Rcgistrar was named aS Accused No. 'l in thc FIR. Hou.ever, the Rajasthan High Courf in Civil Writ Petition No. 14216 ol 2025 stayecl the withdraw$.l order on 3O.O7.2025 and i allowed the institution to parlicipat in counselling. Petitioners e I arguc that their instltutton ts in even better position. as neithcr the college nor its managernlent is specifically namcd in 'l 'l 'l h h l4 the FIR, zrnd tlte Membcr Trustee named as Accused No 33 has not been scn't'd with a noticc- It is contended th.1t thc Impugned Order u'as passcd b1' UGMEB, u'hile the competent truthority to pass such orclcrs is tl-re Meclical Assessment and lieLting Board (MARB).

3.5 According to learned Senior Counsel, petitioners complied with the 2020 Regulations, the new 2023 Regulations draslically int:reascd facultl' requirements Petitiont:rs a[tribute the tempr>ran' shortage to this chztnge and the estalllishment of 14 new medic'rrl colleges in Telangana. They note that the 2025 Regulations u e re l:tte r introduced to address these t:hallenges. It is contended that despitc having a full facuLty strength, technological rssut--s u,ith AtrBAS systcm may have lcd to an inaccurate rcllection of faculty nun-rbers.

3.6 Frr-rall1 , lcarned Senior Counscl justihes approaching the lligh Court dircctly bypassing thc statutory appeal remedr, utrdcr Regulatiort 9 of the Mainlenance of Standards of Medical Eclucation Rr:gulations, 2023 He cites the pre-decisional bias by the NMC, u'hich, they arguc, mtLkes the Appeal an empty formality. 1'hey zrlso invoke the precedent se t in . Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Markq t- --( l5 4 Mumbaia, u,hich established that a wlit petition is maintainable even with an alternate remedy w'L1en there is violation of l fundamental rights or natural justice. As the denial of renewerl ,l r.r,ould have serious civil consequences, preventing student admissions for the Academic Year 20ps-26 and counselling has already commenced, learned Sen Fo. Counsel emphasizes urgency in this Writ Petition.

4. Ms. Sri Ranga Pujitha Gorantla, learned Standing Counsel for the 3"1 respondent - NI\4C makes her submissions point u,ise. She, at the outset, denips the claim of violation of principles of natural justice for Nfr4C issued detailed Show Cause Notice on 1 1.O5.2O25 and alsp granted physical hearing on 01.O7 .2025, i.r,here college repre F entatives appeared before the UGMEB. The NMC found Sre college's clarifications observing gross and unconvincing and unsatisfactory], substantive deficiencies in faculty aird clinical parameters. The collcge also acceptcd the deficiencies and assured to fulflll them She emphasizes that decision waS based on data from the Annual Declaration Form, AEBAS a4ralysis for AY 2024-25, an d verihcation of Form- 16 and Form 26A5 in addition to the allcgations in the FIR. /doay e scc r ,l t. I 16

4.1 According to learned Standing Coltnserl, pctitioners have b5.'passr:d lhe prescribed appellate m<:chanism under Regulation 9 of thc MSMER, 2023. She relied on 1lre.judgment of thc Divisiorr Bcnch of this Court in Writ Petitiorr No. 9057 of 2O2O (llll s Srini Pharmaceuticals Prrt. Ltd. V. Union of India) to contend that this Court should exercise its porvcr under ArLicle 226 only in exceptional circumstances zrnd in this case, such circumstances are abse nt, hence, the WriL Petrtion is Iiable to be dismissc'd at the thre shold.

4.2 lt is argucd, Rcgulations of MCI erre binding and mandatory (scc Medical Council of India u. S. R. Educational and Charitable Trusts\. No intcrim relief cart bc granted to admit studenls as a matter of course (Union of India. u. Era Educational Tnrst6 and Medical Council oJ India u. Raiio G<rndhi Universitg of Health SciencesT). Leanred Standing Counsel conlcnds that the decision taken on tI're basis of rccommendation o[ an cxpert bodv regarding the ir-radequacy of ..-..,. facilities in mcdial colleges cannot be interfered u,ith lightly - Medical- Council of India a Katinga Institute oJ Medical Sciences8, Medical Council of India u. KMCT Medical \ ' 2018 scc onlinc \( t176 \:ooo) s sct' s; (1001) (, SC( 76 '(lot6) tt st c:.ro t7 Collegee, Medico.l Council of India . Vedantaa InsfiAfie of p Academic Excellence Put' Ltd.lo And Medical Council of India u. S.R. Educational a.nd Charltable Trustll ' l 4-3 Learned Standing Counsfl further argues that the scope of judiciat revier,'"' is extremely limitcd in matters relating to decisions taken by the expert bpdies u'here standards of institu[ions are concerncd. In suppotrt of her contention, relies on the ju<Jgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J&K State Board o;f Education u. Fegaz Ahlted Mdlikt2 and Medical Council of Indid u. Sarangl3. I Shc also relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme' Court including Krlshna Priga Gangulg rt. tlnitersity of Lutknoulra, which holds that Courts should not relax the rules afd regulations of academic bodies under ArLiclc 226. The NMQ also references National Medical Commisslon u. SSPi}fs MQdicat Coltege & LiJetime Hospital & Research Centre wheri: the Supreme Court stayed a Bombay High Court order and a]ffirmed the NMC's express statutory authority under S - ^L ectron 2Q (1)(0 of the NMC Act, 2O19 also cites Rohilkhand to stop admissions. The altrdavlt Medical College & Hospital, nar$ilg u. Medical Council of i " (20 r8) I SCC 766 "' (20 r8) 7 scc 225 ' 20 t8 scc onlinc SC ll76 '' (2ooo) I s('c 59 '' (200 r) 8 scc.127 ' {1984) r SCC 3O7 ,l ,I 18 India and Iq City Foundation v. Union of India to reinforce that regulatorv bodir:s can act on crediblc evidettrce' ol non- compliancr: rvithout u,aiting for cnminal convictiorts-

5. Having heard learne d counsel on r:ith<-'r side at length :rncl having considered [ht: material on re<'ord placed by both the partics, the moot questions that require decision of this Court are: 1) Whether existence of efllcaciorrs alternate remcdl, bars this Court from excrcising its jurisdiction undcr Artir:lc 226 of the Constitution ol India? 2) Whether thcre is direct breach of the principle ol audi aLterctm partem. 3) Whether [his Court can interlere with the decisions taken by the expert bodrcs? 6 POINT No. I With regard to the cxistcnce of an alternate remt'dy, pctitioners the.mselves have iLcknowlt:dged that Lhere is appellate remedy under Regulation 9 of the Maintenance oi Stanclards of Medical Education Rcgr-rlations,

