Indian Nursing Council’s statutory powers do not extend to financial misappropriation or fraudulent institutional management.

The petitioner instituted contempt proceedings alleging wilful disobedience of the Delhi High Court’s order dated 27 April 2026 in W.P.(C) 5629/2026.

In that writ petition, the petitioner had agreed to be satisfied if the Indian Nursing Council (“INC”) considered his legal notice dated 2 December 2025 and passed a speaking order on it.

During the contempt proceedings, the respondent filed a compliance affidavit dated 16 September 2026 stating that a reply to the legal notice had been issued.

The petitioner contended that the reply did not address his allegations concerning financial misappropriation, fraudulent institutional management and non-compliance with norms relating to Dumka College of Nursing and the Bina Karuna Trust.

Whether the respondent wilfully disobeyed the order dated 27 April 2026 by failing to consider the petitioner’s legal notice and pass a speaking order.

Whether the INC was legally required, under Sections 13 and 14 of the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947, to inquire into allegations of financial misappropriation and fraudulent institutional management.

Section 13 empowers the INC to inspect institutions for determining their suitability for training, the adequacy of training facilities and the sufficiency of examinations.

Section 14 permits withdrawal of recognition where the courses or standards of proficiency do not conform to the statutory regulations or prescribed standards, and enables action where a recognised institution does not satisfy the INC’s requirements.

The Court further applied the principle that, in contempt proceedings, compliance with the operative direction must be assessed by examining whether the directed consideration and decision have been undertaken; the authority is not required to adjudicate matters falling outside its statutory jurisdiction.

The Court found that the respondent had issued a reply dated 16 September 2026 addressing the petitioner’s legal notice and had therefore complied with the direction to consider the notice and pass a speaking order.

Although the petitioner disputed the adequacy of the response, the Court held that the substantive allegations—financial misappropriation and fraudulent institutional management—did not fall within the INC’s statutory authority.

The INC’s inspection and recognition powers under Sections 13 and 14 were confined to institutional suitability for nursing training, adequacy of training provisions, examination standards and compliance with applicable regulations.

Accordingly, the INC could not be faulted for declining to undertake an inquiry into matters beyond that statutory framework.

The reply could not be faulted merely because it did not grant the petitioner’s requested relief or address matters outside the INC’s statutory jurisdiction.

The contempt petition was disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue remedies in accordance with law against Dumka College of Nursing and the Bina Karuna Trust.