Court validates exclusion of WHO-listed foreign medical institutions without Indian Embassy recognition and insists on attestation/apostillation of foreign medical degrees; fragmented education from multiple foreign colleges deemed invalid for FMGE eligibility.
In a significant judgment dated September 3, 2026, the Delhi High Court (Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia) dismissed a writ petition filed by Brij Sharadbhai Bhatt and others challenging key provisions of the Screening Test Regulations, 2002 framed under the erstwhile Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, now carried forward under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019.
The petitioners, Indian citizens who pursued their medical education abroad under difficult circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic, civil unrest, and geopolitical conflicts, sought to appear in the Foreign Medical Graduate Examination (FMGE) conducted by the National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences to enable registration and practice in India. Their applications were rejected on grounds that their primary medical qualifications (PMQs) were awarded by institutions listed in the World Directory of Medical Schools (published by WHO) but lacked authentication by the Indian Embassy or apostillation as required, and that they had submitted alternate degrees from different foreign medical institutions for the same study period, constituting fragmented education.
The principal contentions raised by the petitioners included:
- 1. The constitutional validity of Regulation 4(1) of the Screening Test Regulations, 2002, which excludes PMQs from foreign medical institutions listed in WHO's directory but not recognized by the Indian Embassy. They contended this exclusion was arbitrary and beyond the regulatory powers of the Medical Council of India (MCI)/National Medical Commission (NMC).
- 2. Challenge to Clause 2.14 of the FMGE Information Bulletin mandating attestation or apostillation of foreign medical degrees, which they argued was not prescribed by statute and was prejudicial.
- 3. The denial of FMGE eligibility based on submission of multiple PMQs from different institutions for the same period despite a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the institutions validating the transfer and credits.
The respondents, including the National Medical Commission and the National Board of Examinations, argued that:
- The Screening Test Regulations have statutory backing under Section 33(ma) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (carried forward under NMC Act, 2019), authorizing framing of regulations for modalities of conducting the screening test.
- The exclusion of WHO-listed institutions without Indian Embassy recognition is based on expert evaluation of the institutions' infrastructure and faculty, citing an official affidavit noting gross inadequacies at Micronesia Medical College.
- Authentication of foreign medical degrees through attestation or apostillation is necessary to prevent fraudulent claims and ensure public safety.
- Fragmented education from multiple institutions for the same period is against the spirit of the Screening Test Regulations and public interest, as it may produce "half-baked" medical professionals.
- The MoU relied upon by petitioners does not validate the alternate PMQ for FMGE eligibility.
The Court's analysis and findings:
- Section 13(4A) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 mandates that Indian citizens with foreign medical qualifications must qualify a screening test to be registered to practice medicine in India. Regulation 4(1) of the Screening Test Regulations, 2002, as amended in 2009, excludes institutions listed in the WHO directory unless recognized by the Indian Embassy, which the Court found to be a rational and expert-based exclusion, not arbitrary or unconstitutional.
- Clause 2.14 of the Information Bulletin requiring attestation or apostillation of foreign medical degrees aligns with the statutory requirement of confirmation by the Indian Embassy and serves as an essential authentication step to prevent fraudulent qualifications without causing prejudice to candidates.
- The Court distinguished this case from the precedent relied upon by petitioners (Rohit Naresh Agarwal v. Union of India) by holding that eligibility determination and authentication are different matters; the regulations do not create fresh eligibility criteria but ensure authentication of foreign qualifications.
- The petitioners' submission of multiple PMQs for the same study period was rightly rejected, as fragmented education compromises the quality of medical training and public safety. The Court upheld the decision of the Examination Ethics Committee and the communication dated May 14, 2025, denying FMGE eligibility to petitioners on this ground.
- Reliance on the MoU between Micronesia Medical College and Belize Medical University was rejected, as it does not create an alternate valid PMQ for screening test eligibility.
The Court concluded that the petition lacks merit and dismissed it along with pending applications, emphasizing the importance of maintaining high standards in medical education and protecting public health by ensuring only adequately trained and certified doctors are allowed to practice in India.
This judgment reinforces the regulatory framework governing foreign medical graduates seeking registration in India and highlights the judicial deference given to expert regulatory bodies in matters of medical education and public interest.
Summary of Legal Significance:
The Delhi High Court's ruling clarifies that:
- Expert regulatory authorities have the power to exclude certain foreign medical institutions from recognition if not confirmed by Indian diplomatic missions, even if listed by WHO.
- Authentication of foreign medical degrees through attestation or apostillation is a valid and necessary procedural safeguard.
- Fragmented medical education across multiple foreign institutions for the same course period does not constitute a valid primary medical qualification for FMGE eligibility.
- Courts will not interfere with technical and expert-driven regulatory decisions in medical education unless shown to be arbitrary or unconstitutional.
Bottom Line:
Foreign Medical Graduates - Eligibility for Screening Test (FMGE) - Regulation 4(1) of Screening Test Regulations, 2002, excluding foreign medical institutions listed in WHO's World Directory of Medical Schools, is upheld - Requirement for attestation or apostillation of foreign medical degrees is valid and not prejudicial - Fragmented education in multiple foreign medical institutions does not qualify as a valid Primary Medical Qualification (PMQ).
Statutory provision(s):
Section 13(4A) of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956; Section 33(ma) of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956; Section 61 of National Medical Commission Act, 2019; Screening Test Regulations, 2002 (Regulation 4(1)); Foreign Medical Graduate Licentiate Regulations, 2021; Clause 2.14 of FMGE Information Bulletin; Hague Convention of 5 October 1961 (Apostille Convention).
Brij Sharadbhai Bhatt v. National Medical Commission, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2972519
