Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia has struck down Regulation 18 of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023, which imposed a total prohibition on migration of MBBS students from one medical college to another. Holding that the blanket bar did not satisfy Article 14 of the Constitution and was manifestly unreasonable and arbitrary, the bench declared the provision ultra vires and invalid. The court also set aside the National Medical Commission’s order refusing a visually impaired MBBS student’s request to transfer to a Delhi medical college, directing the Commission to decide the transfer plea afresh within three weeks and to frame a policy enabling migration with suitable safeguards.

The petitioner, a candidate with 40% visual disability certified by the competent authority, qualified NEET–UG 2023 under the OBC–PwD category. He was initially denied participation in counselling as a PwD candidate, following which he approached the Supreme Court. By order dated 22.09.2023, he was directed to be treated as a person with disability for admission. By then, regular rounds of counselling had concluded and he participated only in the Stray Vacancy Round, securing admission at Government Medical College, Barmer, Rajasthan.

Also Read: Mere Leasing Of Residential Flat Does Not Oust Buyer From “Consumer” Definition Unless Builder Proves Dominant Commercial Intent: Supreme Court

The petitioner contended that the harsh climate aggravated his visual condition, requiring treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi. He sought migration to a Delhi medical college where a PwD seat was available. His request was rejected by the National Medical Commission on 30.12.2024 citing Regulation 18 of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023, which imposed a complete ban on migration. He challenged the validity of Regulation 18 as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and inconsistent with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

The Court observed that “a piece of subordinate legislation does not carry the same degree of immunity which is enjoyed by a statute passed by a competent Legislature.” It further recorded that subordinate legislation may be questioned if it is “so arbitrary that it could not be said to be in conformity with the statute or that it offends Article 14 of the Constitution.”

Referring to the effect of a total prohibition, the Court observed that “to say that post the publication of examination results and issuance of certificates, there can be no way to alter the record would be a case of total prohibition and not a reasonable restraint.” Drawing a parallel, it stated that complete prohibition on migration “cannot be said to be reasonable” and that such prohibition was “manifestly unreasonable and arbitrary.”

On the justification of misuse, the Court recorded that “mere possibility of abuse cannot be used to deny legitimate rights to citizens.” It further observed that “putting a complete prohibition on transfer would not be a solution for meeting such apprehension.”

The Court observed: “The stand taken by the respondent – Commission for imposing a complete embargo on migration of a student from one medical institution to the other, is also that such a provision permitting migration is prone to misuse, however as already held in Jigya Yadav (supra), possibility of abuse cannot be used to deny legitimate rights to a citizen.”

With respect to the petitioner’s circumstances, the Court observed that the petitioner was denied participation in initial counselling rounds and that the limited choice available to him was “clearly attributable to the counseling authorities and not to the petitioner in any manner.” The Court further observed “In such a situation, holding the petitioner responsible by observing that he was fully aware of his vision impairment and difficulty at the time of opting the seat at Government Medical College, Barmer. Rajasthan and therefore, he could have opted for any college in Delhi, in our opinion, is against all the canons of reasonableness.”

Referring to statutory obligations under the PwD Act, 2016, the Court recorded that such provisions “cannot remain only a decorative and admirable piece of literature kept in a bookshelf, rather they are statutory legislative mandates to be followed.” It concluded that the complete ban “does not permit even a most deserving student, a PwD, like the petitioner to seek transfer.”

Applying the test of reasonableness, the Court stated that “if it restricts, it must restrict on the basis of reason and if it permits, it must permit on the basis of reason.” It ultimately held that Regulation 18 “does not pass the constitutional muster as per Article 14 of the Constitution of India” and was “manifestly unreasonable and arbitrary.”

The Court held that “Regulation 18 of the Graduate Medical Education Regulation, 2023 is, thus, declared ultra vires and, therefore, invalid. The decision of the respondent – Commission rejecting the prayer of the petitioner seeking his transfer… based on Regulation 18 is also not justified and sustainable, which is hereby quashed.”

“The respondent – Commission to take decision afresh on the prayer made by the petitioner seeking his transfer from Government Medical College, Barmer, Rajasthan to University College of Medical Sciences, South Campus, South Moti Bagh, New Delhi, within a period of three weeks from today, keeping in mind the observations made herein above.”

Also Read: Police Must Not Disclose Sexual Assault Victim’s Name Or Address In Court Filings: Delhi High Court

“The National Medical Commission is also directed to formulate a proper policy by way of making/amending the regulations permitting migration of a medical student from one medical institution to the other, of course, putting the requisite and desirable conditions for such transfers.”

“The writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms” and that “there will be no orders as to costs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Ms. Aditi Gupta, Advocate (DHCLSC) with Ms. Lavanya Bhardwaj, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. T. Singhdev, Advocate with Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Mr. Tanishq Srivastava, Ms. Yamini Singh, Mr. Vedant Sood, Ms. Ramanpreet Kaur and Mr. Bhanu Gulati, Advocates for R-1; Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocate with Mr. Hardik Rupal, Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra and Ms. Tripta Sharma, Advocates for University of Delhi

Case Title: Sahil Arsh v. National Medical Commission & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:881-DB

Case Number: W.P.(C) 1712/2025

Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia