Punitive seat reductions for faculty shortages require consideration of culpability and an opportunity to cure.

The petitioners challenged the Medical Assessment and Rating Board for Indian System of Medicine’s order dated 27 August 2026, which granted the petitioner college yearly permission for 2026–27 but reduced its permitted BAMS intake from 100 to 70 seats because of a shortfall of six faculty members.

The college attributed the shortfall to faculty resignations and difficulties recruiting under the 2024 Regulations, which it said were implemented for the first time in 2026.

It stated that recruitment steps were being taken and sought time to remedy the deficiency.

Its appeal was dismissed, after which it filed this writ petition seeking restoration of the 100-seat intake, among other reliefs.

Section 28(1)(f) of the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020 empowers the Medical Assessment and Rating Board to take measures—including reducing intake—where an institution fails to maintain prescribed minimum standards; Section 28(2) permits the Board to make recommendations to, and seek directions from, the Commission.

The court considered Regulation 54(3) 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, and the Board’s 2026–27 Punitive Policy, which provided for intake reduction in cases of faculty deficiency.

It applied the principles that judicial review does not ordinarily permit a court to substitute its decision for the regulator’s, but may be exercised where a penalty is arbitrary or disproportionate; it further reasoned that a punitive measure requires consideration of culpability and an adequate opportunity to remedy the deficiency.

The court also noted that a claim based on “negative equality” could not be founded on the treatment of government institutions.

The court accepted that faculty and student-teacher standards are important and that it could not act as an appellate authority over the regulator.

However, it considered the shortfall to have arisen for the first time, following resignations, against the background of the 2024 Regulations’ first implementation in 2026; it also noted the college’s explanation and undertaking to complete recruitment by 31 January 2027.

In the court’s view, the Board had imposed the reduction without allowing the college a reasonable, time-bound opportunity to cure the deficiency, and the appellate authority had not adequately considered those circumstances.

The court therefore found the reduction disproportionate in this case, while rejecting any entitlement to relief merely because government colleges may have been treated differently.

The court set aside the 27 August 2026 order only insofar as it reduced the permitted intake from 100 to 70 seats, and remanded the matter to the Board for a fresh order considering the circumstances and the court’s observations.

The grant of yearly permission for 2026–27 remained unaltered; the college was permitted to continue admissions for that academic year subject to remedying the deficiencies within a strictly enforced timeline.

The Board could consider an alternative monetary penalty, and the court stated that its decision was confined to the particular facts and was not to be treated as a precedent.