Brij Sharadbhai Bhatt And Ors vs National Medical Commission And Ors
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: 23.07.2026
% Judgment delivered on:03.09.2026
# CNR No : DLHC010513632025
+ W.P.(C) 11266/2025, CM APPL. 46312/2025, CM APPL.
27936/2026 & CM APPL. 46444/2026
BRIJ SHARADBHAI BHATT AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. D. K. Devesh, Adv.
Mr. Satish Pandey and Ms. Jay Jamini
Pandey, Advs.
versus
NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Bishwabandhu, SC with Mr.
Bipul Kumar, Ms. Nisha, Advs. for
R-1
Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Mr. Mrinal Kr.
Sharma, Mr. Z. Rahman, Advs. for R-
2
Mr.Varun Mishra, SPC for UoI with
Mr.Ashar Hussan, Adv for R-3 & 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
J U D G M E N T
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J.
CHALLENGE AND BACKGROUND FACTS
1. The petitioners, who are Indian citizens, having pursued their studies
in allopathic system of medicine abroad, have instituted the instant petition
W.P.(C.) No.11266/2025 Page 1 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:03.09.2026
15:47:13
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the denial of their
request to take the Screening Test conducted by respondent No.2 – National
Board of Examination in Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as
“ National Board ”) which would have entitled them to be registered as
medical practitioners by the respondent No.1 – National Medical
Commission (hereinafter referred to as “ NMC ”) enabling them to practice
allopathy in India.
2. The first prayer made in the writ petition is that Regulation 4(1) of the
Screening Test Regulations, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “ Screening
Regulations ”) which was inserted by a notification dated 26.09.2009, be
declared ultra vires and unconstitutional.
2.1 By the impugned Regulation, the institutions included in the World
Directory of Medical Schools published by the World Health Organisation
(„WHO‟) were excluded from the category of institutions whose
qualification, awarded to a person, was earlier treated to be a Primary
Medical Qualification (hereinafter referred to as “ PMQ ”), making such a
person eligible to be allowed to appear in the Screening Test.
2.2 The impugned Regulation 4.1 of the Screening Regulations is quoted
hereunder:
“ 4. Eligibility Criteria: No person shall be allowed to appear in the screening
test unless:
(1) No person shall be allowed to appear in the screening test unless:
he/she is a Citizen of India or has been granted Overseas Citizenship
of India and possess any primary medical qualification, which is
confirmed by the Indian Embassy concerned, to be a recognized
qualification for enrolment as medical practitioner in the country in
which the institution awarding the said qualification is situated.”
W.P.(C.) No.11266/2025 Page 2 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:03.09.2026
15:47:13
3. The petitioners have also sought quashing of Clause 2.14 of the
Information Bulletin issued by the respondent No.2 for conducting
Screening Test known as Foreign Medical Graduate Examination
(hereinafter referred to as „ FMGE ‟) which requires that the foreign medical
degree held by a person appearing in the Screening Test should be attested
either by the Embassy of India or should be apostilled by the appropriate
authority of the foreign country concerned. The impugned clause 2.14 of
the Information Bulletin is extracted herein below:
“The foreign medical degrees should be attested either by the Embassy of
India or should be Apostilled by the appropriate authority of the foreign
country concerned. Kindly note that the apostilled/attestation is to be in
accordance with the requirements of Hague Convention of 5 October 1961
abolishing the requirement of legalisation for Foreign Public Document
(Apostille Convention) . For details regarding Apostilled documents,
candidates may refer to the website of Ministry of External Affairs, Govt.
of India. Unattested certificates / Certificates attested after the last date
prescribed for submission of documents (i.e. 30th December 2024 ) shall
not be considered for the purpose of eligibility for FMGE December
2024.”
4. Challenge has also been made to the communication/letter dated
14.05.2025 issued by the Deputy Director (Medical), Department of
Examination Conduct of the respondent No.2, which states that the
candidates who have submitted an alternative PMQ in lieu of the degree
certificates from New Tokyo Medical College, Federated States of
Micronesia (hereinafter referred to as “ Micronesia Medical College ”) shall
not be considered eligible to appear in FMGE.
5. The impugned communication dated 14.05.2025 was issued in the
background that the petitioners had submitted their applications for
appearing in FMGE June, 2023 and FMGE December, 2023 conducted by
W.P.(C.) No.11266/2025 Page 3 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:03.09.2026
15:47:13
respondent No.2. While scrutinizing these applications, it was noticed that
the petitioners had applied for FMGE June, 2023 presenting their PMQ from
Micronesia Medical College, however, they were not permitted to appear in
FMGE June, 2023 as the PMQ certificate was non-apostilled/attested by the
concerned Indian Embassy which is a mandatory requirement.
Subsequently, the petitioners applied for FMGE December, 2023 presenting
a PMQ certificate from Central America Health Sciences University, Belize
(hereinafter referred as “ Belize Medical University ”) and it was found that
for the same period of study for both the PMQs, the petitioners had
presented PMQ certificates from two different institutions. The matter was
considered by the Examination Ethics Committee of the respondent No.2
and after issuance of a Show Cause Notice ( ‘SCN’ ), to which reply was also
submitted by the petitioners, a considered decision was taken by respondent
No.2 not to consider the petitioners eligible to appear in FMGE.
6. The petitioners are said to have taken admission in different foreign
medical institutions for pursuing their medical course for award of a degree
equivalent to MBBS, however, under certain circumstances like outbreak of
civil war, COVID-19, Russia-Ukraine war and for certain personal reasons,
they got themselves transferred to other medical schools situated in
countries other than where they had initially taken admission. In the year
2020, the petitioners are said to have approached Micronesia Medical
College, seeking transfer for completion of their studies of the medical
course which was accepted by Micronesia Medical College and on
completion of the medical studies at Micronesia Medical College they were
conferred with the requisite certificate.
W.P.(C.) No.11266/2025 Page 4 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:03.09.2026
15:47:13
7. As per the legal requirement, any citizen having completed a course,
equivalent to MBBS Course, abroad has to appear in a Screening Test
conducted by respondent No.2 for the purposes of his registration as a
medical practitioner of allopathic system of medicine in India. The
petitioners, accordingly, applied for appearing in the Screening Test
conducted by respondent No.2 in June, 2023, however, they were not held to
be eligible. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioners approached a Medical
School at Belize Medical University and underwent a certain additional
course on the basis of their score card issued when they had pursued their
studies at Micronesia Medical College and the Belize Medical University
issued a certificate on 13.10.2023 validating the medical degree granted by
Micronesia Medical College under a Memorandum Of Understanding
( ‘MOU’ ) entered into between the Micronesia Medical College and Belize
Medical University on 19.04.2021. The petitioners applied to appear in the
Screening Test conducted in December, 2023, however, where again they
were denied participation by respondent No.2, holding them ineligible for
the reason that the petitioners had submitted an alternate PMQ Certificate in
lieu of the same degree certificate from Micronesia Medical College for the
same period of studies which was not treated by respondent No.2 to hold the
petitioners eligible to appear in FMGE.
RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS
8. Having discussed the background facts in which the instant petition
has been filed, we may now note certain statutory provisions which are
relevant for the purposes of appropriately determining the issues involved in
this petition.
W.P.(C.) No.11266/2025 Page 5 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:03.09.2026
15:47:13
9. The Central Legislature enacted National Medical Commission Act,
2019 (hereinafter referred to as the „ NMC Act, 2019 ‟) with a view to
provide for a medical education system for improving access to quality and
affordable medical education and also for ensuring availability of adequate
and high quality medical professionals in the country. As per Section 1(3)
of the NMC Act, 2019, the Act shall come into force on a date to be notified
by the Central Government by a notification in the Official Gazette. It
further provides that different dates may be appointed for different
provisions of this Act. Certain provisions of the NMC Act, 2019 were
notified on 02.09.2019 by the Central Government and accordingly such
provisions came into force on 02.09.2019 itself. Certain other provisions
came into force with effect from 25.09.2020 vide a notification issued under
Section 1(3) of the NMC Act, 2019 on 24.09.2020
10. Section 60 of the NMC Act, 2019 contains repeal and saving clause,
according to which, the earlier statute governing the field of medical
education in India, namely Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter
referred to as the “ IMC Act, 1956 ”) shall stand repealed and the Medical
Council of India, constituted under the said Act, shall stand dissolved with
effect from such date as the Central Government may appoint for the said
purpose.
11. Under the NMC Act, 2019, „National Medical Commission‟ has been
constituted which is the successor of Medical Council of India, the earlier
body which was constituted under the 1956 Act.
