IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEVE PETITION NOS.23641-23653 OF 2008

Medical Council of India … Petitioner

Vs.

J.Saai Prasanna & Ors. etc. etc. … Respondents

O R D E R

The Medical Council of India (‘MCI’ for short), the petitioner herein,  

challenges the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 2.5.2008 in  a  

batch of writ  petitions filed by students possessing medical qualifications  

from a foreign University, directing (i) MCI to grant provisional registration  

under  Section  25(1)  of  the  Indian  Medical  Council  Act,  1956 (‘Act’  for  

short)  to  all  those  students  who  have  completed  the  screening  test  in  

accordance  with  the  provisions  of  section  13(4A)  of  the  Act  read  with  

Screening Tests Regulations, 2002 (‘Screening Regulations’ for short); and  

(ii)  MCI/State  Medical  Council,  as  the  case  may be,  to  grant  permanent  

registration under section 25(4) and section 15 of the Act on the production  

1

of valid certificates in proof of completion of compulsory internship for one  

year.

2. The  private  respondents  are  students  who  claim  that  they  have  

completed  the  MBBS course  in  International  Medical  and Technological  

University  (‘IMT  University’  for  short),  a  foreign  University  situated  in  

Tanzania.  The  said  university  was  established  in  Tanzania,  by  Vignan  

Education Foundation, an organization based in India. They fall under two  

categories. The first category are those who underwent the first two terms  

(Pre-clinical and Para clinical courses of 18 months each) between October  

1998 and May 2002 at Katuri Medical College and Hospital, Guntur (which  

was, at that point of time, an unrecognized medical college) and the last term  

(the  clinical  course  of  18  months)  at  Tanzania  between  June  2002  to  

November 2003/January 2004. The second category of students are those  

who underwent the entire course of study at Tanzania.     

3. All  these  students,  after  successful  completion  of  the  course,  

underwent  the  Screening  Test  conducted  by  the  National  Board  of  

Examinations  as  provided  under  the  Screening  Regulations.  Some of  the  

students were declined provisional registration and therefore could not do  

the  internship  in  India  and  obtain  permanent  registration.  Some  of  the  

2

students were granted provisional registration, completed the internship, but  

were  declined  permanent  registration.  Some  students,  after  securing  

provisional  registration  and  completing  the  internship,  were  granted  

permanent registration, but subsequently their registrations were cancelled.  

They all approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for relief.

4. The said petitions were resisted by MCI primarily on the following  

two grounds: (i) where an Indian student does any study in a medical college  

in India, established without the permission from the Central Government  

under  Section 10A of the  Act,  is  automatically  disqualified  from getting  

recognition  of  his  medical  degree,  even if  such degree  is  granted  by   a  

foreign University; and (ii) if a student’s primary medical qualification is not  

a  recognized  qualification  for  enrolment  as  a  medical  practitioner  in  the  

country  in  which  the  Institution  granting  the  medical  qualification  is  

situated,  he  will  not  be  entitled  to  participate  in  the  screening  test  

examination.  

5. The  High  Court,  after  exhaustive  consideration,  allowed  the  writ  

petitions holding that the writ petitioners fulfilled the requirements of the  

section 13(4A) of the Act and regulation (4) of the Screening Regulations,  

3

that  is,  (i)  they  were  citizens  of  India,  (ii)  they  had  obtained  a  medical  

qualification  outside  India,  granted  by  a  medical  institution  (IMT  

University) in Tanzania, (iii) the medical qualification granted by the said  

medical institution in Tanzania is recognized for the purpose of enrolment as  

a medical practitioner in Tanzania, (iv) the Indian Embassy in Tanzania has  

confirmed  that  the  medical  qualification  granted  by  IMT  University,  

Tanzania (which granted the medical qualifications to the writ petitioners)  

was a recognized qualification for enrolment  as  a medical  practitioner in  

Tanzania; and (v) the writ petitioners appeared and qualified in the screening  

test  conducted  by  National  Board  of  Examinations  in  India.  As  a  

consequence, the High Court held that the foreign medical qualification of  

the writ petitioners was deemed to be a recognized medical qualification for  

the  purpose  of  the  Act  and  that  subject  to  completion  of  the  required  

internship,  they  were  entitled  to  be  enrolled  on  the  medical  register  

maintained by any State Medical Council or to have their names entered in  

the Indian Medical Register.

6. Section  13(4A)  of  the  Act  and  Regulation  4  of  the  Screening  

Regulations referred to in the decision are extracted below:   

4

“13. Recognition of medical  qualification granted by certain  medical institutions whose qualifications are not included in the  First or Second Schedule –

xxx xxx xxx

4A. A person who is a citizen of India and obtains medical  qualification granted by any medical institution in any country  outside India recognized for enrolment as medical practitioner  in  that  country  after  such  date  as  may  be  specified  by  the  Central Government under sub-section (3), shall not be entitled  to be enrolled on any Medical Register maintained by a State  Medical  Council  or  to  have  his  name  entered  in  the  Indian  Medical  Registers  unless  he  qualifies  the  screening  te4st  in  India  prescribed  for  such  purpose  and  such  foreign  medical  qualification after such person qualifies the said screening test  shall be deemed to be the recognized medical qualification for  the purposes of this Act for that person.”

Regulation 4 of the screening Regulations as it originally stood is extracted  

below:

“4. Eligibility Criteria – No person shall be allowed to appear in  the screening test unless :

(i) he/she is a citizen of India either whose name and the  institution  awarding  it  are  included  in  the  World  Directory  of  Medical  Schools,  published  by  the  world  Health  organization,  or  and  possesses  any  primary  medical qualification, which is confirmed by the Indian  Embassy concerned to be a recognized qualification for  enrolment as medical practitioner in the country in which  the institution awarding the said qualification is situated;

(ii) He/she  had  obtained  ‘Eligibility  Certificate’  from  the  Medical Council of India as per the ‘Eligibility Requirement for  taking  admissions  in  an  undergraduate  medical  course  in  a  Foreign  Medical  Institution  Regulations,  2001’.  This  

5

requirement shall not be necessary in respect of India citizens,  who  have  acquired  the  medical  qualifications  from  foreign  medical  institutions  or  have  obtained  admission  in  foreign  medical institution before 15th March, 2002.”        

7. The High Court by the impugned judgment elaborately considered the  

various issues with reference to section 13(4A) of the Act and Regulation 4  

of the Screening Regulations, and answered the questions of law as under:  

(i) When the Parliament chose to treat all Indian citizens who obtained  

medical qualification from abroad as one category, there is no scope to resort  

to classifying those who underwent part of the course in Indian institutions  

as a separate category.

(ii) Medical  qualification  granted  by  IMT  University,  Tanzania,  is  

recognized  for  enrolment  as  a  medical  practitioner  in  Tanzania  and it  is  

neither  specifically  nor  impliedly  excluded  from the  purview  of  Section  

13(4A) of the Act.

(ii) Once  a  Medical  Graduate  of  a  foreign  university  qualifies  the  

screening test,  the primary medical qualification acquired by such person  

from the medical institution abroad is deemed to be a recognized medical  

qualification for the purposes of the Act. Such person cannot be denied grant  

of permanent/provisional registration.

6

On a careful consideration of the facts and the legal position, we find no  

error  in  the  impugned  judgment  of  the  High  Court.  The  special  leave  

petitions are therefore liable to be dismissed.

8. MCI contends that where student of a foreign University undergo a  

part  of  his  training in  an Institution in India which has not  obtained the  

permission  from the Central  Government/MCI,  as  required  under  section  

10A of the Act,  such students are not eligible for registration as medical  

practitioners  in  India.  The  requirements  for  recognition  of  a  medical  

qualification granted by a medical institution outside India are different from  

requirements for recognition of medical qualification granted by Universities  

or medical institutions in India. It is no doubt true that if a student in India,  

does a course of study in medicine in a medial college in India which does  

not have the permission of the Central Government under Section 10A of the  

Act, the medical qualification granted to any student of that college will not  

be  a  recognized  medical  qualification  for  the  purposes  of  the  Act  and  

consequently such student will not be entitled to be enrolled in the India  

Medical  Register  or  State  Medical  Register.  But  medical  qualifications  

granted  by  medical  institutions  outside  India  are  dealt  within  a  special  

provision, that is Section 13(4A) of the Act. Necessarily, for examining the  

7

validity of the medical qualification granted by a medical institution in any  

country outside India, the norms and tests of the country where the medical  

institution is situated, will have to be fulfilled for recognition of the degree  

in  that  country  and  the  norms  that  are  prescribed  by  the  Indian  Medial  

Council  Act,  1956  in  regard  to  Indian  medical  institutions  will  have  no  

relevance. So long as the medical institutions in a country outside India has  

granted a medial qualification and that medical qualification is recognized  

for enrolment as medical practitioner in that country, all that is required for  

the purpose of enrolment in the medical register in India is qualifying in the  

screening  test  in  India.  In  the  case  of  persons  who  obtained  a  medical  

qualification in a medical institution outside India, the question as to where  

the course of study was undergone is not relevant. The course of study could  

be in that country or if the norms of the Medical Council of that country so  

permitted, the course of study could be partly in that country and partly in  

another  country  including India.  Once  that  country  recognizes  a  medical  

qualification granted by the institution in that  country for  the purpose of  

enrolment as a medical practitioner in that country, and such medical degree  

holder passes the screening test in India, the Medical Council of India can  

not refuse to recognize such degree on the ground that the student did a part  

of  his  study  in  an  Institution  in  India  as  a  part  of  his  medical  study  

8

programme  for  the  foreign  institution.  As  stated  above,  as  far  as  the  

provisions of the Act at the relevant point of time, all that was required for  

an Indian citizen holding a medical qualification from a foreign country for  

being  enrolled  in  the  medical  register  was  that  he  should  qualify  in  the  

screening  test  in  India.  Therefore,  the  fact  that  such  a  medical  graduate  

underwent a part of the medical course of a foreign university, in an Indian  

college which was not recognized in India, will not be relevant.

