Supreme Court: In a special leave petition concerning the applicability of the Competency Based Medical Education (CBME) Curriculum Guidelines and subsequent Corrigendum issued by the National Medical Commission, a Division Bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ., regularised the admission, conduct and conclusion of the MBBS course undertaken by the petitioners during pendency of litigation and directed issuance of degrees in their favour within 3 weeks. The Court, however, kept the larger question of law open for consideration and observed that it would hear the National Medical Commission (NMC) on the issue for an appropriate declaration of law.
The present special leave petition was directed against the final judgment and order dated 6 May 2025 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in CWP No. 24261 of 2023 (O&M), whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed. The petitioners had sought quashing of the public notice dated 3 October 2023 issued by the NMC and consequential directions for application of the CBME Curriculum Guidelines dated 1 August 2023 along with Corrigendum dated 1 September 2023. The grievance of the petitioners arose from the non-application of the said corrigendum, which reduced the minimum qualifying marks in theory from 50 per cent to 40 per cent, while maintaining the overall requirement of 50 per cent aggregate and 60 per cent in practical components. The petitioners contended that the corrigendum was merely clarificatory in nature and ought to be read as part and parcel of the original Guidelines with retrospective effect.
It was further the case of the petitioners that their supplementary examination results were declared on 18 August 2023, i.e., after issuance of the original Guidelines dated 1 August 2023 but prior to the Corrigendum dated 1 September 2023, and that they were assessed on the basis of an unclear and inconsistent interpretation of the pass criteria prevailing before issuance of the corrigendum. It is contended that had the corrigendum been applied, the petitioners would have been declared as having passed the examination and would have been eligible for progression in the MBBS course.
The High Court, declined to grant retrospective effect to the corrigendum and held that academic standards and minimum eligibility criteria ought not to be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction, thereby refusing to direct revision of the petitioners’ results. The petitioners further submit that pursuant to an interim order dated 7 November 2023, they were permitted to continue their studies and had since completed the Second and Third Professional examinations and were appearing in the Final Professional examination. It was urged that withdrawal of such benefit at this stage would cause grave prejudice and irreparable academic loss.
The petitioners also sought parity with similarly placed students in connected proceedings, wherein interim protection had been granted by this Court vide order dated 16 May 2025, and relied upon decisions of the High Courts of Kerala and Madras to contend that the corrigendum, being clarificatory, must be applied uniformly to avoid arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved by the denial of relief and non-grant of retrospective benefit of the corrigendum, the petitioners had preferred a special leave petition.
Upon hearing the counsel, the Court ordered the delay in filing of the special leave petition to be condoned and notice be issued. In addition to the usual mode of service, liberty was granted to the petitioner to serve notice upon the respondents through the Standing Counsel. By way of ad interim order, the Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioners to continue with their courses, which they were pursuing, subject to the outcome of the special leave petition.
On hearing dated 21 May 2026, the Court observed that it is an admitted fact that pending litigation, all the petitioners have completed their courses. In view of the matter and in the peculiar facts of the present case, the Court directed that the admission, conduct and conclusion of the course by the petitioners be regularised. The authorities concerned have been directed to issue degrees in favour of the petitioners within a period of 3 weeks from 21 May 2026. The Court further directed the NMC to instruct the university for taking necessary action. Insofar as the question of law is concerned, the Court observed that it would hear Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Medical Commission and pass orders for appropriate declaration of law. The matter has been listed on 28 July 2026.
Also Read: SC permits issuance of medical degrees despite invalid Tribe Certificates | SCC Times
[Jashandeep Kaur v. Union of India, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 15679 of 2026, order dated 21-5-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: Aditya Jain, Swarnendu Chatterjee, Mithu Jain, Mansi Gupta, Chritarth Palli, AOR, Gaurav Sharma, P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Sandeep Sharma, Swati Singh, Srika Selvam, Harshita Rawat, Shashwat Jaiswal, Diksha Arora, Himanshu Arora, Harsheen M Palli, Agam Aggarwal, Advocates
For Respondents: Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G.(NP), Gaurav Sharma, Sr. Adv., Madhulika Upadhyay, Siddhant Sharma, Nupur Kumar, Mithu Jain, G. K. Bansal, AOR, Jagdish Chandra, Pramod Vishnoi, Harshita Chaubey, Shashwat Jaiswal, Diksha Arora, Sanjay Bansal, Vaishali Gupta, Ayushi Bansal, Manoj Pandey, Swati Bansal, Vivek Krishna Tiwari, Nisha Garg, Advocates
