Facts
The petitioner, an education trust operating Siddhanth Ayurvedic Medical College, sought yearly permission for 100 BAMS seats for academic year 2026–27.
Source reference: p. 4–8, 11–12After earlier litigation concerning permission for the 2024–25 and 2025–26 academic years, the petitioner requested an inspection for 2026–27 by email dated 4 March 2026 and letter dated 6 July 2026, but the Medical Assessment and Rating Board for Indian System of Medicine (MARBISM) had not acted on those requests.
Source reference: p. 4–8, 11–12Meanwhile, seat-matrix publication and counselling had commenced, with the first round due to close on 12 October 2026.
Source reference: p. 12The petitioner sought, among other reliefs, directions to conduct the inspection and grant permission, approve student admissions, and recognise faculty experience.
Source reference: p. 2–3Issues
1. Whether MARBISM was required to conduct an inspection of the petitioner college under Section 28(1)(c) of the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020, and consider the matter of permission for academic year 2026–27.
Source reference: p. 9–122. Whether the Court should direct the inspection and decision within a time limit given the imminent closure of the first counselling round.
Source reference: p. 12Law Applied
Section 28(1)(c) of the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020, requires MARBISM to carry out inspections of medical institutions to assess and rate them in accordance with applicable regulations.
Source reference: p. 9–11The Court treated that inspection function as applicable to consideration of permission for a fresh academic year and directed that it be carried out in accordance with law.
Source reference: p. 9–11No judicial precedents were relied upon in the order.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
The petitioner had made requests for inspection, but the respondents had not considered them.
Source reference: p. 11Because counselling was underway and the first round was due to close shortly, failure to conduct the inspection risked the loss of seats and educational opportunities.
Source reference: p. 12The Court therefore required the statutory inspection and a decision on it within a specified period, while leaving the outcome to be determined in accordance with law.
Source reference: p. 12–13Holding
The petition was allowed.
Respondents 1 and 2 were directed to conduct a surprise inspection under Section 28(1)(c) within 15 days and to pass an appropriate order on the inspection within the same period, in accordance with law.
Source reference: p. 13The Court did not itself grant yearly permission, direct approval of student admissions or examinations, or order recognition of faculty experience.
Source reference: p. 13Acts & Sections Cited
2 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 20202
Original Court PDF
SHREE HEMARADDI MALLAMMA EDUCATION TRUSTvsNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINIES
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