9. Learned counsel for the MCI submitted that unscrupulous operators in  

India may commence and conduct courses in unauthorized institutions in  

India and make the students take their examination in a foreign country to  

secure a degree outside India and thereafter flood India with inadequately  

and improperly educated Medical graduates, by appearing and passing in the  

screening  test.  This  apprehension  is  without  any  basis  as  the  Screening  

Regulations  have  now been  amended by  the  Screening  Test  Regulations  

(Amendment), 2010 whereby clause (3) has been added in Regulation 4 to  

the following effect:  

“(3)  He/she  has  studied  for  the  medical  course  at  the  same  institute  located  abroad  for  the  entire  duration  of  the  course  from where he/she has obtained the degree.”

9

10. The second contention of MCI is also untenable. It is true that if the  

primary  medical  qualification  of  the  candidate  was  not  a  recognized  

qualification for enrolment as medical practitioner in the country in which  

the institution awarding the said qualification is  situated,  such candidates  

will not entitled to take part in the screening test examination in India. In  

this  case  the  High  Commission  of  India  in  Tanzania  has  confirmed  the  

following: (i) that Tanzania Medical Council has recognized the curriculum  

and medical  degree  of  MBBS of International  Medical  & Technological,  

University  Dar  es  Salaam,  Tanzania  as  equivalent  to  MD  degree  in  

Tanzania; and (ii) that the medical degrees offered to the said International  

Medical & Technological University, Tanzania are recognized by Medical  

Council  of  Tanzania  and the  MBBS graduates  of  the  said  university  are  

eligible for registration as Medical practitioners by the Medical Council of  

Tanzania under the provisions of the Medical Practitioners & Dentists Act,  

Cap 152 of the Laws of Tanzania. Therefore, the question of such primary  

degree  not  being  recognized  in  India  for  the  purpose  of  sitting  in  the  

screening test examination does not arise.

11. In the circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment  

of the High Court. We may, however, refer to an apprehension expressed by  

10

the learned counsel for the MCI. He submitted that these petitioners have  

completed the course in 2003-2004 and many had undergone the screening  

test in 2005 and they have not been practicing thereafter and therefore their  

knowledge is likely to be rusted. This court had put a query to the MCI on  

12.8.2010 as to whether MCI will be willing to consider the case of such  

students,  for  permanent  registration  on  undergoing  a  special  package  of  

internship. Learned counsel for MCI, on instructions, submitted that if this  

Court upholds the judgment of the High Court, then the writ petitioners may  

be required to undergo three separate papers of pre-clinical, para-clinical and  

clinical medicine, each of 100 marks and thereafter again undergo a separate  

internship. As the Screening Regulations provide for a single paper, and all  

the  writ  petitioners  have  successfully  completed  the  screening  test,  the  

students need not be required to pass three special papers again. However, in  

view of the long gap from the completion of the course, even those who  

have completed their internship will have to undergo internship afresh for  

one year to obtain permanent  registration.  On the other  hand,  those who  

have  not  done the  internship  in  pursuance  of  the  provisional  registration  

shall  be entitled to undergo the internship now and then seek permanent  

registration.  To  ensure  that  the  students  undergo  such  internship  after  

provisional registration, the students concerned shall inform the MCI about  

11

commencement and completion of internship.

12. It is stated that some students, that is respondents 1 and 2 in SLP (C)  

No.23652/2008  and  respondent  No.3  in  SLP  (C)  No.23653/2008,  have  

undergone the entire course in Tanzania and fall under the second category.  

They  have  been  granted  provisional  registration  and  completed  their  

internship. They are entitled to permanent registration.  Learned counsel for  

MCI fairly submitted  that  MCI does not  challenge the order  of the High  

Court in regard to such students.

13. Subject  to  the  requirement  that  the  first  category  students  should  

undergo a fresh internship of one year in view of the long gap from the date  

of  the  degree  and internship,  these  special  leave  petitions  are  dismissed,  

upholding the decision of the High Court.

14. All  applications  for  impleadment  by the  similarly  situated  students  

(that is persons having medical degree from IMT University who have done  

the complete course at Tanzania) or part of the course in India and remaining  

part  in  Tanzania  are  allowed.  They  will  be  entitled  to  similar  reliefs  as  

granted above.

12

…………………………….J. (R V Raveendran)

New Delhi; ……………………………J. May 09, 2011. (A K Patnaik)    

13