Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Institute of Medical Sciences and Research v. Union of India

9. In the light of deficiencies noted by the assessors, the Expert Sub- Committee recommended a reduction in the permitted intake from 150 to 100 MBBS seats for the Academic Year 2025-26.

10. Accordingly, NMC vide impugned letter dated 26.09.2025 decided to grant renewal of 100 MBBS seats (reducing 50 seats from 150 seats) for the Academic Year 2025-26 to the petitioner/institution, subject to the removal of deficiencies within a period of three months. Resultantly, the earlier order dated 18.07.2025 issued by the NMC for disapproval of renewal of MBBS seats to the petitioner was withdrawn with immediate effect.

11. Mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/institution was earlier granted permission for an intake of 150 seats in the MBBS-UG course for the academic year 2024-25, after due inspection and satisfaction of all prescribed criteria under the applicable Regulations. However, by the impugned communication dated 26.09.2025, respondent no.2/NMC has arbitrarily reduced the intake from 150 to 100 seats for the academic year 2025-26.

12. Mr. Nayar submits that the petitioner/institution has been granted renewal of only 100 MBBS seats (reducing 50 seats from 150 seats) for the Academic Year 2025-26 subject to removal of deficiencies within a period of three months. He contends that this Court, as an interim measure may allow the petitioner/institution to admit the remaining 50 students who will be put to notice with regard to pendency of the present writ petition, and the petitioner/institution will make an endeavour to remove the deficiencies within a period of two months, whereafter NMC may undertake another inspection. In case the petitioner is still found deficient, the renewal of 50 MBBS seats may be withdrawn.

13. Per contra, Mr. Kirtiman Singh, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.2/NMC argues that the present petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold for lack of territorial jurisdiction as the entire cause of action has arisen within the State of Chattisgarh where the petitioner is situated. He relies on the decisions of coordinate benches of this court namely, Shri Siddhi Vinayak Medical College & Hospital, Sambhal

V. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7230; M/s Chinteshwar Steel

Pvt. Ltd. V. Union of India & Ors., 2012 SCC OnLine Del 5264; Angika Development Society V. Union of India & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Del

6436.

14. He further submits that the present petition is also not maintainable on the ground of an alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioner/institution by way of statutory appeal under Regulation 91,

9. Appeal to NMC A medical college or medical institution or any such aggrieved person may file an appeal before the Chapter IV of the Maintenance of Standards of Medical Education Regulations, 2023 (MSMER, 2023).

15. On merits, he submits that if admissions are granted without strict adherence to the statutory and regulatory framework, the same would defeat the very purpose of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. Such admissions would further jeopardize the quality of medical education where unassuming innocent students would end up studying in medical colleges which lack compliances with the regulatory standards as mandated by the Act, the purpose of which is to impart medical education with a level of quality embedded. He relies on the decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Dental Council of India v. Dr. Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Hingoli & Ors., (2017) 13 SCC 115; Medical Council of India v. Jaipur National University Institute for Jaipur & Anr., (2018) 17 SCC 439; and the decision of the division bench of this court in National Medical Commission v. Index Medical College, LPA No. 464/2025.

16. He submits that inspection cannot be undertaken again after two months as suggested by Mr. Nayar, as inspection by its very nature must hold an element of surprise and therefore a time of 3-4 months ought to be given in order to conduct an effective inspection. He relies on the decision in Royal Medical Trust v. Union of India & Anr., (2015) 10 SCC 19.

17. He contends that the petitioner has no vested right to demand an inspection at this stage. He relies on Section 24 read with Section 26 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 which govern the renewal of Commission with an appropriate fee as specified against any order. Provided, such an appeal is filed Within sixty days of passing of such an order or lapse of time, as the case may be permission to admit a fresh batch of MBBS students by the Undergraduate Medical Education Board (UGMEB), to contend that the said provisions do not provide for any rectification inspection at the behest of the concerned medical college.

18. He submits that the rectification inspection carried out on 16.09.2025 was only conducted since this court had issued directions to do so vide order dated 11.09.2025 in W.P. (C) 13299/2025.

19. Mr. Singh further submits that the petitioner/institution has been in habitual non-compliance with respect to adequate infrastructure to impart quality medical education. He submits that the petitioner/institution has been found to be repeatedly deficient across successive inspections and evaluations including the deficiencies pointed out and admitted by the Dean/Principal/Vice-Principal/HoD of the petitioner/institution as recorded in the letter dated 18.07.2025 issued by respondent no. 2/NMC.

