Environmental Clearance Not a Pre-condition for Medical College Essentiality Certificate: Madras HC

The Madras High Court has curtailed executive overreach in medical education by ruling that State Governments cannot withhold Essentiality Certificates for new medical colleges by demanding environmental clearances not prescribed under central regulations. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan set aside a Single Judge's order, emphasizing that the statutory inquiry for an Essentiality Certificate is strictly limited to assessing local medical needs and feasibility under federal norms.

State Bound by Form 2 Requirements

The Madras High Court examined the scope of Regulation 2(f) and Regulation 9(a) of the Establishment of New Medical Institutions Regulations, noting that the State's role is well-defined. The Bench observed that the criteria for an Essentiality Certificate are limited to assessing medical manpower deficiencies, doctor-population ratios, and site feasibility.

The Division Bench of Madras High Court observed that "The statutory delegation under Form-2 of the Regulations, 1999 limits the inquiry to be conducted by the State to assessing local medical manpower deficiencies, doctor-population ratios, public interest/desirability, site feasibility and the availability of adequate clinical material. The State Government should act within the delegated capacity to evaluate local needs and feasibility. It cannot act arbitrarily or insist upon parameters outside the scope of Form 2 or the governing Parliamentary legislation."

Environmental Clearances Not a Threshold Bar

Addressing the State's insistence on environmental documents, the Madras High Court clarified that while such approvals are mandatory under separate environmental statutes, they are not "qualifying criteria" for the Essentiality Certificate. The Bench noted that the lack of environmental clearance at the threshold cannot serve as a ground for the State to withhold or defer the processing of the certificate.

Regarding the past practice of issuing conditional certificates, the Madras High Court distinguished the precedent in Medical Council of India v. V.N. Public Health and Educational Trust ( "(2016) 11 SCC 216": 2016 CaseBase(SC) 444). The Court noted that the earlier ruling applied to mandatory requirements like clinical material, not external factors like environmental clearance.

The Madras High Court directed the respondent to process and consider the application for grant of the Essentiality Certificate strictly within the parameters and criteria set forth in Form 2 of the 1999 Regulations and in accordance with law, without insisting on the prior production of an Environmental Clearance Certificate or TNPCB approval at this stage.

Background

The appellant, Chettinad Academy of Research and Education, acquired land and a medical facility through an e-auction under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The land previously belonged to PRIST Trust, which held an Essentiality Certificate from 2014. When the appellant sought a fresh certificate in its name for the 2025-26 academic year, the State of Tamil Nadu demanded an Environmental Clearance Certificate and a Pollution Control Board certificate as pre-conditions.

The appellant challenged this before a Madras High Single Judge, arguing that under Section 13(6) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and Section 60(4) of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, prior approvals should continue. However, the Single Judge dismissed the petition, ruling that "two wrongs do not make a right" and directed the appellant to obtain the clearances first. The Division Bench found that the Single Judge failed to address the core legal arguments regarding the scope of Form 2 and the statutory transfer of approvals, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.

Case Details:
Case No.: W.A.No.83 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:MHC:3645
Case Title: Chettinad Academy of Research and Education v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Nithyeash Natraj for Mr. Vaibhav Rangarajan Venkatesh
For the Respondent(s): Mr. A. Abdul Hameed, Additional Advocate General-IV, assisted by Mr. L. Gokulraj, Addl Govt Pleader; Ms. Subharanjani Ananth, Standing Counsel for NMC

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MAD) 20696