Ukraine MBBS Student Moves MP High Court, Says NMC Rules Requiring 12-Month Internship There Impossible Amid War
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has sought the Union Government's response on a plea filed by an MBBS student studying in Ukraine, challenging the applicability of the National Medical Commission's (NMC) Foreign Medical Graduate Licentiate (FMGL) Regulations 2021, particularly the requirement of completing a 12-month internship in the same foreign medical institution.The petitioner has...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has sought the Union Government's response on a plea filed by an MBBS student studying in Ukraine, challenging the applicability of the National Medical Commission's (NMC) Foreign Medical Graduate Licentiate (FMGL) Regulations 2021, particularly the requirement of completing a 12-month internship in the same foreign medical institution.
The petitioner has contended that the requirement has become impossible to fulfil in view of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, as he may not be able to return to his university in Ukraine to complete the mandatory internship and obtain the requisite certificate.
The division bench of Chief Justice Alpesh Yeshwant Kogje and Justice Vivek Rusia granted time to the Union Government to file its response and listed the matter for October 29.
The petitioner, a resident of Bhopal, appeared in NEET-2021 and secured admission to Horbachevsky Ternopil National Medical University, Ternopil, Ukraine.
According to the petition, he received an invitation for study from the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine on June 14, 2021 and subsequently obtained a visa to travel to Ukraine.
The petitioner deposited US$1,900 towards fees on November 3, 2021 and reached Ukraine on November 7, 2021. His classes commenced on December 10, 2021. The petition states that he thereafter left Ukraine along with other students following the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war and has since been pursuing his MBBS course online from Bhopal.
The dispute concerns the NMC Regulations, which came into force on November 18, 2021.
The petitioner has relied on Regulation 5(1)(b), which states that the 2021 Regulations shall not apply to candidates who were pursuing their education in foreign institutions before the Regulations came into force. Regulation 5(2) further provides that such candidates would be governed by the erstwhile applicable regulations.
The petitioner contends that since he had already paid his fees on November 3 and reached Ukraine on November 7, 2021, he should be treated as a student pursuing education in the foreign institution before the November 18 cut-off.
However, according to the petition, the NMC informed him through a response dated March 2, 2023, pursuant to his RTI query, that he would be governed by the 2021 Regulations since his classes commenced only on December 10, 2021.
The petitioner has specifically challenged the additional requirements prescribed under the 2021 Regulations for grant of permanent registration to foreign medical graduates.
Under Regulation 4(a)(ii), a foreign medical graduate is required to undergo an internship for a minimum period of 12 months in the same foreign medical institution.
The petitioner has also relied upon Schedule I, Clause 2(b), which requires completion of a 12-month internship in the same foreign institution where the primary medical qualification has been obtained, along with hands-on clinical training in various medical subjects.
According to the petitioner, this would require him to complete the 12-month internship in Ukraine and obtain a licence to practise medicine there before undertaking the further supervised internship in India.
The petition contends that this requirement has become "in the realm of impossibility" because the Russia-Ukraine war is continuing.
It states that the petitioner may have to shift to another college or country, or pursue his MBBS course in India, but the NMC's stand would prevent him from transferring to another country or India while still requiring him to fulfil the conditions under the 2021 Regulations.
The petitioner has contrasted the 2021 Regulations with the erstwhile Medical Council of India Screening Test Regulations, 2002, under which an Indian citizen possessing a primary medical qualification from outside India was required to qualify the prescribed screening test for provisional or permanent registration.
He has contended that the earlier framework did not contain the same transfer-related requirements and that the new Regulations make it impossible for students affected by the Ukraine war to fulfil the prescribed conditions.
The petitioner has therefore sought a direction that the 2021 Regulations, particularly Regulations 4 and 5(b) and Schedule I, Clause 2(b), should not be applied to him and that he should instead be governed by the 2002 Regulations.
He has also sought a declaration that the challenged provisions of the 2021 Regulations are ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Case Title: Anoop Panchoria v. Union of India, WP-12555-2023
For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Aditya Sanghi with Advocate Anjali Patel
For the Union: Advocate Piyush Bhatnagar
For National Medical Commission: Advocate Aparna Sthapak