FSFTI's Plea for Allied Healthcare Regulations Gets Supreme Court Notice After Five-Year Lapse

The Supreme Court of India today issued notice in a writ petition filed by the Federation of Self Financing Technical Institutions (FSFTI) seeking the framing of mandatory regulations under the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions (NCAHP) Act, 2021. A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe directed the Union government, the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions, LK Gujral Punjab Technical University (IKGPTU), and Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Technical University (MRSPTU) to respond to the petition. The move comes after the petitioner highlighted that despite five years having elapsed since the Act came into force, no formal regulations have been notified, leaving the allied and healthcare education sector in a state of perpetual uncertainty.

The Unfinished Regulatory Framework

The NCAHP Act, 2021, was enacted to regulate and maintain standards of education and practice across allied and healthcare professions. Section 22(1) of the Act mandates every state government to constitute a State Council within six months of the Act's commencement. However, as argued by counsel for the petitioner, several states and union territories—including Chandigarh, Delhi, Haryana, Puducherry, Ladakh, and Lakshadweep—have failed to establish these councils. This has resulted in a fragmented enforcement landscape, where executive circulars, notices, and corrigenda—often contradictory—serve as de facto rules, causing irreparable prejudice to institutions, universities, and students nationwide.

Advocate Meenesh Dubey, appearing for the FSFTI, underscored the capriciousness of this approach by citing the recent NEET eligibility saga. He noted that NEET was initially imposed as a mandatory eligibility criterion for Bachelor of Physiotherapy (BPT) and Bachelor of Occupational Therapy (BOT) courses, only to be withdrawn less than two months later. Such flip-flops, he argued, directly stem from the absence of a stable regulatory framework, leaving students and institutions unable to plan their academic trajectories.

Judicial Precedents and Ongoing Non-Compliance

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has engaged with the implementation deficit under the NCAHP Act. In Joint Forum of Medical Technologists of India v. Union of India (2024), the Court directed the Centre and state governments to take necessary steps to implement the Act's provisions by October 12, 2024, and file compliance reports. Subsequently, in Dr Dayal Institute of Paramedical Technology v. State of Rajasthan (2026), the Court went a step further, summoning the Officer-in-Charge to personally explain the delay. Observing that the continuing delay was "paralysing the entire process," the Court nonetheless disposed of the matter on April 9 after the Commission assured that the framing of regulations was underway.

Despite these judicial nudges, the petitioner contends that little has changed. During today's hearing, Justice Narasimha remarked, "We already once directed," indicating the Court's awareness of the prolonged non-compliance. The bench's issuance of notice signals its intention to hold the authorities accountable and to determine whether further coercive measures are warranted.

The Current Academic Crisis

Adding urgency to the petition is the imminent threat to the 42nd academic year for allied and healthcare courses. The petitioner alleged that IKGPTU and MRSPTU have not yet granted affiliation to institutions offering these programmes, with the last date for such affiliation being August 14. This could potentially affect as many as 20,000 students who are on the verge of losing their academic year. The refusal to grant affiliation is directly linked to the absence of a clear regulatory framework—universities are uncertain which courses, curricula, and eligibility criteria align with the NCAHP Act's mandate.

The petition, filed through FSFTI President Dr Anshu Kataria, seeks a direction to the respondents to frame and notify statutory regulations governing admissions, eligibility, and related matters under Sections 11, 22, 40, and 60 of the 2021 Act. These provisions collectively outline the functions of the National Commission, the constitution of State Councils, and the power to make regulations. The failure to exercise these powers has created a legal vacuum that the Court is now being called upon to fill.

Legal Implications and the Way Forward

The case raises fundamental questions about the enforceability of statutory timelines and the consequences of administrative inaction. The NCAHP Act, like many modern health-sector statutes, envisages a comprehensive regulatory architecture that can only function through subordinate legislation. Without such regulations, the Act remains a skeletal framework, incapable of delivering its intended benefits of standardised education, professional competence, and public safety.

For the legal community, this matter underscores the judiciary's role in catalysing executive action when statutory bodies default. The Court's prior directions, while emphatic, have not yielded the desired result, prompting the present petition. The issuance of notice suggests the Court may consider stricter measures—such as contempt proceedings or the imposition of timelines for the issuance of regulations—if the Commission and states continue to drag their feet.

Moreover, the case highlights a recurring challenge in Indian administrative law: the gap between legislative intent and executive implementation. The allied and healthcare sector, which is rapidly expanding, requires urgent regulatory clarity to ensure that institutions can operate with confidence and students are not left in limbo. The impact of ongoing uncertainty extends beyond admissions—it affects accreditation, faculty recruitment, examinations, and the eventual recognition of qualifications for professional practice.

Broader Implications for Regulatory Governance

This petition is emblematic of a larger pattern where statutory bodies, confronted with multiple priorities, neglect foundational rule-making. The Supreme Court's engagement here may set a precedent for other sectors grappling with similar implementation deficits. It reinforces the principle that statutory obligations are not mere suggestions—they carry the force of law and must be complied with in a timely manner.

The Court's next hearing will likely focus on the responses of the Union, the Commission, and the two universities. If the authorities fail to demonstrate meaningful progress, the Court may invoke its contempt jurisdiction or direct the Commission to adopt an interim regulatory framework. The fate of 20,000 students hangs in the balance, underscoring the human cost of bureaucratic inertia.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision to issue notice in the FSFTI petition marks a critical juncture in the implementation of the NCAHP Act, 2021. With the Act having been in force for five years, the absence of regulations has become unsustainable. The Court's intervention, if backed by a firm timeline, could finally force the executive to act. For institutions, students, and legal practitioners alike, the outcome of this case will determine the future shape of allied and healthcare education in India—and serve as a telling example of how judicial oversight can prod sluggish administrative machinery into action.