Back
Supreme Court Mandates Stipend Parity for Foreign Medical Graduates, Upholds Equality Principle
Introduction
The , in a significant decision, has ruled that foreign medical graduates (FMGs) who are Indian citizens cannot be discriminated against in stipend payments merely because they pursued their medical education abroad. A division bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale directed the and the , to pay the pending stipend difference to petitioners who completed their internships between and . This order builds on a prior ruling in a related case, ensuring parity with Indian medical graduates and junior FMGs.
Case Background
The petitioners, Shashank Shekher Pandey and others, are Indian citizens who obtained medical degrees from foreign institutions in countries including Kazakhstan, the Philippines, Russia, and China. They completed their compulsory one-year internships at RIMS in Jharkhand from to . Despite their qualifications being recognized in India, they were denied a monthly stipend during this period, unlike Indian MBBS graduates who receive Rs. 26,300 per month.
The dispute arose when junior FMGs, who interned later, were granted stipends following the Supreme Court's order dated , in . The petitioners approached the Court via , seeking a for equal stipend treatment. The case highlights ongoing issues faced by FMGs returning to India, including delays in recognition and financial disparities during internships, especially after disruptions like the COVID-19 pandemic affected their training abroad.
Arguments Presented
The petitioners argued that as Indian citizens, they are entitled to the same internship benefits as domestic graduates, emphasizing the principle of equality under the . They highlighted that their juniors, who studied in similar foreign countries like Ukraine and Kazakhstan, had already received stipends at par with Indian students pursuant to the July 2025 order. Denying them the same would amount to , especially since they completed internships earlier. They sought payment for the entire 12-month period, underscoring the financial hardship faced without stipend support.
The respondents, represented by the and RIMS, did not seriously contest the petitioners' entitlement to stipends. However, they expressed apprehension about disbursing funds without prior explicit permission from the , fearing potential adverse actions or audits. They referenced procedural requirements for central funding and argued that such payments could invite regulatory scrutiny, similar concerns raised in the earlier AMU case involving junior FMGs.
Legal Analysis
The Court applied the constitutional principle of equality, holding that FMGs stand on the same footing as Indian medical graduates and their junior counterparts. It referenced its own prior order in , where it mandated stipend payments to junior FMGs at and explicitly protected institutions from UGC repercussions for complying without prior approval. This precedent was pivotal, as it established that stipends are a recognized benefit for medical interns, regardless of the origin of their primary education.
The bench clarified that no discrimination can be based solely on foreign qualification, aligning with broader equality jurisprudence under . It distinguished between procedural hurdles (like UGC permission) and substantive rights, reiterating that judicial directions override such barriers to prevent undue delay. Information from parallel cases, such as the AMU rulings reported by Medical Dialogues on , and , illustrates a consistent judicial trend toward stipend parity, shielding institutions like RIMS and AMU from regulatory backlash while enforcing fair treatment for over 11 FMGs in similar situations.
Key Observations
- "The petitioners having completed their internship prior to the petitioners in WP No.232/2025, would stand on the same footing as that of writ petitioners in WP No.232/2025. As such, they cannot be discriminated and paid less stipend than the writ petitioners in WP No.232/2025 having been paid."
- "The only apprehension of the respondent, seems to be... before disbursement of any such stipend, explicit permission has to be obtained from UGC... we had made a categorical observations in para 4 of the said order... the UGC shall not take any adverse action against the concerned College(s), merely on the ground that they had paid the stipend without prior permission."
- "We also take note of the fact that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are not seriously disputing the entitlement of the petitioner’s receiving the stipend or denying their claim."
- "In view of the same, the present petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondent to pay the difference of stipend expeditiously at any rate within three weeks from today."
Court's Decision
The Supreme Court disposed of the petition on , directing the respondents to pay the stipend difference to the petitioners at par with Indian medical graduates within three weeks. It reiterated protections from the July 2025 order, ensuring no adverse UGC action against RIMS for compliance. This ruling provides immediate financial relief to the affected FMGs, potentially benefiting thousands of similar graduates nationwide by establishing a clear precedent against discriminatory stipend practices. Future cases involving FMGs may cite this for quicker resolutions, promoting equitable access to internship benefits and reducing litigation burdens on returning doctors.
