Back
Can NMC Mandate 12-Month Ukraine Internship Amid War? Asks Centre
The has sought the ’s response to a petition filed by an MBBS student from Ukraine who is challenging the ’s (NMC) requirement of a 12-month internship in the same foreign institution. The student contends that due to the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, completing such an internship is now “impossible”. A division bench of Chief Justice Alpesh Yeshwant Kogje and Justice Vivek Rusia granted time to the Centre to file its reply and listed the matter for further hearing on .
A Student’s Dilemma: War Interrupts Medical Education
The petitioner, a resident of Bhopal, cleared NEET-2021 and secured admission to in Ternopil, Ukraine. After receiving an invitation from the on , he obtained a visa and travelled to Ukraine. He deposited US$1,900 in fees on , and reached the country on . His classes commenced on . However, shortly after the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war, he was forced to flee Ukraine and has since been pursuing his MBBS course online from Bhopal.
The core of the dispute lies in the applicability of the NMC’s , which came into force on . Under and , a foreign medical graduate must undergo a minimum 12-month internship in the same foreign institution where the primary medical qualification was obtained. The petitioner argues that returning to Ukraine to fulfil this requirement is “” given the active war zone.
Clash of Regulations: Retrospective or Prospective?
The petitioner relies on of the 2021 FMGL Regulations, which states that the new rules shall not apply to candidates who were “pursuing their education in foreign institutions” before the regulations came into force. provides that such candidates will be governed by the erstwhile applicable regulations – in this case, the Screening Test Regulations, 2002.
The student contends that since he had already paid his fees and arrived in Ukraine before , he should be treated as a student “” prior to the cut-off date. However, the NMC, in a response to his RTI query dated , took the position that his classes commenced only on , and therefore the 2021 Regulations apply to him.
Under the 2002 Regulations, an Indian citizen with a foreign medical qualification was only required to qualify the screening test for provisional or permanent registration. There was no mandate to complete an internship in the same foreign institution or to obtain a licence to practise there before undertaking a supervised internship in India. The petitioner argues that the new requirements impose an additional and unreasonable burden, especially in the context of the war.
Court’s Response and Next Steps
The division bench did not issue any but simply granted time to the to file its . The matter is now listed for , 2024. The court’s decision to seek a response suggests that it is treating the petition seriously and may examine the of the challenged provisions.
The petitioner has also sought a declaration that of the 2021 Regulations are (right to equality) and (right to practise any profession) of the . He has further prayed that he be governed by the 2002 Regulations instead.
Legal Analysis: Impossibility and Reasonableness
The case raises significant questions about the application of regulatory frameworks to students caught in extraordinary circumstances. The (or ) is well-recognised in contract law but less frequently applied in the context of educational regulations. Here, the petitioner is not simply inconvenienced; he is physically unable to return to Ukraine due to a war, a situation outside his control.
The NMC’s insistence on the date of commencement of classes as the decisive factor also merits scrutiny. The student had already paid fees and physically attended the university before the cut-off date. Whether “” begins with enrolment or with actual classroom instruction is a factual nuance that the court may need to resolve.
Furthermore, the 2021 Regulations require the student to obtain a licence to practise medicine in Ukraine before undertaking the supervised internship in India. Given the war, Ukrainian licensing authorities may be non-functional or inaccessible, making compliance impossible. The court may examine whether such a requirement is , especially when the student’s are at stake.
Broader Implications for Foreign Medical Graduates
This petition is not an isolated case. Thousands of Indian students who returned from Ukraine, and from other conflict zones, face similar hurdles. The NMC’s current framework does not provide a specific exemption or alternative pathway for students affected by war, natural disasters, or other events. If the rules in favour of the petitioner, it could set a compelling the NMC to create a compassionate mechanism for such students.
Conversely, if the court upholds the NMC’s strict interpretation, it may force many students to either complete their education in a third country or start afresh in India, incurring significant time and financial losses. The outcome will be closely watched by the legal and medical education communities.
Conclusion
The ’s decision to seek the Centre’s response indicates that it is willing to engage with the complex interplay between regulatory demands and ground realities. As the Russia-Ukraine war continues with no end in sight, the judiciary may need to balance the NMC’s legitimate concerns about quality assurance with the of students trapped in extraordinary circumstances. The next hearing on may provide further clarity on whether the 2021 Regulations can be flexibly interpreted in the face of impossibility.
