Summary
A prospective overseas medical student challenged the 2021 foreign-graduate licentiate and compulsory internship requirements as beyond the National Medical Commission’s powers and constitutionally unreasonable. The Court upheld the challenged minimum course duration, overseas and Indian internships, overseas registration and internship-placement provisions. It distinguished recognition of existing qualifications from conditions for future registration in India, dismissed the appeals and waived the High Court’s costs against the student.
Issues
- Whether the Commission could prescribe the challenged conditions for foreign medical graduates seeking registration in India.
- Whether those conditions were arbitrary, extraterritorial or inconsistent with recognition of previously recognised foreign qualifications.
Provisions considered
- Sections 15(4), 24(1) and 57, National Medical Commission Act, 2019The statutory framework authorised the Commission to prescribe the challenged licentiate and internship requirements. (¶¶ 43-45, 50-52)
- Sections 33 and 36(4), National Medical Commission Act, 2019Preservation of previously recognised qualifications did not displace conditions for future registration as a medical practitioner. (¶ 55)
- Regulations 4(a)(i), 4(a)(ii), 4(b) and 4(c), National Medical Commission (Foreign Medical Graduate Licentiate) Regulations, 2021The challenged course-duration, foreign internship, overseas registration and supervised Indian internship conditions were upheld. (¶¶ 7, 51-57)
- Schedule II, paragraphs 2(a) and 2(c)(i), National Medical Commission (Compulsory Rotating Medical Internship) Regulations, 2021Equivalent internship requirements and priority placement in newly opened colleges were upheld as serving training standards and available capacity. (¶¶ 7, 58-59)
Held
- The Commission had statutory power to issue the challenged regulations. Prescribing minimum educational standards included prescribing a minimum course duration; India was not obliged to recognise shorter overseas courses for prospective permanent registration merely because those courses served another country’s requirements. (¶¶ 43-45, 50-52)
- The overseas internship and registration requirements served the objective of testing graduates’ practical competence in the country of training. The requirement of supervised internship in India was not invalid merely because another internship was also required abroad. (¶ 53-54)
- Section 36(4) preserved qualifications recognised before the Act commenced. It concerned recognition of qualifications, while registration as a practitioner was governed separately. Protection of existing qualifications or acquired rights did not invalidate standards prescribed for future students. (¶ 55)
- The need for more doctors did not justify lowering requirements for competence. The challenged conditions governed access to medical practice in India and did not regulate practice abroad or invade another country’s sovereignty; the constitutional and extraterritoriality challenges failed. (¶ 56-57)
- Internship at par with Indian graduates sought comparable practical skills. Permitting initial posting in newly opened colleges addressed limited internship capacity in established institutions and avoided imposing an undue additional burden on them. (¶ 58-59)
Result
Appeals dismissed, upholding dismissal of both writ petitions. The High Court’s costs of Rs.25,000 against the student were waived.