12. NMC, thus, in terms of Section 61 of the NMC Act, 2019, is the
successor in interest to the Medical Council of India and as per Sub-Section
W.P.(C.) No.11266/2025 Page 6 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:03.09.2026
15:47:13
2 of Section 61, the educational standards, requirements and other
provisions of the IMC Act, 1956 and the rules and regulations made
thereunder shall continue to be in force and operate till new standards or
requirements are specified under the NMC Act, 2019 or the rules and
regulations are made thereunder. It is by virtue of Section 61(2) of the NMC
Act, 2019 that the Screening Regulations, 2002 which were framed by
Medical Council of India are still in vague.
13. Section 61 of the NMC Act, 2019 is quoted herein below:
“ 61. Transitory provisions. — (1) The Commission shall be the successor
in interest to the Medical Council of India including its subsidiaries or
owned trusts and all the assets and liabilities of the Medical Council of
India shall be deemed to have been transferred to the Commission.
(2) Notwithstanding the repeal of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956,
the educational standards, requirements and other provisions of the
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the rules and regulations made
thereunder shall continue to be in force and operate till new standards or
requirements are specified under this Act or the rules and regulations
made thereunder:
Provided that anything done or any action taken as regards the
educational standards and requirements under the enactment under repeal
and the rules and regulations made thereunder shall be deemed to have
been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act and
shall continue in force accordingly unless and until superseded by
anything done or by any action taken under this Act ”
14. The Screening Regulations, 2002 were framed by the Medical
Council of India with the previous sanction of the Government of India in
exercise of its powers conferred by Section 33 of the IMC Act, 1956.
Section 33 of the IMC Act, 1956 empowers the Medical Council of India to
make regulations, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, to
carry out the purposes of the said Act. Section 33(ma) permits the Medical
Council of India to frame regulations to provide for the modalities for
W.P.(C.) No.11266/2025 Page 7 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:03.09.2026
15:47:13
conducting the Screening Test under Sub-Section 4A of Section 13 of the
IMC Act, 1956. Section 33(ma) is quoted herein under:
“33. Power to make regulations.— The Council may, with the previous
sanction of the Central Government, make regulations generally to carry
out the purposes of this Act, and without prejudice to the generality of this
power, such regulations may provide for—
(a)...
(b)...
[...]
(m)...
(ma) the modalities for conducting screening tests under sub-section (4A),
and under the proviso to sub-section (4B), and for issuing eligibility
certificate under sub-section (4B), of section 13.”
15. Section 13(4A) of the IMC Act, 1956 provided that an Indian citizen,
obtaining medical qualification awarded by a medical institution situated
outside India, shall not be entitled to be enrolled on the Medical Register
maintained by a State Medical Council and shall also not be entitled to have
his name entered in the Indian Medical Register unless he qualifies the
Screening Test in India prescribed for such purposes. Section 13(4A) of the
IMC Act, 1956 is extracted herein below:
“ 13. Recognition of medical qualifications granted by certain medical
institutions whose qualifications are not included in the First of Second
Schedule.—;
(1)...
(2)...
(3)...
(4)...
(4A) A person who is a citizen of India and obtains medical qualification
granted by any medical institution in any country outside India recognized
for enrolment as medical practitioner in that country after such date as
may be specified by the Central Government under sub-section (3), shall
not be entitled to be enrolled on any Medical Register maintained by a
State Medical Council or to have his name entered in the Indian Medical
Register unless he qualifies the screening test in India prescribed for such
W.P.(C.) No.11266/2025 Page 8 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:03.09.2026
15:47:13
purpose and such foreign medical qualification after such person qualifies
the said screening test shall be deemed to be the recognised medical
qualification for the purposes of this Act for that person.”
16. Clause 2(f) of the Screening Regulations, 2002 defines “Primary
Medical Qualification” to mean a medical qualification awarded by any
medical institution outside India which is a recognised qualification for
enrolment as medical practitioner in the country in which the institution
awarding the said qualification is situated and which is equivalent to MBBS
in India.
17. Clause 2(f) of the Screening Regulations, 2002 is extracted herein
below:
“2(f) “Primary Medical qualification” means a medical qualification
awarded by any medical institution outside India which is a recognized
qualification for enrolment as medical practitioner in the country in which
the institution awarding the said qualification is situated and which is
equivalent to MBBS in India;”
18. Clause 3 of the Screening Regulations, 2002 provides that an Indian
citizen possessing a PMQ awarded by any medical institution outside India,
who is desirous of getting provisional or permanent registration with the
Medical Council of India or any State Medical Council, on or after
15.03.2002, shall have to qualify a screening test conducted by the
prescribed authority. Clause 3 of the Screening Regulations, 2002 is
extracted herein below:
“ 3. An Indian citizen possessing a primary medical qualification awarded
by any medical institution outside India who is desirous of getting
provisional or permanent registration with the Medical Council of India
or any State Medical Council on or after 15.03.2002 shall have to qualify
W.P.(C.) No.11266/2025 Page 9 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:03.09.2026
15:47:13
a screening test conducted by the prescribed authority for that purpose as
per the provisions of section 13 of the Act:
Provided that a person seeking permanent registration shall not have to
qualify the screening test if he/ she had already qualified the same before
getting his/ her provisional registration.”
