$~87 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2398/2026 & CM APPL. 11727/2026 NUCLEAR MEDICINE PHYSICISTS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA NMPAI AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Mayank Sharma, Advocate.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sharang Dhulia, CGSC with Mr.

Chetan Jadon, Advocate and Ms.

Rupali Sinha, GP for R-1 and R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 19.02.2026

1. The Petitioner is an association representing Nuclear Medicine professionals who are formally educated and clinically trained in Nuclear Medicine practice. This petition is representative in character and seeks to protect the professional interests of such personnel presently working in Nuclear Medicine Departments, handling, inter alia, unsealed radioactive sources, internal dosimetry, radiation protection and quality assurance specific to Nuclear Medicine.

2. Their principal grievance emanated from the draft documents circulated by Respondent No. 2, the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions, 1“NCAHP” including the draft curriculum in the domain of Medical Physics and the draft “Registration of Allied and Healthcare Professionals Regulations, 2025”. The Petitioner apprehends that, if finalised in the present form, the draft curriculum and the linked eligibility/cadre structure would have the effect of disqualifying professionals with specialised nuclear medicine qualifications, even where they have long been discharging functions associated with Medical Physicists (Nuclear Medicine) in established hospital settings.

3. The Petitioner’s submission, however, is not limited to disagreement with the content of the draft. It also raises a statutory concern under the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions Act, 2021., “NCAHP Act” The Petitioner relies on Section 10, which mandates the constitution of a Professional Council for every “recognised category”. The expression “recognised category” is defined under Section 2(q) to mean a category of allied and healthcare professionals specified in the Schedule to the Act. Under Serial No. 8 of the Schedule, the recognised category “Medical Radiology, Imaging and Therapeutic Technology Professional” enumerates, inter alia, “Nuclear Medicine Technologist” as one of the allied and healthcare professions, alongside “Medical Physicist” and other specified professions. To avoid ambiguity, the relevant extract from the Schedule is reproduced below:

“Serial Recognised Category Allied and Healthcare Professional ISCO Number Code

8. Medical Radiology, (i) Medical Physicist 2111 Imaging and Therapeutic Technology Professional (ii) Nuclear Medicine Technologist 3211 (iii) Radiology and Imaging 3211 Technologist [Diagnostic Medical Radiographer, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Computed Tomography (CT), Mammographer, Diagnostic Medical Sonographers]

(iv) Radiotherapy Technologist 3211 (v) Dosimetrist 3211”

4. The Petitioner’s grievance, therefore, has two distinct strands: first, that its objections to the draft curriculum and cadre/eligibility framework must be meaningfully considered before the draft is finalised; and second, that the statutory scheme contemplates representation of the identified professions within the relevant Professional Council and the absence of an effective representation affects their rights and is causing them prejudice.

5. It is important to emphasize that judicial review at the draft stage is ordinarily confined to ensuring that the statutory process is followed, that stakeholders likely to be affected are given a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and that the decision-making does not proceed on an evident misreading of the parent statute.

6. It is not in dispute that the draft was placed in the public domain and that the Petitioner has submitted a representation dated 6^th July, 2025 pointing out the absence of adequate representation.

7. Since the matter remains at a draft stage, the appropriate course is to ensure that the c