- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Supreme Court: Medical Council of India Regulation does not permit Migration From Private to Govt. University
Supreme Court: Medical Council of India Regulation does not permit Migration From Private to Govt. University On 2 February 2021, the Supreme Court of India (SC) Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Indira Banerjee, in the case of Medical Council of India (Appellants) v. Anchal Parihar & Ors. (Respondents), overruled the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan (HC) and stated...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Supreme Court: Medical Council of India Regulation does not permit Migration From Private to Govt. University
On 2 February 2021, the Supreme Court of India (SC) Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Indira Banerjee, in the case of Medical Council of India (Appellants) v. Anchal Parihar & Ors. (Respondents), overruled the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan (HC) and stated that the regulations of the Medical Council of India (MCI) do not permit migration from an unrecognized university to a recognized one
The SC stated that the interpretation of Regulation 6(2) by the HC is patently erroneous. It further stated that the said regulation restricts migration from an unrecognized university to a recognized one.
The Top Court observed, "The term 'Migration' cannot be read out of context without reference to the Regulation which clearly provides that both colleges should be recognized u/s 11(2) of the Act. Admittedly, the college in which the first respondent is studying is yet to be recognized u/s 11(2) of the Act. Migration cannot be permitted contrary to the Regulations."
The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent was a student of Ananta Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Centre, Rajsamand, and he sought migration to Dr. S. N. Medical College, Jodhpur.
The Board of Governors of the MCI rejected the request for migration stating that it is not permissible under clause 6(2) of the Migration Rules. The respondents approached the HC that allowed the migration.
Aggrieved with the order of the HC, the MCI approached the Apex Court.
The MCI contended that the HC has committed an error in interpreting Regulation 6 of Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997. The regulation also stated that Migration during the clinical course of study shall not be allowed on any ground and the respondent has already started with the clinical course. It was further argued that migration is not permitted by the Medical Council of India from a private college to a government college.
The Apex Court thus set aside the judgment of the HC to reiterate the clearly stated provision under Regulation 6(2).