19. We have already extracted, in one of the preceding paragraphs of this
judgment, the impugned provisions of Clause 4(1) which was substituted
vide notification dated 26.09.2009. Clause 4(1) which existed prior to its
substitution w.e.f 26.09.2009 was as under:
“ 4. Eligibility Criteria: No person shall be allowed to appear in the screening test
unless:
(1) he/ she is a citizen of India and possesses any primary medical qualification,
either whose name and the institution awarding it are included in the World
Directory of Medical Schools, published by the World Health Organization;
or which is confirmed by the Indian Embassy concerned to be a recognized
qualification for enrolment as medical practitioner in the country in which
the institution awarding the said qualification is situated;”
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
(A) Regarding Constitutional validity of Regulation 4(1) of the
Screening Regulations, 2002
20. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that prior to its
substitution w.e.f. 26.09.2009, Clause 4(1) of the Screening Regulations,
2002 provided that an Indian citizen, who possesses any PMQ from an
institution included in World Directory of Medical Schools published by
WHO, shall be also treated to be possessed with PMQ for the purposes of
allowing him to appear in the Screening Test, however, by substituting
Clause 4(1) which is under challenge herein, the medical institutions
included in the World Directorate of Medical Sciences published by WHO
W.P.(C.) No.11266/2025 Page 10 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:03.09.2026
15:47:13
have been excluded; as a result of which an Indian citizen possessing PMQ
awarded by an institution situated outside the country, which was included
in the World Directory of Medical Schools published by WHO, will not be
eligible to appear in the Screening Test. The said exclusion of such foreign
medical schools is arbitrary and illegal and hence is liable to be struck down.
21. It is further stated that the Micronesia Medical College where the
petitioners had studied and were awarded the certificate was included in the
World Directory of Medical Schools published by WHO, however, because
of the impugned substituted Clause 4(1) of the Screening Test Regulations,
2002 they are not being treated to be eligible to take the Screening Test. In
this regard, referring to the judgment in Rohit Naresh Agarwal v. Union of
India and Others , 2013 SCC Online Del 3904 , it has been argued that such
regulation excluding the foreign medical schools which are included in
World Directory of Medical Sciences published by WHO, is beyond the
powers of the Indian Medical Council conferred on it under Section 33(ma)
of the IMC Act, 1956 which permitted the Council to frame regulations only
in respect of modalities for conducting the Screening Test and not for
determining the eligibility of the Indian citizens having the PMQ from
foreign medical schools. Thus, the submission is that the provisions of
impugned Regulation 4(1) of the Screening Regulations, 2002 are ultra vires
Section 33 of the IMC Act, 1956.
(B) Regarding Clause 2.14 of the Information Bulletin published by
respondent No.2 for FMGE.
22. In respect of the impugned Clause 2.14 of the Information Bulletin
published by the respondent No.2, it has been argued that Section 13(4A) of
W.P.(C.) No.11266/2025 Page 11 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:03.09.2026
15:47:13
the IMC Act, 1956 does not prescribe that the foreign medical degree
possessed by an Indian citizen, awarded from a foreign medical school,
should be attested by the Embassy of India or should be apostilled by the
appropriate authority of the foreign country concerned and, therefore, such a
prescription contained in Clause 2.14 of the Information Bulletin is beyond
the provision of Section 13(4A) of the IMC Act, 1956.
23. It has also been argued that the said Regulation 2.14, so far as it
requires the foreign medical degrees to be apostilled by appropriate
authority of the foreign country, is against even the Regulation 4(1) of the
Screening Regulations, 2002, where the only requirement is that such a
foreign degree should be confirmed by the Indian Embassy to be a
recognised qualification for enrolment as medical practitioner in the country
in which the institution awarding PMQ is situated.
(C) Regarding communication dated 14.05.2025, whereby respondent
No.2 holds the petitioners to be ineligible to appear in FMGE.
