Interim Orders Allowing Provisional Medical Admissions Not to Be Issued as Routine Measures: Kerala High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Kerala, Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. held that interim orders allowing provisional admissions to medical courses cannot be issued as a routine measure, even in writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court set aside an interim direction that had permitted a private medical trust to admit 150 MBBS students for the 2025–26 academic session. The case concerned the National Medical Commission’s decision restricting a medical college to 100 seats based on deficiencies found under the 2023 regulatory standards, which will now be examined by the Single Judge on merits.
The dispute concerned the reduction of MBBS seats in a medical college operated by a private educational trust. The National Medical Commission and its Undergraduate Medical Education Board issued orders limiting the intake for the 2025–26 academic session to 100 seats, citing deficiencies detected during assessment under the Maintenance of Standards of Medical Education Regulations, 2023. The college had initially been permitted to establish with 150 seats under the earlier Minimum Requirements for Annual MBBS Admissions Regulations, 2020.
The educational trust and its managing trustee challenged these decisions through a writ petition. They contended that the assessment for renewal of permission should have been conducted under the 2020 Regulations, as their institution had been granted permission when those norms were in force. They submitted a compliance report acknowledging the deficiencies and undertaking to satisfy the requirements of the 2023 Regulations within one year. The petition also referred to a previous order of the Supreme Court directing that inspections for an earlier academic year be conducted based on parameters prevailing under the 2020 Regulations. The petitioners sought to quash the Commission’s orders and to secure approval for admitting 150 MBBS students, along with continuation of provisional affiliation from the Kerala University of Health Sciences.
The National Medical Commission and the Undergraduate Medical Education Board asserted that the college was required to comply with the 2023 Regulations for renewal, as applicable to all medical institutions nationwide. They emphasized that the deficiencies identified were significant and related to essential infrastructure and faculty requirements. The Kerala University of Health Sciences supported this position, stating that uniform compliance with the 2023 standards was mandatory for all affiliated medical colleges. The documents before the Court included inspection findings, show cause notices, compliance submissions, and correspondence between the parties concerning the renewal process.
It observed that the impugned interim order “virtually allowed the writ petition” by granting the primary relief sought, thereby exceeding judicial propriety. The Bench stated that “such a course is legally impermissible.”
The Court reviewed the timeline of NMC’s notices and the institution’s responses. It noted that the Board’s show-cause notice dated 15 May 2025 identified deficiencies based on the 2023 regulations and that the compliance report submitted on 23 June 2025 contained an undertaking to meet those requirements within one year. Subsequently, by order dated 14 July 2025, the NMC reduced 50 seats and conditionally renewed approval for 100 MBBS seats. The NMC further directed the college to “strictly adhere to compliance under the Maintenance of Standards of Medical Education Regulations, 2023, and rectify the deficiencies before the next renewal.”
Addressing the Single Judge’s reasoning, the Bench found that the finding that deficiencies were communicated only on 14 July 2025 and that denying permission to fill 150 seats would be “a denial of justice” was “without any legal basis or factual foundation.” The Court stated that the 2023 standards applied to all medical colleges and that any exemption extended earlier by the Supreme Court was limited to the 2023–24 session and not to future renewals.
Citing precedents including Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India (2013) 10 SCC 60 and Dental Council of India v. Dr Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandal (2017) 13 SCC 115, the Court reiterated that deficiencies in medical colleges that are “fundamental and very crucial in nature” cannot be ignored and that courts should refrain from issuing interim orders that effectively grant admission permissions.
The Bench observed: “Unless the institution can provide complete and comprehensive facilities for the training of each candidate admitted in various disciplines, medical education will be incomplete, and universities would be turning out doctors who are not fully qualified.” It further noted that “interim order for provisional admission should not be given as a matter of course unless the court is fully satisfied that the petitioner has a cast-iron case.”
The judges referred to Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (2016) 11 SCC 530, observing that courts are not equipped to reassess expert findings on institutional deficiencies. “Under no circumstances should the High Court examine the report as an appellate body,” the judgment recorded.
The Bench ordered: “This writ appeal is allowed by setting aside the interim order dated 27.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.32178 of 2025, for the reasons stated hereinbefore; however, without prejudice to the right of both sides to raise appropriate legal and factual contentions before the learned Single Judge, in the pending writ petition.”
The respondents’ counter-affidavits be filed within one week or within any extended time granted by the Single Judge. It clarified that the petitioners may move for expeditious consideration of the pending writ petition. The Bench also maintained its interim stay of the Single Judge’s earlier directive during the pendency of the appeal.
The Division Bench held that the Single Judge’s interim order amounted to granting the final relief sought in the writ petition, which was “legally impermissible.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellants: Sri. A.R.L. Sundaresan, Additional Solicitor General of India; Shri. K.S. Prenjith Kumar, Standing Counsel, National Medical Commission.
For the Respondents: Adv. S. Vinod Bhatt; Sri. P. Sreekumar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Adv. S. Ganesh.
Case Title: Under Graduate Medical Education Board & National Medical Commission v. V.N. Public Health and Educational Trust & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:69787
Case Number: W.A. No. 2236 of 2025
Bench: Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S.
