The Delhi High Court has upheld the requirement of authentication of foreign medical degrees to enable the candidates to appear in the Foreign Medical Graduate Examination (FMGE).

A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that such verification is necessary to prevent candidates from relying on fake or false educational qualifications.

The Court dismissed a plea filed by Indian citizens who had pursued medical education abroad and had challenged their denial of permission to appear in the FMGE.

They had challenged Regulation 4(1) of the Screening Test Regulations, 2002, which requires a foreign medical qualification to be confirmed by the concerned Indian Embassy as a qualification recognised for enrolment as a medical practitioner in the country where the institution is situated.

They also challenged Clause 2.14 of the FMGE Information Bulletin, which requires foreign medical degrees to be either attested by the Indian Embassy or apostilled by the appropriate authority of the foreign country.

Dismissing the plea, the Court did not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned clause as it was in conformity with the requirement of Regulation 4(1) of the Screening Regulations, 2002, which are statutory in nature.

It also said that the attestation or apostillation of any foreign medical degree is a process of authentication of such a medical qualification and thus, no prejudice will be caused to any candidate if the foreign medical qualification, on the basis of which he is seeking his eligibility to appear in the FMGE, is required to be authenticated.

“Authentication of a document submitted by any candidate claiming his eligibility on the basis of said document, in our opinion, is necessary so as to enable the examination conducting body to be in a position to exclude those candidates from appearing in the examination who seek their appearance on the basis of fake or false educational qualifications,” the Court said.

“Thus, requiring authentication by Embassy of India in a foreign country or apostillation of a foreign medical degree in accordance with the requirement of Hague Convention of 05.10.1961, in our opinion, does not cause any prejudice to any candidate and, therefore, any challenge to such a clause of the Information Bulletin has to necessarily fail,” it added.

Further, the Bench also rejected the challenge to Regulation 4(1), holding that the decision to exclude foreign medical institutions not recognised by the Indian Embassy was based on relevant considerations and expert opinion.

The Bench observed that where an expert body, entrusted with regulating medical education, takes a considered view based on its experience, judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not permit interference unless the prescription is found to be “absolutely arbitrary.”

“Exclusion of such institutions by substituting the impugned Regulation 4(1) of the Screening Regulations, 2002 vide notification dated 26.09.2009, in our opinion, is based on the consideration of relevant factors by the respondent no.1, which appears to be based on experience of the respondent no.1 while regulating the medical education in India and, therefore, we are of the opinion that no interference in the said Regulation, which is based on expert opinion, is warranted,” the Court observed.

Title: BRIJ SHARADBHAI BHATT AND ORS v. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION AND ORS

Click here to read order