1. Challenge to Regulation 6(g) requiring Section 8 company for medical college establishment—ultra vires to Section 28, NMC Act. (Para 2 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 277
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDIPKUMAR CHANDRABHAN MOREHON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ABASAHEB DHARMAJI SHINDE
AJEET SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY AND ANOTHER – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS – Respondent
CA/139/2026
Important Points
Expert regulatory bodies can impose restrictive eligibility criteria (such as requiring non-profit status) in subordinate legislation to prevent commercialization and protect public interest, provided such restrictions align with the broader legislative intent and objectives of the parent statute.
Subject
Administrative Law - Delegated Legislation
Act Referred
National Medical Commission Act, 2019: S.10, S.26, S.28, S.29, S.56, S.57
Constitution of India: Art.14, Art.19, Art.226, Art.227
Companies Act, 2013: S.8
Establishment of Medical Institutions, Assessment and Rating Regulations 2023: R.6, R.16
Bombay Nursing Homes, Registration Act, 1949
Societies Registration Act, 1860
General Clauses Act
Constitution of India: Art.14, Art.19, Art.226, Art.227
Companies Act, 2013: S.8
Establishment of Medical Institutions, Assessment and Rating Regulations 2023: R.6, R.16
Bombay Nursing Homes, Registration Act, 1949
Societies Registration Act, 1860
General Clauses Act
Headnote
(A) National Medical Commission Act, 2019 - Sections 28 and 57 - Establishment of Medical Institutions, Assessment and Rating Regulations, 2023 - Regulation 6(g) - Companies Act, 2013 - Section 8 - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) - Challenge to the validity of a regulation restricting the eligibility to establish a medical college to Section 8 companies - Question whether such restriction is ultra vires the parent act which uses a broader definition of 'person' - It is held that the regulatory body, as an expert commission, is empowered to frame detailed criteria to maintain high standards and prevent the commercialization of medical education - Restricting eligibility to non-profit companies ensures medical education remains aligned with public interest and is not driven by profit-making objectives - Such regulation is not a deviation from the parent statute but a means to fulfill legislative intent. (Paras 17, 23 and 24)
(B) Delegated Legislation - Scope of Judicial Review - Courts are generally slow to interfere with the decisions of regulatory expert bodies unless there is a manifest violation of natural justice or the regulation is outrageously arbitrary - Subordinate legislation can be questioned if it lacks a rational nexus with the enabling act, but where the restriction serves the broader objective of the parent act, it is upheld. (Paras 18, 21 and 22)
Facts of the case:
A private limited company invested substantial capital into building a hospital and applied for permission to establish a medical college. The application was rejected by the regulatory authority on the ground that the applicant was not a Section 8 (non-profit) company as required by a 2023 regulation. The applicant challenged this regulation as being ultra vires the parent act, which uses a broad definition of 'person' to include associations of persons and bodies of individuals, and argued that the restriction violated the right to equality and the freedom of trade.
Findings of Court:
The court found that while the parent act allows any 'person' to apply, the expert regulatory body possesses statutory powers to lay down policies and detailed regulations to ensure high standards of medical education. The restriction to Section 8 companies is a valid measure to ensure that medical education is not treated as a commercial activity or a monopoly of profit-driven entities.
Issues: Whether Regulation 6(g) of the 2023 Regulations, which limits eligibility for establishing medical colleges to Section 8 companies, is ultra vires Section 28 of the parent Act and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: An expert regulatory body can frame regulations that add specific criteria for approval to fulfill the legislative intent of the parent act. The restriction to non-profit entities in medical education is a valid exercise of delegated power to ensure that the field remains focused on public interest and quality education rather than commercial profit.
Result: Petition dismissed.
(B) Delegated Legislation - Scope of Judicial Review - Courts are generally slow to interfere with the decisions of regulatory expert bodies unless there is a manifest violation of natural justice or the regulation is outrageously arbitrary - Subordinate legislation can be questioned if it lacks a rational nexus with the enabling act, but where the restriction serves the broader objective of the parent act, it is upheld. (Paras 18, 21 and 22)
Facts of the case:
A private limited company invested substantial capital into building a hospital and applied for permission to establish a medical college. The application was rejected by the regulatory authority on the ground that the applicant was not a Section 8 (non-profit) company as required by a 2023 regulation. The applicant challenged this regulation as being ultra vires the parent act, which uses a broad definition of 'person' to include associations of persons and bodies of individuals, and argued that the restriction violated the right to equality and the freedom of trade.
Findings of Court:
The court found that while the parent act allows any 'person' to apply, the expert regulatory body possesses statutory powers to lay down policies and detailed regulations to ensure high standards of medical education. The restriction to Section 8 companies is a valid measure to ensure that medical education is not treated as a commercial activity or a monopoly of profit-driven entities.
Issues: Whether Regulation 6(g) of the 2023 Regulations, which limits eligibility for establishing medical colleges to Section 8 companies, is ultra vires Section 28 of the parent Act and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: An expert regulatory body can frame regulations that add specific criteria for approval to fulfill the legislative intent of the parent act. The restriction to non-profit entities in medical education is a valid exercise of delegated power to ensure that the field remains focused on public interest and quality education rather than commercial profit.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- medical law
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V. D. Sapkal, V.A. Bagidya, Pratik Bhosale, Yash A. Jadhav
For the Respondents: P. S. Patil, Ravi Bangar, S. K. Kadam
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V. D. Sapkal, V.A. Bagidya, Pratik Bhosale, Yash A. Jadhav
For the Respondents: P. S. Patil, Ravi Bangar, S. K. Kadam
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argues Regulation 6(g) narrows 'person' under Section 28; respondents defend as valid delegated power to ensure non-profit medical education. (Para 5 , 6 , 18 , 19 )
3. Regulation 6(g) is not a deviation; it serves the legislative intent of preventing commercialisation of medical education. (Para 23 , 24 )
4. Delegated legislation by an expert body restricting applicants to Section 8 companies is valid to uphold public interest in non-profit medical education. (Para 24 )
5. Writ petition dismissed; Regulation 6(g) not ultra vires and consequential reliefs denied. (Para 24 , 25 )
6. Is a regulation that restricts eligibility to establish a medical college to Section 8 companies ultra vires the parent Act?
No, such a regulation is a valid exercise of delegated legislative power to prevent profit-driven commercialisation of medical education, consistent with the NMC Act. (Para 6 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
7. Can the term 'person' under Section 28 of the NMC Act be restricted by a regulation for establishing medical colleges?
Yes, a regulation can permissibly add criteria for approval, including restricting eligible entities to non-profit Section 8 companies, to ensure public interest. (Para 14 , 15 , 17 , 19 , 22 , 23 )
8. Does Regulation 6(g) violate Article 14 by creating a classification between Section 8 and other companies?
No, the classification is not arbitrary; it has a rational nexus with the object of keeping medical education non-commercial and in public interest. (Para 5 , 21 , 23 , 24 )
9. What is the scope of judicial review of regulations framed by an expert medical education body like the NMC?
Courts are slow to interfere unless the regulation is manifestly arbitrary, outrageous, or not reasonably related to the enabling Act's purposes. (Para 18 , 22 , 23 )
10. Is delay in challenging a statutory regulation a bar to relief?
Yes, delay can be a significant factor; here the petition was filed about two years after the regulation was notified, contributing to its dismissal. (Para 6 , 19 )
JUDGMENT : (PER SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) :-
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With consent of the rival parties, the Writ Petition heard finally at the stage of admission.
2. Petitioner No.1, who is a Private Limited Company operating one Hospital, has filed this Writ Petition through its Dean i.e. respondent No.2 for the following reliefs :-
(A) Hold and declare that Regulation 6 of the 2023 Regulations made by Respondent No.2 is ultra vires Section 28 and 29 of the NMC Act, issued beyond the powers prescribed under Section 57(2) of the NMC Act and in violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.
(B) Strike down Regulation 6 of the 2023 Regulations as being unconstitutional and uphold the mandate of Sections 28 and 29 of the NMC Act.
B-1) Issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing Respondent No.3 to process petitioner No.1's application for academic year 2026-2027 which would be filed for establishment of ASPL's CSMSS Medical College and Hospital under Section 28 of the NMC Act without relying upon Regulation 6 of 2023 Regulations.
B-2) During the pendency of the present writ petition direct respondent No.3, 4 and 5 to allow the petitioner No.1 to apply for establishment of ASPL's CSMSS Medical College and Hospital under Section 28 of the NMC Act without relying upon Regulation 6 of 2023 Regulations.
B-3) Direct Respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5 to continue, during the pendency and till the disposal of the present writ petition, with the procedural steps as outlined in paragraph 54 of this petition and any other steps as may be prescribed under the NMC Act for the establishment of petitioner No.1's ASPL's CSMSS Medical College and Hospital for the academic year 2026-2027 without raising deficiency of the petitioner No.1 not being a Section 8 Company registered under the Companies Act, 2013.
B-4) Grant ad-interim relief in terms of Prayer clause B-2, B-3 and B-4.
(C) Issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for records and quashing the impugned SCN issued by respondent No.3 in terms of Regulation 6 of 2023 Regulations as being unconstitutional and ultra vires Sections 28 and 29 NMC Act.
(D) Issue a writ of certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for records and quashing the impugned LoD dated 11.07.2025 issued by Respondent No.2 while relying solely on Regulation 6 of 2023 Regulations as being unconstitutional and ultra vires Sections 28 and 29 NMC Act.
(E) Issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari under Article 227 of the Constitution of India calling for records and quashing the impugned First Appeal Order dated 10.09.2025 issued by Respondent No.2 while relying solely on Regulation 6 of 2023 Regulations as being unconstitutional and ultra vires Sections 28 and 29 NMC Act.
(F) Issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for records and quashing the impugned Second Appeal Order dated 25.11.2025 issued by Respondent No.1 while relying solely on Regulation 6 of 2023 Regulations as being unconstitutional and ultra vires Sections 28 and 29 NMC Act.
(G) Issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing Respondent No.3 to process petitioner No.1's application for establishment of ASPL's CSMSS Medical College and Hospital under Section 28 of the NMC Act.
(H) Direct Respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5 to continue, during the pendency and till the disposal of the present writ petition, with the procedural steps as outlined in paragraph 54 of this petition and any other steps as may be prescribed under the NMC Act for establishm
