Hon’ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.—The petitioner has sought to question the constitutional validity of the provisions contained in Regulation 4 (1) of the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 (Regulations) read with Regulation 8 of the Eligibility Requirement for taking Admission in an Undergraduate Medical Course in a Foreign Medical Institution Regulations, 2002 (Regulations of 2002). These Regulations have been made by the Medical Council of India (MCI) with the previous sanction of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (MCI Act).

2. Regulation 4 forms a part of Chapter II of the Regulations, dealing with admission, selection, migration and training. Regulation 4 lays down the criteria for eligibility for admission to the Bachelor’s Degree Course in Medicine. Insofar as is material, the Regulation provides as follows :

“4. Admission to the Medical Course-Eligibility Criteria : No Candidate shall be allowed to be admitted to the Medical Curriculum proper of first Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) Course until :

(1) He/she shall complete the age of 17 years on or before 31st December of the year of admission to the MBBS Course.

(2) He/she has passed qualifying examination as under :...”

3. The challenge to Regulation 4 which has been urged during the course of the hearing, is to the requirement that a candidate should have completed the age of 17 years on or before the 31st day of December of the year in which he or she takes admission to the MBBS Degree Course.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that :

(1) The provisions of Regulation 4 (1) do not bear a nexus, much less a reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved and are not based on any rational criteria; and

(2) The requirement that a candidate should have attained the age of 17 years on 31 December of the year of admission to the MBBS Degree Course is not a reasonable requirement. Knowledge, it has been submitted, transcends age and there is no reason or justification for preventing a candidate who has passed the qualifying examination but who is yet to attain the age of 17, from seeking admission to the Degree Course in Medicine.

5. Now, at the outset, it would be necessary to note that these provisions in the Regulations have been dealt with in a judgment of a Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Gautam Kapoor v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1987 Raj 174. The issue before the Rajasthan High Court was whether the prescription of a minimum age limit of 17 years was unreasonable or arbitrary, with no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the provision. Chief Justice J.S. Verma (as the learned Chief Justice of India then was) speaking for the Full Bench, held thus :

“It cannot be doubted that a certain degree of maturity of body and mind is essential in a student joining the medical course and it is not unusual to reckon the same with reference to the age of the person. Undoubtedly there may be exception to the general rule, but a general Rule is not to be based on exceptions. The Medical Council of India, which is constituted under the Medical Council Act, 1956 and is a body of experts in the field, is also required to prescribe the minimum standards of medical education. It is also empowered by the Act to make Regulations generally to carry out the purpose of the Act and particularly for the matters specified expressly in S. 33 of the Act. One of the recommendations made by the Medical Council of India in exercise of its statutory power is that the minimum age limit of 17 years at the time of entry into a Medical College should be prescribed. There is no dispute that this minimum age limit is being followed throughout the country and for a long time.”

6. The Rajasthan High Court held that having due regard to the minimum age of a candidate, ordinarily, at the time of passing the qualifying examination,