24. Challenging the impugned communication dated 14.05.2025, it has
been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the decision of respondent
No.2 declaring the petitioners to be ineligible to appear in FMGE is not
sustainable for the reason, inter alia , that as per the Memorandum of
Understanding dated 19.04.2021 entered into between Micronesia Medical
College and Belize Medical University, the students having obtained the
degree at Micronesia Medical College on transfer to Belize Medical
University would not need to repeat their already completed education and
further that all credits from the courses that are completed at Micronesia
Medical College are accepted and applied for the purposes of grant of
W.P.(C.) No.11266/2025 Page 12 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:03.09.2026
15:47:13
degree by Belize Medical University. In this view, the submission is that
once the Belize Medical University has issued the requisite
certificate/degree, denial by the respondent No.2 to the petitioners to appear
in the FMGE is not lawful.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 –
NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
25. On behalf of respondent No.1, it has been argued that the amended
Regulation 4(1) of the Screening Regulations, vide notification dated
26.09.2009, has been framed in exercise of the powers conferred under
Section 33(ma) read with Section 13(4A) of the IMC Act, 1956 and
therefore, it has a statutory force. It has further been argued that the
requirement in the impugned Clause 4(1) of the Screening Regulations, 2002
of confirmation of the foreign degree by the Indian Embassy has a rational
basis.
26. Learned counsel representing the respondent No.1 has referred to the
affidavit filed in this petition by the Ministry of External Affairs,
Government of India wherein it has been stated that the officials of the
Embassy visited the Micronesia Medical College in 2023 and found that the
said medical college had grossly inadequate infrastructure, including a
namesake laboratory, absence of proper faculty and institutional set-up, and
the institution was functioning from a floor in an old building and, therefore,
these facts fully justify the necessity of the confirmation of the PMQ by the
Indian Embassy.
W.P.(C.) No.11266/2025 Page 13 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:03.09.2026
15:47:13
27. Referring to the public notices/circulars dated 08.08.2023, 22.11.2024
and 21.07.2025, it has been argued that the Indian students were advised
against seeking admission at Belize Medical University and, therefore, any
qualification obtained by the petitioners from the said medical university
will not make them eligible to appear in the FMGE.
28. Further submission is that the petitioners have pursued their education
in multiple institutions and, therefore, they cannot seek their eligibility to
appear in the FMGE on the basis of PMQ issued by the Belize Medical
University to cure the deficiencies arising out of their fragmented education.
The submission is that such a qualification cannot be accepted.
29. Reference has also been made by the National Commission to Foreign
Medical Graduate Licentiate Regulations, 2021 to submit that any certificate
obtained after fragmented education spells cannot be permitted to be the
requisite PMQ for permitting participation in the FMGE as the said
Regulation provides that only that qualification will be a valid PMQ where a
person who pursues the foreign medical degree has undergone a course of
theory, practical and clinical training equivalent to MBBS of India and
should have completed internship of 12 months in the same foreign
institution from where the PMQ has been obtained. Submission is that
since, in the instant case, the petitioners have pursued their medical course
in different and multiple foreign medical schools and have undergone
fragmented studies, the qualification held by them cannot be treated to be a
valid PMQ for the purposes of permitting them to appear in the Screening
Test.
W.P.(C.) No.11266/2025 Page 14 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:03.09.2026
15:47:13
30. It has also been argued that such fragmented education produces half-
baked professionals and, therefore, any Indian citizen having obtained such
medical education in a foreign medical school or multiple foreign medical
schools cannot be permitted to be treated to be eligible for taking the
Screening Test, as no such medical professional can be allowed to play with
the health of the people.
31. The Memorandum of Understanding entered into between Micronesia
Medical College and Belize Medical University has also been referred to by
the learned counsel representing the respondent No.1, who has submitted
that such a Memorandum of Understanding cannot be construed as
authorising validation of a PMQ or creation of an alternate qualification to
satisfy FMGE eligibility requirements.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2
32. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 has also opposed
the petition stating therein that the actions, which are under challenge herein,
are strictly applied with the extant rules and regulations governing the
FMGE. It has further been argued that the petitioners were fully aware of
the impugned provisions of the Information Bulletin and having once
applied for appearing in the said examination in June, 2023 without
challenging the provisions of the Information Bulletin, they cannot be
permitted to challenge the same and in fact, the challenge is an afterthought.
Further submission on behalf of the respondent no.2 is that the issues
involved in this petition are in relation to academic matters, where this Court
ought to be reluctant in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
W.P.(C.) No.11266/2025 Page 15 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:03.09.2026
15:47:13
33. It has also been contended that the respondent no.2 is the examination
conducting body, which has acted strictly in accordance with the Screening
Regulations, 2002 and since the petitioners do not fulfil the statutory
eligibility as prescribed under Regulation 4(1) of the Screening Regulations,
2002, they have rightly been denied to appear in the FMGE. Reference has
been made to the Advisory on Medical Education in Federated States of
Micronesia issued by the Embassy of India in Manila, Philippines, where it
has been stated that though relevant information was sought by the Embassy
from the Government of Federated States of Micronesia on Micronesia
Medical College, however, no response was received from Federated States
of Micronesia and, therefore, the Embassy of India in Manila, Philippines
will not be in a position to authenticate any degree or any other educational
documents issued by the Micronesia Medical College.
34. In view of the aforesaid clarification issued by the Embassy of India
in Manila, Philippines, any claim based on any educational certificate or
degree issued by the Micronesia Medical College cannot be treated to be an
authentic qualification so as to enable the petitioners to participate in
FMGE. It has further been stated and argued that Federated States of
Micronesia, where Micronesia Medical College is situated, is not a signatory
to the Hague Convention of 05.10.1961 and, therefore, any
authentication/apostillation done by any authority of the Federated States of
Micronesia is not in accordance with requirement of the Hague Convention
and, therefore, the medical qualification obtained from Micronesia Medical
College by the petitioner and not attested as per the requirement of the
W.P.(C.) No.11266/2025 Page 16 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:03.09.2026
15:47:13
Hague Convention, 1961 cannot be treated to be a qualification making the
petitioners eligible to appear in FMGE.
35. It has also been argued on behalf of the respondent no.2 that reliance
placed by the petitioners on the subsequent medical qualification said to
have been obtained from Belize Medical University is misplaced. It is also
stated that it was noticed by the respondent no.2 that several candidates were
applying to appear in the FMGE while relying on multiple degrees issued by
different medical institutions, which aspect was considered by the
Examination Ethics Committee of the respondent no.2 and the said
Committee, upon deliberation, took a decision that candidates, who have
submitted alternate PMQ in lieu of the degree certificate from Micronesia
Medical College, for the same period of studies, shall not be considered
eligible to appear in the FMGE and it is based on the said decision that the
impugned communication dated 14.05.2025 was issued by the Deputy
Director, Department of Examination Conduct of the respondent no.2.
36. It has also been contended that the petitioners have produced the
PMQ issued by Belize Medical University in substitution of the qualification
originally obtained by them from Micronesia Medical College, for the very
same period of study, and accordingly, irrespective of the nature of
attestation or authentication accompanying such a subsequent qualification,
it cannot be made basis for holding the petitioners eligible to appear in
FMGE.
37. Emphasis has, thus, been laid by the respondent no.2 on the fact that
the subsequent qualification said to have been undertaken by the petitioners
for the same period and, therefore, such a qualification cannot be treated to
W.P.(C.) No.11266/2025 Page 17 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:03.09.2026
15:47:13
be a valid qualification for the purposes of permitting the petitioner to take
the FMGE.
ANALYSIS
38. The challenge to Regulation 4(1) of the Screening Regulations, 2002
has been made by the petitioners by submitting that exclusion of the
institutions included in the World Directory of Medical Schools published
by the WHO for the purposes of grant of qualification leading to PMQ is
unreasonable. For considering the said argument, we may refer to Section
13(4A) of the IMC Act, 1956, which provides that if a person, who is a
citizen of India, obtains a medical qualification granted by any medical
institution in any country outside India recognised for enrolment as medical
practitioner in that country, he shall be entitled to be enrolled in the medical
register only if he qualifies the Screening Test in India prescribed for such a
purpose. Thus, the statutory requirement for a citizen of India having
obtained medical qualification from a medical institution situated outside the
country for being enrolled on any medical register is that he will have to
qualify the Screening Test in India prescribed for the said purpose. Section
33(ma) of IMC Act, 1956 provides that the Indian Medical Council can
make regulations with previous sanction of the Central Government,
providing for the modalities for conducting Screening Test under sub-
Section 4A of Section 13 of the IMC Act, 1956. What all has been done by
substituting the impugned Regulation 4(1) vide notification dated
26.09.2009 is that the medical institutions, which were included in the
World Directory of Medical Schools published by the WHO, have been
excluded from the list of institutions, obtaining a degree wherefrom would
W.P.(C.) No.11266/2025 Page 18 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:03.09.2026
15:47:13
earlier have enabled a candidate to appear in the FMGE. Under the scheme
of IMC Act, 1956 it is the respondent no.1, which is a body comprising of
experts in the field, that was enabled to frame regulations for the purposes of
regulating the medical education in India and in case such an expert body
was of the opinion that foreign medical institutions included in the World
Directory of Medical Schools published by the WHO but not recognised by
an Indian Embassy are to be excluded from the list of approved medical
institutions, in our opinion, such a view taken by the body of experts has to
be given some credence and no interference in exercise of powers of judicial
review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be permissible
unless any such prescription made by the body of experts is found to be
absolutely arbitrary. Exclusion of such institutions by substituting the
impugned Regulation 4(1) of the Screening Regulations, 2002 vide
notification dated 26.09.2009, in our opinion, is based on the consideration
of relevant factors by the respondent no.1, which appears to be based on
experience of the respondent no.1 while regulating the medical education in
India and, therefore, we are of the opinion that no interference in the said
Regulation, which is based on expert opinion, is warranted.
39. As regards to challenge to clause 2.14 of the Information Bulletin, we
firstly agree with the submission made by the learned counsel representing
the respondent no.2 that the petitioners, without any challenge to the said
clause, earlier made their applications for appearing in the FMGE in June,
2023 and thereafter, they have challenged it by instituting the proceedings of
the instant writ petition only after they were declared ineligible vide
W.P.(C.) No.11266/2025 Page 19 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:03.09.2026
15:47:13
impugned letter dated 14.05.2025. Such a challenge, in our opinion, would
not be maintainable.
40. Even otherwise, clause 2.14 of the Information Bulletin requires that
the foreign medical degrees should be attested either by the Embassy of
India or should be apostilled by the appropriate authority of the foreign
country concerned. We do not find any good ground to interfere with such a
provision for the reasons, firstly, that the said provision is in conformity
with the requirement of Regulation 4(1) of the Screening Regulations, 2002,
which are statutory in nature and secondly, attestation or apostillation of any
foreign medical degree is a process of authentication of such a medical
qualification and we do not find any prejudice to be caused to any candidate
if the foreign medical qualification, on the basis of which he is seeking his
eligibility to appear in the FMGE, is required to be authenticated.
Authentication of a document submitted by any candidate claiming his
eligibility on the basis of said document, in our opinion, is necessary so as to
enable the examination conducting body to be in a position to exclude those
candidates from appearing in the examination who seek their appearance on
the basis of fake or false educational qualifications. Thus, requiring
authentication by Embassy of India in a foreign country or apostillation of a
foreign medical degree in accordance with the requirement of Hague
Convention of 05.10.1961, in our opinion, does not cause any prejudice to
any candidate and, therefore, any challenge to such a clause of the
Information Bulletin has to necessarily fail.
41. Much emphasis has been laid by the petitioners on the judgment of
this Court in the case of Rohit Naresh Agarwal (supra) , however, the said
W.P.(C.) No.11266/2025 Page 20 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:03.09.2026
15:47:13
judgment does not have any application to the facts of the present case for
the reason that what was under challenge in the said matter was the
provision of Regulation 4(3) of Screening Regulations, 2002, which
provided another eligibility criteria and was being applied retrospectively.
The Division Bench in the said judgment held that what Section 33(ma) of
the IMC Act, 1956 permitted was to frame regulations making provisions
for the modalities for conducting Screening Test and not for determining the
eligibility to appear in the Screening Test. It is also to be noticed that in
Rohit Naresh Agarwal (supra), the candidates seeking to appear in the
FMGE were already having eligibility qualification and, therefore, they
challenged the Regulation 4(3) of the Screening Regulations, 2002 on the
ground that fresh eligibility criteria cannot be made by framing regulations
in taking aid of enabling provisions contained in Section 33(ma) of IMC
Act, 1956.
Determination or prescription of eligibility and authentication of a
foreign medical degree cannot be equated. Regulation 4(1) of Screening
Regulations read with clause 2.14 of the Information Bulletin does not lay
down any eligibility criteria, rather, these provisions only require
authentication of foreign medical degree by way of attestation by the Indian
Embassy in the foreign country or by way of apostillation/attestation by the
competent authority of the foreign country in accordance with the
requirement of Hague Convention of 05.10.1961. Since neither Regulation
4(1) of the Screening Regulations nor clause 2.14 of the Information
Bulletin prescribes any eligibility criteria and, therefore, in the facts of the
W.P.(C.) No.11266/2025 Page 21 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:03.09.2026
15:47:13
instant case, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in Rohit Naresh
Agarwal (supra) will have no application.
