The petitioner, Dr B.S. Kushwah Institute of Medical Sciences, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the Letter of Disapproval (LoD) dated 24 September 2025 issued by the Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB) of the National Medical Commission (NMC).
The institute sought permission to increase its MBBS intake from 150 to 250 seats for the academic year 2025–26. While the NMC had previously renewed permission for 150 seats, it denied approval for the additional 100 seats based on faculty deficiencies reflected in the Aadhaar Enabled Biometric Attendance System (AEBAS) data.
The institute contended that the denial was arbitrary, contrary to the inspection report, and violative of natural justice, as the alleged deficiencies were never communicated prior to the impugned order.
Title of the Case: Dr B.S. Kushwah Institute of Medical Sciences v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: W.P.(C) 14821/2025 & CM 62984/2025
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Judge: Justice Vikas Mahajan
Date of Judgment: 8 November 2025
Reliefs Sought
The petitioner sought the following key directions:
- Mandamus directing the respondents to grant permission for the increase of 100 MBBS seats (150 → 250) for the academic year 2025–26.
- Permission to participate in the ongoing UP-NEET counselling for the increased intake.
- Certiorari to quash the Letter of Disapproval dated 24.09.2025 as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional.
Factual Matrix
Application for Increase of Seats:
The NMC invited applications on 19 December 2024 for establishing new medical colleges or increasing intake capacity. The petitioner, already running 150 MBBS seats, applied on 17 January 2025 to increase intake to 250 seats and paid the requisite fee.
Initial Scrutiny and Show-Cause Notice (SCN 1):
On 11 June 2025, NMC issued a Show-Cause Notice (SCN 1) highlighting deficiencies such as the expired society registration certificate and missing ownership documents.
The institute responded on 16 June 2025, providing compliance documents.
Physical Inspection:
NMC conducted a physical inspection on 26 June 2025, finding only a 2.97% deficiency in teaching faculty, well within permissible limits.
Conditional Renewal for 150 Seats:
On 14 July 2025, the NMC renewed permission for 150 seats conditionally and imposed a ₹10 lakh penalty under Chapter III, Clause 8 of the MSMER-2023 for continuing deficiencies.
Second Show-Cause Notice (SCN 2):
MARB issued another notice on 18 July 2025, seeking additional compliance, including AEBAS data verification.
Compliance Report:
The petitioner submitted compliance on 21 July 2025 and followed up with a representation on 17 September 2025, seeking a final decision.
Letter of Disapproval (LoD):
On 24 September 2025, the MARB rejected the request for additional seats, citing:
- Only 49 faculty members had 75% attendance in AEBAS (June–August 2025).
- Department-wise deficiency of 70.83% faculty as per MSR for 250 seats.
- Only 80 faculty present on inspection day.
- Imposition of ₹10 lakh penalty for persisting deficiencies.
Arguments Advanced
A. Petitioner’s Submissions (by Sr. Adv. Vikas Singh)
Inspection Report Favoured Approval:
The 26.06.2025 inspection found only 2.97% deficiency, confirming adequate infrastructure, faculty, and clinical load.
Violation of Natural Justice:
The LoD was passed without prior intimation of the AEBAS-based deficiency, thus breaching procedural fairness.
Inconsistency Between Reports:
The physical inspection showed minimal deficiency, whereas the LoD claimed 70.83% deficiency — a clear contradiction.
Improper Reliance on AEBAS Data:
AEBAS data should not supersede physical inspections, which provide the most accurate on-ground verification.
Jurisdiction and Urgency:
Since the NMC and MARB are based in Delhi and the LoD was issued there, the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction.
The matter was urgent as NEET counselling was concluding.
Legal Precedents:
- Rajiv Memorial Academic Welfare Society v. UOI (2016) 11 SCC 522 — minor deficiencies should not warrant disapproval.
- Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Medical Institute v. UOI (2022 SCC OnLine Del 3701) — up to 5% faculty deficiency is permissible.
B. Respondents’ Submissions (by Sr. Adv. Kirtiman Singh for NMC)
Maintainability:
The entire cause of action arose in Uttar Pradesh, where the institute and counselling activities are situated. Thus, the Allahabad High Court had jurisdiction.
Alternative Remedy:
Section 28(5) of the NMC Act provides for an appeal before the NMC Commission; hence, the writ was premature.
Faculty Deficiency Established:
AEBAS data conclusively demonstrated that faculty attendance and strength were far below the Minimum Standards of Requirements (MSR).
Dynamic Verification System:
AEBAS ensures real-time, tamper-proof monitoring, unlike physical inspections, which capture only a momentary snapshot.
Preventing Manipulation:
Re-inspection at this stage would allow the college to make temporary arrangements to mislead assessors.
Counselling Deadlines:
The NEET-UG 2025 admission process was already underway; permitting expansion now would disrupt the process.
Reliance on Judicial Precedents:
Cited Manohar Lal Sharma v. MCI (2013) 10 SCC 60, where the Supreme Court emphasised deference to expert inspection findings.
Issues for Determination
- Whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction over the matter.
- Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an alternative statutory appeal.
- Whether the Letter of Disapproval was arbitrary or violated principles of natural justice.
- Whether AEBAS-based deficiency findings could supersede physical inspection reports.
- Whether the petitioner was entitled to permission for increasing MBBS seats.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
1. Territorial Jurisdiction and Maintainability
The Court acknowledged that although the institute was located in Uttar Pradesh, the NMC offices and impugned order originated in Delhi. Considering the urgency due to the nearing end of NEET counselling, the Court decided to hear the case on merits while leaving the jurisdiction question open.
The argument of an alternative remedy was also rejected due to time sensitivity — the appellate process under Section 28 could take up to 45 days, making it impractical for the current admission cycle.
2. Statutory Framework
Justice Mahajan provided a detailed interpretation of Sections 28 and 29 of the NMC Act, 2019 and the 2023 Regulations on establishment, inspection, and evaluation of medical institutions.
He emphasised that:
- MARB has statutory authority to conduct evaluations, both physical and digital (including AEBAS).
- Under Section 28(7), MARB can conduct surprise assessments without notice.
- Compliance with AEBAS attendance (minimum 75%) is a mandatory requirement under the UG-MS Regulations 2023.
3. Nature and Relevance of AEBAS
The Court elaborated that AEBAS was introduced to ensure the authenticity of faculty attendance and eliminate the manipulation of manual registers. It constitutes a core compliance mechanism, integral to maintaining educational standards.
Referring to NMC’s circulars (1 August 2022, 25 January 2023) and the UG-MS Guidelines (2023), the Court held:
“AEBAS cannot be treated as a mere formality; it is a verifiable, tamper-proof mechanism that ensures continuous functioning of the institution.”
Thus, reliance on AEBAS data was lawful, reasonable, and necessary to assess compliance under Section 29 of the Act.
4. Consideration of Inspection Report v. AEBAS Data
The Court noted that while the 26.06.2025 inspection found 2.97% deficiency, this figure was not conclusive, as:
Faculty strength is dynamic, not static.
- The AEBAS data for June–August 2025 revealed a consistent deficiency of over 70%, showing sustained non-compliance.
- The petitioner was already penalised on 14.07.2025 for deficiencies, even with respect to 150 seats.
- Hence, the physical inspection report could not override continuous biometric data, which reflected ongoing faculty shortages.
5. Prior Notice and Opportunity to Respond
Rejecting the petitioner’s claim of lack of notice, the Court pointed out that:
- Deficiency in faculty was specifically raised in NMC’s conditional renewal letter (14.07.2025), referencing AEBAS data.
- The institute accepted the deficiencies and paid the ₹10 lakh penalty without protest.
- The second SCN (18.07.2025) again referred to the AEBAS-based evaluation.
Therefore, the petitioner had adequate notice and opportunity to rectify deficiencies before the LoD was issued.
6. Judicial Review over Expert Findings
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, including:
- Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences v. UOI (2016)
- Manohar Lal Sharma v. MCI (2013)
The Court reiterated that:
“High Courts, in their writ jurisdiction, cannot act as appellate authorities to re-evaluate expert assessments unless mala fides or perversity is alleged.”
Since no bias or procedural illegality was alleged against MARB, the Court refused to substitute its view for that of expert bodies.
7. Applicability of Precedents Cited by Petitioner
- Rajiv Memorial (2016) — inapplicable as it dealt with minor deficiencies in new institutions. Here, the deficiency was major (70.83%).
- Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan (2022) — distinguished as the petitioner, there were deficiencies within 5% permissible limit, unlike in this case.
Decision and Ratio Decidendi
The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding:
- MARB’s reliance on AEBAS data was justified under statutory provisions.
- Deficiency of 70.83% faculty was gross and beyond permissible limits; thus, LoD was valid.
- The petitioner was repeatedly informed of faculty deficiencies, including in the conditional approval letter (14.07.2025) and during hearings.
- No procedural irregularity or violation of natural justice occurred.
- Judicial deference must be shown to expert authorities in academic matters.
Hence, the Letter of Disapproval dated 24.09.2025 was upheld, and the petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.
Observations and Implications
The judgment reinforces NMC’s regulatory autonomy and technological oversight mechanisms such as AEBAS and HMIS. It signals a shift from episodic inspections to continuous digital monitoring, marking a major reform in medical education governance.
The Court’s reasoning underscores that:
“Academic institutions seeking to increase intake must ensure sustained compliance with standards — not just on inspection day.”
This case also acts as a warning that conditional approvals and penalties cannot be treated lightly; non-rectification may justify outright disapproval in subsequent assessments.
Conclusion
Delhi High Court’s decision in Dr B.S. Kushwah Institute of Medical Sciences v. Union of India & Ors. reaffirms judicial deference to specialised regulatory bodies like NMC and MARB.
By validating AEBAS as a reliable compliance tool and emphasising continuous accountability, the Court has strengthened the integrity of India’s medical education oversight system.
The writ petition was thus dismissed, upholding the Letter of Disapproval dated 24.09.2025, with the Court concluding that the petitioner’s deficiency of 70.83% faculty — revealed by objective biometric data — rendered it ineligible for seat enhancement.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams