Delhi HC Directs Jamia Hamdard to Reissue Consent of Affiliation for 150 MBBS Seats at HIMSR, Says Withdrawal Was Illegal

The Delhi High Court has directed Jamia Hamdard Deemed to be University to issue the necessary Consent of Affiliation within seven days, holding that its withdrawal of consent for 150 MBBS seats at the Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences and Research in New Delhi was unlawful and intended to frustrate an ongoing arbitral process and the admissions cycle.

Justice Jasmeet Singh ruled that Jamia Hamdard’s decision to withdraw the consent was not backed by any statutory compulsion and amounted to creating an artificial legal hurdle in violation of binding arbitral and Court directions. “For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the withdrawal of CoA by JHDU was not within the confines of law,” the Court said.

Directing immediate compliance, the Court ordered, “JHDU shall comply and issue necessary CoA to the decree holders within seven days of this order, failing which the decree holders will have the liberty to revive the instant application.”

The ruling came in execution proceedings initiated by decree holders Asad Mueed and another, seeking enforcement of an arbitral tribunal’s order dated August 12, 2025, which had directed Jamia Hamdard to extend support for inclusion of 150 MBBS seats for the academic year 2025 to 26. The seats were withdrawn by the National Medical Commission on July 23, 2025, solely after Jamia Hamdard communicated withdrawal of its consent.

The dispute traces back to a long running conflict between two factions of the Hamdard family over administrative control of institutions under the Hamdard National Foundation. Under a family settlement deed executed in October 2019 and amended in February 2020, control of the medical college and its associated hospital was placed with the Medical Relief and Education Committee led by the decree holders, while Jamia Hamdard Deemed to be University remained under the control of the rival group through the Hamdard Education and Cultural Aid Committee. Both committees were required to function independently without interference.

Disagreements over implementation of the settlement led to arbitration proceedings, during which the Delhi High Court and the arbitral tribunal repeatedly directed the parties to maintain status quo. The arbitral tribunal specifically cautioned Jamia Hamdard against creating purported legal hurdles that would deny the medical college its seats.

Despite these directions, Jamia Hamdard wrote to regulatory authorities in June and July 2025 withdrawing its consent, a move that directly resulted in the National Medical Commission declining renewal of the 150 MBBS seats for that academic year.

Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar, appearing for the decree holders, argued that the Consent of Affiliation required under the National Medical Commission framework is distinct from affiliation under University Grants Commission regulations and is merely an assurance for award of medical degrees. He contended that Jamia Hamdard had been issuing such consent since the medical college was approved in 2011 and that its refusal amounted to wilful disobedience of arbitral and Court orders, adversely affecting students.

Opposing the plea, Senior Counsel Gopal Jain and Dr Amit George, appearing for Jamia Hamdard, argued that issuing consent would violate University Grants Commission Regulations 2023, which require a deemed university to be unitary and non affiliating. They contended that the medical college was an inseparable constituent unit of Jamia Hamdard and could not independently receive any form of affiliation.

Rejecting this defence, the Court drew a clear distinction between affiliation under the University Grants Commission Act and Consent of Affiliation under the National Medical Commission Act. “The two Acts serve different statutory purposes and operate in distinct fields,” Justice Singh observed, adding that the consent required by the medical regulator does not confer affiliated status and does not conflict with UGC regulations.

The Court also found the timing of the withdrawal significant, noting that Jamia Hamdard had issued similar consents for years without objection and raised regulatory concerns only after adverse arbitral orders. “To my mind the same shows that the intent behind withdrawal was to frustrate the arbitral process and the ongoing admissions cycle, rather than any legal compulsion,” the Court held.

Allowing the execution application, the Court directed Jamia Hamdard to issue the required consent within seven days,

For Decree Holders: Mr Rajiv Nayar Sr. Advocate with Mr. Saket Sikri, Ms. Simran Mehta, Mr. Vikalp Mudgal, Mr. Prakhar khanna , Mr. Priyansh Choudhary Mr. M H Zahidi, Advocates

For Judgement Debtors: Mr. Rajiv Kumar Virmani, Mr. Shubham Pandey, Mr. Naimesh Gupta, Advs. for JD2 Dr Amit George, Dr.Swaroop George, Mr. Mobashshir Sarwar, Mr. Abhinanadnan Jain, Mr. Shivam Prajapati, Ms. Ibansara Syiemlieh, Ms. Adhishwar Suri, Mr. Abhigayan Dwivedi, Mr. Kartikey Puneesh, Mr. Kartikey Mr. Takrim Ashan Khan, Advs. for JD4 Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Tanishq Srivastava, Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Mr. Bhanu Gulati, Mr. Yamini Singh, Mr. Sourabh Kumar, Mr. Vedant Sood, Advs. for NMC

Case Title: Asad Mueed & Anr. v. Hammad Ahmed & Ors.

Bench: Justice Jasmeet Singh

Judgment Date: 08 December 2025