LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Aravinth R.A. vs The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

Civil Appeal · 2022 INSC 501Decided 2 May 2022
Civil Appeal Nos. 3585-3586 of 2022
Hemant Gupta · V. Ramasubramanian

Background

A student who scored 55.44 percentile in NEET-UG 2021 and could not secure an Indian medical college seat wanted to pursue an MBBS course in Mauritius but could not travel due to pandemic restrictions. In the meantime, the National Medical Commission (NMC) issued the Licentiate Regulations, 2021 and the CRMI Regulations, 2021, which impose conditions such as a minimum 54-month foreign course duration, a 12-month internship abroad, registration with the foreign country's medical regulator, and a further 12-month supervised internship in India before a foreign medical graduate can get permanent registration to practice in India. The student challenged these regulations as arbitrary and unconstitutional; the Madras High Court dismissed his writ petitions and even imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 for what it called a "mis-adventure," since he had not even applied to any foreign institution.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court traced the regulatory history behind foreign medical graduate recognition and held that the NMC had full statutory power under the National Medical Commission Act to frame both sets of Regulations. It held that prescribing minimum course duration and mandatory internships (both abroad and in India) are legitimate ways to ensure minimum standards of medical competence, not "extra-territorial legislation" or violations of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) or 21. The Court reasoned that India need not recognize foreign degrees of shorter duration or waive internship requirements simply because some foreign institutions have lower standards, comparing it to a "Master Chef" tasting his own food before serving guests. The appeals were dismissed, but the Rs. 25,000 costs imposed by the High Court were waived since the appellant was a student.

Lesson Learnt

Regulatory bodies like the NMC have wide latitude to prescribe minimum-standard conditions (course duration, mandatory internships) for recognizing foreign medical qualifications, and students considering foreign medical education should carefully check India's registration requirements before enrolling, since shorter or less rigorous foreign courses may not automatically qualify them to practice in India.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case