Authority: Calcutta High Court (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction, Appellate Side)

Order Date: 20 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – Dr. Aishwarya Sharma, a third‑year postgraduate trainee (MS ENT) at Jagannath Gupta Institute of Medical Sciences and Hospital (respondent no. 7). Respondents – National Medical Commission (NMC), West Bengal University of Health Sciences, the State, and other intervenors.
  • Petition: Sought a provisional direction allowing her to appear in the final MS (ENT) examination without having submitted the mandatory certificate of passing the online Basic Course in Biomedical Research (BCBR). She offered to sit the BCBR exam on 27 September 2026 and submit the result thereafter. The relief was sought on grounds of personal hardship – mother’s serious illness (recurrent carcinoma) and the recent death of her younger sister.
  • Legal Submissions: The petitioner relied on Supreme Court judgments (D. M. Premkumari (2009) 12 SCC 267 and Coal India Ltd. (2007) 9 SCC 625) and a coordinate High Court judgment (Nahid Alam 2025) arguing for compassion, empathy, and that a “floodgate” argument should not bar relief.
  • Respondent’s Position: NMC cited Gazette Notification dated 29 December 2023 promulgating the Post‑Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023 (PGMER‑23). Regulation 5.2(xi) makes completion of the online research methodology course (BCBR) a mandatory eligibility criterion for appearing in the final examination. The 2023 exemption was a one‑time Covid‑19 measure, applicable before PGMER‑23 came into force; it cannot be extended post‑2023.
  • Court’s Observations:
  • The petitioner was aware of the statutory requirement and had registered for the course but could not complete it due to family emergencies.
  • Compassion cannot override a mandatory statutory provision; the court lacks power to relax regulations absent legislative authority.
  • The Supreme Court precedents cited do not create a binding ratio for the High Court; Article 142 powers are exclusive to the Supreme Court.
  • No infringement of constitutional or statutory rights was identified; the petition merely sought relaxation of an eligibility rule.
  • The pandemic‑era exemption was a unique, time‑bound relief and does not set a precedent for post‑2023 cases.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is dismissed in its entirety.
  • No costs are awarded.
  • All parties are directed to act on the server copy of this judgment downloaded from the official website of the Court.

Topics: Legal Exemption, Medical Education Regulation