42. So far as the impugned communication/order dated 14.05.2025 is
concerned, we are satisfied with the reasons disclosed therein, holding the
petitioners ineligible to appear in the FMGE. The impugned communication
dated 14.05.2025 has been issued declaring the petitioners to be ineligible to
appear in the FMGE by citing the advisory dated 15.09.2023 issued by the
Embassy of India in Manila, Philippines. The said advisory was issued by
the Indian Embassy at Manila for the reason that despite seeking relevant
information from the Government of Federated States of Micronesia
regarding Micronesia Medical College, no response was received and,
therefore, the Embassy stated in the said advisory that it shall not be in a
position to authenticate any degree or other educational documentation
issued by the Micronesia Medical College.
43. It is also to be noticed that these petitioners initially made their
applications to appear in the FMGE in June, 2023, where the PMQ was
claimed by them on the basis of medical qualification certificate issued to
them by the Micronesia Medical College, which was not considered to be
appropriate for permitting them to appear for FMGE. In the subsequent
examination, i.e. FMGE December, 2023, the petitioners submitted a PMQ
issued by Belize Medical University. The reason given by the respondent
no.2 in its communication dated 14.05.2025, holding the petitioners to be
ineligible for appearing in the FMGE, is that these petitioners had furnished
the certificate from two different foreign medical institutions for the same
period of study. We are in complete agreement to the said reason given by
W.P.(C.) No.11266/2025 Page 22 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:03.09.2026
15:47:13
the respondent no.2 as the petitioners are seeking to appear in FMGE on the
basis of fragmented studies undergone by them at various foreign medical
institutions. Such a fragmented education, in our opinion, will not make the
petitioners eligible for the reason already stated on behalf of the respondent
nos.1 and 2 and also because, we find that any medical qualification based
on a fragmented study in different medical colleges, which in this case are
two to three different foreign medical colleges, if treated as an eligible
PMQ, the same will not be in public interest as it will certainly amount to
compromising the quality of medical professionals in the country. In this
regard, we may refer to the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Yash
Ahuja and Others v. Medical Council of India & Ors., (2009) 10 SCC 313,
wherein it has been observed that the screening test has been introduced to
check large scale irregularities of commercialisation of medical education
leading to certification of ineligible doctors and so as not to let doctors with
half-baked knowledge due to inadequate training or eligibility standards, to
treat patients in India. Paragraphs 74 & 75 of the said judgment are
extracted herein under:-
“74. In the year 1956, when the Indian Medical Council Act was enacted, it must
not have been contemplated by anyone that a large number of private agencies
would sponsor students for medical studies in institutions outside India for
commercial considerations including those students who were not fulfilling the
minimum eligibility requirements for admission to medical courses in India, etc. It
was, therefore, felt necessary by Parliament to make a provision to enable the
Council to conduct a screening test. This is the remedy that sub-section (4-A) has
provided. This remedy is prescribed to satisfy MCI with regard to the adequacy of
knowledge and skills acquired by citizens of India, who obtain medical
qualifications from universities or medical institutions outside India and to ensure
that those students have secured the standards of medical education in the foreign
countries, which are on a par with standards of medical education in India.
75. The remedies mentioned in Sections 13(4-A) and 13(4-B) are prescribed
because citizens of India, who have obtained medical qualifications from
universities or medical institutions outside India, would be entitled to practise
medicine in India and they cannot be permitted to treat other citizens of India with
W.P.(C.) No.11266/2025 Page 23 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:03.09.2026
15:47:13
their half-baked knowledge and jeopardise their precious lives. Thus by adopting
rule of purposive construction or mischief rule, it will have to be held that the
provisions of sub-section (4-A) of Section 13 of the Act would also apply to the
cases covered by Section 12 of the Act.” (Emphasis supplied)
44. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that no
ground exists in this writ petition, which lacks merit.
45. Resultantly, the writ petition along with pending applications is
hereby dismissed.
46. No orders as to costs.
(DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(TEJAS KARIA)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 03, 2026
N.Khanna/S.Rawat
W.P.(C.) No.11266/2025 Page 24 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:03.09.2026
15:47:13