‘Don’t Convert Newspaper Reports Into PILs’: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Raise Medical Teachers’ Retirement Age

The Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe was hearing the petition filed under Article 32 by a young advocate appearing in person.

The petitioner had sought a fresh, objective and evidence-based reconsideration of the retirement age of medical teachers, citing the continuing shortage of qualified teaching faculty and the expansion of medical colleges, MBBS seats, postgraduate programmes and super-speciality training capacity. The PIL was filed through AoR Rohit Bansal. 

At the outset, Justice P.S. Narasimha questioned the petitioner about her decision to approach the Supreme Court with an issue that involved broader policy considerations.

Justice Narasimha said, “How are you, as an advocate, concerned about this? Are you appearing as a party-in-person?”

After the petitioner confirmed that she was appearing in person, the Bench questioned her further about the basis for filing the petition.

Justice Narasimha said, “What is your concern? You are a practising lawyer. Are these cases to be taken up by you? At whose instance have you taken these up? Have you thought about it?”

The Court cautioned her against converting newspaper reports or policy issues into PILs without considering their broader implications.

Justice Narasimha added, “Filing cases before a court, as a lawyer, is a very big responsibility on your part. It is not a routine matter that you read something in the paper, convert that into a PIL and file.”

The Judge noted that increasing the retirement age of medical teachers involved a larger policy question. He said, “If teachers have to be going beyond 65 to 70, and then 70 to 75, there is such a larger policy issue.”

He further cautioned the petitioner against filing such a petition merely on the basis of material reported in the media.

Justice Narasimha said, “You should think about it before you do this next time. Being a lawyer is a great responsibility on your shoulders.”

The Court also highlighted the burden on the judiciary and asked the petitioner to consider whether such litigation would actually assist in resolving the underlying issue.

He added, “Think about how much the courts are overloaded with work and whether it is going to help anybody or not. You should think twice.”

The Judge further told the young lawyer that even if someone approached her with such an issue, she should first consider whether filing a PIL was appropriate.

Justice Narasimha advised, “Even if somebody asks you, you must advise them that it cannot be appropriate. But in this case, you yourself have converted it into a PIL.”

He added: “You should know what you are doing and whether it is going to help the country or not. Be careful next time.”

What the PIL sought

The petition sought a mandamus directing the Centre, the National Medical Commission (NMC), the Medical Assessment and Rating Board and the Post Graduate Medical Education Board to undertake a fresh, objective, evidence-based and time-bound reconsideration of the maximum retirement age of medical teachers. It sought consideration of an increase from the existing age of 70 years to 75 years, or such other age as may be considered appropriate.

The petitioner argued that the issue was connected with the shortage of qualified medical teachers and the expansion of medical education in the country. She relied on the history of the retirement age, pointing out that the Medical Council of India had increased the age from 65 to 70 years in 2010 citing the shortage of medical teachers.

The petition also referred to a 2015 proposal by the MCI to further increase the retirement age from 70 to 75 years, which was not ultimately implemented. It further relied on the work of the Oversight Committee constituted by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in 2016 under former Chief Justice of India R.M. Lodha. According to the petition, the committee had considered increasing the eligible age of faculty from 70 to 72 years in the context of the shortage of qualified teachers.

The petitioner also cited the expansion of medical education, stating that the number of medical colleges had increased substantially since 2010, along with MBBS seats, postgraduate programmes and super-speciality training capacity. The plea claimed that the NMC had acknowledged faculty availability as a critical issue and referred to faculty vacancies in various AIIMS institutions and other regulatory material.

The petitioner also raised concerns regarding the 2025 regulatory framework permitting, subject to conditions, certain specialists from non-teaching government hospitals or institutions to be appointed or redesignated to teaching posts. The plea argued that experienced medical teachers possess accumulated teaching, postgraduate supervision, examination and academic experience, which, according to the petitioner, was distinct from clinical experience acquired in non-teaching hospitals.

The petitioner therefore sought directions for comprehensive data on sanctioned faculty strength, working strength, vacancies and projected faculty requirements, besides consideration of an expert committee to assess the shortage of qualified medical teachers and the desirability of increasing the retirement age.

After the Court's observations, the petitioner requested that the matter be dismissed on merits. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition.