'Quality of doctors can't be compromised': Delhi High Court dismisses plea challenging minimum percentile criteria for NEET-PG admissions

The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed a plea challenging the criteria of minimum marks of 50th percentile for NEET-PG admissions and observed that there cannot be any compromise on the issue of quality of doctors/ specialists as it involves a risk to human lives.

The court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by three doctors seeking to quash regulation 9(3) of the Postgraduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulations 2018, which requires a minimum of 50th percentile marks for admission to postgraduate courses.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad stated that the question of quashing the statutory provision in the peculiar circumstances of the case does not arise simply because a large number of seats are lying vacant.

Court emphasized that lowering medical education standards has the potential to wreak havoc on society at large due to the risk that the practice of medicine entails.

“It involves the matter of life and death in its ambit, and thus it would be unconscionable for the High Court to interfere in the standards duly and diligently set by the governing authority”, the bench added.

Court noted that the Medical Council of India, an expert body on the subject, fulfills its statutory obligations to maintain the highest standards in medical education in the country and, under the statutory provisions contained in Section 33 of the Act, is empowered to frame regulations for laying down minimum standards of infrastructure, teaching, and other requirements for the conduct of medicine courses.

The petitioners’ submitted that the percentile system prescribed under Regulation 9(3) of the Postgraduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulations 2018 was flawed as it resulted in a large number of seats remaining vacant despite the availability of candidates who were efficient and willing.

It was further stated that by amending the Regulations, arbitrary percentile systems were introduced, resulting in a lack of qualified teachers in disciplines that the MCI already approved for filling up in the year.

Petitioners’ further stated that the percentile system resulted in medical colleges filling teacher positions in biochemistry and microbiology by appointing M.Sc/Ph.D. holders in the subject due to a lack of qualified postgraduate medical students in the above subjects.

On the contrary, the respondents stated that the Petitioners had obtained 180, 108, and 160 marks, respectively, in comparison to the minimum eligibility marks for admission to Postgraduate Medicine Courses as declared by the National Board of Examination, and thus were far below in merit to even be considered for admission.

Taking note of the submissions, Court opined that the Petitioners had not been able to establish a case of unreasonableness, manifest arbitrariness, lack of legislative competence, violation of fundamental rights, violation of any provision of the Constitution of India, repugnancy of the laws, warranting intervention by the Court in respect of the statutory provision which was the subject matter.

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition.

Case Title: Dr. Abhinav Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare & Anr.