Denial of yearly permission was disproportionate where a college’s request to defer inspection did not constitute non-cooperation.

The petitioner-college had previously received permission to conduct the BAMS course, with an intake of 60 students.

After college events concluded on 22 January 2026, it declared holidays for 23 and 24 January.

On 23 January, a MARBISM team made a surprise inspection for the 2026–27 academic year.

The college asked the team to withhold the inspection, citing the holiday and renovation work.

MARBISM identified deficiencies and denied yearly permission, treating the college’s request as non-cooperation with the inspection process.

The NCISM appellate authority dismissed the college’s appeal.

The college then challenged both decisions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the college’s request to defer the surprise inspection amounted to non-cooperation or disturbance under the MESAR Regulations, 2024.

2. Whether denial of yearly permission for 2026–27 was disproportionate to the conduct and deficiencies recorded, warranting judicial review.

3. Whether the High Court should entertain the petition despite the respondents’ contention that a further appeal was available under Section 29(6) of the NCISM Act, 2020.

Regulation 71(2)(d) of the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (Minimum Essential Standards, Assessment and Rating for Undergraduate Ayurveda Colleges and Attached Teaching Hospitals) Regulations, 2024 identifies non-cooperation or disturbance of an inspection as non-compliance; Regulation 71(3) provides a range of possible measures, including a monetary penalty, warning, reduction of seats, or stopping admissions.

In judicial review under Article 226, the High Court does not act as an appellate authority but may intervene where the penalty is disproportionate to the established conduct and shocks the Court’s conscience.

The Court also relied on Shree Hemaraddi Mallamma Education Trust v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, W.P. No. 104631/2024, which directed inspection and fresh consideration of permission.

The availability of a further appeal under Section 29(6) was raised by the respondents, but the Court did not separately analyse that objection.

The Court found that the college had declared holidays for 23 and 24 January after scheduled sports and cultural events and had requested that the inspection be withheld because of the holiday and renovation work.

It held that, in the circumstances, the request could not in all probability be construed as non-cooperation or disturbance under Regulation 71(2)(d).

Although the Court acknowledged the limits of its role in reviewing the regulator’s choice of penalty, it concluded that denial of yearly permission was not warranted by the inspection report and was disproportionate.

It therefore set aside the denial and appellate decisions, while allowing a fresh inspection and further action in accordance with law.

The respondents were permitted to inspect the institution within 45 days and take appropriate action in accordance with law regarding permission for the 2026–27 academic year; the Court did not itself grant permission for the 60-seat intake.

The college was also directed to pay ₹10,00,000 to NCISM within three weeks, having caused inconvenience to the inspection team and necessitated a further inspection.