2023. ln Gazette Notification datect 08.08.2O17 rvhercunder the National Medir:al Commission Ar:t, 2O l9 u,as pron-rulgaled, Se ction 22(3) srws that subject to t he provision of Set:tion 28, a l, L L ,A 'l l9 person who is aggrieved by any depision of an Autonomous Board may prefer an Appeal to the decision within sixty days o[ decision. In the GazeLle No the l .-. ) trtrcF ommission against such b communicaLion of such dated 21.O9.2023 whereunder the Maintenance o[ S[an ards of Mcdictrl Education 4 Regulations, 2023 were published, Disclosurc Report and its Evaluatio$ Chapter II - Annual Section 5(4) says that if the applicant lails to submit such inlormation or clarify or provide additional documents etci, as mandated by the respective Board within such pre sdribed time including any additional time provided by the rPspect Board, shall be deemed as non-compliance u,ith tfic Regulations and shall attract penalty. Chapter III deals q'it I h pcnalties Se<:t:ion 8 savs that where the respective Board hqs reason to believe that a medical institution has failed [o com ply with any stalu tory provision, regulations framed the re nder, or has not complied q with the Minimum Standards of Reg,l-rirements as prescribed by their respective Boards, or has cortrductcd thcmselves in any manner g,hich is not in accordanc{ with the goals of medical education and practice, the Soarf shatl either penalise the medical college or medical institutiopr and / or conduct further i enquiry into such act and wh(rever ncedcd provide an opportunity to rectify the samc. C ause 2(h) further says lhat I 20 rhc impositior-r of pcnalty maf incltrde recommending to NMC lor rvittrdrau'al of permission. It is further provided that U(}MEB' P(IMEB or the NM(l mat' al"o initiatc crimrnal proceeclings for fr-rrnishing falst: information, or fabrication of falsc d()cuments as per t he crin'rinal lar,' in force at that timc- Chapter lV' Scction 9 provides Appeal to NMC. A mediorl collcge or meclical institttlion or any such zrggrieved person nlal' file an appeill bcfore the Commissioner with an appropriatc fee as specified against any order, provided such an Appcal is filed rvithin sixly da1's ol-passing of such an order or lapsc of time, as Lhc case may be. Section 10 provides Appeal to the Central (ioi'ernment. Where an appticant / medical collegc or medical institution is aggrieved by the decision of the Comtnission or rrhr'rc the Commission fails to give its decision rvithirr fortv five davs lrom thc date of receipt of such an Appeal, a scconcl zlppcal nrir,, be llled bt'lbrc thc Central Governmcnt r'r'ithirr thirt,v days lroin thc dale of such order or lapse of time, as th('calc may be' Tht: dccision o1' thc Central (iovernment in this regarcl shall bc finiLl. H<'ncc, in the impugned order, in the pt:nultimate paragraph it is recorded that 'if you are not satisfied and agclrieued uith the cl.ecision of the Board, gou are free to pre-fer ott Appeal before tlrc Commission under Section 9, Cltctple'r lV of tlrc I, 2l Maintenance of StcLndards of Mediaal Educcttion Regulations, 'l 2023 (MSMER, 2023) within sixtg dagp of the issue of this letter.' 7 However, petitioners con end that NMC had alreadv t arrived at a conclusion, hence, filin$ an Appeal is nothing but an empty formality. In that regar(, learned Senior Counsel citing the judgment rn Whirlpool C$rporation's ccse (supra) contends that a writ petition is niaintainable cven with an alternate remedy u,hen [here is a viol tion of fundamental rights h or natural justice. It is a rvctl {stablished principle that existence of statu[ory and elficacigus altcrnate remedy is a strong ground for a wriL court {o dccline to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction. The said ]statement is supportcd by the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 9057 of 2O2O (M/s Srini Pharrnacltticats Pvt. Ltd. V. union oJ Ind.ial, relied upon by learned Stqnding Counsel for NMC. In the said judgment, it was held that this Court should exercise its power under Article 226 only in exccptional circumsranccs. For better understanding, the relev4nt portion of thc judgment is extracted hereunder: " The power under Art. 226 o[ thc Constitution of India is couched in wide terms. Hence, it is not subject to an-t rcstrictions, except the sell imposecl ones. The exercise o[ the jur-isdicti not exercised merell, because it is lau,ful to l g n is absolutell' discret ionary ; it is flo so 'l L L t, Tltc self-imposed restrictions are essenti:rllr a rrrlc of policy, corrvenicnce and riiscretion rather than;r rule of lau,. Thc self-imposed restrir:tions are: firsth, rf tltere is an cfficacrorrs altcrnative remedy available.)o tfre aggrieved lrarn,: scr.ondll,, if lhe ('ase lt\()l\es displrte<l rluestions of lacts, shich u,oulcl reclrrrrc elaboriite .ex.tririn.rlr()rl DI cridence in order to establish the right \\lrrc.ir tltc aggrievcd part\ ('l.lrms tllrough the issuance of a rvrit, thirdl1,, if the \ rit petitron is ltit b-r rle la-r. ancl latc'hes Since the writ juriscliction is one of c<1uitr,, dclav u.ould dclcnt erluirt. lirrrrthl,v, if a party comes to the court with un(:lean lral)(ls. Tlre existence of an alternative remedv is not an irbsoiute lrar on Ilte l)or\er ol \\,rit jurisdictron of a High Court under r\rt 22(r of tl.re Constit u r ion ,,I I d ia. ll()\\,eqtr, the said power is to be irrvokecl onlr. in cxc.cptronal t:ascs arrrl u,rder circumstances. The party invoking the rlrit .lurisclictiotr cxLrilor-dr,an lras to establish not only that extraordinan (.rrcurnstances clo cxrst, bul als. thrrt the altcrnative remed-r, provided b,\, the stiltutc is .c.tirelr rll srritecl ro nr(.et the demaltds of extraordinarv situation,,. Slnce thc existence of an aiternative remedy is r)ot an ztbsolute l;ar ro rlrc rrriokrng of a u,rit jurisdiction, the said jurisrlictiorr mat be excr<'iscrl in , ir(.Imstances: a) where the writ petition Itas been lllcd for en&)r( ern('ni ,,1 furrrlarrreDtal rights; b) where thc principles ()l nirtural justic(l Itai't be.rr ,,,i. iare.<l: cl whcrc the order ,tr procet:dings arc \\.holl,\ withoLtt jrrrrsclrclrrn. <i ,,rlrerc the vircs of an Act is under challenge. But cvcn uhcn thrs(] qrourrd\ arc made out, even then the exercise of the rvrit jurisdir:tion .onlrrtrr,.s to l,,.rit*r rel ionary. BClirre cxcrcising thc writ jurisdiction in face of tlte cxistencc oi tlr. irlt, rn;rl ic tr)ln(:(l\, the Court is riuty bound to consiclcr if lhe cxcrcise of *rit p.*er i'oLtl(i defeat the purpose, .im or object of the st.rttLtc \\hich prorides the .rltcrnative remedy. For. the exercise o[ thc extraordinan. .jurisrli<:tirrn rrr,rlel Art. )26 of the Constitlrtion mav defcat (he vt:6. purposc of th(' stal Ufr. The ttigh Court should also consrder whether the exercisc of the \\rit juris(licrron is in the interest of the publrc or no1? For, the .jtrrisrJiction slroul(i not be so exercised rts to adversely aflect thc prrblic lnlcr('st. .l'hcr,lorr', lhc High Court shoul(t be circumspect rvhrlt. exer-cisirrg 1 ,l I ,) the writ jurisdiction when an alternative rempdy is available to tlte a&qrieved part) under a statute"-

8. In the light of the said priecedent, petitioners' claim of pre dccisional bias by the NMC cannor be said to be a sufficient ground to bypass the statut]ory appeal mcchanism. An appellatc authority is fully capable [f examining thc issue of bias and determining the vatidity of ihe Impugned C)rder on its merits. Petitioners' assertion that thc Rpp.rt u ould bc an cmpty lormalif is a speculative claim anfl does not constitute an exceptional circumstance that wairants bypassing of thc estabtished legal procedure. The larv is clear that writ j urisdiction should not be a suUstitu te for the statutory appellate mechanism. ln view of tt.fe foregoing discussion on this aspect, the contentions o[ Iearnqd Senior Counsel does not hold water. 9 FOINT No. 2: On the second question, rvhethcr there is a direct breach ol the principle of audi alterant partem, pleadings reveal that NMC issued a detailed Show Cause Notice on 1 1 .O5.2025, which.specihcally listpd a number o[ deficiencics ,l lbuncl in the college's Annual peclaration Report, video recordings, and AEBAS data. Petitloners submittcd reply on

