Compliance with UG-MSR 2023 Regulations Overrides Previous Reliefs: Kerala HC Upholds NMC's Seat Reduction for Medical Colleges - 2025-10-29

Kerala HC Upholds NMC’s Regulatory Power: Seat Reduction Validated

In a significant ruling for the integrity of medical education standards, the High Court of Kerala has set aside a previous Single Judge order that had permitted the Palakkad Institute of Medical Sciences to admit 150 MBBS students despite failing to meet current regulatory requirements. The Division Bench, led by Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S., held that statutory authorities cannot be commanded to bypass regulations, particularly when an efficacious alternative remedy is available.

The Conflict Over Medical Standards

The dispute arose after the Under Graduate Medical Education Board (UGMEB) reduced the seat intake for the Palakkad Institute from 150 to 100 for the 2025-26 academic session. The Board cited deficiencies regarding required faculty and infrastructure as stipulated under the Guidelines for Under Graduate Courses under the Establishment of New Medical Institutions, Starting of New Medical Courses, Increase of Seats for Existing Courses and Assessment and Rating Regulations, 2023 (UG-MSR 2023).

The V.N. Public Health and Education Trust, representing the college, had successfully argued before a single judge that they should be allowed to operate based on the older Minimum Requirements for Annual MBBS Admissions Regulations, 2020 (MSR 2020), citing a previous Supreme Court order. However, the Division Bench found that this relaxation was an exceptional, one-time measure for the 2024-25 session and did not grant the college a perpetual exemption from updated norms.

The Limits of Judicial Intervention

The High Court underscored a fundamental principle of administrative law: the judiciary should not interfere with the expertise of statutory bodies unless there is evidence of ex-facie perversity or mala fides. The Court observed that in matters of medical education, the "minimum" standards prescribed by the National Medical Commission (NMC) are non-negotiable.

"The Medical Council of India (now NMC) and the college authorities have to bear in mind that what is prescribed in the Regulations is the minimum," the Court noted, referencing * Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India *.

Furthermore, the Bench criticized the respondent’s bypass of the appellate process. Instead of filing an appeal with the Central Government as mandated by Section 10 of the Maintenance of Standards of Medical Education Regulations , 2023 (MSMER 2023), the college approached the High Court under Article 226. The Court maintained that writ jurisdiction is not an avenue to avoid statutorily provided, efficacious remedies.

Key Observations

The judgment clarifies that an institution cannot claim a right to continue operations if it fails to maintain the necessary quality benchmarks for producing trained medical professionals:

• "No mandamus can be issued directing the statutory authorities to do something contrary to the statute."
• "The exception carved out by the said order was with reference to testing the infrastructure for issuance of LoP, whereafter annual renewals have to be on fulfillment of the parameters prescribed in UG-MSR 2023."
• "In the circumstances of the case, reducing the intake capacity of the College... without giving the petitioners a breathing time to come over to the MSMER-2023 can only be described as highly arbitrary, offending Article 14." (Note: The Court ultimately rejected this reasoning applied by the lower court, citing that the statutory mandate takes precedence).
• "It would be dangerous and against the right to life itself, in case unequipped medical colleges are permitted to impart substandard medical education."

Implications for Medical Institutions

This decision reinforces that the transition from developmental exemptions to strict regulatory compliance is immediate once the grace period provided by judicial intervention expires. For medical colleges, the message is clear: survival and growth in the medical education sector depend on strict adherence to the NMC’s evolving infrastructure and faculty requirements. The Court’s decision ensures that the rigor of medical training remains protected, prioritizing student outcomes and patient safety over the financial or expansion interests of private institutions.