20. He submits that pursuant to the Court‟s directions dated 11.09.2025, NMC observed significant and persistent shortfalls in terms of faculty strength, resident/tutor numbers, OPD attendance and bed occupancy as well as gaps in essential clinical and academic parameters.

21. Elaborating on his submission, Mr. Singh submits that provision 3.[1] of the Guidelines for Establishment of New Medical Institutions, Starting of New Medical Courses, Increase of seats for Existing Courses & Assessment and Rating Regulations, 2023, issued on 16.08.2023 [hereinafter „Guidelines of 2023‟], mandates installation of AEBAS to be linked to Command-and- Control centre of NMC, whereas under provision 3.2, the minimum required attendance has been mandated as 75% for faculties.

22. He submits that the strength of faculty on the date of inspection dated 16.09.2025 was 88 which meets the minimum requirement of 85 teachers for 100 MBBS seats but falls significantly short of 114 faculty members required for 150 seats which makes the institution only eligible for 100 MBBS seats for the academic year 2025-26.

23. He contends that the AEBAS data available for 01.06.2025 to 31.08.2025 establishes a cumulative deficiency of 35% for faculties across almost all departments in the petitioner/institution which disentitles it for any interim relief at this stage, particularly when counselling for admissions to MBBS course for the academic year 2025-26 is in its last leg. To buttress his contention, Mr. Singh has brought attention of the Court to the relevant AEBAS data.

24. I have heard the learned Senior Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have perused the record.

25. Having regard to the fact that counselling for MBBS seats for academic session 2025-26 is going on, this Court is of the view that the matter needs to be addressed on merits, and preliminary question as to the territorial jurisdiction and alternative efficacious statutory remedy, is left open to be decided at an appropriate stage.

26. To be noted, that vide order dated 18.07.2025, UGMEB of NMC had stopped the admission of MBBS course for the Academic year 2025-26 in the petitioner/institution. In the said order, it has been recorded that gross and substantive deficiencies in both faculty and clinical parameters were found in the petitioner/institution, and the clarifications furnished by the petitioner/institution were not found convincing and satisfactory. A perusal of order dated 18.07.2025 shows that the petitioner/institution also accepted the deficiencies and assured to fulfill the same within a short span of time.

27. The aforesaid order dated 18.07.2025 was, however, assailed by the petitioner in an earlier petition being W.P.(C) 13299/2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 11.09.2025 with a direction to the NMC to conduct a fresh inspection with respect to renewal of grant of 150 seats for the Academic Year 2025-26 and thereafter, take appropriate decision.

28. Accordingly, a virtual inspection was again carried out on 16.09.2025. A perusal of the virtual inspection report dated 16.09.2025 given by the assessors, shows that the assessment was carried out to evaluate the deficiencies mentioned in the letter dated 18.07.2025. The following observations were made by the assessors in their said report: ―1. There was deficiency in Faculty / Tutors / Senior Residents in all the departments. The AEBAS attendance from June to September was evaluated and those Faculty / Tutors / Senior Residents having more than 75 % attendance were considered as present.

2. OPD attendance and Bed occupancy was requested from the institution, however the same was not provided till 03.45 PM. Meanwhile, the NVR live feed from the institution was evaluated for about 20 minutes and the data provided by the institution did not match with the visuals from the live feed. Most of the scenes of the hospital were found to be without any patients or very few patients.

3. In Anatomy department, 50% deficiency in the faculty strength was still present. In Forensic Medicine Department, 100% deficiency of faculty was present and only one tutor appeared for the head count. In the department of dermatology, 50% deficiency was still found in the faculty.

4. Clinical investigation details were requested from the institution as mentioned at Sl. No.2 above also, however the same was provided after about 04.45 PM. On evaluation, it was found that the histopathology data is not corresponding to the number of surgeries performed.‖

29. The inspection report dated 16.09.2025 was considered by the subject experts on 18.09.2025. Apart from noting other deficiencies, the subject experts on inspecting the AEBAS data found that multiple faculty members present at the petitioner/institution were present for less than 30% of the total working days. The observations made by them read thus: ―Observations: Faculty / Tutors / Senior Residents  Deficiency was observed in all departments.  AEBAS attendance (June-September) was evaluated.  Faculty/tutors/senior residents with more than 75% attendance were considered as present. OPD Attendance and Bed Occupancy  Required data was not provided by the institution until 03:45 PM.  NVR live feed was evaluated for about 20 minutes.  Submitted data did not match the visuals of the live feed.  Hospital areas were mostly found without patients or with very few patients. Departmental Faculty Deficiency  Anatomy Department: 50% deficiency observed.  Forensic Medicine Department: 100% deficiency noted; only one tutor appeared during head count.  Dermatology Department: 50% deficiency observed Clinical Investigation Data  Details requested earlier were provided only after 04:45 PM.  Histopathology data was not found corresponding to the number of surgeries performed Additional finding: On inspecting AEBAS data it is observed that multiple faculty that present less than 30% of working days (Annexure Attached).”

30. The inspection report dated 16.09.2025 and findings of the subject experts along with other relevant documents were reviewed in the meeting of the Expert Sub-Committee which was convened on 22.09.2025 at the National Medical Commission.

31. The minutes of meeting of the Expert Sub-Committee held on 22.09.2025 also records that further analysis of AEBAS data on the NMC portal reveals that there is cumulative deficiency of 35% against the overall required faculty as per MSR-2023, with deficiency found in various departments during the preceding 05 months period with effect from 01.04.2025 to 31.08.2025. The relevant extract from the minutes of meeting of Expert Sub-Committee held on 22.09.2025 reads thus: ―Additional Findings: On Inspecting AEBAS data it is observed that multiple faculty present were less than 30% of working days. Following documents pertaining to the college were examined:  Orders of Hon‘ble High Court  Inspection Reports conducted on 16.09.2025.  Details of deficiencies found initially at the time of renewal of medical seats for AY-25-26.  Scrutiny Report by experts.  AEBAS Attendance Reports for the College. Further analysis of AEBAS attendance status on the NMC portal reveals that there is cumulative deficiency of 35% against the overall required faculty as per MSR-2023, with deficiency found in department of Anatomy, Anesthesiology, Community Medicine, Dermatology, Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, General Medicine, Microbiology' Ophthalmology, Orthopedics, Oto-Rhino laryngology, Pediatrics, Pathology, Psychiatry during the preceding 05 months period w.e.f. 01.04.2025 to 31.08.2025. All the above records were placed before the Expert Sub- Committee of UGMEB for further review and deliberation.

2. Committee’s Recommendations: The Expert Sub-Committee, after detailed review, expressed serious concern over the persistent deficiencies observed in faculty availability and clinical parameter despite being provided an additional opportunity for compliance through a re-inspection (as per the Hon’ble High Court’s directions). The institution has failed to show improvement, both in terms of faculty and hospital clinical parameters. Also, the college authorities did not cooperate properly with the inspection team during the virtual inspection held on 16.09.2025. In light of the above, and to safeguard the quality of medical education and ensure adherence to regulatory norms, the Expert Sub-Committee recommends a reduction in the permitted intake from 150 to 100 MBBS seats for the Academic Year 2025-26.

3. The meeting concluded with a vote of thanks.‖

32. From the perusal of inspection report dated 16.09.2025; findings of the subject experts; and the minutes of meeting of the Expert Sub- Committee, it appears that despite being provided an additional opportunity for compliance through re-inspection in terms of the directions given by this Court vide order dated 11.09.2025 in W.P.(C) 13299/2025, the deficiencies both in terms of the faculty and hospital clinical parameters still persisted.

33. The petitioner has not brought to the notice of this Court any material to controvert or show compliance of such deficiencies, rather the submission made by Mr. Nayar is that the petitioner/institution be granted two months period to remove the deficiencies, and in the meanwhile as an interim measure, petitioner may be allowed to admit the remaining 50 students who will be put to notice with regard to pendency of present writ petition, and after two months NMC may undertake another inspection. In case the petitioner is still found deficient, the renewal of 50 MBBS seats may be withdrawn.

34. To put the above noted findings as regard deficiencies of faculty in perspective, it is pertinent to note that under provision 3.[1] of the Guidelines of 2023, AEBAS has been mandated to be installed by all medical colleges. The relevant provision 3.[1] reads thus: ―3.[1] AEBAS: i) All Medical Colleges/Institutions shall install AEBAS to be linked to Command-and-Control center of NMC. ii) The daily AEBAS of the required staff (faculty, residents and supporting staff, preferably along with face linked recognition, shall be made available to NMC as well as on the Medical College Website in the form of daily attendance dashboard.‖

