Supreme Court Deprecates NMC’s ‘Feet Dragging’ on Medical Intern Stipend Compliance

In a scathing rebuke, the Supreme Court has castigated the National Medical Commission for its "slumber" and failure to enforce its own directives on the mandatory payment of stipends to medical interns, ordering the regulatory body to file a compliance affidavit within two weeks.

NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court of India has once again taken the National Medical Commission (NMC) to task over the persistent issue of non-payment of stipends to medical interns, deploying some of its strongest language to date to criticize the regulatory body's inaction. A Division Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria expressed deep dissatisfaction with the NMC's failure to ensure medical colleges comply with stipend payment norms, highlighting a systemic breakdown in regulatory oversight that has left medical graduates working long hours without due compensation.

The Court was hearing a batch of writ petitions, led by ABHISHEK YADAV Vs ARMY COLLEGE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES (W.P.(C) No. 730/2022) , filed by medical students, including foreign medical graduates, who have been denied stipends during their compulsory internships. The bench's frustration was palpable as it pointed to the NMC's apparent disregard for both its own communications and previous judicial orders.

In a sharply worded order, the Court stated, "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."

The bench further remarked that it expected the NMC to "wake up from slumber," ordering it to file a comprehensive compliance affidavit within a two-week timeframe.

A History of Non-Compliance and Judicial Admonishment

The recent hearing is the latest development in a protracted legal battle for the rights of medical interns. The issue has been before the apex court since at least September 2023, when a bench headed by then-Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, first directed the NMC to provide a tabulated chart detailing the stipend status across medical colleges and the steps being taken to enforce payment norms.

However, during a subsequent hearing on April 1, 2024, the Court noted that the NMC had failed to furnish the required details, prompting a reiteration of the directive. The latest hearing reveals that this pattern of non-compliance has continued, pushing the Court's patience to its limit.

The core of the present issue revolves around a directive issued by the NMC itself on July 11, 2025. This communication mandated all medical colleges and institutions to disclose their fee structures and stipend details within seven days via a Google link. The NMC's circular was not merely a request; it explicitly warned that non-compliance would trigger stringent regulatory measures, including show-cause notices, financial penalties, withdrawal of course recognition, and even suspension of admissions.

Appearing for some of the petitioners, Advocate Tanvi Dubey submitted that the NMC had utterly failed to enforce this directive, leaving medical interns in the lurch. She highlighted the urgency of the matter, noting that the original batch of students who filed the writ petitions has since graduated, yet the authorities have taken no concrete steps to resolve their grievances.

Judicial Scrutiny and the Question of Accountability

The bench's oral observations during the hearing underscored the gravity of the situation. Justice Kumar directly questioned the NMC's counsel, Advocate Shashank Manish, on whether the commission had complied with its own circular. The Court also reiterated its concern for the interns' plight, observing that "despite the medical students being made to work for more than 18 hours, they are not being paid a stipend, which is the basic thing they deserve." This framing elevates the non-payment of stipends from a mere contractual dispute to a potential violation of fundamental rights against exploitation.

The Court's order places the onus of accountability squarely on the NMC and, by extension, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The bench directed: "We hope and trust the NMC would get up from its slumber and take appropriate steps as indicated in its own communication dated 11.07.2025... The NMC shall also file an affidavit enclosing the list of medical colleges/institutes which have published the details... and also produce the copy for the perusal of this Court."

Crucially, the Court also involved the central government, ordering that the "Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare shall ensure that the NMC would comply." This directive implicates the Ministry in the oversight mechanism, preventing the NMC from acting in a vacuum and ensuring a higher level of executive accountability. The Ministry was represented in court by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati.

Legal and Regulatory Implications

This case serves as a critical examination of the efficacy of a key regulatory body in the Indian education sector. The NMC, established to maintain high standards in medical education, appears to be failing in one of its fundamental duties: protecting the welfare of medical students and interns. The Supreme Court's intervention highlights several important legal and administrative law principles:

• Mandamus and Judicial Review: The petitions essentially seek a writ of mandamus to compel a public authority (NMC) to perform its statutory duty. The Court’s repeated orders and strong language affirm its power of judicial review over the actions—and inactions—of such regulatory bodies.

• Accountability of Regulators: The "slumber" and "feet dragging" remarks are not mere rhetoric; they are judicial findings on the NMC's performance. This sets a significant precedent for holding regulators accountable when they fail to enforce their own rules, particularly when such failures affect the fundamental rights and welfare of individuals.

• Enforcement is Key: The case demonstrates that issuing regulations is insufficient. The true test of a regulator's effectiveness lies in its ability and willingness to enforce them. The NMC's circular threatened severe penalties for non-compliance, but its failure to act on those threats has rendered the directive toothless, necessitating judicial intervention.

For legal professionals, this case underscores the vital role of public interest litigation in bridging the gap between policy and practice. It provides a clear example of the judiciary stepping in to enforce the rule of law when an executive or regulatory body abdicates its responsibility. The final compliance affidavit from the NMC, and the subsequent actions taken by the Court, will be closely watched by the legal and medical communities alike, as it will determine whether this judicial censure translates into tangible relief for thousands of unpaid medical interns across the country.