Only 14 Faculty Met 75% Biometric Attendance, With None Shown In Forensic Medicine; Madras HC Upholds Rejection Of College’s 150-Seat MBBS Bid

The petitioner applied to establish a new medical college with an annual intake of 150 MBBS students for 2026–27.

Following scrutiny and a physical inspection on 22 June 2026, the Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB) refused permission, citing delayed AEBAS mapping and inadequate faculty attendance recorded on AEBAS.

The NMC dismissed the first appeal, noting that only 14 faculty members met the 75% attendance threshold during the period it considered and that no faculty member was reflected in Forensic Medicine and Toxicology.

The Central Government dismissed the second appeal.

The College challenged that decision, arguing, among other things, that a technical mapping problem prevented attendance recording and that the inspection report found faculty adequate

Section 28(3) of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, including its proviso, requires an opportunity to rectify shortcomings or defects before an application is refused; the Court noted that Section 28 itself does not prescribe a 75% attendance requirement, which must be grounded in applicable regulatory requirements.

The Court considered the National Medical Commission Act, the Establishment of Medical Institutions, Assessment and Rating Regulations, 2023, the Undergraduate Medical Education Standards Regulations, 2023, and the relevant public notice concerning AEBAS registration and faculty presence.

It also applied the principle in Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS), (2020) 11 SCC 530, that courts should not substitute their assessment for that of expert medical regulators absent cogent grounds such as mala fides, perversity, or jurisdictional error.

The Court referred to Shrinivas G Educational and Research Institute v. National Medical Commission, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 10618, for the principle that manual attendance is not a substitute for mandatory AEBAS compliance.

The Court held that the inspection report’s confirmation that AEBAS equipment was available did not establish that the system was mapped, operational, or that faculty attendance was adequate; the report itself stated that biometric attendance and adequacy were to be checked.

The appellate authorities considered the College’s technical explanation and its subsequent attendance data, but found that, after mapping was completed, only 14 faculty members met the stated attendance threshold and no faculty member was reflected in Forensic Medicine and Toxicology.

The Court considered these findings material and found that the authorities had addressed the relevant explanation and records; the differing periods cited in the decisions did not, by themselves, establish contradictory grounds.

Although the Court recognised the procedural protection under Section 28(3), it found no basis to displace the expert authorities’ assessment or to order a fresh assessment.

It dismissed the writ petition, declined to direct a Letter of Permission or a fresh assessment, made no order as to costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.