16.O5.2025, and personal hearing w{s held on 20.06.2025. The NMC's affidavit states that duri]ng physical hearing on 24 {l O1.O7.2025, collcgc representatives appcared bctbre the UGMELI. Ht'nr:c. it is to be un(lerstood that pctitioncrs had amplc op1'ror-turtrtv to present rheir case and address the delir:iencics. Ir, tltis t'onnection, al the cost o[ rcpctiliorl, it is to be scen Lh:rt s()mc ol thc major dt:fects pointed out by the NMC are i) all thc departrnents are deficient in faculty / resident / tulor as pcr AtrBAS record data; ii) establishme nt LOP file not attachecl; iii) OPD aLtcndance is less than the recomtr-rer-rded; iv) bed occr.tpirnt'r is less than 8O7o; v) one MBSS studenI has said all i:ancliclatcs \\crc not uniformlY examined collegt: may take utmost caro to ensure that in Renewal I UGMEB l'2023- 24 ll25l1378-r52O12025 future examination; vi) 08/20 Deptrrtments have ar cleficient;y of laculty as per sc Lf-cle cla rzrtion; vii) the nurrr be'r of tnternal examiners in Physiologv' lvas only g,ritten in C lirrrn, rvhich is suboptimal and it shrruld be vcrified; viii) 19i 20 tlcp:rrt mt't'rts have faculty deficiency in ABRAS and ix) l6/ 20 <lr'p:rrtnr('nLs have senior residenl clcliciencf in ADBAS. lt is also s,ated that point Nos. 1,6, 8 and 9 are still t. t, cleficienl ancl Lhc ntLmber ol' internal examiners in physiologr r,r,as still not verificrl. The abovc deflciencies arc fotrncl by the verification of cla la 7 details submitted by the colleges in Annual Declarzrtion Fortn ort the NMC Portal, AEBAS Analvsis (Aadhar Enablcci Iliomctr-ic Attendance System) for the AY 20'24 25 and 75 Form-16 and Form 264.5 as provided by the college authority. Petitioncrs submitted their reply on 16.O5.2025. Subseqr-renLly, on 30.06.2025 CBI registered FIS alleging corrup[ion and manipulation of inspections- Thtreafter, ot.o7 .'2025, personal hcaring was granted by NIvIC to petitioner collcge . Thc NMC's actions, including the Sholrv Cause Noticc and thc personal hearing, indicate that pr nciples of natural -1u sticc u,erc, in fact, complied u,ith. The NM{- is a slatutory cxpert bodl' taskcd u'ith upholding the standard$ of medical education, and it czrnnot be expected to ignore seriols allcgations of corruptior.t and misconduct simply because th$y emerBed after the initial

10. Here, it is to be seen, th4 contention of petitioncrs is that th('v came to know of registratipn of FIR only during prcss releirse of NMC on 14.07 .2025, hence, thev do not havc thc opportlrrlity to make their submissipns with regard to the said CASC IN the personal hearing provided to them on O1.07.2O25 Though petitioners' argument is that CBI FIR datcd 30.Ot.2025 was the sole basis for the ImpugnediOrder and that they had no opporturlily to address, as could be been from the FIR registcred against Sri Joseph Kommareddy,i the allegation of bribing assessors of NMC is extremely scripus in nature, as stated by thc NM(i, thc decision was based ,rr] a combination of persistetlt t ,a ,l t(. Y, deficienc:ies. In vieu of the same, this Court is not reacly to accept the contention rhat CBI FtR is the sole basis to pzrss the impugncd orrlcr. Pctitioncrs clailn that the prt:ss release dated

14.O7 .2O2r rlcmonst ra ted prc-decisional bias is also not convincing. 'l'he press relcase rnerely announcecl the NMC,s decision basc<l on the inforrnation available to it at that time. It docs not negzrte the fact thilt a detailed show-cause noticc was given and h('arings $.cre con<lucted. petitioners hacl the opporturritv i() ilppe:ll the decision and present all thcir I, arguments bt'lirrr: ir higlter aLrthority. I 1. In thc Iight of the above, it can be said that there is no breach of rhe principles of natural justice in the case of petitioncrs. t2 POINT No. 3 Finally, on the thircl questior-r, vr.hether this C'otrrr r:a n intt'rfere u,ith the decisions take n by expcrt b()dies. r,his Corrrt is,rf the considered opinion that the scope of .ludicit,-l rcvierr in sur.h mzrtters is extremell, limited. As is u'ell-settlerl. Rcgr-rl:rLions of rhc MCI are binding and mandaton.. It is to bc seen rhat the Central Government had rejected permission aftcr obtaining recommendations from the Medical Council tu.ice. hencc, such decision take n based on tht: recommendation of the an exl)ert body regarding inadequacy ol facrlities in mcdit'al colk.ges ciinnot bc interfered u,ith lightlv. I )7

13. In lhis connection, it is relcvant to sec the judgments relied on by the learned S(anding Counsel. In S.R. Ed.ucational anf Charitable Tntst's case (supra), it has been held as under " l

26. Considering the fforesaid provisions and the dcllciencies foun<l in the case of the afores]aid three medrcal colleges, r,r.e are of the considered opinion that the r(commcndations made bv the llearing Committcc to review and to consfder the complianct: coul(l not bc saicl to be binding. The provisions of RfBulations 8(3Xl)(a) and (b) are birtcLng upon the Ilearing Committee / Go+ernment of India and MCL IT is onl-r irt a casc uhen a report o[the ass$ssors on the face o[ it, makes out lhar the same ls incorrect, a reconsrdtration or revierv rs callerl [or. Othcnvisc, in the case of gross deficiend, the yardstick contained in Rt.gulation 8(3) (l)(a) or (b) has to be applfed by the Hearing Commirtee, Governm( nt of Inclia or MCI, as.the ."""i-"y be It is not open to the G()vernrnent of India/MCI or Hearing Cominittee to (lepart in a fcw cases and in some other to take a different starfd. Thel' have to scrupuloush obscrve the provisrons of regulations whictf 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 Inclia v. Vedantaa lnstitute of Academic lxcellence (P) Ltd. and Mertical Council of Inclia r KMCT Medical Colleg{. [t was incumbent upon the High Court in pith and substance to toliow the mandate of Vedantaa instrlutc oI Acadenric Excellence (P) Ltd. T[re High Court has relied u;)on other -iu(li{rnents $hrch were not based $non the consideration of the amenderl provisions of Regulation 8(3)(1).lIt could not have rclied upon its otvn rlecision (,[ the Dlvision Bench in DM Educatron & Rescarch Foundation v. Union of India which *a" .i.a.ly contrary to the aforesaid dec ision s of this C,, u rt. l

28. It rs high time for MCI to ensure rts functions q,ell ancl erirdrcate atl the loopholes and decide theicase within a reasonable time and not to lend thc colleges in a srtuation uith no legal remedv availablc once casc is dccidccl at the fag end of the icadcmic session on 3l st Ma\'. We are constrainerl to observe that it u'ould be approprrate that MCI and t { 't l8 the Govcr-nlne ni ol In.ll.r take a declsiorl ln all thc cases at an earlY date and not br the encl oI Ma1, 2O18 The next academic scssion has to commence liom li|st of .Iuh of thc Gr'lgoriall calendar YCar as such at least 3'1 months the slro'.tltl be available to seek judicial revicrv oI the action or re-lrlsp(r( lloll, tf anr, so !\arr',rlrted by MCI or thc Governnlent of India. We find that once a l)etrtion is nle(l and cven if in somc ciises we are inclined to grant a relief of re irrspection to a cotlege, but due to the lapse oI the time scheclule antl the admissions having alreadY l)een made, it is not consiclered al)propriate to dlsturb the unifor-m schedule of various univcrsitics. In our opinion, lt wottld be appropriato f hat MCI' as rvcll as thc Govcrnmcnt of India, shoul<l take a final de<:ision alter inspection, bv the encl of Februan or [.rtest br the clrd ol-Marc:l.t' 29. Nou,, we cortsi<lcr thc sLlbmission ririsecl irv Mr C S Vaicly:rnathan in the case of P.K. Dass Institute ot Nledicirl Scienc ttr regard to the correctness of th(t rcport of the asscssors as t() thc occupancy oI the bed' wherein bed oc(ttlpancv had becn foun(l to lre 40'6O7o at l0'O0 am on the clate o[ the inspet tton held otr 3l lO 2Ol7 ancl 1 I ] 2OI7 for the purposc of rencrval o[ pertnissitln lor admission of fifth batoh o[ L5O seats in MBtsS cc:ursc or 2Ol8-201 r. Ttrc provisions containecl in Regulation 8(3)l 1)(b) had been applied. 'lhe [']xecutive Committee on 16 I 2018 considet-etl rhe rcprcsentillrorls (late(l 5 1-2018 submitted b-Y the college, fonvarcle(l to it bV rhe Ministn. The Hezrring Corntnittec had obsen,ed that attendarlce \vas courrte(l till 2 00 P m the c ollege has explained the deliciencl oI faculr! and clefictt'ncv o[ attendance in OPD' hou,evcr. il rvtrs obsen'etl tllat lh(i sulrtnissron of the college rcgarding bed occupanc-v \vas llot enllrell satistlctol\' The case ttras referred to MCI for revieii itlclucling constclerin3 thc impositiorr of ReguJation 8(3)(1)(b). After consttlering the recomIl rendirl ion clecision rvas taken by MCl. as the alot-csaid rcgulation \\'as al)plicitble, the decisior.t was taken not to rcnew th( Permission for adrnission ol 5th batch of MBIIS course 30. ll \\as lurther (ronten(led orr behalf of the collcge that thc pcrformancc of the stLrdents and reslllt o[ the examination was extremelJ' good artd bt:d occupancv wars m()re as sholvn on the college \!'ebsite. Wrth lcspcct to tlte b,rl ott rtpaircl, it rtas reporled bl the assessor th.rt ttr('re r\'erc'262 palients ('ut ol 650 requirtd bccls at 1O 00 am. on thc firsl dal . It $'as sul)rnitte(l b\ the learned Seni()r Counsel t. t. )9 that there lrre re approximately 500 patien[s admitted as indoor patients as apparent from the \:eb portal of the college in question thus, the report of the zlssessors $as absolutel], inqorrect and this aspect should be Iooked rnto by this Cour-t. lt r,,as con(ended that the assessors had counte(l patierlts ar,ailabk: on lhe beds a[ that time. nssessors dicl not count patienls lvho were uncler investigafion procedures and operation theatre and those $ho rvere in the washlooms, pantry, etc. As per the assessors, the bed occupanc-v $'as 40.30t/o i.e. 262 patients out of 650 patients rvhiclr rvere requrred. Whereas cfllege claimed that 493 intloor patients $'ere there at 10.O0 am- oh 3lfl0-2O17 There was 8096 bed occupancY on 3O l0 2Ol7 to 3l-10-201T and 1,112017. Thc learned Scnior Counsel has d ras,r'r support from tfre website portal. 3l. We havc no hesitation in reJecting the subrnission as it has no legs to stanrl. Whate\er college sa[,s is not a gospel truth. Therc "e.oridly, is no case \,!'herein college does not dispf te the report of the assessors and contend that there rvcre no such defi(iencies. It is cleatly a disputed tact. Firstly, the report of ttre assessor caflnot be lightly disbelieved. It is not open to cxamining thc case set up b, the college as facts are forrnd in the judicial review, the by assessors are at great variance, report cannot bc discarded relying on dala put up by the college on self serving $ebsrte portal. In our vieu,, tfre High Court was rrght in discarding tlre exl)lanatiou oflered by ithe colleges with respecl to deficiencies. Even the Hearing Commit{ee rvith respect to P.K. Dass lnstitute o[ Mcdical Scienccs did not douit the report of assessors as to bed occupancy. This Court has considerqd the value of a website portal and such objcctions in Mcdrcal Council 4t India v. N.C. Medi<:al College & Hospital in w,hich the (lccrsron ot Medical Council of lndia r,. Kalinga Institute of Medir-al Sciences has been r{ferred to. The Court observed: (N.C. Meclicat Co[lege case, SCC pp. 748-!9, para 2Ol ''2O. On the onc hand, the High C(urt has doubted the report o[ inspcction an(l for that surprisinglv relie{ on the self-serving contents of the \i,ebsite of the college. Tlrerc rs nothiftg to vouch for the authenticity of the n'ebsite informatron. it is not ,..]nrt tt. institution asserts on website but \\'hal is actualtv lound on rnspection, that ltas to bc consrderecl bv the corlrt and while exerciling judrcial revieu it is settled Ia$, lhat court canr)ot sit in appeal over the report of the assessor-s as ,, .-i I I ! j0 observed in Medical Council of Indirt v. Kalrnga inslilutc rlf Medical Sciences thus: (SCC p. 5'+0, paras 2l il2) 2l. A perusal of the decision of ttre High Court (:lcarl\ itrdi<ates that it consi(lered the latest ICporl o[ the Inspcctiol-l Tcant ,ts Lf it rvas hearing an appcal against tlle rePorl. In dottrg so, tl)c llrgh C'oLtrt went lnto great dctails on issues relaling t(, thc rlttlnber o( tcachrrrg beds in the hospital, the limitations in the ()l'D [)epa]:tlnent. tlre Iru[rbor of units available in the subjects of Gcne-al Me<li<:ine, Paecliatt-tcs, etc, bed occupancy, number of Caesarean sectiol)s, discrepancv in rlata o[ major ancl minor operations, com puterisati(,n in the institr.llion, llumber of patients in the ICLI nttmbcr of stat c x ra,\ machilr('s. rlt'Iiciencl' sI examination halls, lecture theatres, Lit)ran', sttl(icnls hoslcl, interns hostel, playground, e tc. etc. Sureh, this was not \\'itllrrl the domain o[ the High Court in exercisc of its jurisxlictiorl untlcr ,\rticlc 226 of th,e Constitution.

22. Tbe High Court dtd not apPrcciate that th( insp(ction was carried out b1 eminent Professors from reputed mcdial institLltions who q"ere experts in the ficld and the t)est persons to gtt'c atr urLbiirsed report on the facilities in KIMS. The tligh Court undcr Arlicle :126 ol the Constitution q,as certainl-y- not tasked 1o mintlteh exarnine the contents of the inspection report an(l weigh therrl against the olriecttotts of KIMS in respect of each of its l8 items. ln our opinton, lhe Ilrqh Cottrt plainlr' exceeded ils jurisdiction in this reg;rrd itr vcrlltrrirr:1 int() seriousl) disputed factual issues. "' It was also obsen'ed that at thc tinle oI irrspection Itcultr shotrld be present barring ('erlain cx( eptir)lrs otlrenvis( the \cl\ purllose of the inspection rvoulrl be defealed. 'l'hc rcport o[ the ass, ssors cannot be lightly faulted and thc court ('arlnot sit in att ilpl)cal arld go into disputed far:ts. 'l'here rvere other dellciertcies too bttl dlte to lhr: aforesaid gross deltciencies, the provisions of licgulation 8(31(l)(b) st're clearly attracted. . 32. In Mechcal Council of India r'. KMCT Medit irl Collt:ge it rn'as c;nltnded that the inspectiorl !\'as not propcrll' ( on'lircted The submission had been rejectcd thtrs: (SCC p.773. l).)ra l3) I -) "23. We do not deem it necessary to Oeal with the submission made on behatf of thc College regarding the inspection not being properl-v conducted. This Court has repeateclll salcl that a decision takcn b-y the Union of lndia on the basis of a recorrf mendation of an expert bodY regarding the inadequac-v of facilities ip medrcal colleges cannot be interfered with Iightlj. Interference is perlnissible only when the colleges demonstrate jurisdictronal crrors, ex lacie penersity or mala fide. lSee Manohar Lal Shrtrnra r'. Mcdrc:rl Council pf india and Medical Council of lndia v. Kalinga lnstitutc oI Merlical Scie4ces) As no case is made out by the College for inlerference u'ith thc in{pccrion report, itc' decline the request oI Mr Sibal for remancl of the nratiter to the High Court.' ln our opinion, in vieu o[ ttre aforcsard the court in Sudicial revicr(, to acccl)t occupanc-r' in t he abscnce of mala fides cgal position, it is nol open to tcnuous objcctions as to bed

