Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh on December 8, 2025 directed a deemed university to issue, within seven days, the Consent of Affiliation required for 150 MBBS seats at a medical college run under its umbrella. The Court found that the Jamia Hamdard university had withdrawn and withheld the CoA in breach of binding arbitral and court directions, recording that the move was intended “to frustrate the arbitral process and the ongoing admissions cycle”. It noted the university was “fully aware of the subsisting obligations” arising from those directions and that there was “no legally tenable basis” for a unilateral withdrawal. The order required immediate issuance of the CoA to enable the continuation of the sanctioned intake.

The proceedings arose from an execution application filed by the decree holders seeking enforcement of an arbitral order dated 12 August 2025 against Jamia Hamdard (Deemed to be University), confined to its role in relation to the Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences and Research.

Also Read: Families Of Doctors Who Died While Working During COVID-19 Eligible For PMGKY Insurance Even Without Formal Requisition : Supreme Court

The dispute traces back to a family settlement under which administrative, academic, and financial control of the medical institution was vested in one group, while the university remained under the control of another. Despite earlier undertakings and directions to maintain status quo, the university communicated withdrawal of its Consent of Affiliation for the academic year 2025–26. Acting on this communication, the medical regulator declined renewal of 150 MBBS seats. The decree holders contended that the withdrawal violated binding arbitral and court directions and created an artificial obstacle to admissions.

The judgment debtor opposed enforcement, asserting that issuance of consent would contravene regulatory norms governing deemed universities and that the matter involved statutory and public law considerations. Submissions were also made by the medical regulator and the higher education regulator on the regulatory framework governing medical education and deemed universities.

The Court observed that its role in the present proceedings was limited to execution of the arbitral order dated 12 August 2025. It recorded that “an executing court cannot go behind the decree, re-examine its correctness, or reopen issues that have attained finality” and that the arbitral directions, having survived challenge, were binding. Addressing the principal objection, the Court stated that the argument equating Consent of Affiliation under medical regulations with affiliation under higher education regulations “fails to appreciate the distinction between affiliation under the UGC Act and CoA as envisaged under the NMC Act, 2019.” It noted that the two statutes “serve different statutory purposes and operate in distinct fields.”

The Court further recorded that issuance of consent under the medical regulatory framework was “merely an assurance required for grant of approval of medical seats and degrees” and did not confer affiliating status under higher education law. It observed that “the UGC framework does not regulate the intake of MBBS seats, and therefore, no statutory conflict arises.” Referring to past conduct, the Court noted that for over a decade similar consent had been issued without objection, and that “nothing in law prevented the JHDU from issuing the CoA.”

On the timing and manner of withdrawal, the Court recorded that the communications withdrawing consent formed “the sole basis on which the NMC declined to grant renewal of permission.” It rejected the justification based on pending correspondence and writ proceedings, stating that “the pendency of a writ petition or prior correspondence… cannot override or dilute binding directions of the Court and the learned Arbitrator.” The Court concluded that the withdrawal was not driven by statutory compulsion and amounted to creation of a prohibited legal hurdle contrary to the arbitral order.

Also Read: Section 37 A&C Act Bars Evidence Reappraisal: Delhi High Court Dismisses DDA’s Arbitration Appeal On Bank Guarantee Encashment, Watch And Ward Dues

The Court recorded that “the withdrawal of CoA by JHDU was not within the confines of law. JHDU shall comply and issue necessary CoA to the decree holders within 7 days of this order,” and further stated that in the event of non-compliance, “the decree holders will have the liberty to revive the instant application.” The pending execution application was allowed and disposed of in these terms.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Saket Sikri, Ms. Simran Mehta, Mr. Vikalp Mudgal, Mr. Prakhar Khanna, Mr. Priyansh Choudhary, and Mr. M. H. Zahidi, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajiv Kumar Virmani, Mr. Shubham Pandey, and Mr. Naimesh Gupta, Advocates; Dr. Amit George and Dr. Swaroop George, with assisting counsel; Mr. T. Singhdev and team, Advocates for the medical regulator.

Case Title: Asad Mueed & Anr. v. Hammad Ahmed & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:11038
Case Number: O.M.P. (ENF.) 6/2025 with EX.APPL.(OS) 1509/2025
Bench: Justice Jasmeet Singh