SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has kept in abeyance an order rejecting Kashmir Medical College’s application for permission to commence its MBBS programme with an annual intake of 150 students, directing the National Medical Commission (NMC) authorities to reconsider the decision in the light of the college’s objections and the applicable law.
The court has also asked the authorities to explore the possibility of granting a conditional permit to the college, subject to reasonable terms, so that it could admit MBBS students for the ongoing 2026-27 academic session.
The directions were passed by Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani on October 28 while hearing a writ petition filed by Kashmir Medical College, a unit of Mili Trust, challenging the regulatory authorities’ decision to disapprove its application.
“In the meantime, subject to any vacation or modification upon the consideration of response/objections of the non-applicant/respondents and till further orders, the operation of the order dated 27-10-2026 passed by the non-applicant/respondent No. 3, is kept in abeyance,” the court ordered.
It further directed respondents 2 and 3 to revisit the decision in the light of the governing legal provisions and the applications filed by the college. The authorities were also asked to consider whether a conditional permit could be issued to facilitate admissions during the current academic year.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on November 11, with the respondents given liberty to file their objections to the college’s two miscellaneous applications.
The college had approached the court seeking permission under Section 28 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, for its formal establishment with an annual intake capacity of 150 MBBS seats at Industrial Estate, Sempora, Srinagar, for the academic session 2026-27.
According to the petition, its application, submitted on January 22, 2026, was accompanied by the requisite documents, including an Essentiality Certificate, Consent of Affiliation, proof of a functional 650-bedded teaching hospital, statutory licences, a solvency certificate and records concerning faculty registered on the AEBAS/NMC portal.
However, the Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB) of the NMC rejected the application on June 9, 2026, through an online order, citing infrastructure-related issues.
The college contended that the rejection was issued without a physical inspection or identification of specific infrastructural deficiencies. It further alleged that the authorities had denied it an opportunity to rectify shortcomings, contrary to the proviso to Section 28(3) of the Act.
Challenging the decision, the institution first approached the Secretary of the NMC through a statutory appeal, which was rejected on July 17, 2026. It subsequently filed a second appeal before the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on July 25.
The second appellate authority, through an order dated August 24, remanded the matter to the NMC for re-examination of the documents and records submitted by the college and issuance of appropriate orders.
The college maintained that despite the appellate direction, the NMC failed to take the required action, compelling it to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
During the proceedings, the court had passed orders on October 5 and October 13, pursuant to which a physical inspection of the institution was conducted.
The college subsequently filed two fresh miscellaneous applications, CM 7352/2026 and CM 7389/2026, following the regulatory authority’s order dated October 27 disapproving its application.
Through CM 7352/2026, the institution sought permission to place on record the final physical inspection report dated October 14, jointly signed on every page by the four assessors and the college’s Principal/Dean, along with the accompanying documents.
It also sought a direction that its application be considered on the basis of this final inspection report rather than the compliance report dated October 22, which, according to the college, relied on notes and material outside the final report.
Through CM 7389/2026, the college sought permission to place the October 27 rejection order on record and have its operation stayed.
The college’s counsel, Showkat Naqshbandi and Shivam Singh, argued that the latest rejection was contrary to Sections 28 and 29 of the NMC Act and the principles of natural justice.
They submitted that the authorities were legally required to communicate any deficiencies identified during the physical inspection and provide the institution an opportunity to rectify them before taking an adverse decision.
The counsel further argued that since the High Court was already seized of the matter, the authorities should have placed the physical inspection report before it, allowing the court to pass appropriate directions after hearing both sides.
The college also informed the court that it had submitted a review application before respondent No. 3 challenging the October 27 order.
In support of its submissions, the petitioner’s counsel relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including Madhuri Sewa Nyas v. Union of India, Saraswati Educational Charitable Trust v. Union of India, Royal Medical Trust v. Union of India, Swami Devi Dayal Hospital and Dental College v. Union of India, Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner.
Appearing for the respondents, counsel Shagufta Maqbool and Yasmeen Jan, representing Deputy Solicitor General of India T.M. Shamsi, submitted that the compliance report dated October 22, prepared by respondents 2 and 3, could be treated as their reply to the petition.
The court, however, directed the respondents’ counsel to obtain confirmed instructions, noting that the senior counsel representing the Union authorities was unavailable.
It also granted the respondents liberty to file objections to both miscellaneous applications by the next date of hearing.
The order further records that the college had responded in its application CM 7389/2026 to the queries and shortcomings mentioned in the October 27 rejection order.
The court’s interim protection will remain in force until further orders, subject to any modification or vacation after consideration of the respondents’ objections.
The order does not grant final permission to establish the medical college or commence admissions. The regulatory authorities have instead been directed to reconsider their decision, while the possibility of a conditional permit remains open for consideration.
