Supreme Court Chides 'Slumbering' NMC Over Unpaid Medical Intern Stipends, Demands Compliance Affidavit

New Delhi – In a sharp rebuke underscoring the judiciary's increasing impatience with regulatory inertia, the Supreme Court of India has strongly deprecated the National Medical Commission (NMC) for its persistent failure to enforce mandatory stipend payments for medical interns. A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria, hearing a batch of petitions from aggrieved medical students, ordered the NMC to "wake up from its slumber" and file a compliance affidavit within two weeks, signaling a critical juncture in the long-standing dispute over fair compensation for junior doctors.

The Court's pointed observations highlight a systemic failure by the NMC, the apex regulatory body for medical education and practice, to implement its own directives and adhere to previous judicial orders concerning the welfare of medical interns, including those who are foreign medical graduates.

Background of the Protracted Litigation

The issue of non-payment and arbitrary payment of stipends to MBBS interns has been before the Supreme Court for a considerable period. The primary case, ABHISHEK YADAV Vs ARMY COLLEGE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES (W.P.(C) No. 730/2022), along with other tagged petitions, represents the collective grievance of medical students who allege they are being made to work extensive hours without the basic remuneration they are entitled to.

The judicial intervention dates back to at least September 2023, when a bench led by then-Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, took cognizance of the matter. The bench had directed the NMC to submit a comprehensive, tabulated chart clarifying two key points: 1. The veracity of the claims regarding the non-payment of stipends to medical interns. 2. The concrete steps being taken by the NMC to ensure compliance with the established norms of paying internship stipends across all medical colleges.

However, the Court noted on April 1, 2024, that the NMC had failed to furnish these crucial details, prompting a renewed directive. This pattern of non-compliance set the stage for the recent, more severe admonishment.

The Court's Scathing Rebuke and Renewed Directives

During the latest hearing, the bench of Justice Kumar and Justice Anjaria expressed profound disappointment with the NMC's conduct. The Court's frustration was palpable as it addressed the NMC's failure to enforce its own communication, dated July 11, which mandated all medical colleges and institutions to disclose their fee structures and stipend details within seven days via a Google form link. This directive was intended to create transparency and hold institutions accountable.

In its formal order, the Court did not mince words:

"The conduct of the NMC requires to be deprecated in as much as the payment of the stipend to the interns has been pending since long before this Court and yet, NMC seems to be dragging its feet without any serious consideration. As such, we are forced to make this observation. We hope and trust the NMC would get up from its slumber and take appropriate steps as indicated in its own communication."

The bench has now mandated the NMC to file a detailed affidavit within two weeks. This affidavit must not only confirm compliance but also include a comprehensive list of medical colleges that have published the required stipend details as per the July 11 communication. Furthermore, the Court has placed the onus on the Union government, directing the Secretary of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to "ensure that the NMC would comply."

Arguments and Legal Implications

Advocate Tanvi Dubey, representing some of the petitioners, forcefully argued that the NMC's inaction has led to a situation where doctors are "unjustly denied the stipend." She highlighted the significant delay, pointing out that the original batch of students who filed the writ petitions has since graduated, yet the systemic issue remains unresolved, affecting successive batches of interns. Her plea for an early disposal of the matter resonated with the bench's concerns about the prolonged nature of the dispute.

The Court orally reiterated its concern for the interns, noting that they are often required to work grueling shifts exceeding 18 hours a day. The non-payment of a stipend, it observed, is a denial of "the basic thing they deserve" for their essential services.

The case raises critical questions about the efficacy and accountability of statutory regulatory bodies like the NMC. For legal professionals, several key implications emerge:

1. Judicial Oversight and the Writ of Mandamus: The Court's actions are a classic example of judicial review over administrative inaction. By repeatedly issuing directives and now demanding a compliance affidavit under threat of further action, the Supreme Court is effectively exercising its power to compel a public authority to perform its statutory duty.

2. Enforcement Mechanisms of Regulatory Bodies: The NMC's own July 11 communication had warned non-compliant colleges of stern measures, including show-cause notices, financial penalties, and even withdrawal of course recognition. The NMC's failure to act on its own warnings, as alleged by the petitioners, exposes a significant gap between policy-making and enforcement. The Court's intervention now forces the regulator's hand to utilize these very tools.

3. The Role of the Executive: The Court's specific direction to the Secretary of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare is a noteworthy move. It implicates the executive branch in ensuring the accountability of an autonomous regulatory body, reinforcing the principle that such bodies do not operate in a vacuum and are ultimately answerable to both the judiciary and the government.

4. Procedural Compliance: The demand for a detailed affidavit with a list of compliant and non-compliant institutions is a standard but powerful judicial tool. It shifts the burden of proof onto the NMC and creates a formal record against which future compliance can be measured, leaving little room for ambiguity or further delay.

As the legal community watches, the NMC's response in the next two weeks will be critical. The commission's ability to demonstrate tangible progress in compelling medical colleges to disclose and pay stipends will determine not only the fate of the current litigation but also its own credibility as an effective regulator in the eyes of the judiciary and the thousands of medical students it governs.