Withdrawal Of Consent Of Affiliation By Jamia Hamdard Violated Orders, Frustrated Arbitral Process: Delhi High Court Restores 150 MBBS Seats

The Delhi High Court on December 8th, 2025 held that the withdrawal of the Consent of Affiliation (CoA) by Jamia Hamdard Deemed University (JHDU), necessary for the 150 MMBS seats in the Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences & Research (HIMSR) violated the binding arbitral and court orders, “frustrating” the arbitral process. The Bench comprising of Justice Jasmeet Singh, holding that “JHDU was fully aware of the subsisting obligations” under the arbitral award and yet “there was no legally tenable basis to unilaterally withdraw the CoA”, directed the University to provide the required Consent of Affiliation (CoA) to the HIMSR within seven days. The dispute stems from a disagreement between two groups of Hamdard family over administrative control of the Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences & Research (HIMSR), governed by the 2019-2020 Family Settlement Deed (FSD). According to this deed, HIMSR was placed under the control of the Medical Relief & Education Committee (MREC), led by the decree holders, while control over Jamia Hamdard (JHDU) remained with the Judgement Debtor's group, Hamdard Education and Cultural Aid Committee. In 2022, the Delhi High Court ordered both parties to uphold HIMSR's current academic standing and referred the dispute to arbitration. The arbitrator on 12th August, 2025 ordered JHDU to "extend all support within the confines of law" and "not create a “purported legal hurdle” in HIMSR's attempt to obtain 150 MBBS seats for 2025–2026. Despite these orders, the National Medical Commission (NMC) declined to renew approval after receiving letters from JHDU dated June 6, 2025, and July 11, 2025. The decree holders thereby filed for execution of orders, alleging wilful disobedience. Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar contended that despite the directives, JHDU's actions constituted intentional disobedience. He argued that the Consent of Affiliation, mandated by the NMC is different from "affiliation" under UGC regulations, as it is only a guarantee to grant degrees to medical students and hence, does not go against any UGC standards. He further argued that JHDU had been issuing the same CoAs since 2011 and that its abrupt withdrawal was motivated and not regulatory. Senior Counsel Gopal Jain and Dr. Amit George on the other hand argued that MBBS admissions are not subject to arbitration as they are “rights in rem” and they fall under UGC/NMC jurisdiction. The Counsel contended that the issue of the CoA would violate 2023 UGC Regulations, specifically rule 26, which mandates that a Deemed University be "unitary in nature and shall not affiliate any other”. To support his stand, he stated that since the CoA required by the NMC is merely a pledge to provide degrees to medical students and does not violate any UGC requirements, it differs from "affiliation" under UGC laws. On review of the submissions, Justice Jasmeet Singh, on 8th December 2025, held that an executing court cannot re-examine arbitral findings, but it must enforce them. The modified direction still required cooperation “within the confines of law” while avoiding “purported legal hurdles so as to deny 150 MBBS seats”. JHDU's primary argument was rejected by the court on the grounds that it failed to recognise the distinction between affiliation under the UGC Act and CoA as envisaged under the NMC Act, 2019. The Court explained that the two statutory frameworks, CoA and UGC, function in "distinct statutory purposes and fields" and rejected JHDU's reliance on Regulation 26. Clarifying that NMC's CoA "is merely an assurance required for grant of approval of medical seats and degrees and would not confer the status of an affiliated institution," Justice Singh held that "no statutory conflict arises between the issuance of a CoA by NMC and the provisions of the UGC Act" because the UGC framework does not govern the admission of MBBS seats. The Court found JHDU's withdrawal unjustified and held that JHDU fully being aware of the obligations that was required to be undertaken, had no valid legal basis to unilaterally withdraw the CoA. It concluded the act was intended to hamper the arbitral process and that the “effect of such a withdrawal has the effect of undermining the order of the learned Arbitrator and defeating the rights of students, despite the learned Arbitrator's directions having attained finality”. Accordingly, the High Court directed the Jamia Hamdard to comply and issue the necessary Consent of Affiliation to the Decree Holders within 7 days of the order. Case Title: Asad Mueed & Anr. v. Hammad Ahmed & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1709Case No.: O.M.P. (ENF.) 6/2025 Coram: Justice Jasmeet Singh Judgement Date: 08.12.2025 Appearances:– For Decree Holders: Sr. Adv. Rajiv Nayar with Saket Sikri, Simran Mehta, Vikalp Mudgal & Ors.; – For Judgement Debtors (JHDU): Sr. Adv. Gopal Jain; Dr. Amit George; Dr. Swaroop George; Mobashshir Sarwar. For NMC: T. Singhdev with counsel For UGC: Standing Counsel ...

Withdrawal Of Consent Of Affiliation By Jamia Hamdard Violated Orders, Frustrated Arbitral Process: Delhi High Court Restores 150 MBBS Seats

Shivani Ps

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Shivani Ps

Withdrawal Of Consent Of Affiliation By Jamia Hamdard Violated Orders, Frustrated Arbitral Process: Delhi High Court Restores 150 MBBS Seats

Shivani Ps

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Shivani Ps

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers