Back
Supreme Court Issues Notice on Plea Against Mid-Cycle NCAHP Regulations for 2026-27 Session
The on Friday issued notice to the Central government on a plea challenging the mid-cycle implementation of regulations under the (NCAHP) Act, 2021, for the 2026-27 academic session. The petition warns that nearly 20,000 students could face disruption if two Punjab universities—identified as respondents—continue to refuse affiliation to institutions offering allied and healthcare courses before the deadline.
A Bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe took up the matter and tagged it with a batch of pending petitions concerning the NCAHP regulatory framework. The petitioner, the (FSFTI), has sought immediate affiliation for the current session, deferment of the new norms by one year, and uniform pan-India implementation from the next session. The plea also demands a national database of students to ensure transparency and accountability.
Background: A Regulatory Void Since 2021
The NCAHP Act was enacted in 2021 to standardise education and practice in allied and healthcare professions, which include physiotherapy, occupational therapy, medical laboratory technology, and radiography, among others. However, the petition alleges that no substantive regulations have been framed under the Act in the five years since its passage. Instead, the sector has been governed through a series of shifting executive circulars, creating confusion among institutions, students, and universities.
The petitioner's counsel illustrated this instability with two examples. In January this year, the Central government made NEET-UG mandatory for admission to Bachelor of Physiotherapy (BPT) and Bachelor of Occupational Therapy (BOT) courses—only to withdraw that requirement barely two months later. Similarly, a corrigendum issued in July reduced the minimum land requirement for physiotherapy colleges from 10 acres to 5 acres, even as the independently prescribes just 2 acres for the same course. This leaves three conflicting norms in force simultaneously, undermining predictability and fairness in the admission process.
The Affiliation Crisis
The core of the current dispute lies in the refusal by two universities— (IKGPTU) and (MRSPTU)—to grant affiliation to institutions offering allied and healthcare professional courses. In affidavits filed before the Court, both universities have taken the position that such courses are governed by the (UGC) rather than the NCAHP. This interpretation has left these institutions without any university willing to affiliate them for the upcoming academic year, jeopardising the education of thousands of students who have already secured admission or are in the process of doing so.
The petitioner argues that this refusal is contrary to the NCAHP Act, which establishes a comprehensive regulatory framework for allied and healthcare education. The Act mandates that universities and institutions must seek recognition from the NCAHP, but the absence of clear implementing regulations has created a legal vacuum that universities exploit to avoid responsibility. The petition asserts that the mid-cycle rollout of new regulations—without adequate transition provisions—compounds the problem, leaving stakeholders scrambling to comply with standards that were only finalised after admissions had already begun.
State Apathy and Symptomatic Failures
The plea also highlights that ten states have yet to constitute functional State Allied and Healthcare Councils, as required under the NCAHP Act. These councils are expected to facilitate local regulation, approve courses, and maintain standards. Their non-formation further delays the operationalisation of the Act and contributes to the regulatory chaos. The petitioner contends that the Central government's reluctance to enforce the Act's provisions, coupled with its tendency to issue ad hoc circulars, has caused avoidable uncertainty.
The case has been tagged with a batch of petitions already pending before the Supreme Court, which suggests that this is not an isolated grievance. Multiple stakeholders—including student bodies, institutions, and professional associations—have raised concerns about the NCAHP's implementation since its enactment. The court's decision to issue notice indicates that it is taking these concerns seriously, and the matter will now be examined in its broader legal context.
Legal Analysis: Questions of Statutory Scope and Transitional Justice
The legal issues arising from this plea are multifaceted. First, the court must determine whether the NCAHP Act occupies the field exclusively, thereby displacing the UGC's jurisdiction over allied and healthcare courses. The respondent universities argue that the UGC's general authority over higher education continues to apply, while the petitioner maintains that the NCAHP Act, being a special statute, prevails in this specific domain. This tension is not merely academic; it determines which body has the power to approve courses, prescribe standards, and grant affiliations.
Second, the court will assess the validity of the mid-cycle rollout. Regulatory changes that take effect during an academic year, without a for students already admitted, can violate principles of and . The petitioner's demand for a one-year deferment reflects a practical need for transition time, allowing institutions to adapt and students to plan their careers.
Third, the court may examine whether the Central government's use of circulars—instead of binding regulations under the NCAHP Act—constitutes an . The Act contemplates rule-making by the commission, but the government appears to have bypassed this process, leading to arbitrary and contradictory instructions. The court's earlier decisions, such as those requiring reasons for administrative action and prohibiting retroactive modifications, are likely to be invoked.
Impact on Legal Practice and Healthcare Education
This case has significant implications for legal practitioners specialising in education law, administrative law, and health law. It will clarify the interplay between specialised statutes and general regulatory bodies, setting a precedent for how such conflicts are resolved in other sectors. The court's ruling on the permissibility of mid-cycle regulatory changes will also affect how regulators approach implementation in fields ranging from engineering to medicine.
For the legal community, the case underscores the importance of due process in administrative regulation. The NCAHP's repeated reliance on executive circulars raises constitutional questions about the and the need for formal rule-making procedures. Lawyers representing institutions, universities, or students will watch this case closely, as it could offer guidance on challenging similar regulatory overreach.
Moreover, the outcome will directly impact the thousands of students who aspire to careers in allied and healthcare professions. A decision that invalidates the mid-cycle rollout would restore stability, while a ruling that upholds it might compel institutions to comply with unannounced standards, potentially leading to litigation over admissions and fees. The court's emphasis on student welfare, as seen in its recent jurisprudence, suggests that it will weigh the negative consequences of disruption carefully.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's decision to issue notice on this plea marks a critical juncture for the allied and healthcare education sector in India. As the case proceeds, the court will have the opportunity to bring clarity to a regulatory landscape that has been marked by confusion and inconsistency. The petitioner's plea for uniform implementation, a national database, and state council formation addresses systemic weaknesses that hinder the sector's growth. For now, students and institutions await the next hearing, hopeful that the court will ensure a fair and orderly transition to the NCAHP regime.