33. ln vierv ot the aforesaid discr-rsbion, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court has grar'r'l-r' erred in larv \ahile passing the impugned judgment and order in quashirfg Government's order, allowing the admissrons lor thc academir: session JZOTS-ZO|S without there being Governmcnt of India s perrnissron anrl t[]e recommendation of MCI. Thc High Court has issucd dircction for fn s$ inspection and thereafter MCI to consider ttre report aftcr thc grant ol fpportunity to remove defects, Lf an-v. Firstl)', it coutd not havc issucd] such a direction in view of regulations and also the blanket rlrr{ction that college should trc permitted to remove the deficicnt ies, rt !n.y tound. Deficiencies can be removed, il founrt, $ilhin the permissible limits as provided in regulation 8(3), not in a ca-se Regulaticrn Rl3)(l )(,,) or (b) is attracted. ThLts, strch kind of general direclion issuerl rr.ithouit considering the provisions of the Regulations are rvhollv illegal an<l !nwarranted and on Inspection, the decision has to be takcn ln a(cprdance s,ith lau, as per the Regulations. Obvior-rslv, the Regulation rvould come into play as per $ outcome o[ an assessment. [t cannor be predicted in advance what would be the outcom(: of inspection to dktcide in advance opportunitl. of removal of deficiencics. 'l'here mav l)('] a case where deficiencies are found by assessors to bc gross as cPntemplated in the proviso to Regulation 8(3){t), the-r' cannot be removpd in that \,ear. Even othent'ise, the Court could not have at all order,'cll thc aclmissions,;ts directed in { 'l i2 the instant matter. The High Court at thc samc timc tras ordered inspection anri if the dr:ficiencies are found to exist tlren lvlC[ :rncl the Government of India have beer.r given libe rt\ to takr a pl.r()pri.rte decision Such ordcrs nra-r ruin tlre entirc career oflhr: strr(ieols C)nce perrnission 1o admit studcnts is grante(l, i1 strcLlld r)ot lr( sucll conditional onr:. Considcring the dellciencies, il r.-'oLrl(l l)(' agi DSl the eflicaciolls nrcdical (](lucation and \\,oulcl anroLU)l t() l)crrrrit the unequipPed nredical college to impart medical educatron ri rrltout lrroper inlrastructure and faculty, patients s(-'rve as the object o1- lea(l ng bv such an appr-oach ultimately interest of thc so( iet\ uoul(l sullcr and half-bakcd d()ctors cannot be left Ioose on societ\ lrkl rlrorrcs and parasites to (l('al uith the life of patients iD the al)scr(c ol proper educational training. It wor"rld be dangrirous and against tht' riqlrr to lifc itsel[, in casc unequipped medical collegcs arc pcr[ri1t(.(l to rrnparl substandarcl rredical educa[ion \'.ilholrt proper lrr i]itrt s ancl in [ra strur:ture ln re: D.M. Education and Research lnstitute of Mcdical Sct rrces 34. Coming to the case oI recogrution of and a(lrnissic,n rn D.M. Educatior) and Research lnstitutc of Medical Science est;rblislred bl' D.M. Education Rese arch Foundation'l rust, it \{'as a ('ase oI recorinition and admission. [n the inspection datecl'27 2 20lti an<l l..i .i 20]ii l:) 3 2018 various deficiencies were found supported br photorlr'aphs, vitlcograpl-tv, etc. The dcficiencies whrch rvere fortnd as rrrclrlion(:(l in the Government ol lnclia Order (lated 31-5-:1018 are extracted lrt rCrrnrler: "The Executive Committce of lhe Council cor.srclclr',1 the asscssment report 127 2'2018 and 121 .1 2018 & l5-3-201Ii) along \\ith photographs/ videograph-y and letters/r-eprcsentation dartrl l5 i 2018 from Dean of the InstltLlte rvith regard to rccognition/approial r,t D.M. Walanad Institute of Medical Sciences, l(erala and notcd th, lbllorr ing:

1. Deficiency of faculty is 18.93% as detailed in the rep()rt 2. OPD: On both days, at O9.40 am, most o[ thc laculrr and residents \\,ere not availablc.

3. f3ed occupanc-1 at 10 am. on thc dav o[ assessme ltt rras (,1.69,X, hoq,cver, about 157o o[ the patients were not genuinc r.rltrcirrg lrecl occupancv to .16!i,. Out oI these, most of the patients rrere arlrni r rl on a da-r prior to asscssnl('n 1 I t. I 4- Patients: On rrerifrcation oI the palients on the b(-'ds (from among the 401 l, thc [ollorving paticnts \rere rlotified in most of the wards, indicating the non-gcnuinc paticnts. For {xampte 1. Mini C.K. WIMS No. 258951. Gen Med;3. $'as admitted on l4 3-2018 at 9:40 pm, lr,hen the institution \\,as inFl)ecting at 9.30 am on 14-3 2018. Nurses clinical chart was entercd e]r,en for t3th doctors notes too, thereby indicating that case sheets r,r'i{h non- genuine patients are prepared in advice.

11. Raimanath- WIMS No. .lt0llJ2, pt3G Wirrd, lvas admirted twice on 13 3-2018 and l4 3 20'18. No casc nlol (--s of lhe palient rn the case sheet and no treal mcnl .

18. Mr Sivan WIMS No. 212033-()t:n N4c<licine onll admission request form names blank. entire Inpatiettt case r|cords including IV. Prabhashini WIMS No. 319575, OBG ward 2 admitted with complaints of excessive bleeding PV, on pnquin. shc gives a histor-v of no bleeding at att, but onll,pain rn abclonfen. The same was endorsed by the resident in the rvard on tlre casc shcet. \o in\estigations and treatment were Biven. Taking this into fr(courtt rn thc u'ards, around l5% of the patients !!ere non genuipc, takrng the effective bed occupanc_v to around 46o,i. Also apart from this, in thc rrarrls. nr.,rel lltatr 5(l o oI the patients were admitted on l3-3-2018, the da-r' bcfort: t h.E assessrrrent 5. Data of radiological antl laboratorJ' investrqations given bl the institute include data of private patreits aird ruper speciat patrents rvhich is nol permissrble. 6. Wards: There is no signage of unil rr.fsc bed (lrstribution, no faculty and residents were available inuards rlurfing the r,,und. 7. ICUs: There was onlr' I patient in PICQ on thc (la]- of assessment. 8.4 mobrle x ray machines are available {garnst tlx. requirement of 6. 9. Microbiology Department: 6 sen,ice la]boratorir s are available against requirement o[ 7. 10. Pharmacolory Department: 1'herc afe nil Sp|crmen & nil Model rn the N,Iuseum. 11. Forensic Medicine llepartment: Colcl lst.)rage r'' not available- 't I 34

