Mere Admission No Shield Against New Medical Regulations: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court has clarified that the legal status of 'pursuing' medical education requires the actual commencement of academic courses, ruling that mere payment of fees and securing admission before a statutory cut-off date cannot exempt foreign medical graduates from newer, more stringent regulatory frameworks.

A bench comprising Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Rana Vikram Singh set aside a Single Judge's order, holding that the date of commencement of classes is the decisive factor for determining whether a student falls under the transitional protection of the National Medical Commission (Foreign Medical Graduate Licentiate) Regulations, 2021.

Court Observations on 'Pursuing Education'

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Admission is the legal gateway to the course; pursuing the course is the status which follows when the candidate has entered upon the course of education. The former may precede the latter by a period of days or months. Whether the two stages coincide in a particular case is a question of fact, but they cannot be treated as synonymous as a matter of statutory interpretation."

The Bench further noted that while the respondent relied on the Ordinary meaning of the word 'pursuing' as discussed in Omkar Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others ( "(2021) 14 SCC 486": 2019 CaseBase(SC) 4172), the specific context of medical education requires actual clinical and academic engagement. Paraphrasing the principle from National Medical Commission v. Pooja Thandu Naresh ( "(2022) 13 SCC 56": 2022 CaseBase(SC) 324), the Court emphasized that formal compliance with admission requirements cannot be equated with the substantive pursuit of medical education, which involves rigorous clinical training.

Directions Issued by the Court

The Court has following directions: "I.A. No.1 of 2024 is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. I.A. No.2 of 2024 stands disposed of. The Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 21.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.17595 of 2023 is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that this judgment shall not preclude the respondent from claiming any benefit which may independently be available to him under the subsequent policy/public notice issued by the competent authority, subject to fulfilment of the conditions prescribed therein."

Background

The respondent had secured admission to Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University, Ukraine, on November 8, 2021, and paid the requisite fees. However, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, classes only commenced on December 6, 2021. In the interim, on November 18, 2021, the National Medical Commission (NMC) notified new regulations for foreign medical graduates.

A Single Judge had previously allowed the student's writ petition, holding that the 2021 Regulations were inapplicable as the student had already been admitted. The NMC challenged this, arguing that under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 and its transitional provisions, only those already "pursuing" education were protected. The High Court agreed with the NMC, noting that although the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the pandemic caused genuine hardship, the court could not legislate by judicial amendment to alter the statutory cut-off.

Case Details:
Case No.: Letters Patent Appeal No.391 of 2024
Case Title: The Secretary, National Medical Commission v. Navnit Raj and Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan (SC), Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Sudarshan Bharadwaj, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanjay Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Harendra Pd. Singh, Advocate, Mr. Adrash Raj Singh, Advocate
For the UOI: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, CGC, Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Anil Kumar Verma, AC to AAG 9

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PAT) 2678