35. Further, provision 3.[2] of the Guidelines of 2023 which deals with minimum requirement of attendance mandates that faculty members must have an attendance of 75% against the total working days so as to be considered eligible for accounting towards medical teachers. Provision 3.[2] reads as under: ―3.[2] Minimum requirement of attendance: It shall be mandatory to have at least 75% attendance of the total working days (excluding vacations) for all faculty and resident doctors. During vacation period, other than sick leave or leaves availed due to emergency situations, the faculty on duty shall not be availing any leave. Emergency leaves shall be certified by Head of the department or Head of the institution. AEBAS, preferably with fact recognition of all students attending every lecture/teaching class/seminar shall be recorded and linked to NMC.‖

36. Furthermore, Schedule II (Staff Requirement) in the Guidelines of 2023 specify the minimum total strength of faculty required for 150 MBBS seats is 114 whereas in case of strength of 100 MBBS seats the minimum requirement is of 85. The tabulated chart providing for total requisite strength of faculty extracted from Schedule II of the Guidelines of 2023 reads thus:

37. A perusal of AEBAS data of June to August 2025 (Annexure R-2/25 filed by the NMC), prima facie shows that a large number of faculty members were having attendance lesser than the mandated 75% attendance on the total working days. This Court thus, prima facie finds substance in the submission made by Mr. T. Singhdev, made with reference to the aforesaid AEBAS data, that total number of admissible faculty having more than 75% attendance on total working days, was found to be 88, which is commensurate to the intake capacity of 100 MBBS seats and thus, meets the minimum requirement of 85 teachers as prescribed for 100 MBBS seats in Schedule II (Staff Requirements). As per the minutes of meeting of the Expert Sub-Committee held on 22.09.2025, a cumulative deficiency of approximately 35%, with almost all departments of the petitioner/institution found lacking in adequate medical faculty members.

38. That being the position, the course suggested by Mr. Nayar cannot be resorted to. The petitioner has no vested or inherent right to demand inspection at this stage. No provision has been pointed out, and in the opinion of this Court, there exists none, which provides for granting permission to a medical institution to fill additional MBBS seats by way of interim relief, subject to the curing of deficiencies at a later stage.

39. Section 24 read with Section 26 and 29 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, which governs renewal of permission to admit fresh batch of MBBS students by the Under Graduate Medical Education Board (UGMEB), does not provide for any compliance verification or rectification inspection at the behest of the concerned medical college. Further, the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 28 of the NMC Act, 2019[2] allows only compliance verification specifically when a medical college seeks to establish a new institution or increase in sanction intake of students but this provision does not extend to the process of renewal of sanction intake capacity, which follows a separate statutory procedure under the Maintenance of Standards of Medical Education Regulations, 2023.

40. Further, the law is well settled that going by the very nature of inspection of the medical institution, it must have an element of surprise. At least three to four months period ought to be given to NMC to conduct an inspection at any time. Such surprise inspection would ensure that the required facilities and infrastructure are always in place and not borrowed or put in temporarily. Reference in this regard may be had to the following observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Royal Medical Trust (supra): 31(B) Inspection should then be conducted by the Inspectors of MCI. By very nature such inspection must have an element of surprise. Therefore, sufficient time of about three to four months ought to be given to MCI to cause inspection at any time and such inspection should normally be undertaken latest by January. Surprise inspection would ensure that the required facilities and sub-section (3) of Section 28 of the NMC Act, 2019 28 (3) The Medical Assessment and Rating Board shall, having due regard to the criteria specified in section 29, consider the scheme received under sub-section (2) and either approve or disapprove such scheme within a period of six months from the date of such receipt: Provided that before disapproving such scheme, an opportunity to rectify the defects, if any, shall be given to the person concerned. infrastructure are always in place and not borrowed or put in temporarily.”

41. It is equally settled that this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction cannot sit in appeal over, re-evaluate, or substitute its own findings for those of the expert assessors. The assessment and conclusions drawn by such expert teams, which are based on their direct, factual evaluation of facilities and personnel, must be given due deference. Reference in this regard may be had to the decision in Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) and Others, (2016) 11 SCC 530, wherein it has been held as under – ―21. A perusal of the decision of the High Court clearly indicates that it considered the latest report of the Inspection Team as if it was hearing an appeal against the report. In doing so, the High Court went into great details on issues relating to the number of teaching beds in the hospital, the limitations in the OPD Department, the number of units available in the subjects of General Medicine, Pediatrics, etc., bed occupancy, number of caesarean sections, discrepancy in data of major and minor operations, computerisation in the institution, number of patients in the ICU, number of static x—ray machines, deficiency of examination halls, lecture theatres, library, students hostel, interns hostel, playground, etc. etc. Surely, this was not within the domain of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

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

23. The learned counsel for KIMS and the students submitted that the High Court was left with no option but to critically examine the report of the Inspection Team since it was factually erroneous and did not deserve to be relied on either for the increase in intake of seats for the academic year 2015—2016 or the academic year 2016—2017. We see no reason to accept the submission of the learned counsel.

24. Medical education must be taken very seriously and when an expert body certifies that the facilities in a medical college are inadequate, the courts are not equipped to take a different View in the matter except for very cogent jurisdictional reasons such as mala fides of the Inspection Team, ex facie perversity in the inspection report, jurisdictional error on the part of MCI, etc. Under no circumstance should the High Court examine the report as an appellate body — this is simply not the function of the High Court. In the present case there was no ground made out at law for setting aside the report of the Inspection Team.

42. In Kalinga Institute (supra), the Hon‟ble Apex Court also deprecated passing interim directions to admit students in an educational institution when there is a serious doubt whether admissions should at all be granted. It may not be enough to say that the student will not claim any equity in his or her favour. The Court observed that it is better to err on the side of caution and deny admission to a student rather than have the sword of Damocles hanging on the students. The relevant excerpt reads thus: ―27. That apart, we are of the opinion that the High Court ought to have been more circumspect in directing the admission of students by its order dated 25-9-2015. There was no need for the High Court to rush into an area that MCI feared to tread. Granting admission to students in an educational institution when there is a serious doubt whether admission should at all be granted is not a matter to be taken lightly. First of all the career of a student is involved — what would a student do if his admission is found to be illegal or is quashed? Is it not a huge waste of time for him or her? Is it enough to say that the student will not claim any equity in his or her favour? Is it enough for student to be told that his or her admission is subject to the outcome of a pending litigation? These are all questions that arise and for which there is no easy answer. Generally speaking, it is better to err on the side of caution and deny admission to a student rather than have the sword of Damocles hanging over him or her. There would at least be some certainty.‖

43. Likewise, in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India, (2013) 10 SCC 60, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court made the following pertinent observations: ―26. We have already dealt with, in extenso, the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI team in its report dated 6-7-2013. In our view, the deficiencies pointed out are fundamental and very crucial, which cannot be ignored in the interest of medical education and in the interest of the student community. MCI and the College authorities have to bear in mind, what is prescribed is the minimum, if MCI dilutes the minimum standards, they will be doing violence to the statutory requirements. MCI is duty-bound to cancel the request if fundamental and minimum requirements are not satisfied or else the College will be producing half—baked and poor quality doctors and they would do more harm to the society than service. In our view, the infirmities pointed out by the inspection team are serious deficiencies and the Board of Governors of MCI rightly not granted approval for renewal of permission for the third batch of 150 MBBS students for the academic year 2013-2014.‖

44. Reference in this regard may also be advantageously made to another decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University vs. Crescent Education Society & Ors., (2021) 16 SCC 165, wherein, the Apex Court did not find favour with the interim order passed by the High Court directing the concerned institution to participate in the second round of counseling pending the process of affiliation. The pertinent observations of the Court reads thus: ―14. In this backdrop, at the point of time when the High Court passed its interim orders [Sree Educational Society v. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, 2021 SCC OnLine TS 1905], [TKR Educational Society v. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, 2021 SCC OnLine TS 1906], [Crescent Educational Society v. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, 2021 SCC OnLine TS 1907], neither had the State granted its NOC nor had JNTU granted affiliation. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Higher Education (TE) Department of the Government of Telangana has granted its NOC on 1-11-2021. The process of affiliation is yet to be completed by JNTU. In this backdrop, the High Court ought not to have issued an interim direction so as to allow the institutions concerned to participate in the second round of counselling. Issuing such a judicial fiat even before the process contemplated by the Regulations is complete is likely to prejudice the students, often, in an irretrievable manner, in the event that the affiliation is eventually denied. Experience indicates that the creation of equities in favour of students leads to serious issues subsequently, when the interim orders of the High Court lead to the admission of the students to an institution which may eventually be denied affiliation. The interim direction cannot be sustained.”

45. The upshot of aforesaid discussion is that the petitioner/institution has not made out a case for grant of any interim relief. Accordingly, the prayer for interim relief is rejected, and the application is dismissed.

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J NOVEMBER 06, 2025/JK/aj/N.S. ASWAL