The Delhi Excessive Court docket has upheld the requirement of authentication of overseas medical levels to allow the candidates to look within the International Medical Graduate Examination (FMGE). [2026 LiveLaw (Del) 814]
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia noticed that such verification is important to stop candidates from counting on pretend or false instructional {qualifications}.
The Court docket dismissed a plea filed by Indian residents who had pursued medical schooling overseas and had challenged their denial of permission to look within the FMGE.
That they had challenged Regulation 4(1) of the Screening Take a look at Laws, 2002, which requires a overseas medical qualification to be confirmed by the involved Indian Embassy as a qualification recognised for enrolment as a medical practitioner within the nation the place the establishment is located.
Additionally they challenged Clause 2.14 of the FMGE Info Bulletin, which requires overseas medical levels to be both attested by the Indian Embassy or apostilled by the suitable authority of the overseas nation.
Dismissing the plea, the Court docket didn’t discover any good floor to intrude with the impugned clause because it was in conformity with the requirement of Regulation 4(1) of the Screening Laws, 2002, that are statutory in nature.
It additionally mentioned that the attestation or apostillation of any overseas medical diploma is a strategy of authentication of such a medical qualification and thus, no prejudice will likely be precipitated to any candidate if the overseas medical qualification, on the idea of which he’s searching for his eligibility to look within the FMGE, is required to be authenticated.
“Authentication of a doc submitted by any candidate claiming his eligibility on the idea of mentioned doc, in our opinion, is important in order to allow the examination conducting physique to be able to exclude these candidates from showing within the examination who search their look on the idea of pretend or false instructional {qualifications},” the Court docket mentioned.
“Thus, requiring authentication by Embassy of India abroad or apostillation of a overseas medical diploma in accordance with the requirement of Hague Conference of 05.10.1961, in our opinion, doesn’t trigger any prejudice to any candidate and, subsequently, any problem to such a clause of the Info Bulletin has to essentially fail,” it added.
Additional, the Bench additionally rejected the problem to Regulation 4(1), holding that the choice to exclude overseas medical establishments not recognised by the Indian Embassy was primarily based on related concerns and professional opinion.
The Bench noticed that the place an professional physique, entrusted with regulating medical schooling, takes a thought of view primarily based on its expertise, judicial evaluate underneath Article 226 of the Structure of India wouldn’t allow interference except the prescription is discovered to be “completely arbitrary.”
“Exclusion of such establishments by substituting the impugned Regulation 4(1) of the Screening Laws, 2002 vide notification dated 26.09.2009, in our opinion, is predicated on the consideration of related components by the respondent no.1, which seems to be primarily based on expertise of the respondent no.1 whereas regulating the medical schooling in India and, subsequently, we’re of the opinion that no interference within the mentioned Regulation, which is predicated on professional opinion, is warranted,” the Court docket noticed.
Title: BRIJ SHARADBHAI BHATT AND ORS v. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION AND ORS
Quotation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 814