12. RH'I'C: Cold chain equipment is not available. 13. Residents hostel: On veril-rcatior, about l5 2oolo oi r('sidents arc [ound to be not staving in the r:ampus. Rooms allotted ttrern \verc ('lose(l on ins1x (.lior, l)\ lhi asscssors. 35r. Thi: bacligrorrnd facts indicatr' that the colkgc \\.ts grante(l p<:rmissron for the academic sessions 20L3 2011an 2()lS 2O16. Iror r-hc academrc I'ear 2016 2017, it was granted conclitional Pcrrrtrssion ott tlr recommendal ron of the Oversight CorrLmittee to the elk cr tlrirt in ( ase oI [ailure to remo!'c the deficiencir:s, it nould be debarrerl lor trvo academi 1t:ars, Therealter, on inspection assessment that rvas ma<lt: on Ij 12 20 l6 and 6 1'2 2O16, gross deficiencies were found ans dLl(' ro tllirt MCI on 28- l -20 1 7 recommcnded the Ct ntral Government t() (l( i)iu th( college for tr,vo acarlemic years and t(' encash the bank qlrirranl('('. C)n 3I -5-201 7, thc Government of India irccepted the rccomDr( ndations ol' MCL As the firs batch admitted in the college rcached rhe llnal r cirr, th(' application was lllcd by the college for grant of recognrtron. 'l'he coJlegc, aggrieverl b-! the Government ol-India s decision on 3l 5 20l7 frl('d Writ Petition (C) No. 19753 of 2Ol7 fom pt:rmrssion to admit htsh trat< h ol' 150 MBRS stu(lents for the academic year 2017 -2O18 Th,' \r'rit In trtion rlas decided ll the order datecl 2 8 2l)17, and the High C()rrrt (lirecte(l the Governm('nl of india to givc a pe|sonal heanng lo thc ('ollei,.c ain(l thereafter to pass a fresh rcasoned order. The (io\.crnrnenL ol in<liir aftt r considering the recommendation of the Hearing Commiltec clecrtlr:d on 11-B 2Ol7 to confirm the conditional renewal of pc'rmissron for tht' ac:ademic ,vear' 2016 2017 and lhat n(, fresh batch k)r 20l7 20lli rnar [r allou,ed. 36 Writ Petil ron No. 19753 of 2077 carne to be filccl ior qriint ol aclmissior.t in 2O I 7- I 8 in r.r,hich interim order was grante(l l)v tlr(' lligh Clourt on 25-n-2O1721, This Court set aside the inlcrim order of rhc High Court oo 6-9-2O17, however, pennitted the collegc to aPproach this Court rrnder Article 32 of the Constitution o[ tndia. 'l'h('rca[tcr, Writ Pctition (C) No. 838 of 2Ol7 was filed in this Court. Thrs Cotrrt viclc tlcler clated 22 I2O17 while permitting the students adnrittecl for the :r<'zrclemic vear 201 7-2O l8 to continue, rlirected the collcge t() remove the dcllciencres. 'l he order ,.ras passed to safeguard thc int('rcst ()l- th( I. t I. l5 students already admitted pursuant to the interim ordcr datcd 25 8 2017 , 37. In order to consider the case of the irespondent medical college for recognition, an inspection was carried out on 27 2-20 l8 and 14 3 2018/15-3-2018. In the assessment rEporl. \'arious (lel-iciencies as nol"ed above were [ound. The Executile Conrmrltee (lr]( icle(l not to recommend the recognition in regard to MLIBS degree. It $'as also recommended to the Central Governn]ent not lo granr renerval o[ permission for the admission oI a fresh l+tch ot 1:)r) MBBS studcnts for the academic year 2018-19. The decisrqn ol lhc llxccutirt Cotrmittce was communicatecl to the Oversrghl Cominittce, rr hrt h in tui It vicle order l dated 28-3 2018 approved the same. 38. The Executive Committec then lvidc le1ler datc(l 20 4-2018 communicated to the Governmcnt of tnqia. At thc same tirrre. MCI vide letter dated 2O-4-2O18 requested the Pespondcnt Medical College to rectify the deficiencies and submit conlpliance r(ithin one month for further consideration of its case tor Blant of rerognirion. As agarnst recommendation made by MCl, the cc,lilege trled Wrll Pelrtion (C) No. l5l71of2Ol7 before the Hrgh Court o[ ferala. The IIigh Cottrt directed the Government of lndia to g.ant a hearifrg and to pass linal orcler on or before 31-5-2018. The Governmcnt o[ Inflra granred hearin6l oPl)ortunit-\' on 21 5-2018. The college reportcd compliarrte on 22 5'2o18. MCI vide Ietter dated 25-5-2018 requested the Of ersiglrr C(,rumrttc( to consider the matter. The Oversight Committee tln 28 5 2018 clirecLcd NICI to follow the Regulations. The Governmen! oi India tras tnforrned bl MCI on 28.5-2018 thal last date to send recopmen(lalrt,rr-. t- In .I(rishna Priga Qtngulg a. Uniuersity ot i Lucknoutls, it has been held as un er 4 "

17. The counsel fo[ thc Statc further agrced to passing an order that those candidate" iho rr".. rcfused a<tmission but granted provisional admissions under lhe orders of the C(,urt ma]'be deemed to be admitted q6rs151. 26c9rr iing to tlle t cepmco We rnight me Ftion provisions of thc Rules. thal Ihis rxrn. essiort rvas '' 1t98.t.t t s{:c -10; { 'l I l(r macle bccaust the r:andrdates con<erned had set:rtrerl preltv high percentage anrl sinct' thev had coml)leted the course irt thc peculiar facts and circrrnstarrces o[ the case. ,\s far as CA No. 30]5/82 filed bt thc Statc agairst th('rlccision of the lJigh Court is conccrrlcd, the vi('\r' lakt'n br lhe lligh (loLrrl is urrsustainable. The IIigh Court cottld rt()1 h;r\e givcn a g() b-\,'to thc nrles framed b1r Admission Comrnitlec. lt $trs a matter for decision oI tl].' acadcmic body and since the rrcadcrnic botlr had applied thc rules in a bona fide rr,anner to all thc stu(lcnts L'qltall\. there i\'as no.lurisdiction whatsoever on the part of the IIigh (lourl to interfere with rhe lnternal working of an academic institul Lon concern('(l \\ith imparting higher eclucation in the held of postgradlrate c(rLlrse lll medrcine. The llule prescribing that housemanship must lrr,- in tlre sarrre subject is not rnconsrstent u,ith the Ctrdinancc. It is supplerncntar-\ 1o the Ordinance r,rnd arnplifit's the same. Hence there is no inconsrst.nt r and the Iligh C,)urt \\'as therefore clearty wrong. Hor,r,er.er, ils thc counscl lor the State hirs agreed to declare his result we do not pilss:rrv ordcr for reversing thc directive issued by the High Court as lar as I)r IIari Orn Gu l)ta is conccr ned tl]ough the tligh Court was wrong". ln Medical Council of India o. Ro'jio Gondhi Uniuersitg of Hedlth Sciezces (supra), the Hon'ble Supr('rne Court held tha t " In the normal circumstances, the High Collrt oLrght not to issue arr rnterin) order wben for the earlier ycar rtsclf perrnissiorr h.r(1 no1 lxren sr'.intcd b\ the Council. Indeed, b,v grant of r;uch rnteritn ordcrs strrdenls rvho l-rave been admitted in such institutions rr,orrlc.l ltc pllt to serious jeopardy, apart from the fact whethcr suclt instrtutio[rs <:orrld nrn the nredical college y'ithout following the [aw. 'l here lbr-e, u.r: make it clear thrrt the Iligh Court ought not to grant such interilD orders in anv o[ the <.ases r,r,here the Council has not grarlted l)r.rrnission irr terms of Section 10-A of the Medical Council Act. If interir].r orders are granted to those institutions rvhich have been cstablislrecl rrithotrt fultilling lhc prcscribcd corlditions to admit students, r1 $'ill lcad to seriousjcoparrh to tlr(' stu(l('nts admitt(d in these institutir,rLs . - !'l t. I, t. In Med,ical Council of lldirr u. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (supra), it is obsgrved thus: " regard n our ofl

24. The High Court did not appreciatc that the insP(--ction was carried out bl eminent Professors from] reputed medical institutiolls rvho rvere experts in the fietd and the best'persons to give:rlr Llr)brasc(l report on the facilities in KIMS. The High 0ourt undcr Artrd' ).=tr oI tht' Constrtution $'as certainly not tasked to mfnutcll extrtlitle tllc colrtents oI the inspection report and weigh them against the objCctions oI KIMS in respect of each of its i8 items. I inion, the High Court plainlr exceeded its jurisdiction in this in venturing into serioLlsl\ disputed factual issues. 27. The lligh Court was of opinion th t thc Inspection Team lvas required to conduct the inspection with rdference to thc aca(lernic )eal 2015 l6 but the report pertains to the acafiemic vear 20 l6 20 17. lf rhar was so, the High Court could have passe{ an apllropriate orrler rn this regard rather than examine and scrutinize thc inspectron rcporl prepared for the academic year 2016 17 rv rich academic year \\as llot al alt thc subject matter of consideration or {iscusston bcfore tl Nlorcotct. invalidation of the inspection report forlthc acadernir vear 201(r l7 u,ould not automatically invalidate thq inspecl ion repor t tbr tlrc academic ]ear 2015-16. Unfortunately. thf Higl, Courl spent ils ctrerqr on adjudicating a non-issue. d l I i In Medical Council of ndia o. Principal, KMCT Medicat College (supra), it is held asl under: "

23. We do not deem it lnecessarv to (ieal \ ith th( submission made on behalt of the College rcgarding lhc tnspe.lion nol said thal a dt'cision being property conducted. This Court has tepeatedlv taken bv the Union of tndia on the basiL o[ a rccom menrlzrt ion ol aI) expert body regarding the inadequacl o{ taciltttes in rnedi(:al colleges cannot be interlered with lightlv. Interfertnct is pcrrnissibl< onl-r s hetr the colleges demonstrate jurisdictional a..b.", .t facie perversitr or mala ficle. lSee: Manohar Lal Sharma v. Mcdicaf Council oI ln<lia:rntl Medical l 'l I t t. I. Council oI Irrdra v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences lKIMS)). As no case is maric out b-\' the Collcge for. interference u'ith lh(l illsp(lction report. \\'e dccline the request o[ Mr Sibal for remand of the matter- 1o the tligh Clourt. In Medical Council of India v. Veddntdd Institute of Aco,demic Excellence (supra), it is rccorded as "I I On perusal of the material on recor<l, rve are of the opinion thal rlrc conclusion rt'ached by the l{igh Court rcgardinfl the manner in $-hich inspectron \\'as conducted is also nol correct. Bcd occupancJ' at .15.30% on random verification was th(t claim of Rcspondents I and 2. However, the inspection report shou,s that out ol requirecl minimum o[ 300 l)atierrts only 3 were availablt: at 10.00 :Lm. on 25-g 2017. 'l'his Court in Kalinga has held that medical e duc:ation rnust be tak(:n ven ser-iousl_r and u,hen an expert body certifi<:s that thc facilities in a nrcdical college are inadequate, it is not for thc courts to intcrlerc $ilh thc asscss]nent, excel)t for very cogent jurisdictional reasons srrch irs mala fi<les oI the inspection team, ex facie penersitY rn the rnsipectron. jurisdictronal error on the part of MCI, etc. The subrnission relaling to the cyclone bcing a reason fol the numbcr oI p.rtients bcing lc ss is nol acccptable We are in agrcenent \\ ith thc sul>mission nradr: on behalf of the appellant that the resi(l(:nt doctors are reqtrirecl to bc in the hospital at all points of time". Itt J&K State Board o:f Educdtion a. Feguz Ahmed ,llIa lik (supra), it is hcld thus: '

18. While judging the authority or otherwisc all steps taken b-\' authorities ol the Board to take action against candidates taking resort to mass malpractice it should be borne in mind that the Board rs entrustcd $,ith the dutv of maintaining high standards of education an(l proper condur:t of examinations. lt is an expert bod]' consisting ol pcrsons r:ornine lrorn different u,alks of life rvho are elrgage(l in or inl('rest('d in ttrc fit:ltl of education and have $,icle r:xpcriencc. 'l'hc { 39 dccisron of such an expert body should be given due rt.eight;rge Lr-r coLrrts. 'lhis Court in the case ot Bihar {chool Dxamination Boarcl r'. Subhas Chandra Sinhat observed. (SCC pp] 652 53, para 1+) ''The universrties are responsible fdr their standards and thc conduct of cxaminations. The essence o[ the examinations is lh;]t thc worth of every person is appraised u'ithbut an) assistance frorn an outsidc source. [f at a centre the whole bod-v o[ studr]nts rccei\c assistance and manage to secure success iF the neighbourhr)od ol lOO"n when others at other centres are successfuf onl-} at an average of 509ir, it must do somettring llr the is obvious that the Universrtv or the Boa cial ir.rquir-r' \\ ith a righ t to il s matter. [t cannot hold a detailed quasi-jud re the results arc u rthhelrl or alumni to plead and Iead evldence etc. be the examinations cancelled. II there is suffifient materral on u'hiclt it catr l)e dernonstrated that the universitl' was rlght in its conclusion tlraL tlr( examinations ought to be cancelled thenl academic standards reqttire that the universit\rs appreciation of the lroblem must be resPectcd lt would not do for the Court to say that you should have examinecl all thtr candiclates or even their representatives I with a view to iiscertainrnq whether they had received assistance or ngf. To do thts rrottlcl erl( ollrilge l I indiscipline if not also perJury-" t9. The Allahabad High Court in Rajfv Ratna Shukla v. Utriversitr oi Allahabad made the following observatiqns: i Even otherwise the statute a[rd ordinances provi<lc fttr att authority known as Dxamination CommJttee to look into and rlecttle such matter. As the Examination Committlee after looking Into the report rvas satisfied that the examinations were not conducted [airlr. il rvottltl be unfair for thrs Court to interfere in wfit jurisdiction. [t net'rl not bc menlioned thal a finding recorded b5 p tribunal. admrtrisl rJlrvr' ,'l quasi.luclicial body, is a finding of fact if lt is based on consideratior-r ol' evidence howsoever meagre and insufficielrt it ma1'be. The report o[ the Flying Squad coupled rvith the statement of Centrc SLI pe rirl t(:rden t \\'.rs avaitable with the Examination Committ{s. Even if anothr r committ( e or this Court on the same material co[ld have come to a cliffcrent conclusion it could not furnish ground] for interferencc. This Courl cannot substitute its opinion for the opin]ion of the Comntittee. lt .oul(l quash the order otrl-v it it frnds that it w4s basecl on tro rlra{(:rial o. th(' r I t I t 40 Committec igrrored some material which if consiclert'tl could have resulted in a (lil-ferellt conclusion. Stnce the decision of tht: llxamination Comrnittec do('s not suf[er lrorn ant'such error it is clillrcult to grant reliel to pel iliol.l crs. We are not urrtonscious or oblivious of grave injustice rvhich rnight be done to sorne of thc stud( nts. rra-ybe even majoritv, bec:rttse of refusal b-\'this Court to lntcrfcrc but \\'e can]-rot ignore the detertoration in the standard of <lrsciplirre of acarlemic institutions. [{os tllis sllould be regulated or c()Dtrollcd should t)cst be left to the discretion of those r,r'ho are entrusted rvith this r-esponsrbility. II this Court starls srrbstiluting its or\.n opinion if 1>lacc oi upiniorr expressed by authorities it shall result in chaos.. Il is u'ell knoun that due to conduct of ottrers oven innocent persons suffer but the sufl-erings of fe\'r, has to be tolerated rn tlte larger intercst oI the socielr. As is usrral in such matters it is on]r' the few lvho are responsiblc but lo protect lhc bona fide or the genuinc if a decision is given nhich (.oclcs thc disciphne and vitiates the atmosphere of lhe academic insritutions then it is better 1o restrain and re[usc:. As rcgards dcrnanrl for rnquirl' and vrolation of principle of natural Iustice, suffic(' it to sar. thal on at:ademic disciplinar| proceedulgs exccption is nrade uherc pro<'eedings are substantialll fair or it is impossiblc to ho1<l inquiry. Cases of mass copt,inEi resulting in canccllation of ll)c ('xamirration fall in this exception. B)'ils ven nature no inqttir-v coulrl havc becn ma.lc. Decision in Madhulika. Mathur case has absoLutell r'to rellvance. Colcept of reasonable opportttnity irssumes primac-r t lrerc l)enal action is proposed to indrvidual. Dirt:ction to hold re exarnir)ittion canrl()1 be put in thal category. It u,as not like rvhat had happene(l in Goraklrpur Universitv \r,here examination wirs not treated as Ine[[e(ti\e or Yitialed Ratio of that decrsion is that whirt was inralid could not b(' treated as valid for punishment $,ithout affordrng opportunit\.' 20 Coming to lhe case on han(i, as noted earlier, the High Court has quashed the norification issued by the Board as ultra vires Article 14 of the ConstitLrtjorr and ultra vircs the Act. Further the Hi!:lr Court has I t, t. l l discussed at ler.rgth how the Board sholtld proceed in the rnatter ancl has issued directions regarding the princidlcs to be followed an.i matlers to be bomc in mind by the Board [hile framing Rules and has cr,eu issued directions as to what some of the /rorisions of the Rules shoLlld bc. Frorn the discussions in the impugne{ JudBtnent it is clear ttr?It ttie Higll Court has takcn upon itself the taqk of findrng out a schcme to tackte rhe problem o[ mass malpract]ce in examination. [n our considered vierv the approach of the 4igh Court in thc mattcr is erroneous ancl this has vitialed the judlment. In malters ,-ottccrtting campus discipline of educational inptitutions and conduct ol examinations the duty is primarily vested in the authorities in chargc ol- thc tnstitutions. ln such matters the couJt shoutd not trv to substilute ils orrD ,,rerrs in place o[ the authorities concerned nor lhrust ils vterrs on them. 'l'hat rs not to say that the court pannot at all interlere u'ith I he decisions o[ the authorities in such mattefs. The court has undoubtcdh the power to intervene to correct any error in complying with the provisions of the rules, regulations or ndtifications and to rcmedv an1 manifest inJustice being perpetrated o., {n. carrdidates. ln judging the valrditl of a notification containing provisions regarding steps to be takcn q,hen a report of mass malpractice is received it is to be kcpt in mind rvhether the provisions contained iE the notification are relcvaut for achieving the purpose for which the nptihcation is issued :rnd if it is [our1.l that the notification is relevant f6r and has a nexus \iith thc purpose to be achieved then the notillcation cannot be said to be arbitrar-v ancl discriminatory. The High Court has faited to keep this prncrplc iii ', icr', ',', hile considering the validit:,' cf the nctiticaticr'. in que stion. A notilication cannot be struck lown as discriminatory merclv because in implementing the same inju$tice is likely to be sufferecl b,r' some canclidates. The impugned judgnfent does not show that thc decision to strike down the two notificati{ns is based on grounds sound in larv and.justihed on facts. It is our con idered vien that the judgrnent of the High Court is unsustainable and h{s to be quashed" b ln Medical Council oi India u Sarang (sr,rpra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held tha t { I l I ,---,-J l.+ " (r. ln rnattcrs o[ acadctnic standards, courts should not rlormallv inte'rl-ere or interpret lhe rul,ls and such matters should t)e left t() the experts in thc fielrl. Thrs position has been rtade clcar llv this Court in Universit\ o[ Mrsore r'. C.l) Govinda Rao, Statt' o[ Kerala v Ktrmari T.I'. Roshana irnd Shirish Govind Prabhu(lcsai \'. State of Maharashtra The otrject of Ihe sar,l Regulation appears to bc thal althotrgh thc corlrse ol studv lt:ading to the IInd l)rolcssional examination is common to all rnedical colleges, the seqLtencc of covcragc of sub-iects raries ll-om college to collcge. Therefore, tl)e rc(lLlirenrent oI 18 months ol- stutl-v in tl)e college f rom which the stuclerrt wants t() appear in thc exanrination is :ippropriately insisted upon. Migration is not normall\ allorved ancl lras got to be given in ex(--cptional ('rrcumstanc( s. in the .rl)senc(' of such a stipulation .rs ('ontalncd in Rcgulation 6(5t. it is clear-thar the rnigrated student is 1ikel1 1o miss lnslruction and sludv in somc of the subjects, which \,''ill ultlrnatel-l' affect hrs aca(lemrc attainments. Therefore, the straincd nrcaninEi given br the High Court. rvhich actu.Illr changes the languagc of Regulation 6(5), is not pc|mrssible. 'lhus rve disiigree wilh the vrc\r laken b1. the IIigh Court and state thirt thc corrcct rnterpretation is as giver-r bY the Medical Councrl o[ India. set forrh above bv us".

14. 'l'he surn and substance of the above precedents is that decisions o[ expert bodies regarding the slandards of medical eductrtion should not be interfcred u,ith. Thc NMC is the apex bodv rcsponsible lbr maintaining the quatity and integrity of medical eclllcation in thc country. [ts decisions, which are bascd on a metiarlous assessment of compliance $'ith stringent I regulations, must bc givcn due deference.

15. Thc dc'ficicncies founcl in thc petitioner colli]ge , as detailed abo\,('are not mcrelv minor or technical in nature. Even according io PcLitioncrs, on 13.05.2O24, a virtr-r:rl pcrsonal I, t t. t.

4.i hearing was held where the college'g explanation was accepLcd and renewal was granted upon payment of a penalty of Rs. 6,O0,00O/-. The UGMEB's lctte dated 07 .06.2024 granLed renewal [or Acadcmic Year 2024-25 subject to the fine and re- assessment arfter two months. The NMC also in their counter stated [ha[ pe ti[ioncr has been a refeate d defaulter in fulhlling the mandatory requirements of th e 2023 Regulations. Apart from thc dcficicncies, NMC receive d a formal communicatiorr from thc CBI regarding FIR dated 30.06.2025, which was filed against assessors, college authoritiep and unknown persons on charges of bribery and serious mi$conduct. The college was previously cautioned during the a$ademic year 2024-25 Llnat stringent action would be taken if d(ficiencies continued and for thc acadcmic session 2024-25, tfre college was granted a conditional reneu,al, but the asseslment was conducted under the less s[ringent MSR 2020 Regutaiions and had it been l assessed under MSR 2023, it would not have received even the i conditional grant. For the academih year 2025-26' the collegc was again lound dehcient, but h conditional renewal was granted b), imposing a penalty of Rq. 6,o0.00o/ under clause 8 of thc MSMER, 2023 I ,l I :J .+4

16. The findings ol facultY and senior resident deficiencies as per AtrI3AS data in 19 out o[ 2O and 16 out of 20 departments rcspcctivclY, along u'ith lou' bed ocr:upancv zrnd C)PD attcndeutce, point to a svstemic lailure to nlc'et the mandatory stiindards undcr the MSR 2023 Regrriations The allegations in the CBI FIR, as mentioned in the NMC's alfidavit, I, are extremely serious and directly pertain to the mantpttlation of the regulator-r' proccss. Whil,: petitioners dcniccl any u,rongdoir-rg, thcse are grave allegations that cannot be ignored' The NMC's dccision to halt admissions for thc acadernic year 2025-26, in the opinion of this Cour[, was a wcll-considered .\ \. action based on pcrsistent rleficit:rlcies and tht: gravity of the allegations an.l1'ain\eci at upholding the integritl of rnedical education ancl protedting the future of prospective srudents. The \ Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Medical Commission u. SSPl}fs Medicat College & Lifetine Hospital &' Research Centre. (Ordcr d:rrecl 12.O4.20221 afflrmcd tl-rc NIVIC s express statutor,\' ar-rthoritl under Section 26( I X0 of thc NMC Act, 2019 lo stop admrssrons. Hence, thrs Court is no1 inclined lo interfere u,ith t.he decision taken on t.ht' birsis of recommendation of an expert body. 45 17 For all the reasons statedl supra, this Court hnds no merit in the contentions raised by pe[itioners_ The Writ petition { is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. l

18. The Writ Petition is accopdingll,, dismissed. Liberty is given to petitioners to pursue the flternate remedy of appcal as provided under the relevant Regulqdons. No costs.

19. Conscquentll', Miscellanqous Apptications, if any shall stand closecl //TRUE COPV// SD!T.SRIDEVI ASSISTANTREGISTAR <>< SECTlOl.l OFFICER\ To,

1. One CC to SRI P PANDU RANGA REDDY, Advocate' IOPUC] Y, Advocate. IOPUCI 2. One CC to SRI A.KRANTI KUMAR REDq t Family Welfare DePartment, High 3. Two CCs to GP for Medical, Health ani Court for the State of Telangana at Hyde( abad. [OUT] 4' one CC to Ms.SRl RANGA PUJITHA GOBANTLA, SC for NMC. [OPUC] 5.oneCCtoSRlT.SHARATH,SCforKalojiNarayanaRaoUniversityofHealth Sciences, Warangal. [OPUC]

6. Two CD CoPies. BSK ^u HIGH COURT DATED:29108t2025 (4' t CC TODAY F Si,l :0 2 025 I I ./, c, i * C.J .+ ORDER WP.No.23630 of 2OZs DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS