ARAVINTH R.A. versus THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 5 S.C.R. 921 · Decided: 02-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
921
ARAVINTH R.A.
v.
THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. (s) 3585-3586 of 2022)
MAY 02, 2022
[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
National Medical Commission (Foreign Medical Graduate
Licentiate) Regulations 2021 – Regn.4(a)(i), 4(a)(ii), 4(b) & 4(c) –
Consitutionality of – The challenge to Regn.4(a)(i) was based upon
the premise that it puts an obligation upon students seeking foreign
medical course to select only that Institution which offer the course
of a duration of 54 months – The challenge to Regn.4(a)(ii) and
4(b) was based upon the ground that it was an extra territorial
legislation as it makes mandatory for foreign medical graduate to
undergo 12 months internship in the same foreign medical institution
and also to get registered in that country’s professional regulatory
body – The challenge to Regn.4(c) was on the basis that the same
caused undue hardship to foreign medical graduate as it mandates
12 month supervised internship in India thus compelling them to
undergo two internships, one in the foreign land and another in the
mother land – Writ petition dismissed by High Court on the ground
that that the said provisions do not violate  Arts.14, 19(1)(g) and 21
of the Constitution – Correctness of – Held: Correct – Prescription
of  minimum  standards  would  certainly  include the prescription
of the minimum duration for a  course and it  may  be open to the
medical institutions of other countries to prescribe a duration of
less than 54 months for  the  students of  their  country but it is not
necessary for the National Medical Commission and the Central
Government to recognise foreign medical degrees of a lesser
duration, if the incumbent wants to have permanent registration in
India –  The prescription of an  internship  for  a  minimum  duration
of 12 months in the same foreign medical  institution cannot be said
to be a duplication of internships since the purpose of internship
is to test the ability of the students to apply their academic
[2022] 5 S.C.R. 921
921
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
922
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
knowledge on their subjects, namely the patients – Constitution of
India – Arts.14, 19(1)(g) and 21.
National Medical Commission (Compulsory Rotating Medical
Internship) Regulations, 2021 – Schedule -II 2(a) and 2(c)(i)  –
Schedule II- Para 2(a)(i) requires all foreign medical graduate to
undergo internship at par with Indian Medical Graduate – The
challenge to Schedule-II Para 2(c)(i) is upon the premise that the
same puts a question mark upon the future of students as it requires
foreign medical gradutes to be first posted in colleges which have
been newly opened and yet to be recognised – High Court dismissed
the writ petition holding that the none of the provision violate Arts.14,
19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution – On appeal, held:  The
requirement under Para 2(a) of Schedule-I for foreign medical
graduates to undergo internships at par with Indian medical
graduates is to ensure that only those who have acquired similar
skills are allowed to practice Medicine and therefore challenge to
the same is without any substance – The prescription in para 2(c)(i)
of Schedule-II that such foreign medical graduates may be  posted
first in colleges which have been newly opened and have yet to be
recognised, is a prescription of necessity since all medical
institutions  of the country are equipped to provide internships only
to as many students as their permitted intake may allow and
therefore, the Regulation is intended to ensure that an undue burden
is not cast upon the already recognised institutions.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The appellant challenged the validity of Regulation
4(a)(i) and Regulation 4(a)(ii), 4(b) and (4(c) of the Licentiate
Regulations on several grounds, one of which is the lack of power
under the Act. The provisions extracted above would show that
NMC had the power to frame the above Regulations. Prescription
of minimum standards would certainly include the prescription of
the minimum duration for a course. It  may  be open to the medical
institutions of other countries to prescribe a duration of less than
54 months for the students of their country. But it is not necessary
for the NMC and the Central Government to recognise foreign
medical degrees of a lesser duration, if the incumbent wants to
have permanent registration in India. The prescription of an
internshi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.