Summary
Foreign medical graduates whose physical clinical training was interrupted by the pandemic sought provisional registration after receiving degrees and passing the screening examination. The Court held that those steps did not establish completion of required practical training and rejected the High Court’s substitution of two extra internship months. To protect both educational standards and affected students, it directed the National Medical Commission to frame a one-time scheme for actual clinical training, with testing before provisional registration and the regular internship.
Issues
- Whether a foreign degree and screening-test success required provisional registration despite incomplete physical clinical training.
- Whether courts could prescribe substitute training and what remedial arrangement should be made for affected students.
Provisions considered
- Section 13(4A) and (4B), Indian Medical Council Act, 1956The eligibility and screening framework did not compel registration despite incomplete required clinical education. (¶¶ 5, 15-16, 21)
- Regulations 2(f), 4(3), 5 and 11, Screening Test Regulations, 2002The Court required completion of the qualifying course, including clinical training; a screening examination was not proof of practical competence. (¶¶ 7, 13-16, 21)
- Regulation 5, National Medical Commission (Foreign Medical Graduate Licentiate) Regulations, 2021The new framework did not govern students who had entered foreign institutions before 18 November 2021; the erstwhile applicable regulations governed them. (¶¶ 8, 17)
Held
- The Commission was not bound by a foreign institution’s degree certificate to provisionally register a student who had not completed the required physical clinical training. Passing the OMR-based screening examination did not demonstrate that practical experience or cure its absence. Refusal of registration in those circumstances was not arbitrary. (¶¶ 14-16, 19, 21)
- J. Saai Prasanna concerned a qualification obtained before the relevant amendment and did not govern these facts. Registration granted to some other students conferred no right to repeat an unlawful benefit. (¶¶ 13, 20)
- The High Court could not determine that two additional months of training adequately replaced the missing foreign clinical component. Academic curriculum and the requisite training belonged to the expert regulator. (¶ 22-23)
- The students’ interrupted education nevertheless called for a practical remedy. The Commission was to determine the duration, institutions, conditions and charges of actual clinical training in India through a one-time scheme and could test whether participants were adequately trained before provisional registration for the regular twelve-month internship. (¶¶ 22, 24-25)
Result
Appeals disposed of with directions to the Commission to frame the one-time clinical-training scheme within two months. Testing under the scheme was left open to the Commission within the next month, to establish readiness for provisional registration and the twelve-month internship. The High Court’s fixed two-month substitute was not accepted.